Laserfiche WebLink
GeorlZe & Victoria Wav; 4609 Ashbury 1'ark Drive: (Ward 1) <br />Proposal consists of a fence enclosing rear yard. The following variance is requested: A 72 foot <br />variance to install proposed fence section in rear yard which will run parallel to existing <br />neighbors split rail fence which is in violation of section 1369.03 (A (3)). Note: Neighbor will <br />not grant permissions to remove and replace with new fence. <br />Mr. and Mrs. Way the owners and Mr. Ramsey the contractor came forward to address the <br />request. Mr. Ramsey reviewed that the rear neighbors have a split-rail fence which they do not <br />want removed. Therefore his clients would like a variance to install a 4 foot high piclcet fence to <br />enclose their backyard for the safety of the neighbors and their dog. Mrs. Sabo aslced if the split <br />rail was along the neighbor's property line or inward. She noted that the split-rail fence along <br />the rear neighbors property line and questioned if in fact it is considered a fence. Mr. Conway <br />said a split-rail style fence is a fence regardless if it encloses a yard or not. Mr. Althen asked <br />who owned the landscaping, how the area would be maintained and where the proposed fence <br />would be located. Mr. Way advised that they own the landscaping which will be maintained and <br />the new fence would be 5 feet inward from the neighbor's fence and includes a 4 foot gate for <br />access. Mrs. Sabo questioned the existing chainlink fence along the sideyard line. Mrs. Way <br />said the chainlinlc fence would be removed and replaced with the wooden fence. Mr. & Mrs. <br />Burnham the owner of the split rail fence said that they would have no objection to a fence being <br />10 feet in from their split rail fence but object to a fence 5 feet from theirs. He suggested that if a <br />fence is placed 5 feet from their fence it would be in the middle of the CEI easement and city <br />drainage swale. Mr. Conway said that his department has no lcnowledge of an easement or swale <br />behind the applicant's home. If there is a swale easement between the two homes he will not <br />allow the fence to be placed in the swale. Mr. Burnham said his deed shows an easement. Mr. <br />Conway asked if the easement was on Mr. Burnham's property or the applicants and what the <br />distance was. Mr. Burnham said the easement is either 10 or 15 feet and runs along both <br />properties. Mr. Althen aslced if the Burnham's fence was on their property line or inward outside <br />the easement. Mr. Burnham said the split-rail fence is 6 inches in from his property line. Mrs. <br />Sabo questioned if the split-rail fence was in the middle of the drainage swale only being 6 <br />inches off the property line. Mr. Burnham suggested the center of the drainage swale is about 5 <br />feet inward on the applicant's property and flows to a drain 1 or 2 houses down. Mr. Meder <br />thought that if there was a 10 foot swale easement the split-rail fence was already in the center of <br />the easement. Mr. Conway said that the engineering department would need to research whether <br />or not there is a recorded easement and if there is the board should require the fence be outside <br />the easement. Mr. Ramsey felt that if it was only a CEI easement the owner could submit a <br />letter stating they have no objections to CEI removing the fence for access as long as it does not <br />obstruct the flow of water. Mr. Conway said the Engineering departments stand on fences in a <br />drainage swale has changed they do not allow fences in swales any longer. Mrs. Schneider said <br />she was present in support of her neighbor's fence request. The split-rail fence did not seem to <br />serve a purpose other than defining the Burnham's rear property line as there is no other fencing <br />on the Burnham's property. If the Way's fence is installed 5 feet inward on their property the <br />split rail fence serves no purpose. Mrs. Burnham said that there have been problems with water <br />running freely along the swale. Mrs. Sabo said if there is a recorded easement the fence would <br />be required to be outside the easement. Mrs. George voiced to Mrs. Schneider that it is her <br />chainlinlc fence being removed and she supports her neighbor's request. Mr. Burnham said he <br />objected to any fence abutting or attaching to his fence and would lilce to see Mr. Way's fence 10 <br />2