06/03/1970 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' L / > CTTY flF rJORTH OLNETFT? - B0ART OF ZOrdII+TG AI'P EALS ? Ftegular Meeti?g heZd at Ci ty Ha.ll --- Jurse 3, 1970 The meeting was ca2led to order at 7t30 P.M. Y,y Chaixman Villzam: Greene. ?'hose preseat: Mrs. E3an, Ms3rs. C.reene, Lancashire, R.oberts9 Ernest Green Also 7resPnt: Mr. Gunczy, Bu3lding Cornmissioner The minutes o° the 5/6/70 mePting were approved as writ.ten. It va,s a.nno,un.ced that two publ.ic hearirgs seXeauled for th.is meeting had_ been carncelieel at tks r.eryuest of the U:ppellants m They were the Kroger Co 0and Thomas FoTey. la Appellant; Edzaa:ca IPraolridge9 4723 Caruten Larae. gieruest to erect 6' femce a.long r.ear property Iine. Reeuest is in violation o£ Ordinance #62-33, Sectian 1I5I.04 wtick state5 tha.t a fence shall not exceed 41 in heighto Presentm Mr. Wools^idge, Mr. Smetzer Mr. VTeao3ridge explained that he wishes to erect a, 61 fence to prevent the constant trespa,ssing whicla now tates place and also to permit a degrPe of privacy a.nd to aid ix the garden and ? and.scaping pI.ano He st?ted tha:t- _the -Wighbors on one side alreaay have a.. 61 fence. Mr. °:netzer, neighbor an the other eide of Msm TdoQlridge's houve9 -sta.ted that he was rever notified he:fore the existiaag 61 fence was erected by B, .F._ Caok at 4709 Carsten Lanem No rer,ord was found in the minutes af-ang. variance having been granted for the fence in questione Mr. Snetzer stated that he has a4° SpIit rail fenee and tYaa.t if Mre Voolricge is per:,artted to erect a 60 fence tkat all mf the tres, assers will ther_ be on his property. Mr. Moolriclge cited physicaZ €3amage czone to h3s boae includirg bricks having beer knocked ou? of the corner of the house. He feels that a ha.rdslaip exists, On the basis that he clidr't feel a 69 fence Nould solve a.?y probZem that a4a fence Frould net solve, Niro La.aleashire mcsved to deny the variamce;: secoided by Mro E. Greeno The motion pa.ssPd with Mrs. Pian and Mr. P.oberts abvtaining frmm voting. 2. Appellant: Josel:?.h Grass, 6720 McKenzie Foad. ReCUest to erect 4' fence e.:tendirtg 3,11 beyoY9d buil.eliMb line on corrier Io¢. 'kerlueSt is in violation of QrcZiraance #62-33, Sec+iar- 1151.04 w?aich states tha.t aferace may not el;ceed 30" in height from the build.ing Iine to the street line. F'resent: Ntrs. CTross Mrs. Grass ex.pIained that they wish to ha.ve the convenience af agate leae?ing £rom the d.raveway to tlte ya.rd and also cited the z^:resence of a flrain pipe on the corner of the garageb For these two reasonv' theU; wish to ga 31? beyorc? the buil?'ir?g line to enclase t?.e-?r rear yard w??icl? faces the ri?.e street (ccsriaer lot). Discuzsion vas helc. It was cietermiiaecl tkat the fence in no way would hamper vision or be a safety ha,zard. Mrm Roberts mcrved to grant a variance for 351 af 41 fexace along the (3akelal.e side av sb.owm ix pTan preFented; seconded by Mrs E. Green and Passed With Mre Lancashire voting no. 3. Appellant: Richa:rel. Cox' 23903 EI.m T.oad, R.eque5t to enclvse a portion of rear yard with 6e chain link fenc:e. Fequest is in violation of C3xc73nance #62-JJ9 Section 1151,04 -0ich statEs that a fence may ryot exceed 4' in height. Present: Mra and Mrs. Cox Mr, Cax expIained that there are 15 smw11 chilUen including one menta11y retarded child w-ithin a five house,radius af his homeo Thev hajre a 41 apove ground pool and feel that for reasons ax safetty, 3t shottTd be enclosed with 61 fence. TheJ ca-np, ana are gone a great. c1ea1 esf the tine eluring the 5ummer which mean4 that the pool is unattendeci. They mish to enc].ose only that porf;ion of the yard wh.ere the pvol is l.ocated. Mx. E. Green