Laserfiche WebLink
fence can not be moved due to a drain tile and existing trees along her back property. Mrs. <br />Koehler advised that the fences are needed to keep teenage kids out of their yardse There is a <br />green space behind their homes and there are kids cutting through yards having bon fires and <br />drinking in the green space. If the fences are not allowed the kids will be going through their <br />yards and vandalize their property. Both homeowners believe that the law regarding the <br />fences is an infringement upon their property. Mrs. Koehler commented that the City is fully <br />aware of the on going problems with the teenagers hanging out, drinking and having bon fires <br />in the green space. The kids are becoming more abrasive and are disrespectful to the adults <br />when something is said to them. Mrs. Sabo asked when the two fences were erected and <br />neither the applicant nor neighbor could remember. <br />Mr. Conway advised the board to keep in mind that the applicant could replace up to 50% of <br />the fence now and return in a year and replace the remaining 50% and be in compliance to <br />codes. Furthertnore the neighbors have stated they have no objections to maintaining tlie <br />minimal space between the two fences. Both parties involved voiced that they felt they should <br />be allowed to have their fences as they have for the past 25 years and neither party was willing <br />to give up having their own fence in the 70 foot section involved in the violation. <br />M. Conway moved to grant Cipriano & Carolyn Beredo of 27978 Marquette Blvd their <br />request which consists of replacing an elcisting fence and that the following variance is <br />granted: 1. A variance to replace a 70 foot section of fence along an existing fence where <br />a neighbors fence already exists, which is in vfolation of.section (1369a03 (a 3)). D. Sabo <br />seconded the mohon which was Unanimously Deniede <br />2. Peter & Kostia Parfanos; 4730 Carsten Lane: (WRD # 11 <br />Proposal consists of erecting a vinyl privacy fence. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A variance to install a 70 foot section of vinyl fence along neighbors existing chainlink <br />fence, which is in violation of section (1369.03 (a 3)). <br />Mr. & Mrs. Parianos owners of home and daughter Maria Parianos each came forward to <br />review the request. Maria Parianos reviewed that the neighbor does not want his fence <br />removed but has no objections to the new fence being butted up to lus fence existing fence. <br />However her mother baby-sits her children and the chainlink fence is rusted and in poor <br />condition. They are concerned that the children could get hurt on the fence. She questioned <br />when and why the ordinance was created. Mr. O'Malley reviewed when and how ordinance <br />99-100 came about and some concerns which were brought up to create the ordinance. Mr. <br />Conway voiced that the ordinance was requested by Mayor Musial and the main reason was <br />due to maintaining the area between the fences and the fences themselves. The city hoped that <br />neighbors would work together when fencing their yards. Maria Parianos reviewed that her <br />parents take care of their home and yard and they just want to protect her children from the <br />rusted fence. Mrs. Sabo advised that the area in between could not be maintained and although <br />they would maintain the area future owners may not. The board advised that the vinyl fence <br />eould be butted up to the chain link but two fences can not be next to each other. The board <br />suggested planhng arborvitaes along tfie chainlink fence to buffer the fence from the children <br />and view. Maria Parianos asked what law was in place to protect their property from the <br />2