11 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pretzel stated that code enforcement informed him that a permit is necessary for an over-height fence. He noted that the fence continued to be built and the final portion of the fence was built after a stop work order was issued. 2) He mentioned that the back section of fence is level and there are two additional eight-foot sections that are shared with another neighbor. He stated he wanted that fence to be the same all the way across. He stated the staff report states that all is consistent and uniform in the neighborhood, but that does not apply here. He mentioned that he wants a six-foot high fence. He can't get the fencing he wants with these fences being over 6-foot tall. Mr. Pretzel explained that in 1977 all the fences were falling apart. Mr. Pretzel rebuilt the fence by himself and split the cost with the neighbor. He stated that he did have to add cement to the fence posts, but those fences have held up for numerous years. Mr. Pretzel stated that the neighbor only needed to replace two fence posts that had rotted out, but wanted to completely rebuild the fence at an estimated cost of$1400. He continued that the neighbor wanted him to pay for a fence that he had previously built himself. Mr. Deike stated that he was not that neighbor. Mr. Pretzel stated that the fence had deteriorated. He mentioned that because there is a pool in the neighbor's yard he had to pay even though he does not have a pool. He stated that for two plus years there was a code violation because the front fence was not installed around the pool. Mr. Pretzel noted that wood was put up against his fence and paintball guns were fired at the wood that could have hit his home. He stated he called the police and the police talked to his neighbor and told them that no type of gun could be shot in the City of Pleasanton. He mentioned that it happened six months later and then again about two weeks ago and he called the police each time. He stated that the portions of the fence that fell down on the back property were thrown on to his lawn and damaged his lawn. He leaned it back up, but it was then thrown on his property again to damage his lawn. Mr. Pretzel explained that during the time the fence was being built, one of the workers had gone into his yard looking for code violations. He stated that there were blatant criminal violations and blatant code violations at the neighbor's property. He stated that the fence was completed in spite of a stop work order and that he can see no reason why he should modify two sections of fence to match up to what is there now. He mentioned that he did not want to anger a neighbor who has been good to him for a neighbor who has been the worst neighbor of his life. He stated that all he wants to do is have the neighbor obey the law and to reduce the fence to the maximum allowed height per code, without any variances to allow it to be any higher, and then he can get back to the way it was in 1998. He mentioned that two neighbors did not want an over-height fence, but gave in, even though it was not what they wanted. He explained that with the back fence the way it is there is no way to remediate that and the mismatched fence devalues his property. Mr. Baker mentioned the security and privacy issues due to a neighbor that has been observed peering over the fence into his yard and into other yards over the years. He noted that said neighbor had been peering over the fence when in Mr. Pretzel's backyard. Mr. Pretzel clarified that said neighbor was getting their newspapers while they were on vacation and had gone into his yard without his permission. He stated he did tell said neighbor to not go into his yard. Mr. Baker mentioned he did not fault Mr. Pretzel for said neighbor's action. Mr. Baker stated he does not have a problem with the fence as built. Minutes, Zoning Administrator, P11-0664 October -1, 2011 Page 2