09/10/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. \,. helped my property value go up. Mr. Gomersall indicated it is encroaching into the front setback, but you two don't seem to be concerned with that. Mr. Biilla suggested even neighbors on Doe don't have a problem with the fence. Mr. Maloney indicated there is a problem with the fence being iu place. Mr. Merrill came before this board in 1994, and was granted a 4' ft variance for a fence, and ignored the ruliug and put up a 6' ft fence even though it had been denied. Mr. Gomersall suggested Mr. Merrill's request for a 6' foot lugh fence was turned down, and Mr. Merrill chose to ignored the ruliug, and put the 6' ft feuce up anyway. Mr. Konold asked is that why he is not here tovight. Mr. Wood suggested W. Merrill is out of state in California on business. W. Maloney indicated we received a fax from a neighbor that objects to Mr. Merrills fence. Mr. Gomersall asked Mr. Kobema if he agreed that the 4' foot fence ruliug should be up-held. Mr. Kobema iudicated he was granted a variance for a 4' ft fence, so that is what should stand. Mr. Wood suggested at the bottom of the notice it says Mr. Merrill laad a 5' to 6' ft fence in place before the 4' foot variance was requested. 1Vh-. Gomersall indicated the board has no laiowledge that a 6' ft fence variauce was ever granted. Mr. Wood asked why didn't anyone make Mr. Merrill take down the 6' to 8' foot fence when it was in place. Mr. Gomersall indicated because the old fence was grandfathered. Mr. Kobema explained once Mr. Merrill reinoved the old fence and decided to put up a uew fence, and applied for a permit he found out that there was a violation and that is how it came before the Board of zoning appeals board. Since a 6' foot fence is not allowed the board granted Mr. Merrill a 4' foot fence. Mr. Brilla suggested then the 6' ft fence Mr. MeiYill put up was built iu violation of the code. Mr. Gomersall suggested all the board members take time to go aud look at the properties to make a ruling, and Mr. Merrill puts up a 6' foot fence anyway. Mr. Kobema suggested the reason for the code is to protect the neighbors. Mr. Brilla suggested he understood the law but, felt the City would have a hard t'vne fiuiding people to say that they are against the fence. N1r. Wood suggested on behalf of Mr. Meirill when they go to sell the house, and since it is built with a variance and has no backyard or auytluug, will they have a problem selling it. Mr. Kobema asked if Mr. Merrill had lived in his home a long time, and suggested that Mr. Merrill bought the house aud was aware of what the yard size was when it was purchased. Mr. Konold suggested tlus is a personal issue and he doesn't think the board should get involved with persoual issues, that is the mans property and he cau do what he wants with it just like we would do with our own property. J. Kremzar moved to grant Clark Merrill; 3580 Hunter Drive, lus request for variance (1123.12). A variance to permit a 6' ft Board ou board fence in the required front set back. Feuce extends 13' ft 4" Iuches into the required front set-back of home, and the first house on the abutting side street. (House is non-coufonning being built facing Hunter, but the required front set back is on Doe Drive.) Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (F-1). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on the motion J Maloney NO, J Kremzar NO, J Konold NO, T Kobema NO; and R Gomersall NO,- variance denied. Note: In the framing of the motion Mr. Conway asked the board to clarify if the fence will have to be brought into today's code or if Mr. Merrill can adjust his fence to meet the variance that was granted him in July, 1994. J. 1Vloloney amended the motion to have the maximum height of 4' ft And that it will not need to be 50% open. 14. Cynthia Sherwood, 26994 Butternut Rdg. Rd. Request for variance (1123.12). Request the following variance: 1) An 82 square foot variance to construct detached garage in excess of 750 square feet maximum size permitted by code. 2) A 2 Foot height variance in excess of the 15 feet maximum permitted. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 C-1. 10