Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />° Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. Mr. ' <br />Ken Miller came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned if there were <br />any neighbors in attendance. Mr. Miller indicated he discussed the fence with the <br />neighbors previous to buying the fence and none of them were against the proposal. Mr. <br />Engoglia indicated he received a letter from a neighbor wfio has no objection to the <br />proposal. Mr. Puzzitiello questioned how the fence would be put up. Mr. Miller <br />indicated his initial proposal was to put the fence on the edge of the easement leaving the <br />easement open. Mr. 1Vliller indicated the ordinance does not say anything about <br />easements and fences. Mr. Puzzitiello indicated that at one time you could not put a <br />fence in an easement. Mr. Engoglia indicated that the Board could not allow fences to be <br />erected in the easement, but a fence can be erected near an easement. W. Engoglia <br />indicated that there is no problem. Mr. Engoglia questioned that Mr. Miller would be <br />placing the fence 5 feet off the property line, so there is still 10 feet between the two <br />fences. W. Miller indicated that is correct. Mr. Engoglia questioned that the neighbors' <br />to the south of W. Miller fence would be taken down, so it would not be one fence <br />against the other. Mr. Miller indicated the builder would tie the fences with a 2-foot <br />section that would be missing, and the neighbor had agreed to this. He indicated that <br />there are a number of volunteers willing to help take down the fence, so all they are <br />waiting for is the approval. No further comments were made. <br />P. Engoglia motioned to approve Ken and Dar Miller of 6475 Surrey Dr. <br />their proposal, which consists of erecting more than one fence on a property line and that <br />the following variance is granted: to erect a fence at or along the east, 70 feet, and south, <br />83 feet, property lines when one already exists on the neighboring property. (Code <br />prohibits this installation) section 1369.03 (a)(3). The motion was seconded by R. <br />Puzzitiello and unanimously approved. Variance Granted. <br />3. Marc Adams: 5161 Andrus Ave. <br />The proposal consists of dual fences on the same property line. <br />The following variance is requested: A 40-foot variance of fencing beginning at northeast <br />property line junction and proceeding south 40 feet. The code permits only one fence on <br />a property line. (Code prohibits, applicants request, section 1369.03(a)(3). <br />NOTE: Other fences that are existing will be removed prior to erecting new fences. <br />Chairman Puzzitiello called all interested parties forward to review the proposal. <br />Marc Adams came forward to review the proposal. Mr. Adams indicated that since the <br />one neighbor directly behind his property erected a chain link fence, he would have to <br />move forward two feet. He indicated he would like a 6-foot high board on board fence. <br />Mr. Adams indicated he would put wash gravel to allow drainage. Mr. Puzzitiello <br />questioned if there was an easement to the rear of the property. Mr. Klesta replied no. <br />No further comments were made. <br />P. Engoglia motioned to approve Marc Adams; 5161 Andrus Ave. his proposal, which <br />consists of dual fences on the same property line and that the following variance be <br />granted: A 40-foot variance of fencing beginning at northeast properiy line junction and <br />proceeding south 40 feet. The code permits only one fence on a property line. (Code