Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner offers to finance fence at 465 Stronger Street; board allows fence but flags possible zoning issues
Summary
An owner/representative told the nuisance board he will finance and add to a contract‑to‑own balance the cost of a fence at 465 Stronger Street; the board approved the fence installation but noted that if scrap‑metal activity is occurring the property may require a zoning variance and additional inspection.
At the Nuisance Review Board meeting, the owner/representative who attended to address complaints at 465 Stronger Street described a plan to install a fence and said he would finance it and add the cost to the property’s contract‑to‑own balance. He told the board he had contracted a fencing company that was booking into August and that the fence would be installed after that date.
Board members welcomed the owner’s plan but were explicit that a fence would not eliminate the board’s responsibilities. One committee member noted that “if everything’s stated, put in there… that fence” may resolve many concerns, while another warned the fence could be used to hide a scrap‑metal operation that should instead seek a variance from the board of zoning appeals. Staff cautioned that the nuisance board treats health hazards (for example, debris that allows vermin or rot) differently from zoning violations; health hazards would trigger action regardless of a fence.
Neighbors’ concerns were read into the record; one attendee (identified in public comment as a neighbor) asked that his name not be publicized. The board discussed enforcement history and previous periods when the property had been off the docket after addressing front‑yard issues. After hearing that the owner brought a plan to the meeting, a motion to allow the fence to be installed while monitoring the property passed by voice vote.
The board instructed code enforcement to verify the fence’s installation and to inspect the property if visual or other evidence suggests a health hazard inside the fenced area. Members noted that if the property is operating as a scrap‑metal business in a residential zone it would need to pursue a zoning variance with the Board of Zoning Appeals; that process falls under planning/zoning, not the nuisance board. The board will review the property again if complaints persist.
Quote: The owner/representative said, “I said, I’ll pay and put the fence up. Now I’ll just add it on to the total amount that you’ll owe to the proper team.”
Next steps: Code Enforcement and Planning will coordinate on whether the fenced area conceals any conditions that rise to a health hazard or require zoning action; the board will revisit 465 Stronger Street at a future meeting if compliance or neighbor concerns continue.
