11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Pentin inquired if the seven-foot tall fence was built without a permit. Mr. Deike said yes, because it was required since he has a pool. Commissioner Blank inquired whose fence was on the far left of the picture. Mr. Deike replied that it is the fence between Mr. Pretzel's and Ms. Fink's properties. Dottie Fink, neighbor, stated that she is the original owner of her property and has had no problem with the fence until Mr. Deike moved in and wanted to build a seven-foot tall fence. She indicated that in 1998, the fence was approved for a little over six feet but not for seven feet. She added that when three panels of the side yard fence between Mr. Deike's and her property fell, they remained without a fence for,a long time even though Mr. Deike had a pool. She stated that Mr. Deike eventually put up a fence, and she agreed to pay for half of the cost of the fence. Ms. Fink stated that she has a six-foot tall backyard fence, 16 linear feet of which she shares with Mr. Pretzel. She indicated that she does not want anything done to that portion of her fence and that Mr. Pretzel should have the same fencing height across his back yard. She noted that she was surprised that the Zoning Administrator approved a seven-foot tall fence for Mr. Deike. She added that privacy is not an issue as all the houses in the area are two stories and one can look outside a second-story window into the neighbors' property. She further added that one cannot look over a six-foot tall fence and, therefore, a seven-foot tall fence does not make a difference. Referring to a picture of the neighborhood fencing, Commissioner Blank asked Ms. Fink if the fence is six-foot tall on her side and if the fence to the left perpendicular to her fence is seven feet. Ms. Fink answered yes to both questions. Robert Baker, neighbor, distributed a photo similar to what had been provided the Commission. He stated that he is the owner-operator of Amador Pool Service and performs pool inspections and repairs. He provided a copy of a report of an inspection he did for a Pleasanton residence and referred to a highlighted paragraph on page 2 of the report referring to the required fences as well as secured gates with latches surrounding swimming pools. He indicated that Mr. Deike's prior fencing would not have passed his inspection and that his existing fence provides a secure barrier for his pool. He added that he is sensitive to safety and emphasized that children have lost their lives due to pools without fencing. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Pretzel's repair of the fence using old materials is not acceptable and would not pass inspection where a pool is involved. He noted that modifying Mr. Deike's fence would make it insecure with respect to the pool. He added that this would not affect Ms. Fink as she has no pool. DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12-14-2011 Page 3 of 6