Laserfiche WebLink
The side fencing is located on the common property lines, but the rear fencing was built within <br /> the boundaries of Mr. Deike's property and costs for the rear yard fence was not shared with <br /> the rear yard neighbor (Mr. Pretzel). <br /> y, �_ - ,,: .]1;.:. 'ors. _, r. Deike's new \' <br /> • #. fencing <br /> ', -, 1 4- <br /> Ms.Fink's Section <br /> Mr.Deike's Sec NIIIIIIIII <br /> Photo 3: View of subject fencing and the existing fencing <br /> from Mr. Pretzel's rear yard <br /> The new rear yard fencing spans the full width of Mr. Deike's property, but because Mr. <br /> Deike's rear property line is not as long as Mr. Pretzel's rear property line, there is a section of <br /> Mr. Pretzel's rear yard fencing (see Photo 3 below) that is joint fencing between himself and <br /> Ms. Fink (located at 3656 Carlsbad Way, the northern neighbor of Mr. Deike). This section of <br /> the fence was not replaced. <br /> Fencing not being replaced ; Fencing located on the <br /> -,94. 6:1°: lifi.t,,`'„ :, ., \ . '. <br /> 65: common property line <br /> 1 •- <br /> — ..,, •,:\-, _ I <br /> ,- : .:. ,,,-.-----111111k ..ii, <br /> Fencing not on a igure 2: Property Line Offset and <br /> common property line <br /> fencing locations <br /> IV. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S HEARING <br /> Mr. Pretzel requested a Zoning Administrator hearing for Mr. Deike's new rear yard fencing, <br /> based on the objection that the rear yard fencing should match the remaining portion of the <br /> rear yard fencing on his lot in terms of style, construction methods, height (6 foot tall), and <br /> color (See Photo 3 on prior page). <br /> Case No. P11-0664 (Administrative Design Review-Appeal) Planning Commission <br /> Page - 4 - <br />