12/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board members felt that the addition and deck would constune more rear yard than other homes in the area. The additions would be detrimental to the neighborhood. The variance is substantial and the additions could be constructed without a variance. The home has and could continue to yield a reasonable return without a variance. The board was sympathetic to the applicants needs but the additions could be completed without requiring a variance. N. Sergi moved to approve Abedel & Muna Mustafa of 6167 Park Ridge Dr. their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of the acldition of a family room, bedroom and porch and the following variance is granted: A 12 foot variance for a residence too close to the rear property line, (code requires 50', applicant shows 38.11). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.08 (a)). J. Burke seconded the motion, which was unanimously denied. Mr. O'Malley requested the board adopt findings prior to moving to next case. J. Burke moved to adopt the board's flndings pertaining to Abedel & Muna Mustafa of 6167 Park Ridge I)r. request. M. I)iver seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. 2. Dale & Pamela Masola; 27649 Marquette Blvd: (VVRD # 1) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence installed without a permit. The following variances are requested: 1. A 17 foot variance for a 6' privacy fence located in neighbors 50' setback on a corner lot, (code requires 50', applicant shows 33). 2. A 42 inch variance for fence higher than code allows on a corner lot, (code permits 30", applicant shows 72"). 3. A variance for a fence within neighbors' 50' setback less than 50% open, (code requires 50% open, applicant shows solid). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section; (1135.02 (fZ)). Mrs. & Mr. Masola the owners came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Masola had his wife passed out photos to the board so they could see the area. The area is busy and they would like to have privacy as there are many cars traveling, parking along the street and children in the area. The neighbors existing trees block the view of the fence. Furthermore their grandchild was attacked by a dog on a leash which is what prompted them to install the fence. Placing the fence to code creates a hardship as the fence would be in the middle of their backyard. He believes it is an undue hardship placed upon owners of corner lots. He asked if the fence was moved inward to code would he be allowed to maintain the 6 feet height and 0% open. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that if the fence was setback to code no variances would be required. Board members agreed that the placement of the fence was a hardship however the 6-foot height and 0% open was beyond a reasonable request. Mr. Burke did not believe that the variances pertaining to height and % open should be addressed as to do so would be res judicata as they were both denied as written the month earlier (November 2, 2006). He is also concerned that variance request #1 states 6-foot high fence which was ruled upon as well. Mr. O'Malley agreed that variance requests #2 and #3 should be eliminated from tlie request as they were previously ruled upon although the findings had not been adopted yet. The board could eliminate the reference of 6-foot high fence in request #1. Mr. Masola asked if the fence was moved inward and cut down to 4%2 feet with 0% open would the board approve the fence. Mrs. Sergi questioned the reasoning of safety as the fence was an L shape fence not fully enclosed. Mr. Masola said it was his intent to eventually enclose the entire yard. He called the city and was not told a permit was required to install a fence. Board members stated that their objections were height and % open not placement of the fence. They voiced that City Council should look at codes pertaining to corner lot fence requirements. It was also requested that applicants' write-ups be clearer so they do not have to be amended at the meetings. 2