09-21-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #643 September 16, 1987 Page 2 of 3 The applicant had made it clear throughout the review that he knew fully well where his property line ended and the unused right-of-way began (review Exhibits A & E), Review of Recomendation of Application #643 - Sometime in 1986, staff once again found the applicant in the process of filling in his lakeshore yard and at that point observed the 6 feet privacy fence and advised applicant to contact J. Mabusth. At this point, staff would like to explain the reason for staff's reluctance to deal directly with Mr, Curtiss on this matter but the personal or rather private concern of the Curtiss family at this time require that we deal with Mrs. Curtiss. She has agreed to come before the City with her request that the fence remain. Staff has asked for her input in the preparation of this review but she has failed to respond to my recent request (Exhibit K). If she does not appear, staff will ask that you review staff's attempt to recount her position on the need for the fence and make your recommendation to Council. Based on discussions with Mrs. Curtiss her position can be summarized as follows: 1. If sections of the fence are located within the protected area, they will remove them. From a recent inspection by staff, it would appear the last 3 sections of fence at the northern edge may be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore. 2. The fence is needed to provide privacy, noise protection, protection from neighbors' dogs and her young child from any mishap on the roadway. Staff has been asked to confirm a neighbor's complaint that the Curtiss' rent boat slips at an old dock at the northern edge of their lakeshore. There is no foundation to this claim and neither is the claim that cars are parked at the northern edge of the property by the users of this dock. Mrs. Curtiss has advised that tl~ _r car is parked at that edge which is another reason for the privacy fence. This has also been confirmed by staff. 3. Mrs. Curtiss claims that throughout the review of Application 643, the limited yard area was discussed and that Council approved the setback variance so that the yard area could be raaintained rather than used in driveway and turnaround if doors were to face to the side. Staff can not recall discussion of a privacy fence. The only fence at a legal height on the property is the split rail fence in frc >t of the house but even that fence may be located in the right-of-way. The ‘°nce has been placed on the property adjacent to the d'^*eway so that a turnaround could not be installed. The fence creates a hci2.ard for not only the applicants but the public who drive the roadway.