9/21/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r � � Mrs. O'Connell continued that when they filed for a variance, they were not made aware that there was any problem with the location of the fence. She then presented pictures to verify that their fence is not an eyesore; that it does conform to the surroundings; and that it does not restrict visibility and cause traffic problems. Mrs. O'Connell also submitted pictures of seven other fences in the neighborhood which were constructed after the new zoning law went into effect and noted that within the last two months a fence about 200' long has been constructed along 2nd Street She stressed that their appeal is based on the fact that the Zoning Department has given other people in the same neighborhood variances for their fences. Jerry O'Connell explained that he had his wife make the presentation because he found it difficult to remain calm about this situation. He emphasized that it would be a great inconvenience to dig up his yard and move the sprinkler system in order to move the fence, and he felt a mountain is being made out of a molehill. Planning Manager Keating emphasized the fact that the original permit was just for a rear yard fence, and also noted that, according to code, all parts of a corner lot which abut the street are considered front yards where a fence may be only 3' in height. He continued that when the complaint was filed, he had the Zoning Inspectors look at the situation, and then they initiated Code Enforcement Board action. Mr. Keating continued that he has currently instructed the Zoning Inspectors to look at the other fences in this area to determine whether or not they are in violation also. He noted that on October 12th, the Board will be hearing a request to amend the Fence Ordinance to allow 42" front yard fences, but it does not change the requirement for corner lots. 93 SEP 21 1983 eon5A�Ac�s J