05/15/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'•? , . running into the objective of the code, which is no back to back fences are allowed. He said with the last case there is ample distance between the fences for maintenance. He said the last applicant tried to argue the code as to being along the property line. He said that if the Building Commissioner considers the code to apply and the issue is before the board, then the code applies. You could argue that the distance between the two fences and the creation of the alley is a good or bad thing, versus the aesthetics of having back to back fences. Mr. Althen said he would hate to see fences one foot apart. There is the grandfathering issue but it would be a new fence and should be brought up to code. Mr. Bir reviewed again where his large tree is located, making it impossible to bring the fence in. Mr. O'Malley asked if there is any chance the neighbor would be willing to take his fence down. Mr. Bir indicated he did not ask the neighbor but he doubts that would happen as the fence is just a few years old and he has a dog. Mr. Klesta said he would like to be able to say go ahead with it but they have the codes and ordinances for a reason. There will always be grandfather clauses but they need to always upgrade. Mr. Conway suggested that Mr. Bir approach his neighbor about removing part of his fence. Mr. Bir said he doesn't think the neighbor would go along with it because of the dog. Mr. Conway pointed out the proposed fence will protect the dog. Mr. O'Malley explained the neighbor would only have to remove one section of his fence. Mr. Klesta indicated the neighbor can set a pole at the end of his fence which is adjacent to Mr. Bir's fence. He would not be able to connect to the applicant's fence but it would actually improve the aesthetics for the neighbor. He added that the neighbor would not have to look at a chain fence. He would have a nice wood fence that the applicant is providing him. Mr. Althen mentioned that he drove by the property and that one foot is awfully close. Mr. Klesta asked the applicant if he would entertain approaching his neighbor since he is putting up that much fence anyway. Mr. Bir asked what would happen if his neighbor does not want to remove some of his fence. Mr. Conway replied that he would be back to square one again. Mr. Bir again mentioned that his neighbor was in favor of the fence for privacy. Mr. Klesta said he can understand that but what if the neighbor moves next year. The access to that area now is only 18 inches and is based on the neighbor's agreement too. The board has to try to uphold the ordinance concerning double fencing and has been willing to work with residents in terms of egress but in this circumstance, the 18 inch egress is not sufficient for maintenance of a board on board fence. Mr. Conway told Mr. Bir the board wants to work with him but they would appreciate it if he talks with his neighbor about removing a portion of his fence. W. Bir said he doesn't have a problem asking the neighbor but if he says no then, he wonders where he stands. Vice Chairman Klesta said the proposal will be tabled until the next meeting or until the applicant can provide the Building Department with written confirmation that the neighbor will remove his portion of fence, thereby eliminating the need for a variance. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the confirmation would have to include the removal date and the date the new fence would go up. IV. COMMUNICATIONS: V. COMIVIITTEE REPORTS: VI. NEW BUSINESS: VII. OLD BUSINESS: VIII. ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chairman Klesta adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. ? Klesta, Vice Chairman Date Annie Kilbane, Assistant Clerk of Commissions 5