BOA Variance Case 1974-10_411 County Rd

Home Browse Search

December 13, 1974 Case #10 7:25 p.m. AC 1.e �t t+Td `c �7�?',e, �,cww''.►' j,�: F,7ctR -t i- ' t� S-� �^MF .� u..Y,- .' c: � rn"„wt� ; .! YlXc •?Is 'i.�. 0'7 ' 'N'JA3NalTRELT Ansel Garrett 411 County Rd. Louisville, Colo. SUBJECT: Zoning relief sought from section h-112 of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Murphy's letter that supplemented the application was read by the chairman, said letter is a part of these minutes. The hearing proceeded with an opening statement by Mr. Murphy representing Mr. Garrett. Mr. Murphy's opening statement included a short history of zoning ordinances, and how they afford some protection against non conforming situations. Mr. Murphy feels this reouest is a conformity, within the residential area where Mr. Garrett lives. Mr. Garrett has a fence on the south side of solid wood, of which this board has Ic anted a variance. Now he would like to build a synetrical fence on the north ie to enhance his property. The second reason is, because of a barbed wire fence approximately Iti feet high. This 3 or I stran fence as seen on farms is an eyesore, as well as a hazard. This wooden fence would hide this fence. The barbed wire fence is on the property line and anyone hurt by this fence while on Mr. Garrett's property, Mr. Garrett would be liable. There also is the possibility of Mr. or Mrs. Garett being hurt by fall against this fence. This concludee Mr. Murphy's opening statement. The occupant of the house to the south of Mr. Garrett made a statement that she liked the fence. The owner of the property concurred the fence enhanced the property. Mr. Garrett said he h:s no bad comments about his fence. Mr. Pickett brought out the fact the first variance was not granted to enhance the property, but to quote Mr. Garrett, "for protection from a vicious dog, the dog crap, and the hippies." Mr. Garrett's statement at this time regarded the trouble with the neighbor on the north, turning the hose on him and the laundry hanging in the back yard. A building permit has been issued for a fence on the north side, to answer a question by Mr. Ross. The fence was built, but in violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. � r`�rphy told his client he would have to make the fence conform. Mr. Garrett has :oved some boards, and is making an attempt to comply. Mr. Pickett wondered if a variance was not being asked for after the fact, since the fence has already been built. Mr. Murphy stated the fence has been made to comply.