Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!1

Transcription

1 CALL TO ORDER PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS For August 15, 2011, 7:00 PM Mr. Monnett: I now call to order the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals for August 15, ROLL CALL/DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Mr. Monnett: I will now ask our Board Secretary if you would please have a roll call. Mr. Carlucci: Ms. Duffer- here Mr. Cavanaugh- here Mr. Gibbs- here Mr. Monnett- here Four members present, we have a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Monnett: Will you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (July 18, 2011 meeting) Mr. Monnett: I will now entertain a motion for the members of the board for the approval and or changes to the minutes from July 18, 2011 meeting. Ms. Duffer: I have one change, on page three the first sentence under Ms. Duffer, the last piece says we allowed a four side addition; it is we allow for a side addition. Mr. Monnett: A second with the corrections noted. Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, all in favor aye, please let the record show that I abstained from voting since I was absent from that meeting Mr. Carlucci. OATH OF TESTIMONY Mr. Monnett: of testimony. I will now ask our Town Attorney to administer the oath Mr. Daniel administered the oath of testimony. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Monnett reviewed the guidelines governing the conduct of public hearings. PETITIONS FOR PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Monnett: First petition tonight is BZA , Ms. Sprague. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!1

2 Ms. Sprague: Good evening, this one is for the Bolin s at 642 Weesner Drive, to give you an idea, it is just off Vestal Road, the Weesner Drive and Redbud Lane were created as part of an old subdivision in the County, which actually no subdivision control out there so the streets are not actually public right away, they are created from half easements there are 21 easements on each property on either side of the street. In this case, the Bolin s are asking to have a fence since they have two frontages in this case in their, what most people would consider their back yard, but since they are on two streets, it is going to be the front yard as far as the ordinance is concerned. The fence height limit for a front yard, this is just like last month, it is normally four feet, and since they have a whole lot of front yard and only a bit of little bit of side yard, they are trying to get some backyard in this case. The property is zoned R-2 and is surrounded by R-2. They used to have trees in their, what they considered their backyard, they were about fifty foot pine trees, but a lot of those have died and so they have removed them, which is partly why they are wanting to ask for the fence now and haven t in the past. You can see the trees are cut down and so they don t have nearly as much privacy and border as they used too. The fence again is to provide backyard space, some privacy, and some borders. From the site plan that they have given us, it looked like the fence would be located at least really close to the tree line. At the very least, the tree should not be within that twenty-one foot easement; normally our ordinance wouldn t allow a fence on the property line if they wanted too, and if they put it right at that twenty-one foot, that would be the same idea. We ve had some concerns from the neighbors, maybe we would want to have that be set back farther than the twenty-one, rather than just out of the twenty-one foot easement. Some of the concerns that I have heard, they were wondering if the solid fence would be a site triangle issue. As far as our ordinance is concerned, it only needs to be ten feet off of a driveway, and so as far as the ordinance is concerned they do not have a site triangle issue, but the neighbors were concerned with kids running out in the street. Also there is apparently a ditch that used to be along Redbud Lane, but it has since been covered up, but it still has some structure underneath there for drainage. Their survey didn t show that but the neighbor was concerned that there might be some fence post going into there and possibly causing some more drainage issues into the street. So with all those ideas in mind, maybe the board might consider putting a condition on there that maybe the fence be located as close as possible to the tree line just that the tree line shouldn t have caused any issues and so if the tree line didn t cause any greater issues if the fence is along there maybe that will help elevate any potential issues. I believe that is it, I know the petitioner is here if you have any questions I can answer any questions. The photographs all show that is a separate parcel but they have been asked to remove that line because they had accessory structures on their other lot which didn t have a primary structure and so since they removed that lot line that is where all of this comes from. Mr. Cavanaugh: Jill I do have a quick question while you are here. In R-2 zone, what would the normal building setback be for a front yard setback? Ms. Sprague: For a front yard thirty feet. The fence is normally not subject to that. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!2

3 Mr. Cavanaugh: property line? So the building setback would be thirty feet on the Ms. Sprague: Right, the property line in this case is in the center of the street so we are kind of pretending that it is the twenty-one feet back from center line as far as the easement is concerned. Mr. Daniel: Jill, I have a question too. Have they completed the process of making that one lot? Ms. Sprague: They did. Mr. Monnett: please do. If the petitioner is here and would like to come forward Ms. Bolin: Good evening board members, the Town of Plainfield, and fellow neighbors. My name is Elena Bolin and this is our family s petition for a six foot privacy fence. My address is 642 Weesner Drive, Plainfield, In My husband and Brad have lived here for the past nine years and these are front views of our home, and our true front yard. This is a view of our proposed cedar fence to be professionally installed and will be tastefully done and maintained. This is an aerial view of the property as Jill showed. The back yard extends to Redbud Lane and our intentions are to begin the midway on both sides of the home and outline the whole backyard property. As Jill said we originally purchased the home as two separate parcels, but since then we have recently have combined them into one lot. We have noted significant changes in our property since 2002, we have lost 20 trees from our side and backyard secondary to old age and the draught of last summer, the trees that have survived have thinned out significantly and the remaining evergreens all required trimming dead branches at the bottom. The following photos show a comparison of how the property looked when we purchased it in 2002 to the present time. This view towards Redbud Lane shows how all our trees required trimming at the bottom. This is the view from Redbud Lane towards the back of our home showing the lack of privacy since losing our trees, once again a dramatic photo illustrating how our privacy has disappeared. We need a privacy fence for protection and security; there are no more borders to our backyard in our children s eyes allowing them to run into traffic. Our trees gave us privacy and provided borders; we used to spend a lot of time in our backyard when our trees provided us these borders for our children and friends to play. Since losing our trees we need safety boundaries and privacy replaced to keep them safe. The general welfare of the community is not affected since the fence will be built within property lines. The use and value of the adjacent area to the property will not be affected because both of our neighbors to the east and west of us on Redbud Lane have driveways which are more than thirty feet from our proposed fence, and finally the entire neighborhood has been accustomed to our large evergreen trees for many years, so a six foot privacy fence should be viewed as a much smaller border to our property and equally acceptable, thank you. Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition please come forward at this time. Ms. Wade: Hello, I am Sheri Wade, I live 660 Weesner Drive. I live directly west of the Bolin s. Again it is not anything personal that I have to say, but I am opposed to allowing a fence, especially a six Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!3

4 inch solid wood fence on that property on the street side of Redbud. Can you picture where my house is, not that it matters but because that lot extends into the other street, it is their front yards, even though it would be considered the Bolin s backyard, it is their front yards. I think that the fact that there is no house on that lot should have no bearing on allowing a six foot fence to the street side. I think it would create an unpleasant and a blocking view of the neighborhood and the street when people are backing out of the driveways especially. I am not opposed to a fence on the back part of Weesner Drive lot. I understand that they just got that put into one parcel, but that lot was not intended as a front yard, and I don t think it should be, or a backyard, and I don t think it should be allowed to have a fence right up there by the street, maybe a chain link fence or something like that that is not blocking the view. Also those trees were welcome in the neighborhood, but they are gone now and there is a big difference between a tree and a six foot solid fence. Mr. Durell: Good evening, I am JR. Durell; I live at 601 Redbud Lane in Plainfield. The comment that has been made about the general welfare of the community not being affected since the fence will be built within the property lines, I just simply can t buy into as a neighbor, because it will, a six foot fence in that area will definitely create a change and it is a change which I definitely oppose as do some of the other neighbors. I guess I let it slip by me that something was going on with this property when the two parcels were joined into one. That street, Redbud Lane has been and was intended to be from the very beginning, front yard properties and now if we have a fence that is built as close to the property line as you can possibly get it, that particular area is going to be nothing more than an alley that you would find in a city because if you drive down an alley you see all kinds of messes, you see board fences that have been poorly maintained, and certainly not landscaped with landscaping kept into good condition. I also feel that other neighbors who may speak tonight may tell you that living across the street from this fence gives them nothing to look out of on the front of their properties but the side of a big tall fence. There is no way anybody can tell me that a fence once put in place will be properly cared for, maintained, kept stained with plantings around it as are shown in the photograph that was used to introduce this speech tonight. Remember the photograph had plantings and landscaping around the base it. I believe that if the board approves this situation, that you should require some commitment from the property owners to maintain and to keep landscaped in a proper way. Thank you. Ms. Hadley: My name is Jill Hadley and I live at 646 Redbud Lane. My picture window looks out onto their property which the pine trees never bothered us except for the fact that they got so tall that in the winter time when the street melted on both ends from the sun, the street in the middle in front of our house did not and neither did our driveway, so we had an ice rink, but we never said anything because that neighborhood has always been super friendly, compatible, nobody ever nit picked or caused any trouble. I have a picture and I think they had one up there too, where they cut the trees down and after they cut the trees down, and I like this couple, and they have darling children that have come to our yard. Our street is only 8 houses on Redbud it is a dead end, so it is not a through street, I don t know if that was made clear or not but it is a dead end. Amazingly, they are right we have a lot of traffic for only eight houses on our street, Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!4

5 because the people are busy and are in and out, but I really don t care to look out a six foot board fence, pine trees were pretty, the birds were in and out of them and they never bothered us but to look at a six foot board fence, and nobody else in the neighborhood has those kind of fences, we are not allowed, we have not been allowed too. That is my picture window, we have a big huge curved picture window that goes from ceiling to the ground and the neighbors on the east of us also do, I don t think they are here but that is what we would be looking at is a six foot board fence and like Mr. Durell said I would really want them to maintain it if you let them have it, I would want them to make it pretty, paint morning glories on it or something I don t know, but anyways I would want it to be pretty because just looking at a board fence is not, our house was built in 1967, it was the last house to go in on Redbud. Mr. Gibbs: Can I ask you a question, you made a statement that nobody was allowed to put board fences up, is that a Home Owners Association? Ms. Hadley: I don t, nobody does. I don t know. Mr. Gibbs: It s not that you re not allowed that is just opinion. Ms. Hadley: I don t know nobody has ever done anything like that; we have a split rail fence. The neighbors to our west and we do and then the neighbors to our east, did have and theirs rotted out and they took it down and they have pine trees, but they have them trimmed up so far that you can see through. Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone else in the audience that would like to come forward, please do. Ms. Wade: Sheri Wade, 660 Weesner Drive. My concern is who is to say in a couple of years I don t decide to build a six foot wall around my house. And just because my property contains a house, see what I am saying? I understand and I never even had this come to light to me before why our privacy fences are in our backyards, so that people don t have to look at a little fortress built around a your house. But if it wouldn t be allowed if there was a house there, it shouldn t be allowed if there is not. That is for the sake of the neighborhood, I mean, we can t build forts around our houses so we shouldn t be able to do it all the way out to the street even if we don t have a house behind it, you know what I am saying, to picture that with a solid fence straight down all of that, you have no view and you built a little fort around this big piece of property, where we know we can do it in our backyards, but that is considered a front yard to all of those people. I just wanted to mention that. Mr. Monnett: Is there anyone else that would like to come forward? Seeing none, I will close this to the general public and open it up to our board for discussion or a possible motion. Ms. Duffer: I have another question for Jill. In one of the statements that was made, there was a drainage ditch along Redbud that has been filled in, and the concerns was that if they were to put a fence in that drainage ditch would it cause any drainage issues? If it is set back far enough where the tree lines are, the trees have not caused any drainage issues. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!5

6 Ms. Sprague: Hopefully. Ms. Duffer: Are their issues in that neighborhood currently that you are aware of, any drainage? Ms. Sprague: The person I talked to earlier mentioned that they have standing waters, especially in the spring time when it rains a lot. It is possible that just because the lack of subdivision control and it is an older neighborhood they didn t have the same kind of drainage requirements that we do now. I don t know that the ditch was filled in exactly but it was definitely covered over. Ms. Duffer: Jill can you go back to the picture that was right before that with the trees? Jill, that bottom picture, does the fence proposed to go right in front of that tree line or behind the tree line? Ms. Sprague: I m not sure. (Inaudible) Ms. Duffer: Thank you. Mr. Monnett: please. Mr. Durell, did you want to come back up, if you would Mr. Durell: I m Jim Durell, and I will add a little bit if I could to the location of that ditch and that tile that are below the surface. They all empty into a 12 concrete drain which is in front of my property and it goes out over the hill. But the problem is, that the tile which was in the bottom of the original ditch when the road was built is only about 2 or 2 ½ from the surface of the pavement. So if you are talking about a concern for the fence posts upsetting the drainage that is already there and messing up the tiles then my folks you are putting the fence very close to the road. Thank you. Mr. Monnett: Yes, do you want to come up. Ms. Hadley: Jill Hadley, I was the one that came down today and talked to this Jill, because I was concerned about that. We are the only house left that has a ditch in front of our house. Everybody else filled in, we have water problems, and everybody has water problems, under their house, in the yards, in the spring. I ve talked to Mr. Belcher about it several years ago, he said to call him when we have a big rain in the spring and he would come by to look at it, well that hasn t happened yet. It seems to me that if it was put in right, because my husband did field ditching you can put a grade, it is only a street with 8 houses, and if you jump off the cliff at Jim s house, you d kill yourself down to the trail, there is that good of a drop. So if that ditch was put in with a good grade, none of us a little deeper, you wouldn t have the problems. If they put a fence out there, and the roots of the trees and everything else, it is going to be worse than it is. Our yard in the winter time, we should fill it in and we should, well we don t need anymore water problems. We have water problems under our house, everybody does under their houses, and I don t think anyone has a basement in their house. I was the one that brought that up today when I came down here. But if they put the fence Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!6

7 in on the inside of their tree line, it would be better than out close to the road. Thank you. Mr. Monnett: Ms. Bolin would you like to add anything? Mr. Bolin: All I can say is that thank god the fence isn t built yet, I appreciate everyone s comments, I can put myself in people s shoes, and I understand where people are coming from. All I can say is our promise to maintain the fence, to have it professionally installed and to maintain it, that is our promise that is all I can do. We are still requesting our fence. Thank you. Ms. Viles: Jane Viles, 627 Redbud Lane. I didn t know how far it was coming back on Redbud, backing out I have trouble with the trees, it is not that it is a through street and that you have a lot of trouble there, but when you back out, you still, which everyone should stop, but you have to be very careful and with a fence on the Redbud side, I think it would be even more so than if it was on the other side. I don t object to the fence, and it would come along my side yard. I just wonder where it is going to be in the tree line, in or out. I have lived there 50 years, at the time we bought the property and I could not find it to bring with me, there was a covenant or restrictions that you could only have hedge fences in that subdivision, and they couldn t be over five feet tall. Mr. Monnett: Is there anyone else that would like to speak? I would like to ask the board for some of their opinions. I will go ahead and close it again to the public, and open it up to us for discussion. But if I can back track real quick because I will forget what Mrs. Viles said, she said she couldn t find her documentation about when they first moved in or built, but that was County correct? That was under the County jurisdiction. Mr. James: It was the developed through the County and then later annexed into Plainfield, so it was any parcels or lots that were created were legal and non-conforming. Mr. Cavanaugh: I have a couple of suggestions for discussion amongst the board. I think we have had similar situations where a lot contains two street frontages and it does present special circumstances for that lot. I understand that some in the audience that feel that that should be the back yard, the fact is for our review, it is a front yard and we are talking about from at least from a front yard requirement. I am going to suggest that we consider starting from the 21 easement, because that is reported as a road easement, correct Joe? Mr. James: Yes. Mr. Daniel: The center line of the road. Mr. Cavanaugh: From the center line, towards the Bolin s property 21, that is an assess easement, and I believe that you indicated that that is what, 6 in front of that tree line Joe? Mr. James: Easement ends, yes, 6. Mr. Cavanaugh: So basically the easement ends out here somewhere. What I am going to suggest is that we consider this as a request for a Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!7

8 fence that would be limited back to the building setback line at 30 from the easement line. That would be as close as you could build a house to that street and a house would certainly be taller than 6. We don t have any influence on how high the fence can be on the side yards, it can be 6 on the property line and they have the right to do that tomorrow morning as far as I know. So the consideration is for this one stretch of fence parallel to Redbud Lane, and I can appreciate the comments from the neighbors both on Redbud and not on Redbud, but I think it is fair consideration to consider putting that fence at 6 equal to the building setback line that would be no closer to that road than a whole house could be. Ms. Sprague: Just to clarify, strictly speaking anywhere between the front line of the house to the street is considered the front yard, so any of that would be limited to 4, so even though it is along the side property line even some of that is limited to 4. It is not just the very back that is request, that doesn t necessarily change what you are talking about. Ms. Duffer: With that suggestion it would also, the drainage issue anyone would have would dissipate. Mr. Cavanaugh: Totally outside of anything close to being drained on the south side of that road. Ms. Duffer: So the second issue is that if we allow 6 as to oppose to 4. But starting with the sides would be considered a front yard as well, is that what you were saying? Ms. Sprague: Anywhere between the line of the house to the street is considered the front yard, so none of that fence whether it is along the side or not it is limited to 4. Mr. Gibbs: I just wanted to be sure, considering the recommendation that was just put forward on that, if that motion was approved or denied this evening, the petitioner could still go ahead and build a 4 fence along the front of that property line, setback, how many feet? Mr. James: They can build it right up to the access easement. Mr. Gibbs: I just wanted to make sure. Ms. Duffer: So if the concern from neighbors is having is having it right up to the street line basically, that is where the concern is, not necessarily the (inaudible) that is what I was hearing. Mr. Gibbs: From the neighbors. Ms. Duffer: They mentioned the 6 fence. Mr. Gibbs: But that is not really what is presented this evening. Ms. Duffer: That is true, but what you are saying is if we denied they could build a 4 fence right out to the road. Mr. Gibbs: Or they could still do it if we even make a motion on what Kevin has proposed. I like your proposal with the 30. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!8

9 Ms. Duffer: 30 back from the middle of the road. Mr. Monnett: Instead of what, 21? Mr. Daniel: 30 from the right of way. Ms. Duffer: I am comfortable with that. Mr. Cavanaugh: If there is no further discussion, I am prepared to make a motion. I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA , as filed by Elena T. Bolin, requesting a variance to the development standards to allow a 6 foot tall fence to be located between the home and Redbud Lane at 642 Weesner Drive with the following condition: 1. That the fence be constructed 30 towards the house, back from the 21 half easement that helps create Redbud Lane. Ms. Duffer: Second. Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board? Mr. Carlucci: Ms. Duffer- yes Mr. Cavanaugh- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Monnett- yes Four ayes, none opposed, motion is approved. Mr. Monnett: Our next petition is BZA-009. Mr. James: Good evening. This petition is a request for a side yard setback variances to allow an existing pool house at 657 Redbud Lane, zoned R-2, this is the property just to the west of the Bolin s property that we just heard. A swimming pool and storage shed housing the pool pump and filter. It was built in 1998, and the storage shed violated the required setbacks at that time even though it was less than 200 square feet and not on the foundation because any structure still has to comply with the required side yard setbacks of the zoning district. The property was bought by the petitioners the Fair s in 2002, storage shed had to be replaced in 2007 because the floor rotted out because of the water. They contacted the building department to see if a building permit would be required, and somehow the zoning ordinance was misinterpreted and there was a misunderstanding and the pool house was built without a building permit and with the prior storage shed s setbacks. The site is a corner lot, so this means it has two front yards and has two side yards. It does not have a rear yard. The side yard setbacks for an accessory structure is the same as the primary structure and 2004 the required side yard setbacks in the R-2 district was changed from 8 to 12. To give you a little history about this, here is their property, it is right on the corner of Redbud Lane, and Vestal Road, this is the Bolin s property right here. This is their vacant lot that was just combined into one lot, zoned R-2. Again this area was developed back in the early 60 s through the County without any subdivision control and these are not platted lots. This is the aerial from the Hendricks County GIS Assessor s website, and these lot lines are not correct, it should be to the center of the road and it should be to this fence that separates the two lots back here. This is not uncommon with the GIS; you see this a lot where the lot Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!9

10 lines have been shifted, so I wanted to point out this lot line too, and how it has shifted. Looking at the Assessor s GIS, this lot lines are not accurate, so the side yard lot line should be back here, here is the pool, but you can t see the pool house or the old shed. I think this is a 2010 aerial. Here is the survey from when they bought the property in Here is the lot line; this is the footprint of the original storage shed that was 8 X12. So they have built the new pool house with this setback with the original storage shed. It is actually setback 2 off the east property line, and about 4-6 off the south property line. Here are photos of the pool house; this is from Redbud Lane. This would be from the Bolin s property. Here you see where they cut down the pine trees that obscured and screened the view of the pool house. The original storage shed was not legal and non conforming, why, because it had a illegal setback from the very beginning, even though it was not on a foundation less than 200. An accessory structure still has to comply with the required setback and also because it was removed. If it had been legal non conforming, once it was torn down by over 2/3 of it s fair market value it would have lost it s legal non conforming status, so there was a misunderstanding or a misinterpretation in the zoning ordinance, it was not legal, nonconforming and the pool house was larger than 200 square feet and built on a foundation, so a building permit should have been required. One reason for side setbacks is to allow for maintenance of structures so you can maintain the structure on your property so you don t have to get on your neighbors property to do that what are some logical options to keep from tearing down the structure, maybe an access easement could be granted, could increase the height of the fence by a foot and plant some more trees to help screen it like the old pine trees used to do, then finally does the misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the zoning ordinance create a hardship? With that I will have a seat, the petitioners are here and I am sure they will be glad to answer any questions you might have. Mr. Monnett: You can come on up. Ms. Fair: Hi, I am Krissy Fair; I live at 657 Redbud Lane. Mr. Fair: Todd Fair, 657 Redbud Lane. I will ask the board, have you looked at all of the documentations that has been presented to all of you with the Bolin s letter, to you as a board and our letter back to you as a board. That will make this a little bit easier for us. With their documentation with us, the Bolin s moved in, basically this is a property line issue. The Bolin s moved in with the previous structure and fence in place, it was a shed, but the new structure which would be the pool house was replaced in the same footprint. As you can see it is not 8 X12, the actual shed is, we put a covered porch on there. When we contacted the board we asked about replacing an existing structure. Based on the questions that we asked and questions that they asked, that is what you see that we have. We do have pictures to show you that the original fence line here has not moved since we purchased the house. The pool pump was housed in the previous shed, and because we all on our street on our street, we all had water problems. To prevent this again and I believe the misunderstanding was, was the foundation. What is this that is on post, basically a deck and then the structure is on top of it. We find out now through all of this that is considered a foundation. So again we were given the impression that we were ok by our questions to the Town, but the fence line itself has not moved. Their survey in 03 we replaced the Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!10

11 structure in 07, at no time was their any complaints over this. This structure did not take a day to build. We had a lot of construction noise going on, and again it is not like all of a sudden we woke up the next morning and it was there. So there were no complaints at that time. In 2011, the trees were removed as you can see from the side yard and now there is a problem with mildew and mold. We claim that there is not mildew and mold on this. It was simply dirt and pine needles from the trees they had on their property and we have that. When we found out about that, I went out with a brush and water, and literally brushed it away and now does it need painted? Probably, but it is not mold and mildew and an eye sore, as they are claiming in their document, nor is it falling apart as well. I believe we stated that in our letter back to you guys. In 2011, the survey showing the pool house does not encroach on their property, but the fence does, but it was predated, the fence line was not moved. We do have pictures to show you that there is a particular line that is actually for a drain, it has not moved. We can show you the old fence and that line is still there. We do have neighbors here tonight that can attest that this fence has been there well before us or the Bolin s purchased our properties. Finally we feel like in our document we have addressed everything so for time purposes it is not necessary for me to go through everyone to read about everything that has been proposed to us. If there are any questions I will be more than happy to answer. Ms. Fair: I do want to say something really quick, my name is Krissy Fair. I want you to know that in 2002 when we bought our property, there was an existing structure there. When we replaced the structure in 2007, and I called and said we are replacing an existing structure, do I need a building permit? The only question that was asked, will it have a permanent foundation. My answer to that was no, to me a permanent foundation is a cement floor or mortar blocks. I had no idea that when you put a fence post into the ground and put cement into that it became a permanent structure. Nor did I know, and this is my fault probably for not being very thorough, but I think this has shown that you will come across things like this and you need too. When we were asked if it was over 200 square feet, it is a 16 X12 structure, that is 192 square feet, I had no idea that the Town of Plainfield also considered what is under roof, which we have an overhang as you can see, that is what makes the structure over 200 square feet, it is not actually wall to wall 200 square feet, it is 16 X12. And again, in 2007, when I called and asked that was the only question that was asked. I had no idea that side setbacks were even an issue because the structure was there when we bought the property in Ms. Duffer: I would like to confirm the structure that was there previously, that was torn down and this was put in the same place? Ms. Fair: Exactly. Mr. Cavanaugh: Ms. Fair, does that house still house your pump equipment for your pool? Ms. Fair: Yes sir and that is why we built that up to keep it from being under water and being under water and replacing it again in five more years. Mr. Monnett: Thank you, if there is anyone in the audience that would like to come forward. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!11

12 Ms. Bolin: My name is Elena Bolin; I live at 642 Weesner Drive. I think Sheri Wade says it best when she said this is not personal, and this is not personal, this is a very sad night and there will be no winners here. Before I state our opposition here, I want to say how difficult it is to speak out against a neighbor as you can imagine, it is with a very heavy heart that I stand here tonight but I wouldn t have to do it if the location of the pool house didn t effect our family and property so much, and I know they stated that it never bothered us before, and it has been there for 4 years, but I think you have the pictures that show it was greatly camouflaged by our trees and we never realized the close proximity of it. So I feel very strongly now to protect what is ours. I pray that God gives both our families the strength to move forward after tonight despite the outcome, because in the end there will be no winners. A recent survey by Banning Engineering which you already have shows that the pool house is as close as 7.5 from the property line and our proposed fence. Which such close proximity it would be impossible to safely use a ladder to maintain the east side of the pool house, including the roof line such as when installing a gutter. I m sure Todd Fair is a very skilled painter and handy man, but if he would have hired a contractor or a future owner were to fall from the roof or ladder onto our fence or property, we would then be liable for all injuries and damages. We cannot take on the risk of being sued and losing everything that we have. While many are wondering the probability of this ever happening, accidents do happen everyday and the possibility is frightening to us. All we are asking the Town of Plainfield to do is to enforce their own ordinances, we do not oppose the pool house itself, it is a very beautiful pool house, and we only oppose its current location, thank you. Ms. Wade: Sheri Wade, 660 Weesner Drive. Can we put that picture up there that shows the lot proximities? I live in that house on the south of the Fair s. We have lived there for just shy of 19 years and we share the fence that that red line represents. We replaced that fence when we put in our pool, it was an old ugly fence and then we also added a section up to connect to the Fair s house which it actually belonged to someone else at the time. We just did that, again I am stuck on the word esthetically it looked better for all of our fences to match. At the time we put the fence in over here in the corner, we butted our fence up to what was then their existing pool house, we didn t take it all the way to the property line, if you will notice it is about this far off the pool house they rebuilt, the corner is just about this far off, and we now have a little opening in there, but that pool house is basically where it has always been. Because of our close proximities we ve always been really hey, are my weeds sticking through, we always maintain that fence. We ve always done that that fence line has always been there. That is weird that it shows it like that on that picture. That pool house in no way infringes on my property. It is close to my property, we are practically on top of each other the way it is. I have no thought in my mind that it is making my property worth less money, because it is on the corner and I don t know, I guess I am old school, because I d just say, hey Todd, fix the back of your pool house, and he says ok, I can t see it. We just take care of it, if there is something wrong with the fence we both take care of it. It has been there forever the thought never occurred to me it was in the wrong place. I am the only Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!12

13 other property that it affects directly and I don t have a problem with it. Ms. Vile: Jane Vile, 627 Redbud Lane, Plainfield. I have lived in my house 50 years, there has always been a shed maybe not in the exact, the last one was because of the pool, but there was another one before that so it has been there for a long time. Mr. Durell: Jim Durell, 601 Redbud Lane, Plainfield. I only have one question, Elena do I really understand that you would not permit Todd to put a ladder on your property in order to maintain the backside of his property. Mr. Gibbs: board. Aren t these questions supposed to directed to us, as a Mr. Monnett: Yes, thank you. Mr. Daniel: You will be allowed to respond to that later. Mr. Monnett: If there is anyone else that would like to come and talk, please do. Ms. Hadley: Jill Hadley, 646 Redbud Lane. My parents built our house in 67, so we are the youngest house on the street. That property has always been maintained and Todd and Krissy are great neighbors, and so are Brad and Elena, I just don t understand all of this, nit picking, it is just ridiculous, I mean neighbors are supposed to be neighbors, and get along as Ms. Wade said, your weeds are on my property, pull them, or can I help you out someway? Todd is a wonderful neighbor to everyone on Weesner and Redbud. They have two darling children, and I hate to see this, it is ridiculous. I think it is a waste of your time. I like you guys but you wouldn t let them stand there and paint their side of the shed? If he wouldn t I m sure Todd would hand you the paint brush and you could do it so that you wouldn t get sued, you are supposed to be neighbors, I don t understand any of this. Back in the day, we used to have neighborhood picnics, pitch in s, cookouts and everybody s kids grew up and now we have new people with young kids and we were all hoping that that would happen again, but I guess not. Mr. Monnett: like to speak. Would anyone else like to speak? Ms. Bolin if you would Ms. Bolin: This is really sad, and I am so sorry that this has caused so much heartache and it is not that we would never let Todd on our property, that is not the issue here. Todd and Krissy will, there is no guarantee that they will always live there, so if we were granted a six foot privacy fence, if there was only 7.5 in between the pool house and the proposed fence, there would be no way even if you put the ladder on our property to maintain the entire side of the pool house. They are fine to come over, I wish our kids could play together, that is not the issue here. The issue is that accidents do happen, if the shingles have to be replaced on the roof, I mean you are going to have to climb up on the roof, I mean accidents happen. Just like two nights ago at the State fair, who would have known that would happen, I mean, we are not trying to be bad neighbors, this is an awful, awful, awful night that we have to make this decision. But we are not trying to Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!13

14 cause ill will at all; we are just trying to protect ourselves. sorry that it has caused all of this. I m Ms. Wade: Sheri Wade, 660 Weesner Drive. If you look at that picture, the only thing that separates my property from the Fair s is a fence, it is on the property line, it is the only property line we have, so we have to be on each other s property to maintain it, never once in my life did I ever think that if I was fixing a fence what I was sharing with them to separate our properties would I be in fear that if I got hurt they would sue me, the other thing that I would just like to mention as a side note, as Todd clears all of our driveways every year, he comes on our properties with his four wheelers and I have not once seen the Bolin s stop him from doing it in fear that he would fall off his four wheeler and get hurt. Thanks. Mr. Fair: Todd Fair, 657 Redbud Lane. The only other thing I want to say about all of this is we are talking about the fence and we are asking for the variance with the fence and the pool house. The fence is able to be maintained as it is right now and the pool house is able to be maintained as it is right now. They talk about putting that 7 on the property line; we are asking for the variance to put the fence to stay where it is, and when we built it, I painted it as it is right now. I am a contract insured painter, and it is not an issue. I just cleaned the side of it without incident, thank goodness. That is what we are asking for if the fence is able to stay and the pool house is able to stay there is no problem with maintenance, so the Bolin s have nothing to worry about. Thank you. Mr. Monnett: I will close the public portion of this and open it up to our board for further discussion or a possible motion. Mr. James: I just wanted to clarify on the variance before you tonight is for the pool house side yard setback from the east property line and from the south property line. The fence and the issue of the property line is not our issue, that has to be decided somewhere else. Mr. Monnett: Thank you Mr. James. Mr. Cavanaugh: I ve got a couple of comments. I think to require the Fair s to replace the pool house would be hardship because they went through what was perceived to be the proper process through the Town at the time they rebuilt. Through oversight maybe a little bit on both sides, we have still a non conforming structure, that I think to require them to relocate it at this time is going to be a hardship and I am inclined to make a favorable recommendation for their variance request. If the chairman, Town Manager, and the Attorney don t mind, I am going to editorialize and express a couple personal views that may or may not be the views of this board. Folks, you all have got to get along. You just got permission to put up a 6 tall privacy fence around the perimeter of your property, you can decide to put it right up on the property line, or you can decide to back it off three or four feet to give Mr. Fair room to work on his fence and his pool house, that is your prerogative, but you have a choice there. It doesn t have to be 7 from their pool house. It is your right to do so if you chose, but you have a choice. I haven t heard from either one represented here any ill will and I think you ve got a golden opportunity to cross that border and figure out how to get along and not let this be in your way. They ve got a pool house that has been Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!14

15 there basically since you both lived there, that hasn t interfered with your use of your property and your enjoyment of your lifestyle and your home until this point and time. You ve just been granted permission to put a privacy fence to help obstruct that view if it is offensive to you. The rest is up to you and what you want to do and allow them to be able to maintain it easily or make it difficult. Your fence may blow into their yard at some point and time injuring them or their guest and the lawsuit could be on you guys, so that goes both ways and quite frankly doesn t carry any weight with me. That is the end of my editorialization, I hope you don t mind and again that is just my personal opinion it has nothing to do with any other board member or the Town of Plainfield. With that in mind, I am prepared to make a motion if no one else has any points of discussion. Mr. Monnett: Yes sir. Mr. Cavanaugh: I move that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve BZA , as filed by Todd and Krissy Fair, requesting a variance to allow an existing pool house to keep its existing side yard setbacks at 657 Redbud Lane subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial compliance with the site plan submitted file date July 15, The pool house shall not be expanded in any way that will increase its size, bulk or height. 3. If the pool house is destroyed for any reason by over twothirds of its fair market value, it cannot be rebuilt at the existing location and a new pool house shall be constructed with an approved building permit complying with all development standards of the subject property s zoning district in place at that time. Ms. Duffer: Second. Mr. Monnett: I have a motion and a second, Mr. Carlucci would you please poll the board? Mr. Carlucci: Ms. Duffer- yes Mr. Cavanaugh- yes Mr. Gibbs- yes Mr. Monnett- yes Motion is approved, four to zero. Mr. Cavanaugh: nicely. Good luck to both of you; I hope you can do things OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS Mr. Monnett: Old business Mr. James? Mr. James: That concludes our public hearing portion of the meeting. I want to update you on the 912 Gary that has the tractor trailer that is continued to be parked. I sent you a copy of the notice that I sent them a couple of weeks ago, but I had no reply from the owner of the property. Ms. Duffer: Is it still there. Mr. James: It is still there. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!15

16 Mr. Gibbs: process? Are you looking for a recommendation to go ahead with the Mr. James: I forgot to look to see what the deadline was; we usually give them 15 days to respond, so I am not sure if that deadline has passed yet or not. Ms. Duffer: Fine them. Mr. Cavanaugh: Agreed. Mr. Daniel: After the deadline. Mr. James: Ok, that is what we will do. That is all I have. Mr. James: I have one more item. We have to adopt the negative findings for a case we heard last month, that was the BZA , Jeff Roberts was the petitioner and that was for the Notinghill rear setback variance request. Mr. Gibbs: I make a motion that we adopt it. Mr. Cavanaugh: Second. Mr. Monnett: All those in favor say aye, please let the record show that I abstained since I was absent. Mr. James: That is all that I have. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Duffer: I motion that we adjourn. Mr. Cavanaugh: Second. Mr. Monnett: Motion and a second to adjourn. Plainfield Board of Zoning Appeals August 15, 2011!16