Laserfiche WebLink
!1 <br />? BOARD OF ZORiING APPE9LS - 4/9I69 - Page 2 ?`.. <br />Mr. Zinssmeiiter explained that he wishes to erect the 'fence.to confine_his two pre- <br />school age children to the yarel. The fence wesuld enclose the- rear portion only but <br />would bc in violation along the port3on facing Westlawn Drive. Mr. Speec77.a.rig, who <br />lives next door ta the propertyj stated that he has no objection. Mr. Greene moved <br />to grant an 18" variance in height for the part of the fence that would be in violation; <br />seconded by Mrs. Eian and unanimously passed., _ <br />5. Appellant: David. Brown, 6380 Surrey Dr3.ve. Request tca eree'c a 51 f u <br />rear yard. Request is in vie?lati0n of Ordinance #62-33, S?etion 1151.04 <br />fence not to exeeed 411n height. <br />Present:. Mr. Brown, Mr. Haneburg, Mr, and Mrs. Smith <br />Mre Erown•cited the constant nuisance of dogs in his yard as welY as the fact that he <br />Fri.shes the fence so that his children can be kept in the yarcl. He a1s€s sta.ted that he <br />is considering installing a swirmimg pool and that he feels the higher fence wouZd be <br />advanta.geous. The fence would be a white cedar stockade tgpe fence. Mr. a.iad Mrs. Smith <br />auestioned the Bmard regarding the 41 limitatimn since there seem to be so many requests <br />for higher-fences. They suggested that perhaps the ordinance, needed amending. Mr. <br />Haneburg said he did Mot questioaa Mr. Brown's need for a fence tnat wondered why he wishes <br />to inatall.a 51 feace. Mr. Lancashire stated tha.t inasmuch as he felt that a 41 fence <br />would solve the problem af keeping the chil.dron in the yard and dogs out of the yard, <br />he moved to deay the request. Mr. Gresene seconded the motion. iTnanimouslg passede <br />It wwas decided that a special raeeting would be held on 4/24/69 due to a request received <br />far such a meeting. <br />The meeting was adjeurned at 8:50 P.M. <br />JoYn Roberts, Chairman <br />Sally Henkle, Secretary