Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 1.6 1982 <br />50 .72 <br />The site plan presently indicates the placement of the 6' <br />cypress fence outside of the easements and the permission <br />to retain the fence on the north and east sides of the resident's <br />property. Excepting for 92' along the rear yard property <br />line, the fence would be in violation of the allowable <br />height limitations as specified in Section 25-I (page 1492) <br />of the Zoning Code. <br />The Ordinance further states that: <br />"Higher fences than listed above, and all barb wire <br />fences, may be authorized by the zoning commission, which <br />shall first determine that they will be visually compatible <br />in the area where they are to be located. Fences and <br />walls may not be constructed on or over dedicated public <br />drainage or utility easements or public rights-of-way <br />except in.agricultural zoned areas and then only with <br />the written consent of the public authority holding <br />the easement or right-of-way. (Ord. No. 74-21, 12-1-74; <br />Ord. No. 76-11, 6-14-76)." <br />Staff has reviewed the fence through on-site inspection and <br />has determined that the fence is visually compatible with <br />the surrounding area. <br />F <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends approval of Mr. Bartsch's fence based upon <br />its -visual compatibility in the area where it is to be located. <br />Attorney Patricia Horst came before the Board <br />representing William Bartsch. She informed the Board that a <br />portion of the subject fence was accidentally placed on part <br />of an easement, but as soon 4s'this was brought to Mr. <br />Bartsch's attention, he immediately had that part of the <br />fence taken down, and it now is lying flat on the ground; <br />there never was any intention to place anything on the <br />easement. In addition, part of this property needed <br />clearing, and when Mr. Bartsch called to determine whose <br />responsibility this was, he was mistakenly informed that <br />there was no easement and proceeded to pay $420 to have it <br />cleared. Attorney Horst emphasized that the site plan fees, <br />attorney's fees, clearing expenses, etc., all add up to a <br />substantial amount, and Mr. Bartsch has paid quite a 6enalty <br />for not having prior approval to erect his fence. Ms. Horst <br />then referred to her letter to Chairman Scurlock which cited <br />61 addresses in the area that have 6' fences, many of these <br />being on corners, and reported that she had an additional <br />