Laserfiche WebLink
provides for fences not to exceed 6-feet in height placed along any side or rear property line <br />providing it does not extend into the street line of the front building line. Therefore there are <br />restrictions on coriier lots which are established by code. The applicant is showing the board that <br />due to the restriction of the code he needs relief from the code regarding that setback. Otherwise the <br />applicant will end up with a fence down the center of his backyard. Whether the fence comes out to <br />the sidewalk or to a lesser amount, the amount of relief as far as side yard there is some justification. <br />3-feet over 5-feet height or 30% over 50% open those are issues which is the burden of the applicant. <br />The applicant indicated that a 30 inch fence would not secure his dog in the yard as he could walk <br />over the fence at 30 inches. <br />N. Sergi moved to gi•ant Christopher & Valerie Kaminski of 27932 Wisteria Drive their <br />request for variance (1123.12), which consists of a new fence and that the following variances <br />are granted: <br />1. A 48 foot variance for a fence erected in a neighbors front setback on a corner lot, (code <br />permits 0, an(i applicant shows 48'), section (1135.02 (F2)). Note #1 <br />2. A 30 inch variance for 164 feet of fence higher than 30 inches in neighbors 50' front <br />setback, (code permits 30", and applicant shows 60"), section (1135.02 (Fl)). <br />3. A variance foe• 164 ft of fence less than 50% open in a neighbors 50' setback, (code requires <br />50% open and applicant shows 0%), section (1135.02 (Fl)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (Fl)) &(1135.Q2 (F2)). <br />Note: #1. Fence to be installed per submitted site plan received 8/16/04. W. Kremzar seconded <br />the motion, roll c:ill on the motion N. Sergi, J. Maloney "Yes", W. Kremzar, T. Kelley and M. <br />Diver "No". Variance Denied <br />7. Joseph Fumic; 23533 Westchester Dr.: WRD 2 <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new garage. <br />The following variances are requested: <br />1. A 5 foot varia.ncz for a detached garage to close to rear property line, (code requires 10', and <br />applicant shows 5'), section (1135.02 (C2)). <br />2. A 3 foot variance for a detached garage higher than code permits, (code pernuts 15', and <br />applicant shows 18'), section (1135.02 (C1)). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 C1)) &(1135.02 C2)). <br />Chairman Malonev called all interested parties forward to review the request. Mr. Fumic the owner, <br />Mr. Nader, and Mr. Prohn, neighbors each came forward to be sworn in and review the request. The <br />applicant indicated that he would like to construct a new garage in the same location as the existing <br />garage. He would like to match the look of the existing garage as well as those in throughout the <br />neighborhood. He needs room to store his yard equipment, and will match his home material. He <br />would like to have additional room above the garage to store personal items. He believes that his <br />properiy can handle the proposed size garage and it will enhance the value of not just his home but <br />those of his abutting neighbors. The neighbors present were concerned over the height of the garage <br />as they believed that it would be taller than the applicant's home. The neighbors thought that a 15- <br />foot roof height was tall enough for storage. The applicant felt the height was not to high and <br />indicated that the downspouts would be connected to the drain. Chairman read aloud the engineers <br />report. The board asked the applicant to lower the roof to code and eliminate the cement pad. The <br />applicant agreed to do so. <br />J. 1VIaloney moved to grant Joseph Fumic of 23533 Westchester I2rive his request for variance <br />(1123.12), which consists of a new garage and that the following variance is granted as <br />amended: A 5 foot variance for a detached garage to close to rear property line, (code requires <br />10', and applicant shows 5'), section (1135.02 (C2)). This will be conditaoned that the concrete <br />slab will be removed. This is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 C2)). N. Sergi <br />seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.