11/03/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Note: Permit # 48715 issued 4/26/05 with a 10' rear setback. Shed was installed 5' form rear property line by contractor. Mr. & Mrs. Maciver the Owners came forward to be sworn in and addressed the request. Ms. Maciver reviewed that a contractor was hired to construct the shed to code, the contactor pulled the permit and erected the shed and they did not know it was not placed to code until the fmal inspection was made. IVds. Maciver suggested they only required a 3'/2 foot variance as the shed is 6 feet from the rear line. The contractor suggested that the shed was moved due to the location of an existing tree. The contractor was advised of the meeting and was ask to come but he did not show up. Mr. O'Ma11ey questioned if the applicants had paid the contractor already, if they had that is probably why the contractor did not show up. Applicants requested they be allowed to leave the shed in the current location. Board asked if the shed could be rota.ted and brought into code. Mrs. Maciver advised that they would like the doors of the shed to be visible from their home for sa.fety reasons. Mr. Conway advised tlgat the two different plans submitted were drawn by the owners or contractor as the building department does not dra.w plans for any applicant. Board did not feel the variance was substantial or have an adverse i.mpact on neighboring properties. The area around the shed can be rnaintained. J. Maloney anoved to grant Douglas & Kathleen Macrver of 5806 Stearns Road their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a neev shed and that the following aariance is granted as amended: 1. A 3 foot 10 inch foot variance for an accessory structure too close to rear property lnne, (code requires 10', applicant shows 6' .2 "). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (D4)). W. Kremzar seconcled the motaon which was unaniffiously approved. 2. William Plank; 4589 Columbia Road: (WIiD 4) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence. 'I'he followirig variances are requested: 1. A 25 foot variance for a 6' privacy fence located in a neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot, (code requires 50', applicant shows 25'), section (1135.02 (fl)). 2. A 42 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot in a 50' neighbors setback, (code permits 30", applicant shows 72"), section (1135.02 (fl)). 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open on a corner lot in a neighbors SO' setback, (code requires 50% open, applicant shows solid), section (1135.02 (fl)). 4. An 11 foot variance for a fence (dog run) located in a neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot, (code requires 50', applicant shows 39'), section (1135.02 (fl)) (see note). 5. An 18 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot in a neighbors 50' setback, (code requires 30", applicant shows 48"), section (1135.02 (fl)) (see note). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (fl)) and 1135.02 (fl)). Note: Pernut #46769 was issued on 10/13/03 for this fence (dog run portion) in error without requesting a variance. Wooden fence was installed at a later date. 1VIr. Plank Mrs. Plank the owners came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Ms. Plank apologized for the fence being placed without a pernut and advised that they thought if they did the work themselves a permit was not needed. She reviewed that the reason the fenee was erected was due to her 2 year old grandchild getting out of the house and in the front yazd which is Clague Road and heavily traveled. The fence is from the back door to the patio that requires a variance. It does not block the view of the neighbors nor does it block the walkways or any other public space. When they purchased the home they did not know they would not be allowed to have a fence. They appreciate the needs for tlie rules but feel that for the safety of their grandchildren they need the fence. 7Che applicants submitted a letter signed by their neighbors stating they had no objections to the requests. Mr. Conway reviewed that 1991 the code was cha.nged and if the homes were back to back instead of back to side a variance would 5 of 7