05/06/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

stipulated the sideyard setback as well as the rear yard setback. Mrs. Sima suggested the lots were small and she is concerned about the noise level. Mr. Lehmann suggested he tried to place the pool in an area of the yard that would be the least offensive. N1rs. Sima suggested the lot was to small for a pool and asked how he could remove the oak trees without getting a variance. Mr. Koberna indicated the owner of the property has a right to remove trees from his yard. Mr. Maloney indicated he felt Mr. Lehmann did a good job placing the pool were it would be the least offensive. No further comments were made. J. Maloney motioned to grant Charles Lehmann Sr. of 25238 Deerfield Drive his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of erecting a swimming pool, and that the following variance be granted: A 4'foot variance for rear yard setback, (Code requires 10'ft rear yard setback, applicant shows 6'ft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D 4, I). The motion was seconded by, T. Koberna and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 9. Steven Hoffman; 3144 Clague Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of erecting a fence in rear and sideyard. The following variance is required: A 50'foot variance for intrusion into the front setback of the first house on Ambour Dr., (Code allows a 6'ft fence on a corner lot in the rear yard provided that the same is located at the required front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 F 2). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variances being requested. Mr. & Mrs. Hoffman came forward to present their proposal. Mr. Hoffman suggested the fence would only go from the edge of the deck towards the back of the property. Mr. Koberna questioned if the applicants would leave the deck exposed to Ambour Drive. Mr. Hoffman reviewed that the deck would be outside the fence and lattice would be added along the edge of the deck. Mr. Hoffman suggested he would like to have a 6'foot fence but would accept a 4'foot fence if the board preferred. There was discussion about a fence in the rear of the lot that was presently in place. Mr. Maloney suggested there was an easement along the side of the lot, along Ambour drive. Mr. Hoffman indicated if needed he would place a gate in the back. Mr. Koberna suggested a 6'foot fence along Amber Drive could cause a. safety issue. Mr. Gomersall asked how close the fence would be to the sidewalk. Mr. Hoffman indicated it would be 1'foot from the sidewalk. NIr. Koberna suggested the fence being that close to the sidewalk would cause a safety problem. Mr. Maloney asked if the applicants could live with the fence being 5' foot in and 50% open face. Mr. Hoffman suggested moving the fence in from the sidewalk 3'feet until the fence and then go around the tree. Mr. Gomersall indicated he thought 3'foot would be better. Mrs. Hoffman indicated she didn't think the fence would block the view of traffic on Ambour Drive. Mr. Koberna indicated that he could see needing a 6'foot fence as the yard was basically small, the street is busy, and for privacy. Mrs. Hoffman indicated she was informed that the abutting neighbors did not have a problem with a fence being put up. Mr. Gomersall'indicated he could except a 6' foot fence brought in 3'feet from the sidewalk. T. Koberna motioned to grant Steven Hoffman of 3144 Clague Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of placing a 6'foot fence, that is to go from the West End of the deck to within 3'foot of the sidewalk and go to the tree line and come within no more than 1'foot to the sidewalk. It will then turn southerly along the lot line as mutually agreed upon by the applicants. That the following variance be granted; A 50'foot variance for intrusion into the front setback of the first house on Ambour Dr.. (Code allows a 6'ft fence on a corner lot in the rear 5