05/03/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f 1. A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). 2. A 33 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50 ft. applicant shows 17 ft), section (1135.08 A). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, 1165.02 and 1135.08-A. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. The oath was administered to Tim Neufer, the architect, and Sylvia Lachnit, the owner, who came forward to review the proposal. M[r. Neufer indicated she want to add a master bedroom with a master bath, and a great room. She is taking out one bedroom to add a dining room. With that reconfiguration she plans on going back with an addition. Also, there is an existing sunroom that wil] be taken out. Mr. Kremzar questioned how big the sunroom is. Mr. Nuefer replied that it is about 8' x 15' or close to that. The property is an odd shape of a triangle with the point of it in the back yard. The addition will be one story to match the existing house. Mr. Koberna questioned if there were any other interested parties. Ms. Lachnit replied no, not that she knows of. Mr. Maloney called for a motion. J. Konold motioned to grant Sylvia Lachnit of 3932 Eleanor Dr. her request for variances (1123.12). Which consists of an addition to the existing house and the following variances be granted: 1. A special permit to add to a non-conforming building (1165.02). 2. A 33 foot variance for rear yard setback, (code requires 50 ft. applicant shows 17 ft), section (1135.08 A). Whicb is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections, 1165.02 and 1135.08-A. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously approved. Variances Granteci 5/3/01. 5. Jonathon Pouik; 24056 LeBern Dr. Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of building a fence in a required side setback. The following variance is requested: A 10 ft. 4 inch variance for intrusion into required side setback (code permits 0 ft., applicant shows 10 ft. 4 inches). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, 1135.02 (F-2). Note: There is a safety consideration at the rear (Northwest) corner due to tihe neighbor's drive which is adjacent to the rear property line. The corner of the fence should probably be angled to allow a clear line of sight backing out. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Mr. Maloney indicated that he had phone contact with the Popiks and they will not be present. The oath was adininistered to Guy Grant of 3858 Walter Rd., a friend of the Popiks, who came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Maloney indicated that in reviewing the property they are replacing their current fence. The building inspector has suggested that they angle the corner at the neighbors driveway at their property line and the fence be run parallel with the retaining wall that is constructed on their property. Basically in as much as she is willing to work with the building department in following those guidelines, he has no problem. He questioned if Mr. Grant had any corrunents. Mr. Grant indicated that the picture she drew him Iooks exactly like what Mr. Maloney had just described. Mr. Kremzar indicated that the existing fence has a riaht angle corner. Mr. Grant coirunented that the angle would start back where the retaining wall ends and it will go back to the big tree. Mr. Koberna indicated that he had spoken on the phone to her prior to this meeting and she indicated that she had subinitted several days ago to the building department drawings showing these angles, trees and retaining walls. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that he had not received any of that. Mr. Koberna commented that she had not contacted anybody to come up and represent them. Mr. Grant indicated that she had asked him a week ago and he wasn`t sure if he could come at the time. He called her tonight and she told him if he could go it would be great. Mr. Koberna indicated it wasn't a big deal, but the building department will need hard dimensions for the file of where exactly everything is. Mr. Maloney indicated that they could condition the variance upon the idea that 3