06/05/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

neighborhood. Mrs. Newman suggested each of the neighbors on the list were tallced to and there were no objections voiced. Mr. Conway said at one point city codes allowed corner lot homes 25 feet from the street however that code has been changed to 50 feet. The current section of fence 30 inches high was and still is allowed by code, but the applicant shows 41 inches now. The privacy fence along the sideyard within the 50 foot setbaclc requires a 42 inch height variance however as the width/section of privacy fence is not being increased fiirther an exception should be made as there are no safety issues being created. Mrs. Sergi noted that the pamphlet submitted only showed the fence available in 36, 48, 60 or 72 inches and questioned if the owners would accept a 36 inch high fence. Mr. & Mrs. Newman said they would rather have the 36 inch fence and agreed to amend their request from an 11 inch to a 6 inch variance for height. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that although existing stnictures are grandfathered the code does try to require that when something is replaced the item being replaced meet current codes which should be encouraged. Mrs. Diver said that the property could yield a reasonable return without variances but the fence adds to the aesthetics of the home as well as the neighborhood. The variances are not substantial as it is just replacing the existing fence and the 6 inch height is warranted as the fence is not made smaller than 36 inches. The neighborhood will not be altered in fact the fence enhances the neighborhood. Govenunental services will not be altered nor will neighbors be adversely affected. In this case the owner may not have known the zoning restrictions as the fence was in place when the home was purchased. The spirit and intent of the zoning code would be followed granting the variances as amended. ' Ms. Rudolph moved seconded by Mrs. Sergi to grant Denise & Bridget Newman of 23501 Stoneybrook Drive the following variances as amended and agreed upon: 1. A 6 inch variance for a fence higher than code allows on a corner lot. Code permits 30 inches; applicant shows 36 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 ineh variance for a 25 foot length of fence higher then code allows within the 50 foot setback on a corner lot, code permits 30 inches; applicant shows 72 inches, which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(f)(2). 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open within a 25 foot section of the required 50 foot setback on a corner lot. Code requires 50% open; applicant shows solid/privacy, which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(f)(1), which was unanimously approved 4-0. David I)itmore; 4069 Clague Road: (Ward 2) • A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). • A variance for section (1165.02) as the existing accessory structure exists on a lot without a dwelling. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of adding to a non-conforming building The following variances are requested: 1. A variance for altering an accessory structure on a lot with no dwelling, which the code does not permit per Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02. 2. A 350 sq. ft, variance for an accessory structure larger than code allows for lot size. Code permits 120 sq. ft.; applicant shows 470 sq. ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(d)(1). 3. A 3 ft. variance for an accessory structure higher than code allows per lot size. Code permits 9 ft.; applicant shows 12 ft., which is in violation of Ord. 2007-30, Section 1135.02(d)(1). 4