Laserfiche WebLink
ti <br />homes across the street. NIr. Merrill indicated that he and the neighbor, who was infringed upon, <br />put up the fence together. They both cut down the trees that blocked the entire area where the <br />fence is to improve the property. The front yard is small and he is concerned about the safety of <br />his children. His home is on the corner and it is difficult for cars to see children as they make the <br />turn. The extended fence is not a large area but it is fenced in and can keep them safe. Mr. <br />Gomersall indicated that he did not see why the applicant could not conform to the Boards request. <br />Mr. Maloney questioned what the distance from back of the house to the property line measured. <br />Mr. Merrill believed that there were three 8 foot fence sections so there is about 16 feet between <br />the back of the house and the back property line. Mr. Gomersall inquired as to when the fence was <br />erected. - Mr. Merrill replied 1 year ago on July 4. Mr. Gomersall commented that at that time a <br />variance was applied for and questioned why Mr. Merrill violated the variance. Mr. Merrill <br />remarked because the fence was already up and he was sited as he did not know that the fence was <br />out of code until then. Mr. Koberna questioned how long Mr. Merrill lived in the house. Mr. <br />Merrill replied that he had lived in his home for 7 years. Mr. Koberna reviewed that on July 6, <br />1994, a variance was granted for a 4 foot high fence. Mr. Merrill remarked that the variance that <br />had been granted at that time was not granted to him, but to his ex-wife. Mr. Koberna questioned <br />if Mr. Merrill had applied for the variance in 1994. Mr. Merrill indicated that he had not applied <br />for a variance in 1994 as that was the time he was going through his divorce. He did not know <br />what the outcome of the request was or what the stipulations were. Mr. Koberna questioned if <br />NIr. Merrill had already erected the fence before September 10, 1998 and if that is when he was <br />sited for not being in compliance. Mr. Merrill indicated that Mr. Koberna was correct. Mr. <br />Koberna replied that at the September 10, 1998, meeting Mr. Merrill was informed that the board <br />would only allow a 4-foot high fence and the fence was 6 foot at that time. Mr. Merrill indicated <br />that he was unable to attend the last meeting. Mr. Gomersall indicated that if Mr. Merrill knew he <br />was unable to attend the meeting he could have asked to have his request brought back. Mr. <br />Merrill commented that he asked to be allowed to bring it back to the Board but was denied the <br />opportunity to bring it back. . He fi.zrther commented that the City had already taken him to court <br />over the fence and he has had to pay fines as well. The only reason he continues to pursue this <br />issue is because he feels that it is appreciative not only for his property but the surroundin? <br />properties as well. It gives his children a safe place to play, it is not excessive, and it is done in <br />good taste. Mr. Koberna commented that Mr. Merrill has many signatures from his neighbors <br />stating that they do not mind the fence. Mr. Koberna indicated he was not aware that Mr. Merrill <br />did not reside in the home when the variance was requested in 1994. Mr. Gomersall inquired if <br />Mr. Merrill was indicating that he was not aware that a variance was denied when the fence was <br />put in place. Mr. Merrill commented "no" the fence was already in violation when he was sited. <br />He was just replacing the fence that was up when he purchased the home only he extended it out a <br />little further and he did not do it to break any laws. He just wanted more play area for his children. <br />Mr. Gareau commented that this request was not a normal progress of a case, the Law Department <br />had to take the applicant to the Rocky River Municipal Court as he refused to comply. There is a <br />bit of a cal-sapience here, it's not as you can basically say that it is a rather innocent thing and there <br />is not a whole lot to it. It is very drastic, if you were to ask people in the building department how <br />many times the City has to go to the Rocky River Municipal Court and site someone, it is not <br />often. There is an order by that court to either comply or remove, and the request is again before <br />this Board for the same issue. Mr. Merrill commented that the City prosecutor allowed the last <br />variance for a 4 foot fence to expire; thereby allowing him to come back before the Board to <br />present his request himself as he was not able to do last year. He remarked that he was not sure <br />how many variances of this nature the board had been confronted with how many have been <br />approved or denied. He does know that there are several properties within the community that are <br />3