04/06/2000 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r? A 6 foot 4 inch variance for rear yard setback (code requires 50 feet, applicant shows 43 foot 8 inches). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.08(A). The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. 9. Richard Medykowski; 24049 Frank St. Request for variance 1123.12. The proposal consists of a new detached garage. The following variance is requested: A 5 foot variance for rear yard setback (code requires 10 feet, applicant shows 5 feet). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02(d)A Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the request. Richard and Lenore Medykowski came forward to review their request. Mr. Gomersall indicated that the applicants were smart asking for this variance. He indicated that the driveway would be a hard surface. Mr. Gomersall questioned if there were any questions from the board or audience members. No fiirther comments were made. J. Maloney motioned to grant Richard Medykowski of 24049 Frank St. his request for variance 1123.12, which consists of a new detached garage and that the following variance be granted: A 5 foot variance for rear yard setback (code requires _1,0 feet, applicant shows 5 feet). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02(d)A. In addition that the driveway be a hard surface. The motion was seconded by J. Konold and unanunously approved. Variance granted. 10. Patty Dieckman; 24969 Gessner Rd. Request for variance 1123.12. 'I'he proposal consists of a fence. The following variances are requested: 1.)A 42 inch height variance for fence in front setback 52 feet in length (code requires 30 feet, applicant shows 72 inches), (1135.02 f2). 2.)A variance for a fence 72 inches in height and 52 feet in length, over 50 % of face closed (code requires 50% open, applicant shows 100% closed), ( 1135.02 fl) Which is in violation of Ord. 90=125 sections 1135.02 (fl(2) and 1135.02 (fl(1). Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward to review the request. Patty Dieckman, the applicant and neighbors Enid and Paul Shaver and Mr. Pfisterer came fonvard to review the request. Mr. Gomersall indicated he would like Ms. Dieckman to clarify where the fence would be put and how high it would be. Ms. Dieckman indicated the fence would be 6 foot high. Mr. Gomersall questioned if the fence posts are presently started. Ms. Dieckman indicated "yes." Mr. Gomersall questioned if the fence was being built and someone objected to the fence. Ms. Dieckman indicated "no," but the fencing company started working on the fence the permit was applied for. Mr. Gomersall indicated where the posts were located. Ms. Dieclanan reviewed where the fence would be located. She 'indicated the fence would abut the garage. Mr. Gomersall questioned what the distance was to the lot line. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that he couldn't' clarify the distance. Ms. Dieckman indicated that maxirrtum height was 36 inches and the fence she has chosen is 6 foot high. Mr. Gomersall questioned why a shorter fence couldn't be used. Ms. Dieckman indicated she owns a cat and a dog that could jump over the fence if it is shorter. Mr. Gomersall questioned the neighbors. Mr, & Mrs. Shaver indicated they had no problem with the height of the fence. Ms. Dieclanan showed the Board some pictures of the past home she owned pointing out the landscaping and how the yard was maintained-. Mr. Gomersall was concerned with how the neighbor, Ms. Parker, would be getting out of her driveway. Ms. Dieckman reviewed the letter brought in by Ms. Parker stating there were no objections. She also indicated that Ms. Parker's driveway was very wide. Mr. Maloney questioned the two dimensions of 26 feet and 28 feet that tota154. ft. Mr. Maloney indicated he was trying to figure out the variance needed from the sidewalk marker to the lot line. Mr. Maloney indicated it could be a 25-foot setback. At this time there was discussion on the actual variance needed. The Board decided there were no problems with the variances. No further comments were made.