Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />;- . . <br />rear neighbors have a chain linlc fence that runs approximately 32" into their property. The <br />proposed fence would be 6" inside their own property line leaving 30" between the fences to <br />allow for maintenance. <br />Ms. Cindy Busch of 6080 Burns Road indicated her property is directly behind Ms. Tanslci's. <br />She has owned dogs both large and small and feels no fence can contain a dog from jumping <br />over. The greyhound has been there off leash for some time and the dog has not left the <br />property. From drawings Mrs. Busch has seen she believes her fence is closer to 24" inside her <br />property line. She feels baclc to baclc fences are unsightly and that the variance would create a <br />negative precedence in the neighborhood. For these reasons she requests the variance be denied. <br />If approved, Ms. Bush requests certain conditions be included. Since the measurements <br />subinitted are all estimates and there are no existing property pins from which to measure, she <br />requests a property line survey be performed. Ms. Bush also requests uncompleted projects be <br />finished before this new projects begins, that a professional fencing company perform the <br />installation, that fencing be installed all the way around the rear yard, that they not be required to <br />tie their fence into the new fence, and that a project completion date be established. <br />Ms. Mary Annandono of 6094 Burns Road said she lives next to Ms. Busch, next to and behind <br />Ms. Tanslci. If pernzitted, the variance could lead to the same situation with the neighbor directly <br />behind her on Porter. She is therefore against it. <br />Mr. Mitchell reviewed that the concern is maintenance issues with baclc to back fences. If <br />permitted, the fences would need to be tied in together, which would require another variance to <br />move the chain linlc fence. He confirmed that all property line dimensions and the measurements <br />based off of thein are estimates since no reliable staking was found and no survey was <br />performed. A professional survey would be needed to confirm property lines and measurements. <br />For maintenance and accessibility a second gate on the rear property line would be needed. <br />Mrs. Sabo moved, seconded by Mr. Meder, to table Amy Tanski of 6075 Porter Road <br />request pending the submittal of a property line survey performed by a professional <br />surveyor or engineer, an exact plan on where the proposed fence and access gate will be <br />installed with dimensions based on the survey, and additional dimensions including the <br />north side of the house to the proposed side fence location and the rear of the garage to the <br />p?•operty line. The motion was approved, 3-0. <br />Mrs. Sabo rnoved, seconded by Mr. Meder, to excuse the absence of Mr. Lipcsey and Mr. <br />Jarachovic, which as unanimously approved 3-0. <br />AD RNMEI?IT <br />Wi h no urther business the meeting was adjourned at 6:07 pm. <br />Doruza Sabo, Cha'r ricia Granfors, Planning Sec tary <br />Approved: <br />3