before we start can I remind everybody
to make sure their microphones are on
and when you make a motion please say
your name be after you do like just say
your last name
thank you
we will call the uh December 1st 2022
Board of zoning and planning meeting to
order
uh if we could have a roll call Ms Rose
Mr Schick here Mr Levine here Mr Turner
here Mr King here Mr Hall here
chairman of marsh here
uh first time on the agenda is public
comment this is the portion of the
meeting where if anyone has any uh
questions or comments about the working
of the board of zoning appeals or zoning
and planning this is the time they can
present is there anyone here tonight
that wishes to ask anything about uh the
workings of the uh esap board
seeing none we will close public comment
we will move on to approval of the
minutes uh we have uh approval of the
October uh meeting minutes
those were distributed I assume
everyone's had a chance to look at those
does anyone have any comments on the
um October minutes
seeing no comments does anyone will
someone make a motion for approval
motion to approve Hall and do we have a
second second chick
and all in favor say aye aye
aye all opposed say no
uh let the record show that the minutes
were approved
um moving on the old business uh first
item up is uh app bzap 2235 545 North
Drexel is the applicant here uh good
timing
perfect timing
um we we will swear you in in a second
but we'll go let's go ahead and we'll
swear you in now please state your name
do you solemnly swear from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth yes thank you and then um Ms Rose
if you want to just give us the the sort
of updated background on this that'd be
great uh this case was before the board
in September reviewed three variances
based on the fact that it was already
constructed with that review or building
permit it was tabled at the time allowed
the applicant time to consider how he
could reduce the number of variances
um the I appreciate the fact that the
applicant has since proposed
modifications to eliminate the variance
for both the deck and pergola that has
decided to pursue the 2 about 11 inch
variants from Mexico section 12 for 6402
which requires an eight foot side yard
setback for the hot tub to allow the hot
to remain five feet one inch from the
north side property line the particular
request is based on the fact that the
hot tub is currently sitting on an
existing concrete base if the board
finds that the hot tub is to be
is a variance for the hot tub is
appropriate they should consider design
review by the design consultant for the
pergola and deck due to the design
Suggestions by the ARB and any changes
that may be necessary to address the
building code staff would also like to
include that the rear yard must maintain
a minimum 48 inch high fence at all
times with self-closing self-ledging
Gates
got it thank you
does anyone have any questions for Ms
Rose at this point
uh if you'd like to go ahead and present
that'd be great so I'm going to give you
a little update about that oh yeah
please do
um this applicant was um if you remember
romance just moved to you without a
recommendation positive or negative
because it didn't seem logical for the
architecture review board to review any
of the design items unless the variances
were proved which is not normal course
but this as you remember recall was
built already project
um the applicant has done what the well
not done yet but it has new plans as you
can see I have them up here especially
like the palm trees
um that removes
that that cuts the hurdle off right here
um so that there is no variance needed
except for the hot tub
um the board of the architecture review
board was happy with the changes
although not happy that that there's a
lot of details still that need to be
worked out so um the applicant is
currently engaging a structural engineer
to work on some of the perkola details
um the board also specified that things
like the overhangs were cut down I think
they were like what four feet or
something and so they're going to be cut
down to appropriate size
um uh skirt around the
skirting around the bottom was being
considered there's there's few
conditions that the board would like the
applicant to address but they're really
not relevant until and unless this board
approves the hot tub variants and then
remands that back to me to work with the
applicant and the structural engineer
gotcha gotcha great thank you does
anyone have any questions for Ms Boker
no can you pull it down oh sorry yes it
might be better pictures and the old
plans I know the board had a lot of
discussion about this double uh right
here the double Arbor at the end they
didn't think that that was necessary so
that was when it did I didn't read all
the conditions but one of them was that
the the architecture review board didn't
like the double Arbor they just wanted
to it's a design detail where they
wanted it to
um for both the heaviness and for like
um Good Luck yeah
so there there are um more conditions
than what I rattled off the top of my
head and I have it all in a
um in a record of action which I'm happy
to bring up if you'd like but
um long story short it's things like
column bases skirting around the outside
kind of typical things that I would look
for
um
it will be you can see it in the corner
here yeah so then I think there's some
other holes yeah here
kind of suggestions
and
this book convention that I engaged in
structural engineer at least
there was two days before the meeting
this meeting so I don't think anybody
have seen him there but
it's done you know if if we agree with
them on facility parents
got it got it okay and if you if you
want to just go ahead and tell us sort
of from the last meeting to today what
other changes you've made and then we
can discuss it so when I came to first
start I think that was too long ago
um was pretty issues that we need to
work so and the board asked me to go
back and find a solution for this issue
the three issues are the purple
extension into this the
message thank you uh extension into the
setback the deck itself extension into
the setback and the hot rod
um being too close or within the setback
as well so it's all setback issues
um
the best for Aesthetics and also ease of
construction is to eliminate
the two setbacks that we have you know
will be
easier to change and just seek variance
for one which is the hard time so the
new design which is the picture of their
drawing that you guys looked at earlier
eliminated two of the 3D setback issue
that we discussed the hergo asset bank
will be cut back basically it's you go
back to the picture for a second yes
it's basically these two videos over
here that would be just trimmed there
about
I would say Global issues 16 ish or
something like this so it wouldn't be
that closer between the air the next six
uh 3.6 inches so it would be more like
uh sewing defense strings with uh four
inches or something like this so outside
of the setback that part where we're
looking straight at on the there that
would be turned back closer to the
hotter which will require just a
modification of the two columns just
kind of phase and because it sits on a
support views on this side so we can cut
it back all the way up to the support
we've eliminating on
the knees at the left side or the left
side of this column in the middle of the
screen
and that will get us to
um one variance with the heart of I
think it's since
5.2 inches five feet one inch something
like this so the variance would be
perfectly respective variance will be
for roughly
2 feet 11 inches for if I believe the
hot tub needs to be eight feet
honestly yes
and they looked at it and the redesigned
some things so once you bring somebody
to take care of this items will also
take care of me
other structure of things that are
structure has been pointed to
and there are a couple exactly four
items that the architecture board
suggested were recommended if we do and
all of that will be done at the same
time haven't been done yet
um so we can make sure that we're all on
the same page before we win somebody in
here
um and this one would approved then we
move forward
got it thank you uh any board discussion
or any questions on that yeah what was
those the third variance I'm sorry
he originally asked for the hot tub the
pergola and the deck to encroach into
the side yard setback he has since taken
away a section of deck okay to make a
beat code and the pergola has to also
been pulled back this is the the drawing
that I have up there right now is the
original
and whoops sorry
um
there there it is yeah that's the that's
the revised plan is there is there
anyone in the audience that wishes to
speak to this application
seeing none okay
Mr chairman I have a quick question yeah
do I recall correctly that the concrete
pad was there when you purchased the
home yes
I think we've moved to findings of fact
right yeah I'm good does anybody else
have any other questions
okay can we hear findings of facts and
conclusions of law the findings is a
fact and decision of the board for
application number
bzap-22-35 for property located at 545
North Drexel
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence and
testimony before it the board finds the
applicant has proven that the criteria
to create an Airy variance to Mexico
section 122611 c have been met in a two
foot 11 inch variance from Mexico
section
1464.02 to allow a hot tub to be five
foot one inch from the side North Side
property line
be granted subject to the rear yard must
have a 48 inch high fence with
self-closing self-ledging Gates
and the pergoland deck are approved for
a certificate of appropriateness uh
with the condition that the applicant
work with the design consultant for
final design approval of the pergola and
all the conditions stated in accordance
with conditions recommended by the ARB
right which are all spelled out in the
record of decision which I thought I
uploaded but I actually uploaded
September one instead of last month I
wondered about that right I know it's
done I just I can bring it up yeah it's
on it's online November 10th meeting
yeah November 10th okay perfect it was a
pretty extensive list I mean there this
is one small Next Step there's a lot of
structural issues and the skirting and
the rafters trimmed and the top
so if I understand right if we approve
the variance tonight it goes back to the
hot tub it's just for the hot tub and it
goes back to ARB to me to you yeah okay
all right because there will be changes
possibly to meet code in addition to
whatever design recommendations okay and
he still needs to get a building permit
correct okay
so it's going to be a lot of back and
forth because there's a structural
engineer who it may eliminate the
ability to do some of the we got to get
the structure correct before we can hone
in on the design so the board decided to
remind it to me of course if I'm not
comfortable I can always make you know
pull it back to the architecture review
board but I think that the applicant has
shown that you know sorry and wants to
do everything he can now to to try to
get this done right
okay and do you do you understand the
findings of fact as they were read
ing okay
do I do I hear a motion from anyone for
this matter
Turner uh makes a motion for approval
we are second
Levine
is Rose if we got a roll call please
uh Mr Hall
yes Hall Mr Turner yes
Mr Levine yes interesting yes Mr King
yes
chairman Marsh yes
there you go thanks for coming back and
uh good luck with staff
you could have you could have asked us
for a condition
[Laughter]
perfect thank you your one million
dollars
but
oh my gosh
for who oh
there you go
um all right the next item up is
22-43 this is 157 North Ardmore any
lower our house is the applicant uh Kyle
and Ali Upchurch is are the owners
um I see Ms lauerhouse is here and she's
being miked up I think a green light
means we could have some the background
on this Kathy before we get into this
yeah I would like to say that uh
last last month we had the application
where the applicant was adding an
addition on the back of the house on
Allegheny and he submitted the zoning
variance initially and there was a lot
of good discussion while he after
hearing both the ARB hearing it and the
support hearing it that applicant worked
out a plan that meets code and
accommodates what he needs so it was
just back at the architecture review
board and received approval so that's
good and hired a designer oh perfect it
looks perfect was that the skinny one
the long award yeah yeah so he kind of
offset and it worked
[Music]
um
let's see here okay so let me explore
you know yeah you state your name Amy
lauerhouse you saw me swear from the
testimony you're about to give this
evening is the truth yes thank you
all right so
um
this is a corner lap that is 40 feet by
42 feet a standard lot near Six is 50 by
120.
uh it requires a 10 foot setback from
the side property line along Denver
Avenue
and is 6.6 feet from the south interior
side property line
the existing home is not conforming in
that the house is 9 feet 10 inches from
the north side property line and the
porch is five feet nine inches from the
north side property line along Denver
uh it appears that this has a deck
expansion without a permit and is
located within 10 feet of the garage I
did that while I was doing my little
research here and going back through the
history the current owners are not
responsible for that deck expansion it
happened prior to them purchasing the
property so I just want to clarify that
um
so
current variance requests is to allow
the East End of the principal structure
along Ardmore to be modified for for my
one story to a one and a half story
the existing Ranch design of the house
in additions with with inconsistent roof
slopes makes the expansion challenging
the front of this property is Ardmore
recited a lot however the existing house
does not relate to Ardmore as the front
of the house but is oriented to Denver
Avenue where the main entry door is
located the modifications on the East
facade further maintain the site of
house appearance along Ardmore Road by
simply raising the eastern half of the
roof in the existing footprint the entry
porch located on the Denver side of the
house currently encroaches four feet
three inches into that side yard setback
the applicant is requesting a variance
to allow the width of that
porch to be extended 10 feet to the west
and maintain the same setback as the
existing porch and modify the roof there
is a sun room located on the west end of
the house that was also has will also
have roof modifications
um
staff would share that an open porch
kind of crush 10 feet into the front
yard setback along Ardmore without a
variance if that helps generate a front
yard appearance along Ardmore or perhaps
even some Landscaping
the architecture review board had
several design suggestions but did not
recommend a certificate of
appropriateness on the current design
but recommended zoning review with the
remand back to the ARB the new
elevations have been submitted as of
recently uh
with the massing in the same location as
the original original design and so
that's the original proposed I went to
the ARB and then we also have a modified
version so I don't know if you have that
I have a copy no I have it I uploaded it
but I just wanted to first show the
architecture review board was had no
issue at all with the going up in height
in fact
um really we had a nice discussion about
how architecturally it would fit in
better to the neighborhood
um but it's just an awkward
it's an it's a difficult project and an
awkward house there was some not
complete comfort with the solution so
um while they're I would say a positive
recommendation for your approval the
architecture review board would please
request that you remand it back to the
architecture review board for a final
certificate of appropriateness one of
the items that we discussed among others
were well I'll just name a couple and
then I'll pull up your new plan I was
going to say that it has the old and the
new together so they can see perfect but
I think I did see that now I think about
it and then the stat report I believe
I've got photos next to
uh yeah so the upper the upper plans are
or elevations are the what I presented
originally and then the lower ones are
the new proposed new
so there's the suggestions that maybe
instead of gable roof they could shed a
roof I I still think you could shed the
whole thing but like you could connect
it have more space upstairs we talked
about that architecture review
not for now
um but you know raising the water table
um to make it uh the proportions look
better
um there's been
Amy's worked on some of the changes that
we've talked about but the architecture
review board would still like to see it
again so if you choose to approve this
variance I would request that it be
remanded back to architecture review
board for final certificate of
appropriateness
got it any any questions for Ms Boker
I have more of a question
this is just a question I feel like I'm
looking at one of those things like see
the items that are missing between so I
noticed the door I noticed the Dormer
yeah yeah
how many can you get Sean um
that's funny
um so yeah just to uh I guess summarize
uh the reason that the project is here
this evening is because the house is
already non-conforming
um and we're asking for uh just
obviously going up
um it's a very it's kind of all four
corners
a from two inches at the minimum to 10
inches at the maximum so that house kind
of just eeks over the setback lines
um and then the porch as well we're
extending that
um as far as the changes there are three
um changes that I made uh at the
suggestion of the ARB
um the first one is to do the game the
shed roofs on the Dormers instead of the
Gable roofs so that you can see that on
the North elevation and on if you scroll
down or up a little up other way yeah
you can see on the west elevation how
the Dormers look different from the
sides as well the second thing is on
those West elevations the original
that Edition that's on the far west side
that little piece has a weird shed roof
going the other direction right now it
looks very out of place so we're putting
a new roof on that and I had kind of
engaged it into the higher roof just by
a tiny bit and I agree with the board
that that's a hard detail to flash
properly and make water tight and all
that kind of thing so it's just slightly
lowered that's a very minor thing but it
just makes it easier to build that and
and get it watertight and then the Third
change was the level like Karen said of
the cultured stone
um the original one on the North side
has everything at one level
um and they had suggested bringing the
new new piece up higher to under the
window sills which I've shown and then I
also lowered the stone on the other
sides because we also talked about kind
of that linear nature of of the house so
I think it gives it a little bit more
interest by providing different heights
of that cultured stone
all right thanks In fairness I don't
think anybody would have noticed the
roof differences yeah I mean that's the
first thing I saw that's the first thing
I noticed
yeah
all right thanks Amy sure no what caught
me was immediately was the trees and in
fact just I could see the difference
between yeah the landscape plan and the
yeah isn't there a palm tree on one of
the other ones yeah I don't know
yeah if you see the difference between
the tops of the tree and the the roof
that's okay this is why you're the
zoning board
does anyone have any uh questions for
Mrs Cabernet
is there is there anyone in the audience
here to speak to this application
uh seeing none do we want to have
findings of facts and conclusions of the
board
Ms Rose
wow you guys went fast
all right I don't want ice cream I've
had enough ice cream for the mayor uh
finding is a fact and decision of the
board for application number
bzap-22-43 or property located at 157
North of Ardmore upon consideration of
the application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before it the
board finds it the applicant has proven
that the criteria to Grant area variance
to Mexico section 122611 c have been met
and a four foot three inch variants
from the north property line and four
inch variants from the south property
line
which are variances from Mexico section
12
52.1081 to allow modifications and
additions
to the principal structure
with subject to final design review for
approval of the certificate of
appropriateness to the architectural
reviewing board
and does the applicant understand the
findings of facts and conclusions of the
board as read by Ms Rose yes and do I
hear any questions or comments from the
board or does someone want to make a
motion for approval
my very quick comment and I said I think
this is a dramatic Improvement on the
home and thank you I was going through
um the packet before packet and
um I actually had to make sure I was
still on the same project I'll make a
motion please we are a second check
sorry uh Turner second
uh Ms Rose roll call please uh Mr sick
yes Mr Levine yes
Mr Turner yes Mr Hall yes Mr King yes
chairman Marsh yes and I agree with Mr
Schick it's a very nice Improvement to
Bexley very nice playing thank you
um the next application is 22-44 for
2364 Brentwood the applicant is Amy
Lauer house
um
his Rose any background on this one
yes
sorry
you guys were fast tonight
I'm not complaining though
all right
so did you read the request on this one
yet
George want me to read that too the
applicant is seeking architecture review
and approval and a certificate of a
preppedness for demolition of an
existing garage and construction of a
new garage an addition of a pool the
applicant is also seeking special permit
in accordance with Mexico section 1252
0.158 to allow functional Dormer on the
proposed detached garage so this is in
the R6 zoning District standard lots to
get by 120 this slot is 50 by 141.
and this was a consent item for the ARB
recommending approval of to visap
subject to approval of the special
permit the garage overall size and
siding on the lot meets code however the
lot's under 14 400 square feet
that have a functional Dormer require
approval for a special permit the dermas
are on both sides of the garage roof and
our appropriate size and scale per code
the Dormers Overlook the backyard and
the alley which also meets code the lot
coverage is 40.2 percent I may still
need to follow up which I actually have
regarding the green space and overall
square footage because I was looking at
the calculations uh related to the pool
and the patio and I had some concerns
because it shows gravel which in my mind
I have to consider that as Hardscape
and I talked with Amy and you know
that's typically something if it does
require review for a lot coverage at
least it's something that allows water
to dissipate on the property so
Amy has since provided those
calculations and it is still under the
60 overall lot coverage so that wasn't
an issue we've got that resolved so step
supports the special permit based on
meeting the required criteria if the
board finds the overall lock coverage is
greater than 60 it should be addressed
the variance and recommended
modifications subject to final review
and approval by the zoning officer but
we've already had the result
and and the board at the architecture
review board
um didn't hear it it was a consent
um unanimous consent
um noting that the Dormers are
um they're they're very nice and small
and
um it's just for a special permit not
for a variance got it does anyone have
any questions for Ms Booker or Ms Rose
just as a comment this was part of the
new garage code right so if it's if you
have any questions about that Kathy I
can answer but the question I have is
um how much larger is this than the one
existing garage or is it the same place
it's it's basically the same footprint
yep
which didn't seem existence we've just
were flipping it right here
um and we're removing the driveway to
the street and entering it off the alley
so we've moved it a little bit into the
yard so that we can have proper
maneuverability out of the garage to the
alley and actually if this garage was
submitted without the Dormers Karen and
I could actually sign off on it
so Ms Rose if you want to go ahead and
just give us a brief presentation that
would be great
this one I just have a procedural
question what is the distance that a
neighbor has to reaband themselves from
a case
I'm at 2366 Bexley Park
okay you can if you want but you know
I just wanted to make sure to accuse
themselves yes
okay we have Miss Rose
um yeah I
I guess I they summarize so well and I I
just wanted to add that we we flipped it
and we're removing the driveway
um
I yeah I guess I don't have anything
else to add
and I think this is a good good um
um image so that you can see the the
flim to the alley
entrance
yeah and the patio is being added and
she's removing that front load driveway
is all coming out of that oh yeah
yeah Aaron you mentioned that the Dormer
issue is part of the new garage code yes
and that's why we're voting while you're
here can you just explain what it is
what the correct what is this that
you're we or what was the concern that
gave rise to that the concern is to have
Dormers that look into neighbors yards
and where this is placed on the lot
there doesn't there's no concern we
haven't heard any concern from Neighbors
at all and there's no concern from staff
but there there was a a deliberate
effort to not make it
so hard not make it a variance but make
it a special permit so that if somebody
wants to put dormers on the exterior on
the lot line not on the lot line but
looking over into somebody's yard then
there was an opportunity for actually
actually if the Dormers were on the side
looking over under the neighbor's
property the garage would then need to
be required to be pulled back from that
property line but the fact that this is
turned so that the Dormers are facing
interior of their own lot and at the
alley there's no variance but the fact
that this size lot having functional
Dormers just requires a special permit
in case there's any and what does that
mean functional just the windows open
and close and perhaps that space up
there might be you know usable space
visible space they're not they're not
just decorative
there yeah
but what is going on what's up okay an
office they're going to put their office
up there
the only utility they had up there was
just Plumbing is that correct correct
yes
any other discussion
seeing none because we have the findings
of facts and conclusions of the board of
the board
the findings the fact decision of the
board for application number bzap-22
Dash
I can't read my own writing
44.
poor property located at 2364 Brentwood
upon consideration of the application
proposed variance and evidence
uh
testimony before the board finds the
applicant has proven the criteria to
Grant actually this is not an area
variance but the applicant has with the
information and plans provided the
applicant has proven that a special
permit
in accordance with 12 52.15 a
should be approved to allow a detached
garage with functional dormers on the
second floor
as submitted got it and does the app can
understand the findings of fact and
conclusions of the board as read by Ms
Rose yes and can I also also include
that a certificate of appropriateness
should also be a part of this approval
in accordance with the recommendation
from the architecture review board yes
please do thanks
do I hear a motion to approve
still moved King in a second
Turner roll call please
Mr King yes Mr Schick yes Mr Hawk yes Mr
Levine yes
Mr Turner yes and chairman Marshall yes
thank you thank you
um
next item on the agenda is
bzap22-45
243 South Stanwood
applicant is Mark Abramson
if you could please come up and be sworn
in
please state your name Mark Abramson do
you solemnly swear from the testimony
you're about to give this evening is the
truth I do thank you
Mr Rosenberg you have the background on
this okay that's applicant of secant
special permit in accordance with Mexico
section
126403 DB no fencer wallet combination
there still exceed 48 inches in height
and the side yard setback as it faces a
public or private Street to allow a six
foot fence to be located along the rear
property line along the alley
of this property and 10 feet from the
sidewalk along Elm Avenue so the
applicant is looking to install a fence
along the west rear property line which
borders the alley this is at the North
West corner of Elm and Stanwood so it's
a north of the school
the original height of the there was a
black aluminum fence that's going to be
in parallel to Denver and then turns up
along the side of the driveway
and then also runs up along the driveway
and meets the garage originally this was
submitted as that being a four foot and
there's a sample of the fence Mr
Abramson has since inquired if it's
possible to change that to a 54 inch in
height he has concerns that the dog that
this will be uh
constructed for may possibly
get over a four foot fence so being we
did send out a notice that he was
seeking a variance to defense height and
it's in within the same area I was
focusing more on the six foot fence
that's running along the alley at the
back of this property
uh
the neighbor immediately to the west and
on the opposite side of that alley also
has an existing six foot fence I did go
out and measure it and he has angled it
at the corner where the alley actually
exits onto Elm Avenue and that was one
of my main concerns to make sure that's
not going to be issues for viewing
pedestrian traffic being this is right
next to the school however when I laid
my tape measure on the ground that 10
foot Point that he's proposing to set
this fence back off of the Elm Avenue
side of the lot is actually even with
the section of fence just where it
angles away from the alley of the
neighbor's fence so so both so it
doesn't need to be angled because I feel
it's far enough back that it shouldn't
inhibit view of the pedestrian traffic
um but I would also like to ask that
this we consider the 54 inch fence of
the aluminum black fence that's going up
parallel to Elm
um also uh typically there's
review of a landscape plan on corner lot
variants
for a fence but in this case it's a
black aluminum fence it's not a wall
that needs to be broken up however Mr
Abramson is working on a landscape plan
that he's proposing to put along Elm
just to address that
um I
so the fact based on the fact that it
would have the same impact on the
pedestrian traffic as the neighboring
fence I could support that
there was also an evergreen hedge along
the alley that I initially suggested
that might he might want to maintain
because he had considered removing it
we've had further discussions and it
seems to be a problem for leaves and
it's hard to keep it nice looking
because it leaves you know collect in
there and then with you have add a fence
to that equation it's just makes it
difficult so he does want to put the
fence up to the rear property line along
the alley
got it so if we if we approve this is
it's it's is it subject to a landscape
plan being submitted that could be staff
approved it okay and is there any does
anybody else have any questions here
yeah Kathy because the design of this
aluminum fencil your concerns about
visibility
that definitely but what's along the
alley is solid so that was my concern
and I wanted to measure because the
neighbor's fence being at Angles well
his solid fence ends at the same point
that the neighbors defense at Angles
ends so he's basically accommodating the
same visual clearance as an existing
visibility issue as pertains to a fence
that's already there visibility when you
have traffic pulling out of that alley
to to the sidewalk so it's that solid
Ford fence is 10 feet back of the
sidewalk and this property line is four
and a half feet off of that side
got it I'm Mr Abramson if you want to
just tell us about your project and what
you're trying to accomplish there that
would be great I think Kathy summarized
it pretty well but really I'm just
looking to uh put a six foot fence in um
privacy fence along the alley
it would also go around along the back
side but there's already an existing
fence there and then
um 10 feet from the sidewalk I want to
do the setback with the aluminum fence
that way there's no issues with
visibility and because I do live right
next to the school it gives you a lot of
distance for the kids walking back and
forth to school and you have talked to
Kathy about doing some Landscaping in
front there and I really don't have a
problem the bushes that are along the
alley that we talked about they're just
kind of overgrown and tall I don't have
a problem putting something smaller like
boxwoods or something that we can agree
on in front of that fence in the alley
as well
um I would also like to add
that
he wanted to place a fence also along
his North property line his neighbor to
the north has two fence currently he had
a three foot fence or 42 inch fence
chain link and then put a pole in so a
pole requires something taller than that
so there's a wooden six foot fence with
the good side facing Mr abramson's
property he wanted to put a fence along
there but we can't have three fences on
a property line so
I'm going to work with Mr Abramson and
the there's a property management
because the owner to the north
passed and so we're working with the
property management company on that
fence so if you I don't know if you've
gone by and knows the two weird fences
are are there now that are deteriorated
so I would like to work with him and
then getting that replaced
and then it just on the drawing so
there's a wood you want to it's a wood
fence along the alley yeah six foot and
then it's going to turn the corner and
then it's going to be a six foot metal
black metal fence is that what's going
to be
um yeah it's the I think she had a
picture this is a picture of it too it's
not going to turn it's just going to go
straight across perpendicular to the
alley 10 feet off of um the sidewalk
yeah how far towards the front of the
houses again I'm just going to go up on
the foot from my driveway and then it'll
go back towards the garage
so it's all in the backyard
yeah this property is platted to stand
with so that's the side yard
and any fencing within 20 feet of the
Street side property line it is limited
to 48 inches in height so that's going
to be seeking a variance for a special
permit to allow that gotcha
is this going to cross the driveway no
just encompasses the backyard
I mean it it looks I mean I'm looking at
Google Earth it looks like the neighbor
has the same the neighbor has basically
the same fence
right correct
to this west of the garage right
anybody have any other questions or
discussion
is there anyone in the audience here
which is to speak to this application
um is Rose can we have findings of facts
and conclusions of the board
findings the fact decision of the board
for application number
bzap-22-45 for property located at 243
South Stanwood upon consideration of the
application proposed variance and
evidence and testimony before the board
finds the applicant has proven that the
criteria to Grant an area of variance
Mexico section 12 2611c have been met
and a 15 foot 6 inch variants from
Mexico section
1264.03 DB to allow solid board fence
along the west rear property line 10
feet from the sidewalk and a modified
black aluminum vents at a height of 54
inches to be allowed 10 feet from the
South property line along Elm
with subject to landscape plan
which can be approved by staff
got it did you say the West fence has to
be 10 feet back from the alley no I
thought from Elm
I hope I didn't say that nice so it can
run along the island
it's 10 feet from the sidewalk
but in actuality it's encroaching 15
feet 6 inches into the required setback
off of that South property line along
yeah I understood the South when I
thought I thought when you were saying
the West one you said you had it had to
be back 10 feet I'm just making sure no
I just I guess I was trying to clarify
that the board fence is going to be on
the west property line and the other one
black fences on the south property line
as long as everybody understands got it
and do you understand the findings of
facts and conclusions of the board as
she read it I do
we are a motion to approve
improve Schick do I hear a second
second Turner
Mr Israel call please Mr Turner
yes Mr King yes Mr Levine yes Mr Sheikh
yes
Mr Hall yes and chairman Marsh yes thank
you thanks very much thank you thank you
um do we have any other business
anyone have anything else for tonight if
not
we're adjourned
hey Mark