11/04/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a deck around the pool. Mr. Beitel commented that there would not be a deck around the pool. They .. would use a removable ladder that came with the pool. Mr. Koberna remarked that he did not have a problem with the size of the pool. Law Director Gareau indicated he did not think pools came any smaller than 18 feet. At this time Mrs. Beitel came forward to be sworn in. Mrs. Beitel indicated that they have three children and that the pool was already purchased and it would not be a permanent fixture. Mr. Beitel indicated he thought there was plenty of room for the pool and it would be less yard to mow. Mr. Konold questioned the electrical request. Mrs. Beitel indicated that the inspector commented that the spotlight on the garage was to close to the pool and it needed to be 10 to 20 feet away of the pool. Mr. Koberna reviewed that the light would have to be removed or moved 10 feet away to comply within the electrical code. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the board would need to address the pool only. Mr. Koberna indicated that he did not have a problem with the size of the pool. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the applicants would consider a 15-foot pool. Mrs. Beitel remarked that the pool had already been delivered to their home and they did not know that a variance would be needed until the inspector canne to their home. At this point Mr. & Mrs. Crowley, abutting neighbors came fonvard to be sworri in and give their opuiion. Mr. Crowley indicated that they did not have a problem with the owners having a pool, but would like to know were it would be located in their yard. 1VIr. Beitel indicated that he had not seen the drawing that LightHouse Pools submitted to the building department so he was not sure himself. Mr. Crowley indicated that he was only concerned about privacy for his yard. Mrs. Beitel indicated that the pool would be placed 10 feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the sideyard. Mr. Crowley questioned if the variance was needed because of were the pool would be placed. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the square footage of the pool exceeded the allowable amount .and that is why a variance is needed. Mr. Crowley commented that if the pool is to close to the fence it would invade their privacy. He suggested that the Beitels' had a board on board fence covering 2/3rds of their yard and they would like the Beitels' to fence in their entire yard. Mrs. Beitel indicated that they could not afford to put up a board on board fence at this time. Mr. Gomersall commented that he felt the pool was too big for the yard. Mr. Koberna questioned if Mr. & Mrs. Crowley had a problem with the pool being 10 feet off the rear property line and 12 feet off the sideyard line or if they were against the size pool itself. Mr. Crowley reiterated .that he arid his wife were not against the pool they would just like to. have a board on board fence put in place for privacy. Mr. Konold questioned if the Mr. & Mrs. Crowley would be satisfied if the pool was 10 feet from their property line. Mr. Beitel indicated that if the pool was 10 feet from the property line it would be acceptable. Mr. Konold reviewed what he thought Mr. & Mrs. Beitel felt about the pool. Mr. Crowley questioned if they would be allowed to plant shrubs along the properiy line for privacy. Mrs. Beitel indicated that she did not mind. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicants should have checked with the building department to find out what they needed. Mr. Beitel commented that when they purchased the pool Light House indicated that they would take care of the permit and put the pool in place. Mr. Konold reviewed that a fence was not required to have a pooL Mr. Gomersall indicated that Mr. & Mrs. Crowley were against the fence because it invaded their privacy. No further comments were made. R. Gomersall motioned to approve Mr. & Mrs. Beitel of 24207 Palm Drive their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a swiinming pool and that the following variance be granted: A 198square foot (6.4%) variance for swimining pool exceeding 20% rear yard coverage, (code pernuts 620sqft, applicant shows 818sqft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D2). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney. Roll call on the motion; J. Maloney, W. Kremzar, and R. Gomersall: No, T. Koberna and J. Konold: Yes. Variance I?enied. Note: prior to the close of the meeting the board members discussed that there had been quite a bit of confusion and misunderstanding regarding this proposal. It was their opinion that the Beitel's proposal should be re-addressed at the December's meeting. The clerk was asked to contact Mr. & Mrs. Beitel and inform them that the board would like to re-address their proposal if they would be willing to return. 3. Jeffrey K. Gabel: 4440 Georgette Ave. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a shed. The following variance is requested: 2