My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2000-11-14 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2000
>
2000-11-14 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 3:01:43 PM
Creation date
12/14/2005 11:25:03 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />City ofCenterville <br />Planning & Zoning Commission <br />November 14, 2000 <br /> <br />Mr. Schwartz stated that he had received information from the previous owner of his <br />property, which led him to believe, the area next to his lot would not be developed as it <br />was a nature area and that was reason he purchased the property. Commissioner Brainard <br />stated that it is the responsibility of property owner to research many areas prior to <br />purchasing property, such as school district, sewer and water, undeveloped land nearby, <br />etc. Commissioner Brainard stated that it is unreasonable to think the area would stay <br />undeveloped in a growing community. <br /> <br />Mr. Carter stated that in his opinion, Ground Development was pressuring the City to <br />agree to their terms by a specific date. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Brainard. seconded by Commissioner DeVine to close the <br />public hearin2. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. <br /> <br />III. APPEARANCES <br /> <br />1. Mr. Roger Shimon - Zoning/Electrical Fencing <br /> <br />Mr. Shimon, 1751 Peltier Lake Drive, was present and expressed his concern for <br />electrical fence running along the back of his property, eight (8) feet off the property line. <br />Mr. Shimon stated that there should be a larger buffer and requested that the Commission <br />modifies the ordinance accordingly. <br /> <br />Ms. Buckbee stated she was the owner of the electrical fence and that the fence was <br />previously fifty (50) feet off the property line as a courtesy to neighboring residents. <br />However, recently the fencing was moved to within eight (8) feet of the property line. <br /> <br />Mr. March stated that R-l zoning allows for electrical fencing and that the issue is <br />whether the ordinance needed to be amended to include a buffer zone between properties <br />where electric fencing is allowed and where other residentially zoned areas abut. <br /> <br />Chairperson Hanson stated that the current ordinance allows a property owner to place a <br />fence directly on the property line if so desire and that it is a courtesy that the property <br />owner has left an eight (8) foot buffer. <br /> <br />Commissioner McLean questioned whether there were similar properties that have <br />electrical fencing. <br /> <br />Ms. Buckbee stated that there were other properties within Centerville large enough to <br />have livestock but was unsure if others have electrical fencing. <br /> <br />Mr. March indicated the Commission would need to amend Ordinance #4 if they felt <br />there was a need to incorporate a requirement for a buffer zone between properties with <br />electrical fencing and those without. <br /> <br />Page 6 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.