07/05/2001 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

T. Kelly motioned to grant Branden Reber of 28130 Angela Dr. his request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a shed and that the following variance be granted: ` A 58 square foot variance for over 2% of rear yard coverage, (code permits 62 sq. ft., applicant shows 120 sq. ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 d-1). The motion was seconded by T. Koberna and unanimously approved. Variance Granted 7/5/01. 5. Neal & Charmaine Ginley6208 McKenzie Road: Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a fence. The following variance is requested: A 47 foot variance for a 6 foot fence on a corner lot in the required front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street, (code permits 0 ft., applicant shows 47 ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 f-2). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. The oath was administered to Neal and Charmaine Ginley, the owners, Councilman George Nashar, Hubert Haller, a neighbor from 28311 Windsor Dr., whom all came forward to review the.request. Mr. Maloney invited the Ginley's to explain what they were proposing. Mrs. Ginley indicated that the want to continue their privacy fence which currently runs along the south property line and comes about half way down the rear lot line. This request is to continue that fence along the rest of t}ie rear lot line and run it up the north lot line up to the house. Mr. Maloney questioned if they would leave some grass area along the sidewalk. Mr. Ginley replied yes. Mr. Kremzar questioned how far in from the sidewalk the fence would be. Mr. Ginley replied 5 ft. This fence is primarily for privacy and safety. Mrs. Ginley indicated that their telephone lines are on that side of the house and they have been disconnected twice by kids coming by. They have had trespassers and kids coming through the yard. Mr. Maloney questioned if they would be moving trees in the back yard for the fence. Mrs. Crinley indicated that they are not asking for them to be moved, they are NL-. Haller's pine trees. The trees are almost on the line and the fence will be placed about a foot in from the property line. Mrs. Haller indicated that the trees are twenty years old and if they have to be moved they will die. She has no problem with the fence and they are good neighbors, however, she does not want to see any of the trees removed or killed. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that the Building Department does not regulate trees, they should be on your own property. The fence can be right on the property line, however the footer for it has to be on your own property too. Mrs. Ginley questioned what to do if the trees are hanging over her property. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated that he could not comment on that, she would have to seek legal advice. Mrs. Ginley indicated that she does not want to do that. Mr. Konold indicated that it will work out, the Ginleys get their fence and they will trim the Haller's trees for them. Mr. Kremzar questioned if they could bring it in a foot. Mrs. Ginley indicated that the existing fence is in 1 foot already. Mr. Nashar commented that with this particular situation the residents of this house have had problems with trespassers, and peeping toms looking into their beclroom and bathroom windows. Mr. Nashar suggested if the fence is angled in the rear corner, it will be easier for the neighbors to see when backing out. Mr. Konold thought that was a good idea. Mrs. Ginley indicated that would be fine with them. Mr. Maloney questioned what they thought would be appropriate, 10 or 15 ft. from the corner. Mr. Konold suggested it be set at 10 ft. Mr. Maloney and the board members agreed. J. Maloney motioned to grant Neal & Charmaine Ginley of 6208 McKenzie Rd. their request for variance (1123.12). Which consists of a fence and the following variance be granted: A 47 foot variance for a 6 foot fence on a corner lot in the required front building setback of the abutting lot on the side street, (code permits 0 ft., applicant shows 47 ft.). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 f-2). Conditnon: The corner of the fence be angled 10 ft. from the property line paralleling the driveway and the street. The motion was seconded by W. Kremzar and unanimously 3