06/28/1979
, "1' ..... .-.,
" .
t.
" ."\,
" i"
"
" ~ + +
,<
"
,
.1
,.' , " .
\.
I
, "
~ ~..........." '
.,
"""_...,.r:~:,":.'",,._i :
e
to construct a Type A Marina on Lot 23, nlock A, Dayside
Subdivision W5, which property is located at 696 Dayway
noulcvard and is zoned CTF-28 (Commercial-tourist facilities),
it appearing, after this duly constituted public henring,
that the proposed use is consistent with the general zoning
plan and with the public interest, Mr. Gans moved that said
appeal be granted in accordance with the application submitted
therewith, with the provision that the right to obtain a dock
permit in accordance with said special exception shall cease
after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Regulski seconded
the motion which carried unanimously.
ITEM '2 - Request of Charles Serio for a setback variance.
The Planning Director reported there are pools on both
sides of this lot. However, they are set back further and he
questioned the need for a 15 foot variance.
The applicant was present and stated he needs the variance
to allow more room for a patio as he has a large family.
There were no citizens to speak.
Upon consideration of the appeal of Charles Ser.jo from
the decision of the Building Official concerning the request
for a sotback variance on Old Coachman Road to construct a pool
upon Lot 34, College Hill Park Subdivision, Unit 1, which pro-
perty is located at 1826 Asbury Drive and is zoned RS-75
(Single-family residential), it appearing, after this duly
constituted public hearing,' that there are practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict
letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects
such property and that the same can he varied in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, Mr.
Regulski moved that such appeal be granted in accordance with
the application submitted therewith, with the provision that
the right to obtain a building permit in accordance with such
variance shall cease cfter six (6) months from this date.
Mr. Morris seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
ITEM *3 - Request of Louis Vanech for a special exception.
The Planning Director reported 3 variances had been granted
on two separate occasions on this property for this applicant.
He expressed concerns on over-utilization of the lot and the
patio deck being used for an outside restaurant.
The applicant was present and stated the purpose of the
deck was to allow boaters to dock and use the restaurant and
would be strictly for the docking of boats.
~Robert Pfeil spoke in support of the request and stated
patio decks are p~entiful in the area on both sides of this lot.
Kenneth Zablocki, owner of the motel next door, spoke in
. "appasi tion citing, p'roblems of traffic congestion and noise
. ,because of the proximity of the two facilities.
@~'
",[t
""
,>;,"
.," .
. \
2.
6/28/79
",' ,
~. ,.
,~c :.. i' ...c "
Ie;.\. ,
,..
. ~<:"';.
. t ~"
:1'
".!
".. .........
"
\ 'i,
.-.. _.,,_.......:...<1.4.........:...:.. '.. :~ :"\" ....~ I' ,. " "',,' L~' ~
. ~ ". .
o
The Roard expressed concerns about the size of the dock.
The applicant agreed to a 12 foot width and 40 foot length.
Upon consideration of the appeal of Louis Vanech from
the decision of the Building Official concerning a special
exception to construct a Type A Marina on Lot 24, Block A,
Bayside Subdivision #5, which property is located at 100
Bayway Boulevard and is zoned CTF-28 (Commercial-tourist
facilities), it appearing, after this duly constituted public
hearing, that the proposed use is consistent with the general
zoning plan and with the public interest, Mr. Morris moved
that said appeal be granted in accordance with the application
submitted therewith, as amended, to provide for a 12 foot hy
40 foot dock with 6 boat slips and a setback of 10 feet from
each side for the dock, and with the provision that the right
to obtain a dock permit in accordance with said special
exception shall cease after six (6) months from this date.
~1r. negulski seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
ITEM *4 - Request of Magnum Ilomes, Inc. for a setback
variance.
The Planning Director made no comments.
Ronald Letize, representative, stated it was a double-
frontage lot with the rear lot line on Landmark Drive. The
variance was needed to erect a screen enclosure for the pool.
There would be no fence.
There were no 'citizens to speak.
Upon consideration of the appeal of Magnum Homes Inc.
from the decision of the Building Official concerning the
request for a setback variance to construct a pool and screen
enclosure upon Lot 1, Block G, Northwood Estates, Tract F,
which property is located at 2583 Deer Run East and is zoned
RS-60 (Single-family residential), it appearing, after this
duly constituted public hearing, that there are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying
out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance
as it affects such property and that the same can be varied
in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
ordinance, Mr. Gans moved that such appeal be Rranted in
accordance with the application submitted therewith, with the
provision that the right to obtain a building permit in
accordance with such variance shall cease after six (6) months
from this date. Mr. Regulski seconded the motion which carried
unanimously.
-
c:"
3.
6/28/79
, , . ~ .' \
i~:i~~~?;}:?::::.~,:/>">:' :"
.',
, ,
'"
. '. ,,'
<" ,':::'~ ..
. . :'-', >:. c~., ,c
J'. '
, 1
. .
...~~.
~
~, ...........
"; I
'. \
, .
'I'
"
I,
"",,^,,_ -.-. ""i:J~::':,'.
ITEM f17h - Request of U.S. flame Corporation for variances
to erect a 4 foot fence in the front sethack areas on 25 lots
in Tract 35.
@
t 1.":;;,
V
The Planning Director reserved the right to comment later.
Charles Barber, Attorney, stated these corner and interior
lots do not have a 6-foot fence to the rear as the other lots
did. TheTe aTe some double-frontage Bud one is a triple-frontage
lot. For privacy, they wish to maintain the concept of
4-foot fences throughout the development and request that where
designated driveways exist they be considered the front lot
line, but where street frontage exists opposite and away from
the front lot line that 4-foot fences be permitted on the
interior lot lines.
There were no citizens to speak.
Upon consideration of the appeal of U.S. Home Corporation
from the decision of the nuilding Official concerning the
request for a variance to erect 4 foot fences in front setback
areas upon Lots I, 19, 20, 61, 67, 6B, 72-76 inclusive, 110,
111,114,115,119,120,125,127,129,133,134,137,143 and
145, Village On The Green Patio Homes, l\'hich properties are
located on both sides of Laurelwood Drive, east of Belcher Road
Right-of-way and north of Oak Neck Road and zoned RPD
(Residential planned development), it appearinR, after this.
duly constituted public hearing, that there are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying
out the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance
as it affects such properties and that the same can be varied
in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning
ordinance, Mr. Gans moved that such appeal he granted in
accordance with the application submitted therewith, with the
provision that the right to obtain a building permit in accor-
dance with such variances shall cease after six (6) months
from this date. Mr. Morris seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris moved to amend the motion to allow a 4 foot
fence on the right"of-,\'ay and interior lot lines ,dth land-
scaping approved by the Planning Department on Laurelwood Drive.
Mr. Gans accepted the amendment.
Upon the vote being taken on the amended motion, Messrs.
Gans, Morris and House voted tlAye"; Mr . Regulski voted "Nay."
Motion carried.
"
ITEM'S - Request of Paul McGann had heen continued.
ITEM *9 - Request of J.H. Mancini for 2 variances: (1) a
height variance and (2) a sethack variance.
(1) The Planning Director reported the fence and building
have already been constructed.
.,.
,
; i
..' 1~ ..: ..
:i;;(};':'i.?. ...
:~..:).... :'~.~
5.
6/28/79
, ,
. ... '.
.; :.;t',.:';_...
I ~ L.
. . .. :I~ : . =. c .'~:'. '.
" ,
I'
;' ...
$7t
t'.i.:
t" ,
@-r,,:,
.,\.t~J"
'.'
.
I'
c,
\
, . ~
, ,
, '/.
"
,\>
" I
"
. .. .'
l ....._...... ..,,_.~ _~.......<.,.~ :.~;:~ .:: ;..........., ._ ~ "-I-~ __ .
Harry Cline, Attorney representing the applicant, stated
the 10 foot fence wus in place when the property was purchased
on a portion of the lot line. ^ permit was issued to construct
an additional 6 foot fence, but a neighbor complained that it
was higher than 6 feet. Consideration has to be given to the
elevation of the property as the public area hordering on this
private property creates an invasion of privacy. ^ portion of
the parking lot was filled making it higher than the Mancini
property. The fence will be consistent with the character of
the neighborhood.
There were no citizens to speak.
Upon consideration of the appeal of J.II. Mancini from the
decision of the Building Official concerning the request for
a height variance to erect a 7 foot fence along portion of
side lot line upon Lot M, Harbor Oaks Subdivision, which
property is located at 1104 Druid Road South and is zoned RS-75
(Single-family residential), it appearing, after this duly
constituted public hearing, that there arc practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict
letter of the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects
such property and that the same can be varied in harmony with
the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, ~'r.
Regulski moved that such appeal be granted in accordance with
the application suhmitted therewith, with the provision that
the right to obtain a building permit in accordance with
such variance shall cease after six (6) months from this date.
~~. Gans seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
(2) Harry Cline, Attorney, stated the applicant needed
more space for storage area, which was the reason for expanding
the accessory building and will be behind the fence, contiguous
to the parking area.
There were no citizens to speak.
,!
Upon consideration of the appeal of J.H. Mancini from the
decision of the Building Official concerning the request for a
setback variance to expand existing accessory building upon
Lot M~ Harbor Oaks Subdivision, which property is located at
1104 Druid Road South and is zoned RS-7S (Single-family resi-
dential), it appearing, after this duly constituted public
hearing, that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of
the provisions of the zoning ordinance as it affects such
property and that the same can be varied in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance, ~fr. Morris
moved that such appeal be granted in accordance with the appli-
cation submitted therewith, with the provision that the right
to obtain a building permit in accordance with such variance
shall ccase'after six (6) months from this date. Mr. Regulski
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
, '
.,
~ <':\';,j<':~~:-" . '/'. ,~
~7;~):;~i::')\'~'" ';/ '., ' \.
. :'
6.
6/28/79
", ......... ;'/ 'et' ..... I.;,~....~
'1.~..,.~~t'''''('.'!l:i~''''''':'"'*'~..''''r ~".;
1 .' ~ c ,"1 i
~ ~ .. ",' ~~
, > ~.
" .
~ ... ~. .
d7D
't".
~~.
.,:.
.r,
'.
1'I:.r.T-. _