800 NE 96 St (3)Mr. LuBlen stated that he had an Initial conference with Mr.
Bergau and advised him that his existing residence was set-
back 9.8 feet and that this set -back Is non - conforming. How-
ever, Mr. LuBlen did not object to alining the screen en-
closure at the same point. Subsequent plans were submitted
and Mr. LuBlen assumed that the screen enclosure would be In
line with the residence. Without scrutinizing the plans,
Mr. LuBlen approved them. This was an error on his part, not
• uncommon In plans processing. At the inspection, Mr. LuBlen
observed that there was an encroachment Into the required
set -back, and advised the contractor of the problem.
Mr. LuBlen also stated that one of the purposes of inspect-
ions Is to assure that all requirements are met.
Planning & Zoning Board meeting - 2 - May 13, 1993
After further discussion, Mr. Forney moved to approve the
variance and Mr. Laubenthal seconded the motion. The motion
passed with a vote of 3 to 1 with Mr. McClure voting NO.
Mr. McClure explained to Mr. Bergau that he would have to
appear before the Council because all variances, once
approved by the Board must go before Council for final
approval. Mr. LuBlen told Mr. Bergau that he will be
notified by mall the time and date of the meeting.
6. Request for approval of screen porch.
Mr. Guy O'Grady
800 NE 96 St
Mr. O'Grady stated that he has been working on this pro-
tect for approximately 10 years and that ail the specifi-
cations meet with all the requirements necessary.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Laubenthal moved to approve the
plans as submitted. Mr. Forney seconded the motion and It
passed unanimously.
Mr. O'Grady was Informed that he has to go before Council to
get final approval because the roof Is of manufactured slate
and glass and Is a non - conforming roof. Mr. McClure told Mr.
O'Grady that he will be notified of the time and date by
mail.
7. Discussion: Ordinance restating the meanl'ng of the
word "Family ".
Mr. Forney began the discussion. He stated that he and the
Village Attorney, Mr. Fann, have discussed the wording of the
existing ordinance and that there was the necessity for re-
view for possible change of the ordinance.
(1 a f � C � � Cam'- a_ �P o�v
•
a cn C q LA c'
•
u
Ct--"-¢ 6