07/07/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (d2)). Note: Board of Zoning Appeals denied this variance request on 515105 and granted applicants request to readdress their request on 6/2/O5. Mr. & Mrs. Tench the owners, Mr. Puchmeyer, with Light House Pools each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Puchmeyer reviewed that the owriers looked into a smaller pool however, due to the electrical lines being buried under ground and the distance to the garage, the smaller pool would require more variances. An 81 square foot variance would be required for a 15 foot pool. Due to the 5 foot distance required for the underground electrical line and the setback from the garage due to a window an additional variance would be required for the side yard setback. His opinion was that the backyard would be better served with an oval pool than a round pool. The oval pool allows the side yard requirement to be met and can be placed the required distance from the electrical line and does not consume as much of the yard. Mrs. Diver questioned what, was the smallest size oval pool made. Mr. Puchmeyer stated that the proposed oval pool was the smallest made. He stated that the rear porch was 160 square feet and served as the homes main entrance and accounted for more than 50% of the variance being sought. No matter what pool was used it would require one or more variances. Mr. Maloney asked which pool the applicants were requesting. Mrs. Tench stated she wanted the oval pool. Board members asked for clarification on electrical requirements. Mr. Rymarczyk believed that if the electrical requirement is 18 inches down then digging would be 18 inches away from the garage and a round pool should fit. However, he advised that the electrical requirements and work should be addressed by an electrical engineer. Mr. Maloney questioned which round pool would the applicant choose. Mrs. Tench stated that she did not want an 18 or 15 foot round pool as it would require additional variances and take up more room in her yard. Mr. Kremzax questioned how the pool would be filled and emptied each year. Mr. Puchmeyer stated that the pool would be filled with a garden hose and never needed to be drained. Mr. Rymarczyk questioned how the pool cover would be drained. Mrs. Tench stated the cover would be drained into the sewer line located in the drive-way. ' W. Kremzar moved to grant Bryan & Janice Tench of 24357 Woodmere Drive their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a pool and that the following variance is granted: 1. A 161 square foot variance for swimming pool in rear yard, (code permits 728 sq ft, applicant shows 889 sq ft (garage, deck & pool). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (d2)). J. Maloney seconded the motion, roll call on the motion; W. Kremzar "no" the variance was substantial and a smaller pool is available. M. Diver "no" she wished a smaller pool was available to the applicants and wished contractors wouid advise their clients to check with their City before purchasing a pool so residents would not have to go through the variance process. J. Maloney "no". Variance Denied 3. Target/Sign Lite; 24646 Brookpark Road: (WRD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a wall signs. The following variance is requested: 1. A variance for 3 wall signs on a building, (code permits 1, applicant shows 3). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1163.27 A). Note: Total signage on the lot not available with this application. Chairman Maloney changed the order of the docket and advised all present that the Target/Sign Lite request would have to be tabled as there were not enough members present to vote on the request. One of the three members present would have to abstain from the issue 3of13