Laserfiche WebLink
design stops the animals from pushing the fence down and keeps them contained. Mr. <br />Engoglia informed the applicant that the ordinance code reads that the posts must be <br />put on the inside of the fence. The applicant informed the Board that if the posts were <br />on the inside the animals would eat them and easily knock them down. Building <br />Coinmissioner Conway said that the Board should consider what the fence fabric is <br />made of? He asked the applicant if it would be more aesthetically pleasing if the posts <br />were put on the other side. He also told the applicant that there are standards developed <br />for residential fences that must be followed. Mr. Engoglia said the proper rail top is not <br />appropriate. <br />Mr. Engoglia said the fence could be in accordance with code if they took the <br />2 x 4"s off and put the metal tubing top that goes with a chain linlc fence; he would <br />have no objection to approval. Mr. Althen agreed. The applicant said he would do <br />whatever the Board is requesting of him. <br />Mr. O'Malley then informed the Board that this proposal is presented with three <br />different variances. They are as follows: <br />1) 4" x 4' wood posts for a chain linlc fence, which is in violation of Ord. <br />(1369.05 (A4)). <br />2) No top rail on a chairi link fence, which is in violation of Ord. ' <br />(1369.05 (A3)). , <br />3) Posts installed are facing neighbor's property, which is in violation of <br />Ord. (1369.03 (Al)). <br />Mr. O'Malley then reviewed the variances with the Board and understood them to read <br />as follows that #1 and 43 variances are being approved. However, 42 is not willing to <br />be granted. If the applicant is willing to withdraw the'#2 variance and comply with <br />code, then #1 and #3 would be a proper motion. The'42 variance would either need to <br />be denied or withdrawn by the applicant. <br />Mr. Engoglia motion to approve variances, #1 and #3 as written and deny #2. If #2 is <br />desired, metal rails will need to be put i in. . Mr. Conway seconded which was <br />unanimously approved. I Further discussion and debate regarding the motion took place. A neighbor, Mr. Elias <br />who lives on Linwood Circle came forward and asked the 'Board 'if they are allowing <br />the 4 x 4 posts to be on the'outside of the fence? Mr. Conway said this is in violation <br />of the code. He said posts have to be installed on inside of the fencing and they have <br />to be metal. The applicant asked if he could put a privacy fence up on the outside of <br />the chain linlc so that it is not yisible to the neighbor. , The Board said that would be <br />acceptable, however, two different types of fences together is not. It can either be <br />chain linlc or privacy but not a combination of both. <br />I I <br />Mr. O'Malley said that a motion to approYe.#1 and #4 made previously was seconded <br />and must now be concluded or withdrawn. Mr. Engoglia told the applicant if he would <br />coinply with the regular chain linlc fence, he would have no objection to the 4 x 4 posts.