Chairperson Weniger opened the meeting at 4:30 P.M.
Chairperson Weniger began the meeting by reviewing the site
visit that was completed on November 7, 2003 in which the
Board members viewed the fence and its visibility from the
Village Grove side at the rear of the Beaty’s property.
He summarized the Board’s findings from that site visit
with the following:
- The fence is visible from Village Grove.
- The extension that is yet to be built would also be visible.
- The fence is not visible if moved 100 feet in from the
property line.
Chairperson Weniger then made the point that this fence is
unfinished and an alternative needs to be reached in order
for the Beaty’s to build the rest of this fence if that
is what is decided. He offered the following alternatives
that were collectively gathered from all Board Members as
a result of the site visit. They are:
- Move the rear fence line in 100 feet on the property.
A six foot fence can still be installed because it would
not be visible at this point and the APRB would therefore
not have purview over this.
- Decrease the height of the fence. If the fence is built
at four feet at the back of the property, it could be extended
further out before it becomes visible.
- Screening – shrubs, ivy or a hedge would mitigate
the look of the six foot chain link and would therefore
look more like landscaping than a fence.
- Use two types of material and create a transition between
fences. For example, use board on board wooden fencing in
areas of visibility and then chain link in areas where it
is not visible.
- Possibly look into compensation for the property by the
neighbors so that the property line would change and not
affect the neighbor’s line of site.
Chairperson Weniger then addressed Mrs. Beaty for her input
as to whether any of these would be a suitable alternative
for them. He stated that if not, the hearing would be closed
and the Board would make their decision accordingly. Mrs.
Beaty stated that she would not be averse to using some type
of screening to lessen the visibility for the neighbors. However,
the Board pointed out that because the fence is directly on
the property line in most places, it may have to be moved
in approximately six feet in order to accommodate plantings
on the Beaty’s property. She does not agree with the
four foot fence option because her dog can jump this size
fence and with a pool, it creates liability issues. The option
of stepping the fence down to four feet and adding screening
did not appeal to Mrs. Beaty due to the cost involved to remove
the chain link and adjust the poles. This could mean extensive
labor charges on fencing that is already in place. Mrs. Beaty
is also not inclined to move the fence in by 100 feet due
to possible encroachment issues.
Chairperson Weniger then opened the Public Hearing.
Don Anderson – 1 Village Grove:
Mr. Anderson addressed the board concerning how visible this
fence is from Jefferson Road. The board did look at this and
told him that they felt it was only marginally visible and
therefore not an issue.
David Lent – 2 Village Grove:
He felt that moving the fence in by 100 feet is the best option.
He believes that it would solve the issue of visibility. He
also feels that the fence could easily be cut and moved back
and that the posts are not set in concrete, even though Mrs.
Beaty stated that they are.
Pat Anderson – 1 Village Grove:
Mrs. Anderson asked if screening were to be used as an option,
who would be in charge of the upkeep, especially in the case
of the Beaty’s ever moving someday? The Board answered
this by stating that if the fence is moved in, the Beaty’s
would be responsible for it. If the fence is not moved, then
the neighbors could plant along it and maintain it.
She also commented that she would like to be sure that the
Board considers the letter by the APRB regarding the appropriateness
of the material used and whether it will set future precedents.
Chairperson Weniger reminded Mrs. Anderson that the APRB requested
Mr. Sigrist of the Landmark Society to review the appropriateness
of this for them and he wrote a letter in full support of
this fence and how appropriate it is for the house.
Lois Lent – 2 Village Grove:
Mrs. Lent addressed the issue of the APRB’s decision
in regards to the fact that they stopped the entire fence,
not just the portion that will be visible. The board addressed
this by stating that the APRB has no right to tell you what
you can do on the back of your house, only where there is
visibility from the public right of way. One question that
needs to be looked at is whether they have purview over the
whole fence or not.
Mrs. Lent continued her comments by asking if the Zoning Board
has discretion over which plants would be used for screening
so that they would be year round instead of only ten months
out of the year. The Board stated that they can make the screenings
conditional on those types of things.
Don Anderson – 1 Village Grove:
He asked the Board if they are overruling the decision of
the APRB and looking at other options. Chairperson Weniger
stated that they are looking at the decision and either affirming
it or modifying it. It cannot be sent back to the APRB for
future review. The decision made by the Planning and Zoning
Board is final.
David Lent – 2 Village Grove:
Mr. Lent addressed the letter written by Mr. Sigrist from
the Landmark Society. He had a lengthy conversation with him
and said that Mr. Sigrist felt that Village Code was not up
to date. He told Mr. Lent that he does not feel that the fence
is appropriate for the area, but that he had to look at the
code as it exists and write the letter according to code.
Member Mitchell commented that the decision can only be based
on the code as it is currently written.
Member Lanphear raised a question regarding the decision
by the APRB in terms of using transition materials on the
fence. The APRB made a ruling that they would not be happy
with the look of two types of fencing used together. A fence
that changes styles from chain link for instance to wood would
not be appropriate.
Pat Anderson – 1 Village Grove:
Mrs. Anderson made the comment that the type and height of
the fence has always been the problem.
Don Anderson – 1 Village Grove:
Mr. Anderson returned to the issue of visibility from Jefferson
Road. Is it visible or not? How can the board state that it
is somewhat visible and rule that out as a concern? The Board
clarified for Mr. Anderson the purpose of the Board. If it
is visible, it falls in the purview of the Board. The Zoning
Board agrees with Jefferson Road and Green Hills Lane residents
that the fence is not any more visible than other fences in
the area.
Mrs. Beaty discussed the option of using a transition material.
She is open to this idea and would consider a board on board
or stockade style fencing and screening to reduce the visibility
of the fence. If the fence needs to be moved in for screening,
Mrs. Beaty again stated that she is unsure of the cost involved
with doing so and whether they would be able to do this.
Chairperson Weniger asked the neighbors what they prefer
and Mr. Lent stated that he would prefer a board on board
fence. Another neighbor on the other side of the fence preferred
screening. The Board members reminded Mr. Lent that a solid,
wood fence would be much more visible than an open chain link
fence.
Chairperson Weniger closed the Public Hearing at this time.
The Board members collectively reviewed the three questions
that are important to answer at this time:
- Did they APRB have the right to evaluate the whole fence
versus only the visible portion?
- Did they have the right to revoke the permit or not?
- Are the materials of the fence appropriate?
|
Copyright
©2006, Village of Pittsford