PUBLIC HEARING Variance Application APP2004-00838, Surinder Deol The applicant is seeking a two and one-half foot variance from the forty-two inch height limitation in order to maintain the fence currently located in the front yard at 1525 West Kersey Lane. An Affidavit of Posting was submitted into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Deol presented his request. Mr. Deol stated that he concurs with the findings in the staff report. Mr. Hill questioned Mr. Deol’s own submission regarding wild animals. Mr. Hill noted that Mr. Deol’s community seems like a subtle residential community and that, occasionally, stray animals could come into the yard, but it struck him as a little odd that Mr. Deol would include that as a justification to retain his fence. Mr. Deol replied that, based on actual experience, he has seen quite a few rabbits and deer roaming around in his neighborhood. Mr. Hill stated that a 42-inch fence is certainly adequate to keep rabbits out of his yard. Mr. Deol stated that that is not the main reason why he is asking for the variance. Mr. Deitchman questioned what precipitated the variance request since the fence has been up for fourteen years. Mr. Deol replied that he received a letter from the City stating that he was in violation of the City’s Code. Mr. Schwartzman noted that the fence is not in pristine condition. He pointed out that, as he drove by the property this morning, he noticed that a portion of the fence had fallen down in the neighbor’s yard. He asked Mr. Deol if the fence is in good enough condition to last another 10 years. Mr. Deol replied that it all depends on the weather conditions and quality of wood. Mr. Deol said that his fence is in better condition than many similar fences he has seen in the neighborhood, but he feels that his fence does not need to be replaced at this time. He said if his fence falls down, he would replace it. In response to Mr. Schwartzman, Mr. Deol stated that he has not spoken to the next-door neighbors about the fence. He said they have just moved in and he has not yet met the family. In response to the Board, Ms. Hall explained that Mr. Deol’s fence is one among many fences that the City has issued a permit in error for a six-foot fence in the front yard. The issue began as a response to a complaint made to the City. Ms. Hall pointed out that one of the homeowners (Mr. Kent) who was among those sited for having a six-foot fence is present this morning. Mr. Kent’s variance request was approved at last month’s Board of Appeals meeting. The following citizens testified in favor of the application: 1. Shirley Kent, 1 Scottview Court, testified that she and her husband were very good friends of the original owner of the house. The fence was there when Mr. Deol bought the property. Mrs. Kent stated that she believes the original fence was erected in 1977. She feels that Mr. Deol probably did not know that he needed to have the fence up that far from the street because it was already there. Mr. Deol has replaced the original fence with the same kind of fence in the same location. Mrs. Kent stated that one of her neighbors living on Crestview Drive commented to her when she and her husband had the sign up for the variance that she really liked both fences the way they were because they balanced out the lots. Mrs. Kent stated that she and her husband think Mr. Deol’s fence looks fine.
In response to Mr. Hill, Mrs. Kent explained that a new family moved into the house next to Mr. Deol about three weeks ago. 2. Steven Kent, 1 Scottview Court, testified in support of the application. He stated that he wanted to reinforce what his wife just said and that a fence is identical to the fence that is presently there has been in existence for more than 25 years. He said that he or his wife have never heard any adverse comments about the location or the appearance of the fence and there is absolute no obstruction as far as visibility is concerned. Mr. Kent noted that his main comment is about the appearance of the fence – he does not believe that anybody would argue that the subject fence is a “work of art” but he does not believe it is necessary for a fence to be a “work of art”. The fence is simple; it is functional and, most importantly, it is consistent with many other fences in the Horizon Hills subdivision. He feels it is a perfectly acceptable fence and he sees no objection to it.
Mr. Hill stated that the main concern with this fence is that it is in the front yard and it protrudes into the setback and into the main street. He asked Mr. Kent if that was a concern to him. Mr. Kent replied that he has not noticed it. Mr. Kent also pointed out that it may be a portion of the subject fence that is leaning and if that were the case, he would be convinced that Mr. Deol would repair it or replace the fence if it is needed. Mr. Kent noted that the neighbor who just moved next door to the Deols just recently repaired a portion of their fence, which is not visible from the street. He said it is expected of the neighbors to take care of their fences. 3. Kay Lane, Sunrise Drive, stated that she and her husband have resided in their house for over 30 years. Mrs. Lane stated that they live around the corner from Mr. Deol’s house. Mrs. Lane said that she has never seen the fence in disrepair. Most of the people who go by there do not seem to object to it. The fence is about six feet from the sidewalk. The fence does not obstruct the visibility of those driving down that street. Mrs. Lane stated that she is in favor of maintaining the existing fence.
The following citizen testified in opposition: 4. Judy Lapping, 1731 Crestview Drive, testified in opposition. She said she lives across the street from the applicants. She said she is the most impacted by the Deols’ fence. She explained that she is the original owner and was active in the Civic Association and has donated money to beautify the neighborhood. She said she has never mentioned anything about the fence, but she and her husband have commented to each other on it numerous times. When the variance sign went up, she felt it was her opportunity to share her concern. She said she called Mr. Deol to let him know that she would attend the meeting. Ms. Lapping complained that the fence is an eyesore to the entire neighborhood. She feels the Deols care a lot about their house because they put on a beautiful addition to their home and while it was being constructed, a section of the fence had to come out for moving in the equipment. The Deols only replaced that section of the fence. When she walks out the garage, she sees the fence. She believes the fence is in a state of disrepair. She said she is not questioning why the Deols want fence in their yard, she would like to see the fence moved further back from the sidewalk. Ms. Lapping commented on the front of the house being well cared for as well as the nice landscaping and that is what the Deols view, but she sees the side of the house and she would like to see some consideration for those neighbors on the other side of the street.
Mr. Sternstein asked if there were covenants in Horizon Hill that might address this issue. Ms. Lapping replied that the neighborhood appears to have no covenant regarding this situation. Mr. Deitchman asked if Ms. Lapping’s main concern is the aesthetics of the fence facing her side. Ms. Lapping replied that that is her main concern, although, she would like to see the fence pushed further back from the street. In response to Mr. Deitchman, Ms. Lapping said she would tolerate the fence, if it were power washed or by placing plantings in front of that portion of the fence. The Board discussed the aesthetics of the existing fence, the City’s Maintenance Ordinance regarding fence repair and maintenance, plantings to break up the fence line, and the fact that there was no accurate plot plan submitted that depicts the recent addition and the exact measurements of the existing fence. Mr. Deol stated that he did try to include on the original plan plot the new addition as well as other dimensions. He pointed out that Ms. Lapping stated that when she opens her door, she sees the fence, but when she opens her door, she really sees the front of his house. Mr. Sternstein stated that whether she walks out her front door or walks down the block and sees the fence and the fence is in a state of disrepair, either she or any other neighbor would object to it. Mr. Sternstein stated that, if this fence is really in a state of disrepair, Mr. Deol, as a good neighbor, should repair his fence. Mr. Deol stated that they are very sensitive to how their property looks. When they had the addition built, they selected the best material and spent $10,000 on upgrading the landscaping of their property. The neighbors stop all of the time and tell them how good the house looks. Mr. Deol stated that they would repair this fence immediately, if they the fence was a disgrace to the neighborhood. In response to Mr. Schwartzman, Mr. Deol replied that he would not object to putting plantings along the fence line to break it up. He said that if there were any part of the fence that would need repair, he would repair it. If he could be convinced that the entire fence needed to be replaced, he would replace it tomorrow. There being no one else to speak for or against the variance application, the Chair declared the public hearing closed.
DECISION Variance Application APP2004-00838, Surinder Deol Mr. Deitchman moved, seconded by Mr. Schwartzman to approve Variance Application APP2004-00838, Surinder Deol per staff recommendations with a modification to Condition #2 to read “That an accurate plot plan be submitted that depicts the recent addition and the exact measurements of the exiting fence for Planning staff approval.” Also, add a Condition #3 that reads “Perimeter placement of low lying plantings at the fence line at a minimum of three locations subject to approval by the Planning staff.” The motion passed unanimously. MINUTES Mr. Schwartzman moved, seconded by Mr. Deitchman to approve minutes of Meeting Nos. 10-04 and 11-04 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Hill abstained from voting on the Minutes of Meeting No. 10-04. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Board, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 10:50 a.m. NOTE: Should further details of this hearing be required, a tape recording of the meeting is available. The Planning Division maintains a tape of the meeting for a period not less than one year from the date of each meeting. | 
