7/20/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Board of Adjustment and Appeals upheld the appeal of Mr. Struxness and referred the matter to the Planning and Zoning Commission for resolution. In compliance with the Board of Adjustment and Appeal's decision, Mr. Boisjolie submitted a minor site plan application requesting approval of the existing six foot side yard fence and also requesting approval of an additional 66 feet of side yard fence to be constructed at six feet. A letter to the Community Development Division from the Forest Park II Property Owners Association recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Boisjolie minor site plan request for approval of a six foot side yard fence. At its regular meeting on June 9, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Boisjolie minor site plan request. By a 4-1 vote, the Commission approved Mr. Boisjolie's request to retain the existing six foot side yard fence, but it denied his request to construct an additional 66 feet of side yard -fence at a six foot height. The Planning and Zoning Commission required that this additional section of fence not exceed the five foot side yard height limitation specified in Section.25(i) of the Zoning Code. In approving the existing six foot side yard fence, the Commission cited visual compatibility, the legal ramifications of estoppel, the administrative error of the Zoning Department, and the execution of an easement preservation ,agreement as reasons for approval. On June 13, 1983, the Forest Park II -Property Owners Association submitted an appeal of the June 9, 1983, decision of the .Planning and Zoning Commission approving Mr. Boisjolie's request for approval of an existing six foot side yard fence. The basis of this appeal is the property owners' contention that the fence is unattractive and visually incompatible with the rest of the community. It is the position of the Property Owners Association that, since the residents of the community have found the fence to be visually incompatible, the Planning and Zoning Commission should not have approved Mr. Boisjolie's after -the -fact request for construction of a six foot side yard fence. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS As required by Section 25(i) of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission established that the fence was visually compatible with the community. Other considerations involved. with approving the Boisjolie fence request included the administrative error involved with the issuance of the original permit and the possibility that the County would be estopped from enforcing any order to reduce the height of the fence. Besides approving Mr. Boisjolie's request for the six foot side yard fence, the only other alternative available to the Planning and Zoning Commission was to deny the request. Even if the Commission had taken that action and required Mr. Boisjolie to remove the six foot fence erected in accordance with an incorrectly issued permit, Mr. Boisjolie would have been permitted, by right, to erect a five foot fence, Iconstructed with any material other than barb wire, in his side yard. Since the effect of denying the request would have been to require Mr. Boisjolie to reduce the height of his.side yard fence by only one foot and because the Commission determined that such action would not grant the property owners the relief that they wanted, the Commission approved the fence request. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the appeal and uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the Boisjolie minor site plan request. W JUL 2 0 193 6001( 4 PAGE M