3/2/2020 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

exclude other from intruding into their property. When heading south on Dorothy Drive, a driver is able to see into his dining room and the fence would help prevent that. Ms. Lieber reviewed minutes from a previously denied request. In 2006, the BZA denied a variance request made by the then -owner for a six-foot vinyl privacy fence in the same location on this property. At the time, the Board found the variance request to be substantial and impactful to neighborhood character. The Board found that there were other fencing options available to the owner which would meet code or come closer to meeting the spirit of the code. The request is substantial as virtually no setback is proposed from the right-of-way. There is the possibility of creating vision obstacles from the neighbor's driveway, which is about 40 feet away. She pointed out the zoning code amendment to Chapter 1135 within the last few years that reduced the setback requirements for corner fences from 50 to 20 feet. She did not think there are circumstances particular to this lot that would prevent the owner from meeting or at least come much closer to meeting the zoning code requirements. Mr. Mackey asked if the neighbor whose driveway would abut the fence was considered when creating the proposal. Mr. Sherman said his neighbor did not have any concerns about the fence location or visibility from his driveway. Mr. Mackey asked if the neighborhood character would be affected if the fence is installed so close to the sidewalk, Mr. Sherman thought the fence would enhance the neighborhood because he removed the dead arborvitae trees. Mr. Mackey asked if the applicant would be willing to move the fence back to get closer to the required setback. Mr. Sherman spent a lot of time and money installing vegetable gardens in the yard but would consider moving it in a couple of feet. Mr. Sherman did not think there would not be a beneficial use to the property outside of the fence if the setback is met. Mr. Allain restated that City Council reduced the required setback a couple years ago. Mr. Sherman was also concerned about the safety of his family since there are a couple sex offenders in the area. Mr. Gareau advised the Board not to take into account the attractive nuisance comments since homeowners have other options to meet those obligations. Mr. Papotto confirmed one variance is needed since the applicant listed three. Ms. Lieber reminded the board that a policy was created to use the height and opacity variances for fences proposed in front yards and setback variances for fences requested in the side and rear yards. Mr. Allain pointed out that the other cases presented should not be considered since each case is reviewed independently. Mr. Allain thought the water feature issue could be resolved in a different way. He did not think the hardship was met and granting the variance would go against the work City Council did to address the issue. Mr. Papotto agreed and thought the owner should have looked into fence requirements prior to doing all of the improvements. Mr. Mackey thought that landscaping, drapery or other means could be used to protect their privacy. He was not in favor of granting the variance because it would reduce the visibility from the neighbor's driveway and pedestrians. Ms. Patton added that privacy in backyards is valued but she thought the variance is substantial. Mr. Rahm understood the homeowner's position but thought the location was too close to the sidewalk. Mr. Papotto moved, seconded by Mr. Mackey, to approve the following variance for 20- 15875; David Sherman; 27904 Southern Avenue: