Laserfiche WebLink
1 PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> 2 AUGUST 20 , 1991 <br /> PAGE 3 <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Madden observed that the fence without the lattice would <br /> 7 require a variance. Urbia advised that the Public works <br /> 8 Director had visited the home to view the deck. Murphy <br /> 9 inquired if a building permit has been gotten. Urbia <br /> 10 responded that a building permit had been sought and that <br /> it the plans had been submitted at the time the permit was <br /> 12 issued. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 Mr. Shamp advised that no plans were required. He stated <br /> 15 it is his intent to make this a first-class addition to <br /> 16 the neighborhood and that some of his neighbors had <br /> 17 expressed their support for his project . <br /> 18 <br /> 19 The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 43 p.m. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Mr. Shamp expressed his appreciation for the comments he <br /> 22 has received from staff during their site inspection as <br /> 23 well as the comments received from members of the <br /> 24 Planning Commission. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 No one spoke for or against the request . <br /> 27 <br /> Gondorchin inquired if it is Mr. Shamp' s intention to put <br /> 46 the lattice work back into the project . Mr. Shamp <br /> 30 responded that this is his intention as the lattice work <br /> 31 makes the project more attractive. He noted that his <br /> 32 neighbors are aware that this is his intention. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 Werenicz noted he had visited the site and is supportive <br /> 35 of granting the variance. <br /> 36 <br /> 37 The Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 46 p.m. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 Motion by Franzese, second by Werenicz to grant the variance <br /> 40 from the height requirements to allow for an eight foot six <br /> 41 inch fence to Thomas Shamp at 3209 Edward Street N.E. , noting <br /> 42 that no one spoke against the project and it does comply with <br /> 43 the three conditions for granting of a variance. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Brownell stated he will not support the granting of the <br /> 46 variance as he feels the three conditions necessary for <br /> 47 granting a variance have not been answered. He sees no <br /> 48 hardship: it is not being done to correct extraordinary <br /> 49 circumstances, and the alleged difficulty or hardship is not <br /> 50 caused by City ordinances . <br /> 51 <br /> 52 Franzese felt the City Council should be requested to review <br /> the ordinances for screening and questioned if this project <br /> would fit the definition of screening. <br />