06/05/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the spirit and intent of the zoning code may or may not be observed granting the variance. Mrs. Sergi noted that 5% itself is not substantial and the trampoline and gym equipment can not be taken into account in the review of the equation. Mrs. Sergi moved seconded by Ms. lZudolph to grant Gino Trapletti of 25140 Chase Drive a 33.6 sq. ft. variance for excessive square footage of accessory structures an rear yard, code permits 528.9 sq. ft. and applicant shows 562.5 sq. ft. which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, section 1135.02(d)(3) and was unanimously approved 4-0. Mrs. Diver and Mrs. Sergi voiced that their yes votes were Uased upon the variance not being suUstantial, they would not want to see a shed atop a deck and that they would rather see everything properly stored. Denise & BridLFet Newman; 23501 5toneybrook Drive: (Ward 2) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of replacing an existing fence. The following variances are requested: 1. An 11 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot. Code permits 30 inches; applicant shows 41 inches, which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02 (f)(2). Note: A 3 ft. 5 inch section in front to replace an existing 30 inch fence. 2. A 42 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot. Code pennits 30 inches; applicant shows 72 inches, which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(f)(2). Note: Replacing an existing 6 ft. privacy fence section within neighbors' 50 ft. front setbaclc. 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% opens on a corner lot. Code requires 50% open; applicant shows solid/privacy, which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02( fl(1). Note: Replacing an existing 6 ft. privacy fence section within neighbors' 50 ft. front setback. Mr. & Mrs. Newman the owners and Councilman Barker each came forward to be sworn in and address the request. Mr. Newman said they purchased their home in 1994 and at that time the existing fence was in place so they were not aware of the zoning code requirements. They did not become aware of the current zoning code until they wanted to replace the existing fence which was installed prior to the zoning code being written. The existing fence is rotten/ dilapidated and needs to be replaced. At first they were only going to replace the lower sections which were worse but after further thought they applied to replace the entire fence. It was not until the building inspector came to their home for the site inspection that they found out that their existing fence was against code and would require a variance to be replaced. As a fence currently exists it will not change the character or appearance of the neighborhood. The new fence will be the same size, color and style as the existing fence just vinyl instead of wood. Governmental services would not be affected nor does the current or new fence create any safety hazards. Mrs. Diver aslced if the new fence would be the same height as the current fence. Mr. Newman said the new fence would be 41 inches high instead of 30 inches and the rear privacy section which is wide as their house would be the same height and style. Mrs. Newman submitted a pamphlet showing the new fences and said that the Rosa Sharon's would remain in place and are currently higher than the old or new privacy fence. Councilman Barker said that corner lots are restrictive and each one has different issues and has their own unique circumstances. The Newman's fence will provide the owners a bit of privacy and their neighbors have no objections. The piclcet fence requirement of 30 inches high is something for the owner to negotiate. The 50 foot setbaclc from the street requirement for corner lots could in no way be met as the owner's home is only 20 feet from the street. The yard is very well kept and the street is a small circular street and he is in favor of the owner's request as they are just trying to replace the existing fence with the same style to improve their home and 3