Laserfiche WebLink
the split rail fence but it complaint was tiled and the inspector found that the one mesh was <br />installed aficr Ite inspected the split rail fence. Mr. Gareau pointed out that the variance request is <br />under Section 1311.02 of the Building Code. not the /oning Code, so the standard of rcvie�, is <br />different. Mr. Allain confirmed thin the Boards decision would not he it permanent modification <br />to the code or it precedent for fultue proposals. <br />Mr. Bokisa provided I I photos of the fence to the Board. I Ie said the proposed fence is considered <br />to he -field fencing" which is not permitted in the code and thought it was installed contrarN to the <br />good neighhor police since the listeners were not installed on the applicants side of the fence. <br />I he fasteners arc already starting rust, which he bclicced ws as also contrato the code. hhc wire <br />mesh is taller than the split rail fence in some areas. He was concerned about kids in the <br />neighborhood trying to jump the fence and getting caught bemeen the split rail and hire mesh <br />Icncing. M.S. Bokisa added that the safety issue is their biggest concern but thought the fence is <br />uneighih. She thought wood or plastic products could he installed instead of the wire mesh. <br />Mr. laing did not think the tcncine is considered field fencing. Ile installed the mesh on the other <br />side of the split rail fence because it would be easier to maintain, bill he could more it to his side <br />of the fence with stainless steel staples. He added that the ncarhp soccer field at Porter and Center <br />Ridge has similar fencing and he was unaware of any safelti issues. Ile thought the split rail fence <br />would look better than picket or chain link fencing. Mr. Papotto asked it there was a fence between <br />the propetlies before, Mr. I.aiin, said there was not. The invisible fence usually works but Ilie re <br />hate been it couple instances over the Nears where that was not suflicient. I Ie was unaware that <br />the ttiire inesh was not pctin itted. but he intended to instal I it all along though it as not shown on <br />the pemrit application. Ms. See IeN said the twice tope is not perm itied according to the code. The <br />split rail fence was approved, but he aslo would have been able to install a chain Zink or picket <br />fence as Tong as it was under 30 inches tall. Mr. Allain confirmed that it does not matter what side <br />the mesh was installed on sincedte afire mesh is not permitted at all. Mr. Allain asked the neighbors <br />it they uwuld be okay with mesh being installed on the other side of tltc fence. Mr. Bokisa said it <br />would be Tess objectionable especial1% it mesh was connected to the horizontal sections of the <br />fencing to close the gaps. Mr. Bokisa said it looks as it there are two separate fences installed a <br />couple inches apart. Ms. Bokisa would still be opposed. The neighbors foster children who do not <br />ahcays listen and may be tempted to get toes that go in the neighbor's pard by jumping over the <br />fence. She would also be concerned about chain link material being a hazard if the wire mesh was <br />replaced with that. Mr. Mackey thought there is an issue with the dogs at both properties becoming <br />aggressive at Times. Ile also thought the applicant installed an aestheticalk pleasing fence that is <br />not able to keep the dogs apart. Ile asked if tire invisibleIcncing could be changed to keep the dogs <br />farther apart. Ms. Bokisa said they have tried to make changes to keep the dogs apart and change <br />the batteries more frequently than required. the applicants' dogs have jumped over the hack yard <br />fence and there were nu issues. Mr. Macke, asked if either property owner owns danuerous breeds, <br />they both own Labrador Rctrieoers than behave well with people. Ms. Bokisa did not think the <br />dogs were the issue before the Board, but whether or not the fence should he permitted Mr. Rahm <br />asked if the split rail fence deters the dogs Irom crossing the boundary. Mr. Laing said he would <br />install a chain link knee if the mesh is not approved but rwuld be willing to move the mesh to the <br />other side (it the split rail fence Mr. (iarcau said the motion could he conditioned upon the mesh <br />being installed in a certain manner. Mr. Papotto asked it chain link htbric would he permitted <br />to be added to the emsling split mil fencing instead otthe wire mesh. Ms. Sedley and Mr. (iarcau <br />