07/07/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Ms. Lupica, Mrs. Mackell, the owners and Mr. Flad, with Better Living Patio each came forward to be sworn in and review the request. Mr. Flad indicated that a deck was placed on the home last year and the owners would like to now close in the existing patio and construct a new deck next to the new enclosed three season room. The variance is needed for a rear yard setback they are not extending the enclosure or deck any further then the deck currently is now. The deck will be to the side of the enclosure. N. Sergi moved to grant Connie Lupica & Diana Mackell of 4296 Coe Ave their request for variance (1123.12), which consists of adding a 3 season room to existing residence and that the following variance is granted: 1. A 6 foot variance for a residence too close to rear property line, (code requires 501, applicant shows 44'). Which is in violation of Orcl. 90-125 section (1135.08 (A)). W. Kremzar seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. 7. Barb Mahler; 23017 Sucnmerland Ave.: (WRD 2) Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a new fence. The following variances are requested: 1. A 50 foot variance for a fence higher than 30 inches in the front setback, (code permits 0, applicant shows 50'), section (1135.02 (F 1)). 2. An 18 inch variance for a fence in front setback higher than 30 inches, (code permits 30", applicant shows 48"), section (1135.02 (F 1)). 3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open in a front setback, (code permits 50%, applicant shows less), section (1135.02 (F 1)). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (F 1)). Chairman Maloney called all interested parties forward to review the request. Ms. Mahler the owner and Ms. Daniel the neighbor came forward to be sworn in and review the request. Ms. Mahler voiced that a fence to code will not give her privacy. The applicant would like to have privacy from her neighbors. The board voiced a concern over the safety of pedestrians on the sidewalk as well as the neighbor's driveway. Ms. Daniel voiced that she had no knowledge of the fence until she received the notice and she would be concerned about the safety of her family and cars coming and going from her driveway with a fence one foot from the sidewalk. Brief discussion regarding tapering the fence or stopping the fence a car distance from the sidewalk. Ms. Daniels is concerned that at night drivers or pedestrians would not be seen by cars pulling into and out of her drive. She believes that the fence would allow someone to hide in her driveway at night and that concerns her. She believes that the fence must be 50% open and no higher than code allows do to safety hazards it would cause her property. She is also concerned that the fence remains on the applicant's property. Ms. Mahler felt that other neighbors have trees and shrubs and those have not been an issue. If she is not allowed the variance for the fence then she will plant bushes and wire fencing. Mr. Rymarczyk voiced that the Building Department felt there were safety issues as well. Even if the applicant places landscape shrubs the police would need to rule on whether or not the landscape caused safety issues. Mr. O'Malley advised that privacy is not one of the seven factors for granting variance, nor is a neighbor objecting cause to deny a variance. The code requires 50-feet back from the sidewalk this is a substantial request. Ms. Daniels would not object to a fence being installed if it followed code. After further discussion Ms. Mahler agreed to amend her request. 8