10/07/2024 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

:X A third member had no further comments but agreed with the previous statements. The chair mentioned that given the size of the house and the lot, there was not much available space for the patio. Motion Passed: 4-0 129-2024; Alan & Pauline Applegate; 5651 Columbia Rd. Representatives: Pauline and Alan. Applegate; 5651 Columbia Rd. Dustin Siebert in Columbia Station. A project was proposed for a new fence with two variance requests. The first variance was for an 18 -inch increase in the height of a front yard fence, with the applicant requesting a 48 -inch height, though the proposed fence was 40 inches. The code allows a fence in the front yard to be no taller than 30 inches. The second variance request was for approval to add black -coated wire mesh to a split rail fence, which the code does not typically permit. The applicant explained that the property spanned about three acres, with a portion of the land at the front of the house. The intention was to enclose the front yard, including areas with tennis courts, to prevent children or pets from accessing the cliffside. The location of the fence would be far from the street, shielded by trees and mounds, and behind the neighbor's house. A neighbor expressed support for the project, and the building department had no further comments. The board discussed the unique nature of the lot, with one member noting that the zoning code was designed for typical lots, and this property had a different configuration. The board considered whether the request would contradict the spirit of the zoning code but noted that the front yard fence would not be visible from the street. Regarding the wire mesh, the applicant explained it was necessary to secure the split rail fence, which was historically used on the property when it was a horse farm. The mesh would prevent pets, especially dogs, from escaping through the gaps in the fence, and the black -coated wire was chosen for its aesthetic compatibility with the properly. The applicant emphasized that the fence would be placed far from public view, ensuring minimal visual impact. After further questions, the board confirmed that the proposal would feature uniform split rail fencing with wire mesh around the entire perimeter of the property. The applicant reiterated that the intent was practical, ensuring safety for children and pets. Mr. Kovach motioned to approve 129-2024; Alan & Pauline Applegate; 5651 Columbia Rd.; seconded by Ms. Patton. There was discussion regarding the variance request for the fence. One member emphasized the uniqueness of the property, noting that the house was set far back from the street and the fence would be behind the neighbor's house. The member agreed that alternative materials, like chain N