Laserfiche WebLink
+'a5:4 ..2—. <br />1 <br />Ansel Garrett <br />Mr. Pickett asked if the fence oft the south side was in compliance at this time. <br />'~ ^rrrett has removed sone pickets in an attempt to comply but the frame is <br />111 there. <br />It was noted by Mr. Davies that at the first hearing Mr. Garrett was having trouble <br />with the hippies on the south and the neighbors on the north were fine people, now <br />Mr. Garrett is having rouble with the neighbors on the north, and the people on the <br />south are fine people. <br />At this time Mr. Stephen commented that, after some research, he had found some <br />information relative to the barbed wire fence. It is prohibitive and unlawful to <br />maintain a barbed wire fence. Mr. Stephen said he would be contacting the neighbor, <br />to remove the fence. Mr. Garett did not want to be a part of this. <br />Mr. Murphy stated the fence on the north complies. Mr. Stephen interrrupted with <br />a statement that the fence does not comply. The frame is still there, the fence <br />at the west end encroaches on public property. Mr. Murphy stated that it is possible <br />this ordinance does not apply to back yards. The west end of the north fence is <br />approximately 8 ft. 6 in. on a dedicated 60ft right of way. Mr. Garrett believes this <br />right of way to be an alley, because of a lack of information type street signs. <br />Mr. Pickett brought up that the fence on the south still does not conform, because <br />of a pole, and the top rail. Mr. Garrett replied this was minor and it would be <br />taken care of. <br />Mr. Degenhart asked Mr. Stephen if there was a sidewalk to the west of this property. <br />T er is no sidewalk across Mr. Garrett's property, ther is one to the north, there <br />: two old buildings, one to the south, and one on Mr. Garrettts property. They <br />are also on city property. <br />Mr. Degenhart wanted to know, if the city, at some future time, wanted to put side- <br />walks and curbs along this right of way, would the fence be affected, Mr. Stephen <br />replied yes it would. Mr. Garrett said, "no, because he would remove it. <br />Mr. Pickett pointed out the fact that there are other means to take care of this <br />enrroachment. Mr. Murphy felt the ordinance is badly written, because it refers to <br />front yards. People erect fences to their allies. With two right of ways it could <br />be interpreted to have two front yards. All houses fact to the east. <br />Mr. Stephen made a comment that his statement had nothing to do with the yard, but <br />merely to establish a right of way. There was no set back on the property. <br />Mr. Garett said the fence is cut the same as the front, but it is 82 feet to long. <br />Mr. Stephen said he was bringing this up, only to make it public knowledge so that <br />Mr. Garrett will fix it without further problems. <br />Mr. Murphy stated the easement hasn't been used yet. He was corrected by Mr. Stephen <br />that it is not an easement, but a dedicated street. <br />Mr. Degenhart wants it known, that this is a unique situation, and let the city take <br />c re of it at a later date. <br />Prr. Ross wanted to know if the north fence was still in voilation of the zoning code. <br />Mr. Stephen said some pickets had been removed, but not enough to bring it back to the <br />house. The frame was still there, and in voilation of the height requitement. Mr. <br />Murphy stated the reason for this was, that Mr. Garrett wanted to see the outcome <br />of tots hearing. <br />