Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Board of Adjustment <br />April 23. 2009 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />1. The variance shall only pertain to the fence shown in Exhibit B. <br />2. A building permit for the fence shall be obtained from the City's Building Safety Bureau within 60 days <br />of the approval by the Board of Adjustment. <br />3. The fence shall meet all other site development criteria at the time of permitting. <br />4. The existing fence shall be removed prior to the calling for an inspection of the new fence. <br />5. All of the above conditions shall be fully and faithfully executed or the variance shall become null and <br /> <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the distance from the proposed fence to the sidewalk, the screening of <br /> <br />the pool equipment and the proposed height and type of the fence. <br /> <br />Ms. Gauvin asked the applicant to come forward. Ms. Demetra Blevins and Mr. Ronald Hersh, 609 Laurel Way, <br /> <br />Casselberry, Florida came forward. Ms. Blevins said her house is located near the grade school and she would like to <br /> <br />screen the pool from the school children. She was concerned with the liability of the pool. A general discussion <br /> <br />regarding screening the pool equipment and the proposed fence location. The applicant provided a brochure <br /> <br />the fencing material (a copy is attached and made a part of the minutes). <br /> <br />Ms. Gauvin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the request. No one <br /> <br />came forward. <br /> <br />Ms. Gauvin asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak against the request. No one came <br /> <br />forward. <br /> <br />A general discussion ensued regarding the location of the pool deck, height of the fence, fencing material <br /> <br />the criteria required for granting a variance. Ms. Gauvin asked for a motion for BA 09-02. Mr. Armour made a motion to <br /> <br />approve BA 09-02 stating criteria no. 4 is a hardship due to the cost and inconvenience involved in removing a portion <br /> <br />the pool deck and possible equipment underneath the pool deck, criteria no. 5 considering the reasonable use of the <br /> <br />itself and the privacy issue that a six foot fence would seem appropriate in this case and the conditions of approval <br /> <br />outlined in the staff report. Mr. Mullen seconded the motion. <br /> <br />The Board was polled. <br /> <br />Mary Anne Gauvin Yes <br />Earl McMullen Yes <br />Luis Guzman Yes <br />Arlin Armour Yes <br />Andrew Lopez Yes <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br />