06/04/1998 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?.. ? ? • ? • a pool up. .We don't feel we really need a backyard. The pool will be above grouud. Mr. Gomersall repeated lus earlier statement and said it is to big for the yard, it is "15'x 30)". Mr. Codwin stated there is plenty of easement to get back and forth from under the pole lines, and there is no other structures in the way. Mr. Gomersall asked if Mr. Codwin planed on putting up a fence. Mr. Codwin stated I've been told that if it is 48" inches high we wouldn't need a fence. Mr. Ryxnarczyk stated the new ordinance reads 48" inch high barrier. Mr. Gomersall asked does it read 48" inches high or above 48" inches in height doesu't need a fence. Mr. Rymarczyk stated it depends on the terrain, but basically if there is a 48" inch barrier which could be the pool wall, then they would not need a fence. Mr. Gomersall asked if Mr. Codwin had cousidered putting in a smaller pool. Mr. Codwin stated the pool was a gift. Mr. Gomersall suggested the property could not support a. pool being in the back yard, there is just not enough room for it. Mr. Codwin asked what do we need room for, "?ve dou't want a backyard" we want a swimnin.g pool. Nlr. Gomersall stated we don't want everything jammed in on top of each other, that is why the zoning laws read the way they do. Mr. Gomersall asked Mr. Rymarczyk agaiu, does,tlus lot need to put up a fence if the pool is allowed. Mr. Rymarczyk stated if the pool is at least 48" inches high out of the ground it acts as a barner, and as long as there is a removable stair way, or the stairway is lockable then they would not need to put up a fence. Mr. Maloney stated he thought it too much for the backyard, and addressing it from a safety aspect what about drainage, storm elements, and ground absorption,'it is just to much. W. Kremzar moved to grant Scott Codwin, 4592 Silverdale Road, his Request for variance (1123.12). To place a 450 square foot swrimming pool in rear yard. Mr. Codwin's rear yard is 66 feet by 52 feet for a total of 3432 square feet, 20% of which is 686.4 square feet. There is an existing garage that is 600 square feet in the rear yard, therefore a 364 square foot variance for the pool will be required which exceeds the allowable 20% use of the rear yard for Accessory Buildings and Structures. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (D-2). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and uuanimously denied. Variance I)enied. 10. Jeff Milner, 27277 Marcie Lane Request for variance (1123.12). Request a seven (7) foot rear setback variance and a two (2') foot side setback variance to erect a shed. Violation of Ord. 90-125, Section 1135.02 (D-4). Chairn,a„ Gomersall called all interested parties before the board. The oath was administered to Jeff Milner. Mr. Gomersall reviewed the variances being asked for, and stated there isn't any reason why Mr. Miluer couldn't pull the shed in toward the north west of his lot to conform to the code. W. Milner stated he would have to remove some very large maple trees to place the shed within the code. Mr. Kremzar questioned if it could be placed in the south west corner of the lot. NYr. 1Vlilner stated there is to much standing water in that corner of the lot. Mr. Gomersall asked if there was any way the shed could be moved over and still be able to use it without the doors being obstructed from the tree's or their branches. Mr. Milner responded that the maple tree takes up most of the back south west corner of my lot. Mr. Kremzar asked what tlie hightof the shed would be. Mr. Milner stated the top of the shed will be 8'ft. high. Mr. Gomersall inquired as to who owned the fence along the back of Mr. Milners lot. Mr. Milner stated the fence was his. Mr. Gomersall suggested tliat Mr. Milner move the shed in 5'ft. aud stay within the code and the board would grant him his request for a 5'ft. rear yard setback variance.