Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:pa ""e ":2-. <br />. l' <br /> <br />Ansel Garrett <br /> <br />Mr. Pickett asked if the fence on the south si':1e w?s in compliance at this time. <br />"'. '1'=1rrett has re1"1olfed sane pickets in an attem-ot to comply but the frame is <br />HI there. <br /> <br />It was noted bv Mr. Davies that at the first ~earing Mr. Garrett was having trouble <br />with the hipnies on t~e south and the nei~hbors on the north were fine people, now <br />Mr. Garrett is havinc; rouble with the neighbors on the north, and the people on the <br />south Bre fine neoDle. <br /> <br />At this time Hr. Stephen cormnented 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. Hr. Stephen said he would be contacting the neighbor, <br />to remove the fence. Hr. Garett did not want to be a part of this. <br /> <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 /> <br />Mr. Pictett brought up that the fence on the sO'.lth 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 /> <br />Mr. Degenhart asked l~r. Stephen if there was a sidewalk to t~e west of this property. <br />~her is no sidevffilk across Mr. Garrett's property, t~er is one to the north, there <br />two old buildings, one to the south, and one on Hr. Garrettts property. They <br />are also on city pronerty. <br /> <br />Mr. Degenhart wanted to know, if t~e city, at some future time, wanted to put side- <br />walks and curbs along this right of way, HO'J.ld the fence be affected, Mr. Stephen <br />replied yes it would. }fr. Garrett said, 'lno, because he would remove it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pickett pointed out the fact that t~ere are other means to take care of this <br />encroachment. 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 /> <br />Mr. Stephen made a comment that his statement had nothing to do with the yard, but <br />merely to establish a right of \~y. There was ~o set back on the property. <br /> <br />Hr. Garett said the fence is cut the same as the front, but it is 8} feet to long. <br /> <br />/ <br /> <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 /> <br />Hr. Murphy stated the easement hasn't been used yet. qe was corrected by ~~. Stephen <br />that it is not an easement, but a dedicated street. <br /> <br />Mr. Degenhart wants it known, that this is a unique situation, and let the city take <br />care of it at a later date. <br /> <br />h.1... Ross wanted to know if the north fence 1-1aS 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 requirement. Mr. <br />Murphv stated the reason for this was, that Mr. Garrett wanted to see the outcome <br />of tMs hearing. <br />