Laserfiche WebLink
David & Linda Arth; 6257 Brighton Drive (BVapd # 3) <br />Request for variance (1123.12). The proposal consists of installing a fence. <br />The following variance is requested: <br />1. A 21 '/z foot variance for a 5 foot fence less than 50% open within a 25 foot required area on a <br />corner lot which is in violation of section 1135.02 fZ. <br />2. A 30 inch variance for a fence higher than 30 inches in a required setback on a corner lot which <br />is in violation of section 1135.02 f2. <br />3. A variance for a fence less than 50% open in a required setback on a corner lot which is in <br />violation of section 1135.02 fZ. <br />Mr. & Mrs. Arth the owners and Mr. McMillan with Affordable Fence each came forward to be <br />sworn in and address their request. Mr. Arth said he would like to install a fence for the safety <br />and privacy of his family. Ms. Rudolph asked why the height chosen was requested. Mr. Arth <br />said the height was chosen to match the rear fence which is 5 feet high. They have had safety <br />issues with children cutting through their yard and vandalizing their home. He also noted that <br />they are trying to adopt a child and they are required to have a safe clean environment and the <br />fence will ensure the yard is safe. <br />Mr. Conway felt the variances were substantial and the height of the fence could be lower and still <br />keep individuals out of the yard. Although he had no objection to the solid fence as there are no <br />safety issues created by the fence. <br />Mr. O'Malley reviewed the zoning standards and complemented the owner on his presentation as <br />his plans were very detailed. He noted that the setback required would place a fence in an area <br />which would render the yard unusable which is a clear hardship. He advised that the request <br />should be weighed carefully. Ms. Rudolph asked if the height and openness in the code was for <br />esthetic reasons. Mr. O'Malley advised that the law is for esthetics and safety issues both. Ms. <br />Rudolph felt that the rule was quite restrictive to owners of corner lots. If the lot was not a corner <br />lot the owner would not require variances. Mr. Arth advised that the fence would not be solid the <br />entire length of the yard and they have spoken to the neighbors whom have no objections. The <br />fence will match the existing fences in height and style which are already in the area. <br />Mrs. Sergi had no objections to the setback request due to the fact the fence would be in the <br />middle of the backyard. However she does not believe that a solid fence is needed despite the fact <br />that there are no safety issues. She would like to see the fence match the existing fences. The <br />owner could also have a chainlink fence with evergreens densely planted to keep people out and <br />achieve privacy. Mrs. Bellido felt one side of the fence being solid would not match existing <br />fences and the height is needed to be consistent with existing fences. Mr. Menser said as there <br />are no safety issues created by the request he had no objections to the variances as written. Ms. <br />Rudolph said she had no objections to the height and setback of the fence as there are no safety <br />issues which would be caused by a solid fence. Mrs. Diver had no objections to the setback or the <br />height of the fence to be consistent however she felt a solid fence was excessive. The variances <br />requested are substantial and the character of the neighborhood could be affected by a solid fence. <br />All owners are presumed to have knowledge of the zoning codes when they purchase their home. <br />The issue can be precluded by following the zoning code requirement. The spirit and intent of the <br />code she believed would be met granting the setback and the height variance but she did not <br />believe a solid fence was warranted. Mrs. Sergi felt the board should offer the applicant the <br />chance to withdraw a request or alter the request for a solid fence. <br />2