Variance Appeal 16-05, Fred C. Cartier
Failed/Withdrawnformal_resolutionongoingApplication for an area variance to erect a 6-foot fence within the 35-foot setback in the front yards of a corner lot was denied by the Board.
First seen
2016-11-09
Latest event
2016-11-09
defeated
Expires
—
Resolution text
RESOLVED
- Application 16-05, a request for a variance from Section 143-28 A, as set forth above, be granted on the following grounds: 1. The variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties, because there are no properties abutting the right side of this property, and it is consistent with the neighborhood, in particular, the property to the left, which has a similar fence. 2. The needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance, because he would lose 25% of his back yard in moving the fence to the required setback, and his location, near a commercial district creates a need for security and privacy. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, numerically. 4. The requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the applicant has submitted letters from neighbors stating the proposed fence is an improvement to the neighborhood. 5. The hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was self-created. 6. The variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant, based on this needs for security and privacy.
Lifecycle (1 event)
2016-11-09defeatedvote: 3-4
Grant the area variance for Appeal 16-05 to erect a six-foot fence within the 35-foot setback on a corner lot.
moved by Ross · seconded by Carney
Show text snapshot for this event
Resolved
- Application 16-05, a request for a variance from Section 143-28 A, as set forth above, be granted on the following grounds: 1. The variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties, because there are no properties abutting the right side of this property, and it is consistent with the neighborhood, in particular, the property to the left, which has a similar fence. 2. The needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance, because he would lose 25% of his back yard in moving the fence to the required setback, and his location, near a commercial district creates a need for security and privacy. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, numerically. 4. The requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the applicant has submitted letters from neighbors stating the proposed fence is an improvement to the neighborhood. 5. The hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was self-created. 6. The variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant, based on this needs for security and privacy.
Subject key:
cartier_fence_variance