12 ATTACHMENTS - Laserfiche WebLink

the swimming pool. He denied Mr. Pretzel's claim that a "Stop Work" order was issued on the job, indicating that he was never served any such order from the City. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Pretzel's recent work on the base of the fence structure, removing concrete and drilling into the concrete post bases which can cause them to crack has put the strength of the fence in question. He asked that Mr. Pretzel consult with him in advance and receive his approval prior to doing any additional work or modifications to the fence and its supporting structure. He also asked that all such work be performed by a licensed contractor rather than by Mr. Pretzel himself. Mr. Baker stated that Mr. Pretzel's ownership rights to the fence are not equal to his because while Mr. Pretzel paid for half of the cost of the materials, he did not pay for any of the labor costs. He noted that Mr. Pretzel claimed he has every right to cut down the fence, and should he do so, Mr. Baker stated that he would call the police and charge Mr. Pretzel with destruction of private property. Mr. Baker requested the Commission to deny Mr. Pretzel's appeal. Ms. Fink, neighbor, stated that the rear fence she shares with Mr. Baker had been in disarray for years and was propped on her side of the fence. She noted that the 40-year-old fence was blown down for months, and this did not affect Mr. Baker's pool. She added that Mr. Baker stated he would build the fence, but after four months with nothing happening, she decided to build the existing six-foot tall fence with the help of her son but without the help of Mr. Baker. Ms. Fink stated that she had no idea that Mr. Baker was going to build the seven-foot tall fence perpendicular to their common rear yard fence. She presented a picture taken from her kitchen window; which is about 40 feet from the fence, and stated that the fence is visually disgusting. With respect to Mr. Baker's statement that they agreed to plant shrubbery to'shield the fence, Ms. Fink stated that Mr. Deike wanted her to plant a tree on her side of the fence, but she pointed out that she already has a tree and a big bush in her back yard and cannot put a third one in between. She added that a bush planted on Mr. Baker's side of the fence will not cover the fence and requested that the fence be cut down to six feet tall. Mr. Deike stated that he would never again build without a permit. He indicated that he received a complaintfrom Code Enforcement about his overheight fence, so he reported the overheight fence behind Mr. Baker's and Mr. Pretzel's properties. He added that Mr. Pretzel removed his name from Mr. Baker's fence application because he [Mr. Deike] received approval for his overheight fence. Mr. Pretzel stated that whether a tree or a bush is planted, it has to be one that is tall enough now to cover the fence. With respect to the Mr. Baker's statement that he did not provide any labor, Mr. Pretzel stated that Mr. Baker threw his old fence boards on his side of the fence, disposing of which would be part of the demolition process. He added that Mr. Baker actually mounted 4" x 6" wood which required him to cut back his DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 12-14-2011 Page 3 of 5