12/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

relevant to this issue that have fences that have been approved at one time or another. NIr. Maloney suggested going back to the original variance where a 4-foot high fence was allowed into the setback. In as much as Mr. & Mrs. Merrill were having marital problems at that time, the Board did the right thing then and it is still the right thing now. Mr. Gomersall commented that he agreed. Mr. Konold indicated that he also agreed. Mr. Merrill questioned if Mr. Maloney had been to the property. Mr. Maloney answered "yes." Mr. Merrill indicated that if the fence goes down 4-feet then the cars will be able to see clearly through his backyard. The cars will be able to see his shed and play set in the backyard. He feels that if anyone were in his circumstances, feeling they were doing something within their right, was being fair about doing it, and wanting to comply as he has tried, they would do the same thing. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the Building Department waited a year before they took action. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that it was quite some time as a variance is good for a one year period and then the Building Department sited the applicant and took him to court. Mr. Gomersall remarked that Mr. Nlerrill no longer had any variance as it had elapsed. Mr. Merrill commented that is why he had to go to court. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicant was asking for a 6 foot high board on board fence. If the board turns him down, he would not even be allowed to put up a 3-foot fence as he would have to comply to today's code, as the previous 4-foot high variance approved has expired. He questioned if Mr. Merrill understood his comment. Mr. 1Vlerrill commented that he was asking to obtain and maintain the integrity of the fence that is currently in place. He indicated that everyone in his development has supported him and felt that he has a right to have the extended area and a right to privacy. Also the right to have a place for his children to be safe. Mr. Gomersall remarked that the applicant had a right to come before the Board with his request. He questioned if NIr. Merrill had anything further to say. Mr. Merrill commented "no." No further comments were made. J. Maloney motioned to grant Clark Merrill of 3580 Hunter Dr. his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a fence and that the following variance be granted: A variance to erect a 6-foot high, board on board fence, ui the required front setback. Fence e-,xtends 13 feet 4 inches into the required front setback of his home and the first house on the abutting side street. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 Fl). Which prohibits any fence lugher than 30 inches and less than 50% open in a required front setback between the front building line and the street line. The motion was seconded by, T. Koberna. Roll call on the motion; T. Koberna and J. Konold: yes, J. Maloney and R. Gomersall: no. Variance I)enied. 3. John Horsfall5760 Canterburv Road: Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a garage. The following variance is requested: A 5 foot rear yard variance for garage, (code requires lOft, applicant shows Sft). Wluch is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 C2). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward, and reviewed the variance requested. Mr. Horsfall II and Mr. Horsfall III, the owners, and Mr. Corcoran a neighbor came forward to review the request. Mr. Corcoran questioned if the garage would be used for a kennel as the owners have a number of dogs as well as signs indicating "beware of dogs" on the fence. He would just like to make sure that the garage will be used as a garage. Mr. Horsfall II indicated that the garage would be used as a garage only. Mr. Koberna questioned if the distance between dwellings is 15-foot. Mr. Rymarczyk reviewed that the Code does oversee dwellings, but a garage is not considered a dwelling, so 10-feet between the home and garage is fine. Mr. Gomersall inquired if there were any further comments or concerns from the Board Members or audience. No further comments were made. r 4