10/05/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

goes across the back of the property. She presented a picture of the style of fence that would be .E used to the board. The reason the fence is needed is to buffer the rear neighbors and give us priva,cy. Mr. Gedeon reviewed that 42 feet of the rear fence will not be to code. The height of the fence within the 42-foot distance will range from 42 inches high to 72 inches high. The first 8 feet of the rear fence will be to code. Mrs. Gedeon suggested that her neighbor did not have a problem with the fence. Mr. Maloney did not think the fence would hinder pedestrians or cars line of view. T. Koberna motioned to approve John Gedeon of 4195 Canterbury Road their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a fence and that the following variance be granted; A 42 inch height variance for 42 feet of rear corner lot fence, (code permits 30" applicant shows 72"). This is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 (fl (1). Note: Height varies from 42" high to 72" over the 42' span. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variance Grantecl. 7. Ravmond Thomas Jr.; 24401 Frank St. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a deck. The following vaxiances are requested: 1) A 1 foot 2 inch variance for west side setback (code requires 5' applicant shows 3' 10"), section (1135.02 (D) (4)). 2) A 71 square foot variance for total area of lot coverage (code permits 640sqft applicant shows 711sqft), section (1135.02 (D) (2)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125, sections 1135.02 D-2 and 1135.02 D-4. Note: 1) Deck may not be roofed without further variances. 2) Deck was built without permit. Chairman, Maloney called all interested parties forward to review 'the request. The oath was administered to Mr. Thomas the owner. Mr. Thomas suggested he did not think he needed a permit for a deck that would not be attached to his home. The deck is 3 inches from the fence and there is an additional 1-1/2 inches from the property line to the fence. He believes that he will only require an 8-inch variance. Mr. Maloney questioned if the applicant ever planned on closing in the deck. Mr. Thomas stated "no" it is an outdoor deck. Mr. Maloney advised the applicant to check with the Building Department in the future. Mr. Maloney questioned Mr. Rymarczyk about changing the variance request. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that as there was not a survey of the lot the variance request should remain as written. W. Kremzar motioned to approve Raymond Thomas Jr. of 24001 Frank Street his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a deck and that the following variances be granted: l. A 1 foot 2 inch variance for west side setback (code requires 5' applicant shows 3' 10"), section (1135.02 (D) (4)). 2. A 71 square foot variance for total area of lot coverage (code permits 640sqft applicant shows 711sqft), section (1135.02 (D) (2)). This is in violation of Ord. 90-125, sections 1135.02 D-2 and 1135.02 D-4. Note: 1) Deck may not be roofed without variances. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanimously approved. Variances Granted. ? 8. Chalkwater; 5122 Andrus Ave. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new garage. The following variances are requested; 1. A 3 foot variance for rear yard setback, .(code requires 10' applicant shows 7'). 2. A 2 foot variance for side yard setback, (code requires 5' applicant_ shows 3'). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 (d) (4): 4