09/07/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

removed from the plan and a stairway was added to go from one floor to the other within the home. The additional variances are due to a front porch and side door awning being added to the plan. The amateur radio was moved para11e1 between the home and west 233`d street and will be about 8-feet off the rear of the home. The antenna will not be attached to the home but guide wires could be attached and ran to the home. Mrs. Mate reviewed that when lowered the antenna would be about 40-feet long. In accordance with the manufactures instructions for erecting the antenna there must be a 2' x 2' cement base with a 10-foot section underground below the freeze line. The first section of the antenna aboveground will house the mechanism for lowering the antenna for periodic maintenance. Mrs. Sergi voiced a concern that due to the location of the tower children may try to climb the tower. Mrs. Mate advised that there would be three metal plates attached azound the base to insure there would be no climbing on the tower. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed the variances required for the antenna and questioned if the antenna was made to attach to the home and if not if there was an antenna available to attach to the home. Mrs. Mate said there were only two types of amateur radios made and she did not believe that either was made for attaching to a home. Mr. Rymarczyk advised that if the antenna was not attached to the home it would be considered an accessory strucfure and variances required. Board members felt that the variances pertaining to the antenna were excessive and would adversely impact the character of the neighborhood and the intent of the zoning code would not be observed. Mr. O'Malley questioned if in fact it was possible to erect the antenna in accordance to city codes or not. Mr. Rymarczyk suggested a possible location for mounting the antenna to the home and angling it in such a way that when lowered it would remain within the applicants property boundaries. Mrs. Brown questioned if the antenna was mounted in the ground and guide wires added then attached to the home, would the antenna then meet zoning code requirements. Mr. O'Malley reviewed zoning code requirements which were clear pertaining to antennas being attached to the home not just adding wires between the home and the antenna 8 feet away. Mr. Burke believed that the variances required for the antenna as well as the home addition was both excessive and would adversely impact the neighborhood. Mrs. Diver agreed with 1VIr. Burke and questioned why additional variances were required from what was granted in 2005. The character of the neighborhood would be adversely altered and the proposed location for the antenna raises safety concerns. Mrs. Srown advised that she could not fmd a location on the lot that would meet codes for the proposed antenna. Mrs. Diver asked why the two variances were nof adhered to and why more were being sought. Mrs. Brown advised that the additional variances were due to the front porch and the side entrance being added to the original plan. Mr. Rymarczyk believed that the antenna could be attached to the home in accordance to zoning code requirements by attaching it in the area of the garages man door which would be the south east corner of the proposed addition. If the antenna is angled when attached it could be lowered and remain within the applicants property. He advised the architect that specifications for the proposed tower are required to be submitted. Ms. Brown advised that she would acquire a copy of the specks of the tower and submit them to the Building Department. Board members were firmly against variances being sought for the antenna. Mr. O'Malley voiced that he believed that the city code as written offered the applicant the opportunity to have their antenna without variances. Mrs. Mate stated that the antenna would be placed so that no variances would be required and when lowered would remain within their yard. Mrs. Diver asked if the applicant was then withdrawing the variances pertaining to the antenna. Mrs. Mate stated she would withdraw her request for variances 5, 6, and 7 pertaining to the antenna. Mrs. Diver reviewed that an 8 foot rear yard and 10 foot sideyard variance was granted in 2005 and suggested that the board would be wiling to re-grant those variances but did not feel additional variances were warranted. Mrs. Mate said she would be willing to modify the plans to ensure what was previously approved is not exceeded. Mrs. Brown felt that if the front porch was removed it would also reduce or eliminate the 120 foot variance for a residence larger then code allows. Mrs. Sergi voiced that she believed that the proposed additions to the home made the home too large for 2