03/01/2022 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

protect her property and her dogs from the neighbor that shoots at them. Lastly, Ms. Munn proposes the option of a mesh material to cover the fence so you cannot see that it is metal. There was further discussion amongst the board, applicant and Mr. Mack about the fence material, proposed mesh material and other options of making the fence compliant. After verifying in the ordinance, Mr. Mack determines that the mesh is not an approvable material. Motion was made by RuthAnn Alsobrook, seconded by Larry Walker to excuse herself from the rest of the meeting. Motion carried 5-0. Motion was made by Larry Walker, seconded by William Sanders to bring alternate David Hamilton on to the board for the remainder of the meeting. Motion carried 4-0. Stephanie Harris, City attorney, states for the record that Mr. Hamilton has been present for the whole meeting and heard all the proceedings up to this point. There was discussion amongst the board and applicant of whether or not there is a hardship. Andrew Mack makes note of the input forms submitted: Cheri Bedford of 929 SE Yd St, in opposition. Hugh Michael King of 801, 757 and 746 Church St, in opposition. David and Mary Schutte of 1031 S Church St, in opposition. Roger King of 1029 SE 3rd St, in favor. Randy Hider of 190 E Long Ave, in opposition. Mr. Walker declared the public hearing closed. Motion was made by Chris Fitzgerald, seconded by William Sanders to deny the variance to the City of Paris Fence Ordinance 4.11.003(a)(7)(F) based on the following staff recommended findings of fact. Motion carried 5-0. Staff Recommended Findings of Fact: 1. The request for variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Fence Ordinance No. 2021-044, as amended, and does not continue to protect surrounding properties from any negative impacts. 2. The denial of the request to permit the fence with prohibited materials will not prevent the reasonable use of the property for the residence because the materials can be replaced with a fencing material that conforms to the ordinance requirements. 3. There are no special or unique condition(s) of restricted area, shape, topography, or physical features that exist on the subject parcel of land, which are not applicable to other parcels of