10/27/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Raymond Schaaf, 1928 Arthur Street, appellant and owner of the property at 2080 Churchill Street, said that when he bought the'property about three year~ ago there had been no mention that the fence was in violation of the code, and he knew noth- ing about the situation until fhis summer. He said he hdd installed trees and . shrubs that would be lost if the fence had to be removed. The neighborhood ex- periences vandalism resulting from pedestrian traffic to and from schools in the area, he said, and dogs are also a problem. Mr. Schaaf asked to retain the fence, at least until a hedge he had instaLled grows to the point where it could resist the foot ;traffic. In response to Councilman Hamel, Raymond Schaaf said he had purchased the property from his son but had not known the situ3tion with regard to the fence. Richard Schaaf, 2080 Churchill Street, said he had constructed the fence and had it almost completed at.the time Mr. Haxton notified him it was in violation of the code. The fence was completed in spite of the violation, Mr. Schaaf said, because he was on vacation and wanted to finish it while he could. He said the appeal in 1972 was filed because he felt he had been treated unfairly, that it was a matter of staff's personal prejudice. Since then, he said, he had been absent from the city about three years and he wondered why the si tuation had not been "checked into" before now. He said he felt it was not so much that the fence was "in disagreement , , with the public and the area" as it was a matter of a personal vendetta by Gene Haxton. ;Mr. Schaaf continued that contact with people in the neighborhood having a view of ;the fence had revealed no one opposed to it. There has been vandalism, he said, the fence is needed for protection, and he has small children. He added tha,t the .Zoning Board's conduct excluded the opportunity for his father to be heard and asked if report of action taken there had been made available to the panel members. Mr. Haws said that both he and Mr. Hamel had read those reports. Councilman Haws asked if there was any reason a fence set back to the proper place (15 feet) would not resolve the problems cited - vandalism, protection, small children. ~ He also asked what had been planted or installed prior to construction of the fence. ~ Mr. Schaaf answered that landscaping, planned with the fence as it is, as well as a play area would have to be changed. None of that had been installed prior to con- struction of the fence, he said, and he had mentioned plans for the yard to the person frem whom he had purchased the property (Charles Ogle, builder) and there had been no mention of restrictions on fences in the area. Councilman Haws asked "'hat "practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hards/lip" upOn which a variance could be based might be caused by hav.ing to remove the f(mcC'. Mr. Schaaf said the play area would be ruined and certainly all of the landscaping would be exposed to mistreatment from foot traffic to and from the schools in the area. He.noted an extra high fence off of Harvard Street installed for protection because of heavy foot traffic, especial']y between houses (a ten-foot I"ide Io.'alkway easement east of Harvard into the school yard). Others speaking in favor of retaining the fence in its present condition were Darrel V. Petzold, 2115 Parliament Street;' John Rusnby, 2115 Churchill Street; Clarence A. Huffman, 2112 Churchill Street. They also cited vandalism, foot traffic, chi ldren going to and from school, dogs, etc., as. reasonS for needing the protection. Xhey recognized the fence was in violaUon of the code but thought its use to protect property and lack of objections from neighbors justified retaining it. Mr. Rushby Said he wanted to build a similar fence to protect his property because of the pedestrian traffic through th. yards and to keep dogs off the lawns but had delayed it until resolution of this appeal. He said the Schaaf fence was not an eyesore, that it did not constitute any type of safety hazdrd, and there had been no complaints from neighbors that it detracted from that area. Mr. HaKton pointed out the record as contained in the Zoning Board minutes and said ~ that staff recommendation for removal" or modification of the fence was still based ~ on code requirements, and that the Board's denial was based on lack of showing any un- necessary hardship if the fence was removed or modified. He denied there was any personality conflict invol'ved. 10/27/75 - 12 ~,,~