Laserfiche WebLink
1). A 48 square foot variance for an accessory storage building, larger than code allows, <br />(code permits 120 sq ft, applicant shows 168 sq ft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 <br />section (1135.02 (1)1)). T. Kelly seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />2. Lee Schantz; 27904 Southern Ave: (WRD #3) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of replacing existing 4 foot chainlink <br />fence with 6 foot vinyl privacy fence. The following variances are required: <br />1. A 3%2 foot variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot within neighbors 50' <br />setback, (code permits 30" applicant show 6'), section (1135.02 (F1)). <br />2. A variance for a fence less than 50% open on a corner lot within neighbors 50' setbaclc, (code <br />. requires 50% open, applicant shows solid with lattice top), section (1135.02 (F1)). <br />3. A 49 foot variance for a fence higher than 30" and less than 50% open with a neighbors 50' <br />setback, (code does not permit, applicant shows 49'), section (1135.02 (F2)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1135.02 (F1)) and (1135.02 (F2)). <br />Mr. Schantz the owner and Mr. Potss an abutting neighbor each came forward to be sworn in and <br />address the request. Mr. Schantz stated he purchased his home 1%z months ago with the intent <br />of replacing the existing chainlinlc fence with a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence. The privacy fence is <br />needed as he has 2 dogs and 4 children and the actual street curves around his property which <br />eliminates any possible privacy for his family. The home is situated on the corner in such a way <br />that their entire yard is exposed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic traveling north, south, east and <br />west. He did not lcnow they would not be allowed to replace the existing fence when he <br />purchased the home or he would not have purchased the home. There is no other home in the <br />neighborhood which is exposed as much as their home. Mrs. Diver questioned why a solid <br />fence was required. Mr. Schantz advised that when his dogs are in the yard they can see the <br />pedestrian and vehicular traffic and run baclc and forth along the fence barking as they are trying <br />to protect their property. The only section of the fence which would be solid is the bottom 4.5 <br />foot, above that is the lattice section which is open. Mr. Potts is concerned that the color and <br />height of the proposed fence would create an offensive white solid wall in his front yard. He is <br />trying to sale his home and the fence would be detrimental to the sale of his home. Mr. Burke <br />questioned if there was another method to create the privacy the applicant is looking for and <br />possibly come closer to what is required by code. Mr. Schantz advised that if he was not allowed <br />the fence then he would build a privacy wall with arborvitaes which would be higher and less <br />dense then what he is proposing to ensure his family has their privacy. Mr. Potts suggested his <br />neighbor construct a board on board fence which would not be as offensive as the white vinyl. <br />Mr. Schantz reviewed that he chose vinyl fencing as it is esthetically more pleasing and more <br />durable then wood. Mrs. Diver advised that the variances being requested are substantial, the <br />property can yield a reasonable return without the variance, the character of the neighborhood <br />would be altered and there is currently an existing fence which clearly comes closer to meeting <br />codes and the spirit and intent then what is being requested. Mr. Burke advised that it is assumed <br />that property owners have knowledge of local zoning laws and government services would not <br />be affected. Mr. Conway stated that the request is substantial and the applicant does not seem to <br />be willing to negotiate. The applicants request violates just about every aspect of the zoning <br />requirements pertaining to a fence on a corner lot. Mr. Schantz believed that due to the layout <br />of the street his home was more exposed then the average corner lot in the area. He suggested <br />that there was not a 6-foot vinyl fence available that could meet city code requirements. <br />J. Maloney moved to grant Lee Schantz of 27904 Southern Ave his request for variance <br />(1123.12), which consists of replacing an existing 4 foot chaanlink fence with a 6-foot vinyl <br />privacy fence and the following variances be gxanted: <br />2