My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-243
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 201-300
>
VN-243
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2007 2:25:15 PM
Creation date
3/13/2007 1:09:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
t <br /> <br />Planning Commission <br />Regular Meeting <br />December 20, 1984 <br />Page 3 <br />Public Hearings <br />_i <br />8:00 P.M.- <br />8:23 P.M. <br />Thermo King, VN-241 <br />Staff explained how the fence came <br />present position and s <br />request per the findings of fact in the sample resolution. <br />John Jorissen of Thermo King questioned the lack of unique <br />circumstances especially with the single family homes <br />adjacent to the property. Existing properties south of High- <br />way #96 do not conform stbacks other <br />Thermo King's fence with 20 HP <br />ways there are to protect the well and well pump <br />motor). There are no simple ways to protect pump except by <br />fencing it. There is no inandtstorageuandtthisearea couldlbe <br />the front yard for parking <br />curbed off to prevent parking. Their concern is for the safety <br />of the neighbors. Tfence is not offensive looking and was <br />there when the property was Chairman Williams asked if the fence is <br />as it was prior to construction. <br />Mr. Jorrissen responded it <br />building. <br />in the same place now <br />is except across the front of the <br />Chairman Williams asked the t fence <br />it was reestablished in <br />purchased the property. <br />Commissioner Baker stated that the fence location was nthecoite. <br />sistent with the approved plans for the development Motion by Baker, seconded by Livingston to close the public <br />hearing. <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion carried. <br />Commissioner Baker stated he had a concern for granting the <br />variance because a 32 foot fence would serve the safety purpose <br />of keeping children out, that theofcthetarealto be setrandKthat <br />is an opportunity for the standards <br />the pump is not unique and can be secured without a fence. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.