09/09/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Malonev called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Reading the owner, and Mr. D'Amico, the contractor each came forward to be sworn in and review the request. The applicant voiced that he and his mother have purchased the home together and they are trying to consolidate two homes into one. His mother is elderly and due to the lack of room for storing things they would like to have the shed so his mother and wife can park their car in the garage. Not being able to park his mothers car in the garage concerns him as he and his wife are not home during the day and in winter inonths should could get hurt just trying to get into her car. The board asked about the placement of the shed in regards to the swell. The applicant is hoping to rnake everything fit in the utility shed. Tlie chairman read allowed a letter from an abutting neighbor regarding the size of the shed being requested. The board felt that a 400 sq. ft. storage shed is too large. The applicant voiced that he is going to match the siding of the home and use landscaping to buffer the neighbors from the shed. He further stated that he would be removing the existing shed in the yard. A lengthy discussion regardiiig decreasing the size of the shed took place. The contractor indicated that if the shed is 18-feet by 20-feet the height of the shed would be to code. The board read allowed that the engineering department has stated that downspouts must be connected to the sewer. The applicants agreed to wait to discuss their request until the end of the meeting so they could rethink the size of shed they will need. The applicants were called forward after the last proposal of the night and they felt that an 18' x 20' shed would be the smallest size they could work with. J. Maloney moved to grant William H. Reading of 4180 L'asa Lane their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new storage building and the following variance, is granted as amended: A 160 square foot variance for a storage building larger than code permats, building will be 18 x 20 sq. ft. (code permits 200 sq. ft. and applicant shows 360 sq. ft.), section (1135.02 (Dl)). The second storage shed is to be removed within 30 days of completion. The down spouts are tc be tied into the existing sewer drain. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (D1)). W. Kremzar seconded the motion roll call on the motion W. Kremzar, M. I)iver and T. Kelley "Yes" and N. Sergi "No". Variance Granted. 6. Christopher & Valerie Kaminski; 27932 Wisteria Drive: WRD 1 Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence The following variances are requested: 1. A 48 foot variance for a fence erected in a neighbors front setback on a corner lot, (code permits 0, and applicant shows 48'), section (1135.02 (172)). Note #1 2. A 30 inch variance for 164 feet of fence higher than 30 inches in neighbors 50' front setback, (code permits 30", and applicant shows 60"), section (1135.02 (F1)). 3. A varianue for 164 ft of fence less than 50% open in a neighbors 50' setback, (code requires 50% open and applicant shows 0%), section (1135.02 (F1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (171)) &(1135.02 (172)). Note: #1. Fence to be installed per submitted site plan received 8/16/04. Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. & Mrs. Kaminski, the owner, Mr. & Mrs. Kocsis, and Mr.& Mrs. Phelps abutting neighbors each came forward to be sworn in and revieNv the request. The applicant presented a photo of the type of fence they wanted to erect in their yard. They would like to have a fenced in yard for their pet and their child which is on the way. The applicant felt that a 3-foot high fence would not be enough to protect their dog nor their child once boin. He will be trimming the tree back and the fence will be 3-feet offthe sidewalk so it will not impede anyone's view. The fence will be 5-feet high and 30% open not 3-feet high 50% open which code requires. The neighbors are concern how close they are to their driveway. They do not believe that it will look good nor are their many fences in the neighborhood. Neighbors voiced that they had no knowledge of the fence until they received the notice from the City. Neighbors suggested fencing in just a section of the yard so that it does not take away from the appearance of the neighborhood. The applicants felt that fencing in their yard for privacy and safety of their family should be within their rights. They would like to have a pool In the future as well which will need to be fenced in. All neighbors present felt that a fence would takeaway frorn the appearance of the neighborhood. Mr. O'Malley reviewed that section 1135.02 F of the code 4