PC 08/27/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

no rasp onsa_ E<ec ease of racei vi ng no phone cal 1 s or written communi cati on ~ he thought his appeal was accepted _ His cone err•a had been that by pa_atti rig the solid fencing i n ~ the owner of Lot 2[s coe_al ci put bal corms i as up and do what Mr _ Schnei der i s trying to prevent ~ which was intra_adi ng on Mr. Schnei der 's privacy_ Ca~mrni ssi o~~ar Horan told Mr. Schneider that i n appr-ovi ng the subject application they had never intended to blocL: out all views of bacLx yards. It wot_ald be an impossibility to do so. What the Commi ssi on was tryi ng to accomplish was prevent an undue lac ti. of pr-i vacy to the nei gi-ibors_ It would dep and on wt-aat was seen from the bai corn es as to whether balconies sh oa_ald be approved or- not. Sammy S'hr i mal i ~ 28.°_r .Y Victoria Ri dge Court , stated that she supported st off s rec ommendat i on for denial of the appeal _ She read her 1 attar to the F'1 anni raq Commi ssi on which detai 1 ed 'the ti maf tame of 'the applicati ori_S'he said that the Pl annirig Department had told her that her' plans conformed to the Coda_ Sha felt that Mr .. Schneider was singling out her house: she noted that none of the other nei 9hbors had any comp 1 ai nts about the second f 1 oor bal conies that Mr _ Schnei der i s comp 1 ai n i ng ab oa..at _ She asLsad the Commi ssi on to deny Mr _ Schnei der ~ appeal . Commi ssi oner- Hor are di sca..assed wi th Ms. Shr-i mal i the various dr3tes of the par mits_ Commi ssi or~er Mi chel otti asLced Ms. Shri mall for cl arif icati ors ate, to the front and bac. Lc yard setbac ks_ Cortimi ssi an er Mahern asL~ad M~~_ Shri mall for clarification as to wh era he~^ property 1 i. ne ended _ Commi ssi oner Hovi ngh not ad that Ms_ Shri mal i had al ready redt_ac ed the s:L -~ e of the hoa_aze ~ and that i t i s row 1 ass savers i n tar ms of Mr Schnei der' objecti on than the orgi nal one that was filed i n March _ Commi ssi on er Michel otti thought the ba.l cony jutted out a bit more. Ralph Romero s-t at ed that he zupp or is staff 's recommendation for denial _ Na said that ha has two 1 ots i n the se..ab ject area and he has no problem with -the Shri mal i balcony. He said peap i a pay a 1 of of money for the homes i n 'the area ~ however , i n 1 ooL:: i ng through Vi nt ac7a F-iai ghts there era many porches and balcony es_ Denri i s Shr i mal i ~ co-owner of 'the 1 of a_ar~der discussion ., stated he bought the property at a pr ami mum price and hoped that he could bui 1 d ors i t as previously approved _ Tt-~~-.dub t i c _gear i na w~~_c 1 osed ,_ M I NUl'ES F'L_ANN I NG COMMISSION June 27 ~ 149~> F'age 6