06/02/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. An 18 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows, located in a required front setback, (code pernuts 30", applicant shows 48"), section (1135.02 (F1)). 3. A variance for a fence Iocated within required side setback on a corner Iot, (code does not permit, applicant shows a fence), section (1135.02 (F2)). 4. A variance for a fence within required front side yard setback less than 50% open, (code requires 50% open, applicant shows less than 50%), section (1135.02 (Fl)). Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1135.02 (Fl)) and (1135.02 (F2)). Mr. Tepper the owner came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Tepper indicated that they would like to replace the existing chain link fence. He believes that the fence will be 50% open. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that an additional variance was required if it is not 50% or more open, if it is variance #4 can be eliminated. Mrs. Sergi questioned why a fence was needed. Mr. Tepper indicated that the existing chain Iink fence was rusry and un- safe. Placing the fence in accordance with today's codes would place the fence in the middle of his yard. The rear of his property has a section of woods and there is a busy side street which he wouid like to protect his children from. Mrs. Diver believed that the fence should not be so close to the sidewalk. Mr. Maloney suggested placing the fence 3 feet in off the sidewalk. Mrs. Sergi felt tha.t the layout of the home was such that there would be a side yazd even with a fence as the Iayout of the home was not as it seemed. Mr. Tepper believed that a 4 foot fence was needed to keep the dog and children in the yard and strangers out. J. Maloney moved to grant Allen Tepper of 4512 Azalea Lane Lis reqnest far varianice (1123.12), which consists of replacing ezisting fedce and that the following variances are granted as amended: 1. A 47 foot variance for a fence located within neighbors required setback on a corner lot, (code requires 50', applicant 3'), section (1135.02 (F2)). 2. An 18 inch variance for a fence lugher than code allows, located in a reqnired front setback, (code permits 30", applicant shows 48"), section (1135.02 (Fl)). 3. A variance for a fence located within required side setback on a corner lot, (code does not permit, applicant shows a fence), section (1135.02 (FZ)). Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1135.02 (Fl)) and (1135.02 (F2)). W. Kremzar seconded fhe motion, which was unanimously approvea. 4. Manoi Parikh; 24944 Deerfield Drive: (WRD 2)1 Request for variarace (1123.12). The proposal consists of a.n addition. The following variances are requested: • A speeial permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). Note: The existing reaz setback is only 45', code requires 50'. l.. A 28 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property Iine, (code requires 50', appIicant shows 22'). Which is in violation of 90-125, Section (1135.08 (A)). Tbe clerk advised that she did not give proper notification to three abutting neighbors. Aithough two of the three abutting neighbors were present the clerk could not reach the third neighbor via the phone. ThePefore, the I.aw Department ruled that the proposal could not be addressed. J. Malaney moved to table 1VIanoj Parikh of 24944 Deerfield Drive until meeting nezt N. Sergi seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. 3of15