Laserfiche WebLink
enclose their yard for privacy and provide an area for their dogs. They've lost a dog from a leash <br />breaking, had issues with neighboring dogs entering their yard as well as strangers wandering <br />into their yard. Mr. Vilevac said placing the fence to code eliminates the use of more then half <br />their yard. Photos of other corner lots with privacy fences in the development were submitted. <br />Ms. Russell said she was against the fence as it would limit the view from her front porch, lower <br />her property value and create a safety hazard for vehicles entering and exiting her driveway. Mr. <br />Lentz said the fence is consistent with fences found throughout the neighborhood. The <br />development is known for split-rail fences along the front yards. He believes allowing the fence <br />would benefit the Vilevacs as well as the neighbors as it will contain the dogs and cut down foot <br />traffic through the yard. The Vilevac's home already limits the Russell's front view and the fence <br />won't extend further then the home, therefore the neighbors view will not be impacted. The <br />fence fits the character of the neighborhood and is consist with other fences on corner lots within <br />Canterbury Woods. He encouraged the members to grant the variances required. Ms. Russell <br />repeated she did not want a 6 foot fence in her front yard. <br />Mr. McReynolds reviewed the variances required and said the proposed location of the fence <br />would not impede the view of a driver backing out of the neighbor's drive and will be 13 feet <br />away from the neighbors driveway. Ms. Diver felt the fence would have a negative iinpact upon <br />the neighbor and suggested a 4' fence. Ms. Rudolph aslced if the applicant had considered a style <br />of fence which would be slightly open and possibly lower. Mr. Vilevac said the fencing <br />company indicated the 6 foot fence could be scalloped to soften the appearance however a 4 foot <br />fence wouldn't provide privacy nor contain their dogs. He is open to a 5 foot fence in the area <br />which does not meet code but would not scallop the 5 foot section of fence. Mr. Raig said corner <br />lots are very restrictive and in viewing the area the style and height of the proposed fence is <br />consistent with the character of the neighborhood. He suggested the use of landscaping to soften <br />the stark appearance of the fence. The distance provided is more than code requires and will not <br />create safety issues for the neighbor's driveway. Discussion pertaining to the height and <br />openness of the fence ensued and upon hearing the concerns the applicant requested to be tabled <br />so he and the neighbor could work on an acceptable style and height. <br />Ms. Rudolph moved, seconded by Mr. Lopez, to table the request of Robert Vilevac of <br />26008 Byron Drive to the July meeting, which passed 5-0. <br />ADJOURNMENT <br />With no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. <br />Je n fer Rud 1 i, Chair na Rote, Clerlc of Commissions <br />Approved: <br />? ??