08/08/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 9 1994. He stated he had been informed that the issue to be discussed this evening was regarding a variance for the height of a fence, not the location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated when the pool was under construction he had contacted the Building Inspector and had been informed that the pool had originally been approved to be located in the middle of the rear lot. He stated he had requested confirmation that the location in the northeast corner of the lot had been approved but he had not received a response from the City. He stated he was opposed to the current location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated in speaking with three different appraisers he was informed that an above ground pool located adjacent to his front yard does devalue his property. Mr. Ranallo noted Ms. Ramsay currently has a nice split rail fence located 10 feet from the street. He stated if a six -foot fence is constructed in that same location it will obstruct his view down the street. He noted Ms. Ramsay had offered to construct the fence with a 22 -foot setback and he did not see how this would be possible since the pool is currently located 20 feet from the right -of -way line. Chair Schaps asked if there are currently any other is he immediate area. Mr. Ranallo stated there are not. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he had discuss is concerns with the applicant. Mr. Ranallo stated he has not. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if had it not required a variance. originally planned location of the Chair Schaps asked Mr Mr. Ranallo responded aff ouldot be opposed to the location of the pool ed that he would not have opposed the e . cknowledged his neighbor's right to have a pool. y. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he understood that the applicant could construct a four -foot high fence. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Mr. Corson requested the location of the existing fence. Mr. Smyser stated the existing fence is located on the eastern property line and runs around the corner approximately 10 feet from the street. Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a four -foot high fence could be constructed up to the 30 -foot setback line and could then be increased to a six -foot high fence. Mr. Smyser stated this was correct. Chair Schaps stated that, through no fault of Ms. Ramsay, the pool had been constructed in the wrong location. He stated Mr. Ranallo had some valid issues and he felt that no matter how tall a fence is, children could climb over it. •