Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certificate Of Occupancy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB flags fence and survey discrepancies at Two Winterbury Way, delays CO
Summary
An ARB inspection found fencing at Two Winterbury Way exceeding approved height in places and portions that appear off the applicant's lot; the applicant disputed responsibility and the board required an updated survey and corrections before issuing a certificate of occupancy.
The Architectural Review Board on June 20 declined to grant a certificate of occupancy for a gates-and-deer-fence installation at Two Winterbury Way after a staff inspection found multiple nonconformities with an earlier resolution.
Will (inspector/staff) told the board that while the gates largely match the approved resolution, portions of the deer fencing exceed the permitted height (measured at up to 8 feet 6 inches in places) and small sections of fencing appear to lie outside the applicant's property line as shown on the survey. The inspector recommended an updated survey that includes the gate, and noted that fences shown on a legal survey are legally considered part of the property depiction whether or not ownership is clear.
Applicant Matthew Waller countered that some of the over-height material belongs to his neighbor and that earlier site visits and communications gave him conflicting guidance about what needed to be changed. Waller said he had trimmed posts and sought to comply where he believed fencing was his, but asked the board for clarity after a prolonged process of inspections and re-surveys. "I've been getting misinformed ... it's costing me a ton of money in surveys," Waller said, asking for clearer direction.
The board emphasized the legal standard that fencing depicted on a recorded survey is treated as a property feature and that the resolution's height limits must be met for any fencing on the applicant's lot. Members said if portions are the neighbor's fence, that structure should be moved off the applicant's survey or the survey should be amended; if the fencing is on the applicant's property it must be reduced to conform. Rather than issue a CO, the ARB directed staff to send a letter to the applicant requiring (1) an updated survey that clearly shows the gate and which fence segments are on the applicant's property, and (2) correction or removal of any segments exceeding the approved 8-foot height. The board said staff will re-inspect after those items are completed before issuing a certificate of occupancy.
The exchange underscored recurring practical issues applicants face when pre-existing site conditions and property-line ambiguities intersect with the ARB's precise resolution language; the board noted that handling ownership disputes is a separate civil/property matter and that code enforcement or neighbor agreements may be required.
