Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />"dog run." Mr. Wolf indicated it was not a"dog run", but a corridor. Mr. Klesta <br />indicated that in the ordinance it says no double fence. Mr. Wolf indicated that it also <br />states "except for such things as..." Mr. Wolf questioned if that meant only to fence a <br />garden or pool. Mr. Wolf questioned why the ordinance states only a garden or a pool. <br />Mr. Klesta indicated that he would not like to look at this corridor. Mrs. Wolf indicated <br />it would be enclosed by shrubbery. Mr. Wolf questioned if the Board was looking at <br />aesthetics, and if the Board were, he would like it noted in the minutes. Mr. Klesta <br />indicated he is looking at the fence as how Mr. Wolf s neighbors would see it and <br />obviously they have a problem with it or they would not have sent the letter. Mr. Wolf <br />questioned if the neighbors were in attendance. Mr. Engoglia indicated the neighbors <br />sent the letter in their absence. Mr. Engoglia indicated he did not want to argue the <br />issue of why the neighbors could not be in attendance. Mr. Wolf questioned if he could <br />receive a copy of the Parry's letter. The Clerk indicated she would send him a copy. <br />Mr. Engoglia indicated that the letter is public knowledge and that the Board has nothing <br />to hide and wants to do what is right without giving Mr. Wolf a hard time. Mr. Wolf <br />indicated that he does not want to go court, but he would. Mr. Engoglia indicated that <br />the Board does not want to see that happen, but it is Mr. Wolf s privilege. Mr. Wolf <br />indicated that he has worked on this proposal for ten weeks. Mr. Engoglia questioned <br />why can't there be a small corridor and widen out at the garage. Mr. Wolf indicated that <br />he does not want to do that. Mrs. Wolf came forward for reiteration on what the Board <br />was proposing. Mr. Engoglia suggested parking the motor home against the back of the <br />house then take the fence and put it up at 20 foot from the house,. along the driveway to <br />the garage. At this point there was clarification on that alternative. Mr. Wolf indicated <br />that you could not pull past the garage. Mr. Wolf indicated that he has to either <br />compromise or take it to court. He indicated that a lawyer from Council indicated that <br />the Board of Building Code of Appeals could not stop this proposal, so he is willing to <br />go to court. Mrs. Wolf asked for time to discuss the proposal in private. The applicants <br />came back into chambers and reviewed the alternative with the Board. Mr. Wolf <br />questioned if the 50 inches would still be ok along the 20-foot area of the motor home. <br />Mr. Engoglia replied "yes." Mr. Wolf indicated he wanted it noted that he was not <br />happy with this alternative, but he would go with it. <br />P. Engoglia motioned to accept the proposal of Steve and Mary Wolf; 27132 Butternut <br />Ridge Rd. their proposal, which consists of erecting interior fencing and the following <br />variance is requested: to erect 111-foot fence on interior of property in addition to fencing <br />at or along the perimeter of lot. Interior fence does not enclose a pool or a garden (code <br />prohibits this installation) section 1369.01(a) as amended and with the approval of the <br />Building Department. See attached copy of plans discussed. The motion was seconded <br />by D. Spoerke and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. <br />2. Ken and Dar Miller; 6475 Surrev Dr. <br />The proposal consists of erecting more than one fence on a property line. <br />Request for variance to erect a fence at or along the east, 70 feet, and south, 83 feet, <br />property lines when one already exists on the neighboring property. (Code prohibits this <br />installation) section 1369.03 (a)(3).