Laserfiche WebLink
_ S E P 211983 e4- roc, 70 <br />Question arose as to why this.is before the County <br />Commission rather than the Code Enforcement Board, and Mr. <br />Keating noted that walls and fences are treated differently <br />than other parts of the Ordinance. <br />Discussion followed on the fact that this is an unusual <br />situation because of the corner lot. Commissioner Scurlock <br />noted that we have a situation here where obviously there <br />are many more corners and lots of a similar nature, and he <br />personally would want to look into the situation and see <br />what does make sense and then change the law accordingly <br />since he believed there will be many of these type <br />situations coming before the Commission. <br />Mr. O'Connell noted that a 3' fence would not afford <br />anyone any privacy unless he happened to be a pygmy. <br />Commissioner Lyons entered the meeting at 2:00 P.M. <br />In further discussion, it was felt the crux of the <br />matter relates to what is to be considered the front yard on <br />a corner lot. Various alternatives were suggested; i.e., <br />having the owner declare what part is to be considered his <br />front yard. <br />Mr. Keating noted that in areas of this kind where you <br />have adjacent houses that access on different streets, you <br />could create a problem by having different setbacks and <br />possibly end up with some houses too close to the road. <br />Commissioner Scurlock felt that this is a unique <br />situation, and he would like to find the proper vehicle to <br />allow the O'Connell's to keep their fence as it is and then <br />address the overall problem, but he did not want to create a <br />situation where we lock ourselves in on all similar <br />situations. <br />Attorney Brandenburg stated that the Commission would <br />be addressing the O'Connell's case in particular and would <br />not be locking themselves in on any future appeals. <br />94 <br />