99-95 REVERSING A DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 3770 RICHLAND DRIVE

Home Browse Search

COMMUrTITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM ! No. 99-240 September 23, 1999 ! TO: The Honorable Mayor Terry M. Howley and City Council Members '� FROM: Rolanda Johnson, Acting City Manager � � Cecil A. Collins, Jr., Director of Community Development�� Max Forgey, Senior Planner Dane Bragg, Planner`T� Matt Newell, Traffic Engineer �GI/� SUBJECT: Protest of Zoning Board of Appeals decision at 3770 Richland Drive The Petition Residents of the Richland Heights Addition, located just north of Route 36 and east of Sunnyside Road, have filed a protest of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision on September 9, 1999 regarding the property located at 3770 Richland Drive. The petition for a variance had been filed to allow a reduced front yard setback along Sunnyside Road from 25 feet to 6 feet for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool. The petitioners, Christian and Shelley Sassano, filed the petition with the Department of Community Development on July 12, 1999. The vaxiance was scheduled to be heard at the August 12 meeting of the Board, but the meeting was canceled due to lack of a quorum. The variance was then scheduled to be heard at the September 9, 1999 hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Inquiries It was after this time that staffbegan receiving numerous calls inquiring about the petition and what the owner's plans were for the side yard. Several callers expressed concern over the establishment of a fence on the corner of Richland Drive and Sunnyside Road. This concern was taken under advisement and forwarded to Matt Newell, our traffic engineer, for review. Neighbors had also expressed a desire to have city staff present at a meeting to discuss the proposed swimming pool. Several neighbors had asked if the City could require the petitioner to set the fence back from the property line along Sunnyside Road to facilitate a safer intersection. Staff explained that the City had the right to recommend a setback of the fence if staff was of the opinion that the fence might pose a safety hazard at the intersection. Staff also explained that the Zoning Board held final authority on all matters of judgment related to this case.