08/12/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

chainlinlc fence. Ms. Tanslci said her yard still needs to be closed in to ensure her son and dog are safe. Her dog has killed two neighborhood cats so it would not be safe for him to get out and he has gotten caught between the openings of the fences and was cut. She questioned if the vinyl fencing just attached to the chainlink could withstand a heavy wind storm and said she is concerned for safety reasons because if the panel falls it will fall into her yard. Ms. Tanslci submitted two photos showing the board the opening between the fences and the baclcyard area. Mr. Mitchell read the section of the code pertaining to the fence issue. He does not object to the request if the gate is installed so the applicant can maintain the 2-foot section between the fences. To address the vinyl section of fencing it is allowed by code to attach the fence to the existing chainlinlc fence. Therefore he has no objections to the modification to the fence as long as the stipulation is in place that the applicant must have a gate so the open area can be maintained. Mrs. Sabo aslced who owned the open area behind the proposed fence which starts out 8 inches and heading north it widens to 2 feet. Mr. Meder suggested just connecting the fences if the applicant owned the space. Mr. Mitchell said the survey shows that the 6080 Burns and 6066 Bums properties do not have their fence installed parallel to their property lines. Ms. Bush said she spoke to Mr. Peltz who authorized her permit and asked him if it would be appropriate to move her fence to the end of her property line considering that her fence runs parallel with all the other fences and meets at all the control joints. She said she would not object to Ms. Tanski attaching to her fence so there is one continuous fence. Mr. Mitchell said that the applicant can not attached to any existing fences due to the fact that the pie shape area is not her property. Mr. Meder aslced Ms. Bush if she would be continuing the modification along the rest of her fence. Ms. Bush said the entire 66 foot length of the baclc of her fence will be covered with vinyl. Mr. Meder said so there is chainlink, modified chainlink and a request to install a vinyl fence. Ms. Tanski said the basket weave fence will be removed and the vinyl fence installed to the corner of her property then turn south along the rear property line she will install the gate so she can maintain the area as agreed. However she will install landscaping fabric and gravel to lceep the weeds out. Mr. Meder aslced if all the proposed fencing is to be on her property line and she said yes. Mrs. Sabo aslced if the fence would need to be installed 6 inches inward on Ms. Tanslci's property to ensure her fence is not on any neighbor's property. Mr. Mitchell said the posts are installed 6 inches inward and the face of the fence can not be over the property line. Discussion ensued pertaining to Ms. Tanslci maintaining the open area that would be between the fences although it is not her property by installing gravel which Ms. Bush said she would not allow on her property. Mr. Meder asked what Mr. Mitchell's recommendation was for the placement of the applicant's fence. Mr. Mitchell said he would lilce to see the fence 2 feet inward on the applicant's property with a gate so the open area can be mowed with a lawnmower. Ms. Tanski said there is no fence behind the garage so access can be gained from the baclc of the garage. Mr. Mitchell said he would recommend the rear gate be eliminated and the fence moved inward a minimum of 2 feet off the property line leaving a 4 foot section open which the applicant can access from behind the garage to mow and maintain the open area. Board members requested clarification from the building official pertaining to the placement of the fence and area between the fences. 2