10/02/2008 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

felt the rear/back fence being 50% open would not be an issue but placing a fence outside the trees would block visibility. She would be open to the fence if the fence was behind the trees and angled at the corner. Ms. Rudolph felt the board should determine were they wanted the fence placed, she felt placing the fence 3 feet inwaxd from the sidewalk would be acceptable. A brief discussion ensued pertaining to requiring the owner to angle the sideyard rear corner of the fence or not. The majority of inembers felt angling the sideyard rear corner was not needed. Requiring the fence to be placed 3 feet off the sidewalk would be sufficient. Mr. Mitchell suggested requesting the fence be placed 6 feet off the sidewalk which would provide clearer visibility. Mrs. Salis said that if she placed a fence 6 feet off the sidewalk it would require all the trees be removed as they are 6 feet off the sidewalk. She would not object to placing her fence 3 feet off the sidewalk but any more than that would impede the use of her own yard, cause the trees to be removed and angling the corner would not make a difference. She does not believe that a fence would be a detriment to the neighbor or vehicles going around the tuin. Depending on what the board would allow will determine whether or not she even installs a fence or not. Mrs. Diver said she recalled the fence installer saying he would malce sure the corner area was lower. Most board members felt requiring a 6 foot setback was too much and a 3 foot restriction without angling the corner would be sufficient. Mrs. Diver moved, seconded by Mrs. Sergi to grant Kathleen Salis of 27511 Marquette Blvd her request for variance (1123.12) which consists of a fence and the following variance is granted as amended: An 18 inch variance for a fence within a neighbor's 50 foot setback on a corner lot, code permits 3011, applicant shows 48". Conditioned upon the fence being installed a minimum of 3 feet inward from the sidewalk which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 (Fl). Roll call on the motion Diver, Bellido, Rudolph,lVlenser yes, Sergi no, variance granted 4-1. Mrs. Sergi said her no vote was based on her belief placing a fence so close to the sidewallc would create safety hazards. Kenneth Hu2hes; 4334 Canterbury Road Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of a fence The following variances are requested: l. An 18 inch variance for a fence higher than 30" in 50' front setbaclc code permits 30", applicant shows 48". 2. A variance for a fence less than 50% open in 50' setbaclc code requires 50% open, applicant shows 0% open. Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 section 1135.02 fl. Mr. Hughes the homeowner caine forward to be sworn in and address his request. He is requesting to be allowed to match the fence along the other side of his yard. The fence will start three feet inward from the sidewalk and start off 3 feet tall and gradually taper up to be 4 feet tall at 14 feet from the sidewallc. The fence will be 4 inch boards with 2 inch spaces between the boards so it is not zero percent open. He worked with his neighbor to ensure visibility would not be a factor. He had an area roped off in his yard but the rope did not represent the placement of the fence it was to ensure he would not damage his trees. Ms. Rudolph thought the openness percentage would be about 25% which is less than 50% open. Mr. O'Malley advised that the board should follow the building department calculations as written. Mr. Menser and Ms. Rudolph voiced that when first visiting the site they thought the roped off area was where the fence would start but after hearing the owner's presentation they better understand what is being requested and their concerns were answered. They did not object to the fence being 25% open as it matched the existing fence along the other side of the home. Ms. 2