5/1/2023 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

street and it would place the new fence 5-7ft in the front. The garage and house are on two separate lots and the fence would be on the side lot. Ms. Seeley explained that the inspector went out to verify if a variance was needed. It was discovered they did need one; however, they are set back about 100 feet and the fence would not be seen from the front, and the building department was not opposed. Mr. Rahm moved; seconded by Mr. Kovach; to approve 23-24067; Thomas & Christina May - 5573 Whitehaven Avenue. Board members entered into their discussion. Ms. Patton saw the request as reasonable. All other members agreed with Ms. Patton. Motion Passed: 5-0 23-24083; Steven & Cassandra Rumes-6645 Chadbourne Drive Proposal of vinyl privacy fence. Property is zoned B -One Family Residence. The following variance is requested: 1. A 14 in. variance to the minimum separation between fences on a common property line; code requires 24 in., applicant provides 10 in., Section 1369.03(D) Representatives: Cassandra Rumes 6645 Chadbourne, William Turvey 6631 Chadbourne, Ruth Letwin 6162 Fitz Road, Lisa Pfeifer 25816 Kennedy Ridge. Director Upton stated to the board that he had seen the lot and the proposed fence variance. He explained that it wasn't an unreasonable request and that the board has looked favorable on these variance requests in the past. He said that his department was not opposed and that he hoped the board would look favorably that evening. Ms. Rumes explained the need for the variance request, expressing that they wanted to secure their yard. They wanted to prevent their dog from getting out of the yard and other people from entering. Mr. Turvey expressed opposition to this request, due to a history of conflict with the neighbor, as well as the issue with the small gap in between the two privacy fences. He expressed his concern that he would not be able to maintain his property, or that side of the fence, and it was not aesthetic and was able to be seen from the street. Ms. Letwin offered her opposition to the board and staff, which included questions regarding inspections, permit request, and the history of conflict. Mr. Rahm asked staff if there was a permit pulled for the fence. Ms. Seeley replied that they applied for one for the gate to contain their dog, but the neighbor did not approve, they then decided to apply for the variance for the fence. Mr. Papotto reiterated that they were only going to look at the variance request. Mr. Papotto asked about the foundations, and Ms. Seeley explained that the inspectors stated as long as they were installed per manufacturer instruction, they would be allowed. Ms. Patton asked if they tried to use the existing fence and if it wasn't a viable option. Ms. Rumes said yes. Mr. Papotto explained to what Ms. Patton asked was that the gate post that was put in went over the property line and was reported by the neighbor. Ms. Rumes offered more detailed explanation of the installation of the gate and that the neighbor reported it, they took it down and opted to apply for the variance instead. Mr. Mackey questioned