12/02/1999 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

? J. Konold motioned to grant John Horsfall of 5760 Canterbury Rd. his request of variance (1123.12). Which consists of a garage and that the following variance be granted: A 5 foot rear yard variance for garage, (code requires lOft, applicant shows Sft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 C2). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and Unanunously approved. Variance Granted. 4. Beitel: 24207 Palm Drive: . Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a swinuning pool. The following variances are requested: 1) A 198 square foot (6.4%) variance for swimming pool exceed'uig 20% rear yard coverage, (code permits 620sq ft, applicant shows 818sq ft). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D2). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance being requested. Mr. & Mrs. Beitel, the owners, and the following neighbors came forward to review the request: Ms. McGinty and Mr. & Mrs. Crowley. Mrs. Beitel presented new plans to the members and indicated that there was also two letters from her neighbors that live across the street from her indicating that they did not mind the pool. She reviewed that the back of the house to the back of the property line is about 60.06 feet. An 18-foot pool would give them 10- feet on one side of the yard that is near the Crowley's property and 6-feet between the garage and the pool. There will also be 10-feet to the back of the fence that has an additional 5-feet easement beyond that. If a 15-foot pool is used it would only give them an additional 3-feet. It too would require a variance. Mr. Gomersall questioned what the square footage of a 15-foot pool would be. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that it would be 176 square feet. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he would like to hear what the neighbors had to say. Ms. McGinty indicated that she lived behind the applicants and also had a pool without a privacy fence. Furthermore she had never had a problem with any of her neighbors and did not feel that the Beitel's pool would be a problem. Mrs. Beitel reviewed the aae range of her children and commented that the purpose of the pool is to have a place for her children to swim without having to walk or take a bus to another part of town. She understands that the board has the right to deny the pool, but it is only their green space that is being used. Mr. Gomersall commented that the Board was not against children, it was just a matter of the size of pool that is being debated. Mrs. Beitel suggested lowering the size of the pool would only affect their family. Mr. Beitel indicated that a 15-foot pool would have to be special ordered as they are not a standard size. Mr. Crowley questioned if the Board Members had viewed the site and suggested the letters were from neighbors that would not be affected by the pool. He indicated that they were the only neighbors that would be affected by the pool. Mrs. Crowley suggested that the neighbors on the other side of the pool would not be affected because there is a 6 foot privacy fence on that side of the house. Mr. Crowley showed the Board Members' pictures of their backyard with respect to the Beitel's yard. Mr. Crowley indicated that they were not against the pool they would just like a fence erected. Mrs. Crowley commented that there was a fence on one side of the home and along the back property so those homes would not be affected by the pool. Mr. Konold questioned if the Crowley's were saying that the pool would affect their privacy. Mr. Koberna indicated that no matter what size pool was put in the backyard it would be viewable. NIr. Konold questioned if the Crowley's were for or against the pool. Mr. Crowley indicated that they were present for the variance. The Beitel's could have a 18-foot pool if they wanted. Mr. Koberna commented that the Crowley's were saying they are not against the pool but it infringes on their privacy. Mr. Crowley remarked that they were not against the pool. Mr. Koberna reviewed that the board was established to review variance requests and to take into consideration 5