Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CITY OF NOIaTH OLMSTED <br />"TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFEI2ENCE" <br />BOARI) OF ZONIleiG APPEALS <br />1VIINUTES - JULY 1, 1999 <br />I. ROLL CALL: <br />Chairman Gomersall called the meeting to order at 7:30pm. <br />PRESENT: Chairman, R. Gomersall, Board members, T. Kobema, J. Maloney, J. Konold, and W. Kremzar. <br />ALSO PRESENT: Law Director, M. Gareau, Assistant Building Comiriissioner, T. Rymarczyk, City Engineer, <br />P. Deichmann, and Clerk of Commission, D. Rote. <br />II. REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES: The minutes of June 3, 1999 had not been added to the <br />Commissioners packets for review. Therefore there was no motion made on the June 3, 1999, minutes. <br />Chairman Gomersall advised that each case would be judged on the physical situation peculiar to itself, so that <br />in no way is a judgment rendered considered to be a general policy judgment affecting properties and like <br />situations elsewhere. <br />III. BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS: <br />Dan Barrett: 4630 Michael Dr.: <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a shed. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1) A 6 foot rear yard variance (code requires 10'ft rear yard applicant shows 4'ft). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D4). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance being requested. Mr. <br />Barrett came forward to present his proposal. Mr. Gomersall inquired as to why the shed needed to be so close <br />to the rear property line. Mr. Barrett indicted that; 10 feet would not leave enough room for his children to play <br />in the back yard. Mr. Gomersall questioned where the shed would be in regards to the existing tree. Mr. Barrett <br />indicated that he would like to place the shed between two existing evergreens. Mr. Gomersall indicated that he <br />would like the shed placed 5 feet from the rear yard line. Mr. Barrett indicated 5 ft would be fine. No further <br />comments were made. <br />J. Konold motioned to approve Dan Barrett of 4630 Michael Drive his request for variance (1123.12). Which <br />consists of a shed and that the following variance is granted as agreed upon by the applicant. _ <br />1) A 5 foot rear yard variance (code requires 10'ft rear yard applicant shows 5'ft). <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 D4). The motion was seconded by J. Maloney and <br />tmaiumously approved. Variance Granted. <br />2. John ivanoff: 26432 Butternut Ridge Road: <br />Request for variance (1123.12). Proposal consists of a chain link fence. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1) A 1.6 foot variance for height of 72 feet of chain link fence (code pernuts 2.6ft high applicant requests 4ft <br />high. Note: fence will run from the front of the house to the sidewalk. <br />Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section, (1135.02 F 4). <br />Chairman Gomersall called all interested parties forward and reviewed the variance being requested. John and <br />Chris Ivanoff came forward to present John ivanoffs proposal. Mr. Gomersall asked if the existing fence would <br />be replaced. Chris Ivanoff, John Ivanoff s son indicated that was correct. No further comments were made. <br />7. Maloney motioned to approve John Ivanoff of 26432 Butternut Ridge Road his request for variance <br />(1123.12). Which consists of a chain link fence and that the following variance be granted: