My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-11-09 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
06-11-09 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/2/2009 10:16:36 AM
Creation date
6/3/2009 3:45:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I reside at 2837 Centerville Rd, Little Canada, MN 55117,and am seeking approval of variance to allow <br />the existing fence to remain present. The following are a few more reasons why my family and I seek to <br />maintain our 6 foot fence. <br />We have lived in this house since 1992. For many years, we were very content with the quality of <br />individuals roaming the neighborhood. However, as of lately, with the increase in population in the city, <br />and the apparent expansion of the Montreal Courts community, we feel as though our privacy is being <br />invaded from the side which the fence has been placed. Many times, individuals will be walking South <br />on Centerville, will see my child playing Basketball, and attempt to strike a futile conversation with him. <br />When an adult steps outside, they eventually move away and keep walking. In other instances, our <br />garbage cans, which we place close to the home, have been stolen TWICE (reported this). We want the <br />height of the fence to be such that if unauthorized activity takes place on our property, offenders should <br />not be able to simply scale the fence by foot if they were spotted. <br />In our many years of residing at this home, we have always had an internal security system. At some <br />point, we were told that the number of false alarms was going to be exceeding the allowable amount <br />when we were not at home. After this, we had ADDITIONALLY placed a motion detection security <br />system in place outside the residence, as an immediate indicator of activity on our property. The system <br />requires the devices be at 5 feet or higher, to properly sweep the radius for activity. When there were <br />trees on the property border, we had the devices placed on the tree trunk at about a 5 foot height. A <br />four foot fence would simply not allow the device to scan properly, rendering it partially effective and <br />inopelrable to us. This is ad gretat security con~(cetr)n for us given tPhe past~Jactivity. Th ~/ u u c~ i~~ ~>n Ua~~ 7rr1~; <br />(b'f U-I-ItiYf Sf P1$'iY5 U~~SIO~ YIf,S t~~G~`Q~r.~~4 l"d5~ 17 VYb~i ~'p Clf~ ~r7 G~~"Q4~~ ~n ~~YI~ (~I O~F'r~~, <br />Hopefully you see and understand that we have been longtime, patient and accommodating residents of <br />the City and we seek only to better the community. Given this position, I feel that we are entitled to a <br />certain level of security and this fence would give me the privacy and protection I feel we deserve. <br />Sincerely, <br />Afroz Khan ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.