Laserfiche WebLink
acknowledging what is to be done. Mrs. Sabo asked if it was ultimately the homeowner's <br />responsibility to ensure city codes are followed and Mr. O'Malley said yes. <br />T <br />Mr. Althen moved, seconded by Mr. Althen, to grant Brittney Trapp of 4097 Shelley Drive <br />a variance for a 65-foot section of fence installed along rear property line; applicant shows <br />fencing along a property line where neiglnbor's fencang already exists, code does not permit, <br />Section 1369.03(a)(3), which failed 2-1; Mrs. Sabo voted no. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />Kvle & Julia McKee; 28641 Jenkins Road <br />Proposal consists of fence installation. Request consists of a variance for a 98-foot section of <br />fence to be installed along the rear property line; applicant shows fencing along a property line <br />where neighbor's fencing already exists, code does not permit, Section 1369.03(a)(3). <br />Mr. and Mrs. McKee the owners and neighbors Mr. and Mrs. Poorman were sworn in. Mr. <br />McKee said the Poormans have a 3 foot split rail fence which has a metal chicken wire attached. <br />He and his wife own two dogs and the Poormans have a golden retriever. One of his dogs <br />jumped the low fence and entered the Poormans' yard. Although everyone was fine it is his <br />responsibility to ensure it doesn't happen again. They received an estimate to erect a 6 foot <br />fence and approached the Poormans and offered to cover the costs to remove the section of fence <br />which needed to be removed. The Poormans stated they would not allow their section of fence <br />to be removed nor were they open to any fence options. Although he knows the neighbor was <br />distressed he threatened to shoot his dog if it got in his yard again. He and his wife are very <br />uncomfortable and with a child on the way the safety of their pets and their child is a priority. <br />Mrs. McKee said not only are they concerned for the safety of their dog and child but the <br />existing condition of the split rail fence with stapled chicken wire is a safety concern. <br />Mr. Poorman submitted photos which show the fence from his property. He's lived in his home <br />for 26 years and his neighbor installed the same style fence connecting it to his fence and there <br />are no other fences along Jenkins Road. The style of fence he installed restrains his dog and <br />does not impede any views. His backyard has been heavily landscaped and he does not want a <br />six foot fence installed which will impede the natural view of the woods. He believes the issue is <br />Mr. McKee's ill mannered dog which could be controlled by installing an electric fence or <br />chainlink fence. There is no reason to install a six foot wooden fence which will bloclc his view. <br />A board on board fence would not fit the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Poorman also <br />submitted a hand written note from another neighbor stating they objected to the fence. <br />Mr. Mitchell said his packet included permits which had been pulled for both properties. He <br />noted that there was a small section of split rail fence which is on the applicant's property and <br />could be removed by the owner. Mr. McKee said all existing fencing on his property would be <br />removed and replace with a board on board 6 foot high fence. Mrs. Sabo asked how far off the <br />split rail fence would the new section of fence be placed. Mr. McKee said he would place the <br />fence to the board's preference. Mrs. McKee said different styles of fence were looked at before <br />choosing a board on board. An electric fence is not feasible with children and a chainlink fence <br />is unsightly and rusts. Mr. Mitchell said that there is no current survey for the property in