PC 121201 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Harvey advised that he also visited the site and also looked at other r- neighborhoods. He noted that in the Groshans' neighborhood there are a lot of visible fences, and, therefore, he is less concerned about the visual impact of moving the fence, but he is having difficulty with the issue of setting a precedent because it is in a front yard. He noted that technically all of the houses that had very visible fences are either corner lots with side yard fences close to the street, or in the case of the lots across the street, side yard fences. Commissioner Arkin stated that he visited the site and he cannot really make up his mind regarding this issue. He advised that he understands both sides and was relying on the Planning Commission's dialogue and debate on the issue to help him make a decision. Chairperson Maas advised that she visited the site today. She noted that she empathizes with the applicants. She stated that in order for a variance to be granted, findings must be made that a hardship would exist if a variance were not granted, and she has not seen evidence that a hardship exists. She also stated that granting a variance cannot constitute a granting of a special privilege. She advised that she is having difficulty with this because this is the front fence, not a side yard fence. She noted that because of these requirements, she would agree with staffs recommendation. Commissioner Arkin advised that he would support allowing the Groshans to extend the portion of the fence that has the 14-foot setback, easterly toward the house in order to create usable yard area. r Commissioner Kameny moved to make the variance findings and approve Case PV-54, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B," which approves the fence in its present location, and not the reconfiguration proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Harvey made a substitute motion to amend Commissioner Kameny's motion to allow the applicant to modify the existing configuration of the fence while maintaining the 14- foot setback to increase the usable yard area as suggested by Commissioner Arkin. Commissioner Kameny advised that he would not accept the substitute motion as he is concerned about setting a precedent. Commissioner Kameny moved to make the variance findings and approve Case PV-54, subject to the conditions in Exhibit "B," which approves the fence in its present location, and not the reconfiguration proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Maas seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Arkin, Harvey, Kameny, and Maas None Commissioner Sullivan Commissioner Roberts r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 12, 2001 Page 4