10/06/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OF NORTH OLIVISTED BOARD OF ZONIlNG APPEALS OCTOBER 6, 2005 MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL: Chairman Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm. PRESENT:. Chairman J. Maloney, Board members; W. Kremzar, T. Kelly, M. Diver and N. Sergi ALSO 1'1tESENT: Assistant Law Director B. O'Malley, Assistant Building Commissioner T. Rymarczyk, and Clerk of Commissions D. Rote. U. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINIJTES: Chaurnan 1Vlaloney advised that the review and correction :of minutes would be addressed with communications. Chairman Maloney reviewed that there were 4 cases requesting 8 variances on the docket. He further advised that each board member had viewed the premises involved for each case. Three votes a.re required for approval and in addition, each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like situations elsewhere. ffi. BUILI)IloTG DEPARTNIENT REQUESTS: OLD BUSIlNESS: John 1VIcClachertv. 29600 Stewart: (WRD 3) Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a new fence. T'he following variances are requested: 1. A 15 foot variance for a fence higher than- 30" and less than 50% open in a 25' required setback on a corner lot, (code permits 0, applicant shows 15'). 2. A variance for a fence in required side yard setback less than 50% open code requires 50% open, applicant shows 12 %2% open (1 '/z" space). 3. A 30" variance for a fence in required side yard setback higher than 30", (code permits 30", applicant sows 60"). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section (1135.02 (F1)). 1VIr. & Mrs. McClacherty the owners, came forward to be swom in and address the request. Mr. McClacherty reviewed that they met with their homeowners association who requested that the fence be placed at least 5-foot in from the sidewalk. They would like to be allowed to scallop the fence to a 5- foot height in those sections which are not within code. They intend to remove the existing shrubs along the north-west area and seed the grounds until the next landscaping season. The eacisting garden fencing along the front of the property line would remain. The new fence would be piaced just inside the existing phone box at the north-west corner. The chairman advised that there was an easement along the rear of the property for utilities. While discussing the style and placement of the fence Mrs. Sergi suggested the applicants might want to return once they knew for sure the height and type of fence they would be using. Mr. Conway advised that the applicant would need to submit new plans showing 6-feet from sidewalk and scalloped fencing they are now suggesting, as the plans submitted shows the fence to be 7-feet in from the sidewalks and it does not state that the fence would be scalloped down to a 5-foot height it shows all fencing to be 6-feet high. IVyr. Conway advised that the 15 foot section of side yard fencing could be no higher than 5 feet high. The proposed shadowbox fence would not be 50% open but would be 25%. Mr. IVlclacherty voiced that the proposed 25% was due to the traffic lights shining into their windows. Mr. O'Malley read allowed the section of code pertaining to fence placement along a corner lot. He advised the applicant that he must show just cause why 50 % open and 30 inch height is not reasonable. I)iscussion ensued pertaining to the distances between each board and were the scalloping would need to start. Mr.& Mrs. McClacherty decided to have the entire fence 5-foot high and use 4-inch fence boards with 2-inches between each board and stated all fence boards would be on the same side of fence framing. Mrs. Sergi again suggested the 1 of 7