Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board wrestles with contractor error and permit closeout as root of fence dispute
Summary
Board discussion emphasized owner responsibility for permit compliance even when contractors misrepresent approvals. Members urged applicants to return with documented landscape mitigation and suggested splitting topper requests from legalization of existing work.
During discussion of the fence variance, board members repeatedly emphasized that, while the presenter described contractor errors and a difficult contractor relationship, responsibility for compliance with village codes ultimately lies with the property owner.
The presenter said they had relied on a contractor's representation that the closed fence had been reviewed with the building department; that turned out not to be the case and the contractor was later removed. John Brown said the owner remained responsible despite contractor missteps: "I'm against the variance. And I think it sets a bad precedent. And I also believe that it was incumbent upon the owner." Board members encouraged the applicant to return with a detailed landscape mitigation plan and suggested the board could consider the requested topper separately if the applicant provides adequate documentation and planting proposals.
Members also discussed timing and permit closeout: the fence was noted as installed in September 2019, and the issue arose only during the building-permit closeout process. The board flagged precedent as a chief concern — granting a variance to legalize a built solid front-yard fence could encourage similar requests — and described landscaping outside the fence as a potential mitigation to reduce visibility if the applicant re-submits.
