08/03/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The following came forward and were sworn in to review the request: Nguyen Huong, Patrick Morris. Mr. Morris, speaking on behalf of Nguyen Huong, stated that the deck was built in 2003. The contractor had not pulled a permit when it was built, unbeknownst to Ms. Huong. They have applied for a permit since it has been done according to the requirements. The deck is 6 inches from the property line and they are now requesting a variance. The contractor's name is Michael Lamb and they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to contact him. Mr. Morris noted that the neighbor intends to put a privacy fence in the future. The deck is attractive and well maintained. The neighbors have not had objections to the property. Mrs. Sergi questioned if the chainlink fence would be removed for the privacy fence. She was concerned that the owners could not properly maintain the 6-inch area between their deck the existing fence let alone the neighbors existing or future fence. Mr. Morris stated they can access the area around the lattice work. Mr. Rymarczyk stated they could not erect two fences next to each other. Mrs. Sergi clarified that all fences would need to be removed prior to the neighbor erecting a privacy fence along the property line and the applicants will be required to maintain the area between the deck and any fence erected or existing. Mr. O'Malley stated that Ms. Huong has the option to remove the chain link fence, whether the neighbor maintains the current fence is beyond the control of the applicant. If the neighbor leaves the existing fence or installs a new fence in same location, the fence line will remain the same. Ms. Huong stated that the neighbor's new fence would be 6 feet high and that the deck does not bother her. Mr. Maloney was concerned with accessibility for emergency services to the back yard, and would like to see a little more clearance in the area. Mr. Burke noted that the deck has been there for three years that the property owner shouldn't have to remove the deck due to the negligence of the contractor. Ms. Huong stated she did not know a permit was needed and that she would have used an alternative to stay within the code. Mrs. Sergi reiterated her concerns that the minimal space between the applicant's deck and applicants' fence could not be properly maintained. Furthermore if Ms. Huong doesn't remove her fence and potentially the neighbor seeks a variance for another fence, because the applicant doesn't remove her fence then the issue of garbage/rubble between all three spaces will become a major problem. Mr. Burke had Mr. Rymarczyk clarify that when two property owners want fences, only the first to apply is permitted to erect a fence. Mr. O'Malley stated that they should not make conditions relating to the neighbor, if the applicant removes their chain link fence, it is removed period. It is removed as a condition considering the variance. However, removal of the chain link fence would pave way for the neighbor to install a new fence. Mr. Rymarczyk stated that a 4 foot barrier must remain around property because the owner has a pool. Mr. Morris asked if they could remove the chain link and put up the 6 foot fence. Mrs. Diver suggested putting a small fence directly around the pool to remain within code; Mr. Rymarczyk stated that was possible. Mr. Burke requested leaving the variance as written. J. Burke moved to grant Nguyen Huong of 4481 Ranchview Ave her request for a variance, which consists of: 1. A 4%Z foot variance for an accessory structure (deek) too close to side lot line, (code requires 51, applicant show 6"), which is in violation of section 1135.02(d)(4). J. Maloney seconded the motion. Roll call: Maloney, Burke, Diver, Kelly - yes; Sergi - no. Variance Granted. 5. Joe & Vickie Mate; 23281 Marion Rd: (VVRD # 2) A). Request for a special permit to add to a non-conforming building, section 1165.02. Existing dwelling has a 38' front setback and 14'6" side setback and code requires a 50' front setback and 25' side setback. B). Request for variance. The proposal consists of an addition. The following variances are requested: 3