OFF TOPIC: Pittsford, NY family being sued for fence being 2 inches over code

[Guest guest]

This article appeared in local paper yesterday. When I first heard

of the story, I thought the family installed a 7 foot fence (which I

could also understand). However, we are talking about a 3 1/2 foot

fence!!! I think the town should allow the couple of inches mistake

and also issue a standing permit for a 6 foot fence should the family

need it down the road! Please write a note to the Town of Pittsford,

supporting this family to keep the fence as is. We all understand

autism and the need to keep our children safe. Thank you in

advance. Rhonda Miga

Town of Pittsford's addresses: 11 South Main Street, Pittsford, NY

14534

Town Supervisor: Carpenter bcarpenter@...

Home Phone #(585) 586-3749

Town Justice, Fred Gallina fgallina@...

All govt officials are listed here

http://www.townofpittsford.com/government/officials.asp

Slugline Village, residents on two sides of same fence

Publication Brighton-Pittsford

Date July 08, 2004

Section(s) Local News

The parents of an autistic child are frustrated they can't keep the

fence they built to protect their child.

By JEREMY MOULE / jmoule@...

believes it's OK to give an inch, or a few, in his case,

in order to protect his son.

But and his wife, , are frustrated that the village, as

they see it, doesn't feel the same way.

The difference of opinion all comes down to a fence. The village says

that, with a front post that measures taller than it was approved

for, the fence is in violation of village code and the couple must

remedy the situation. The es, however, say the violation was

unintentional. They sought a variance for the fence which, during the

June 28 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, was denied.

" We have worked our hardest to comply with what people have

requested, " said .

The couple believes the board is being inflexible, but the village's

attorney, Osborn, says the board's decision is consistent with

ones made in the past as well as village regulations.

The es, on June 28, were denied the variance for their picket

fence, which they say they built to protect their 6-year-old autistic

son. Autism is marked by a lack of social awareness, according to

. Children with the condition can be overly fearful or

overly friendly, she said.

" Our son tends to be overly friendly, " said.

Then there's the safety issue, a problem for many autistic children,

who often have little awareness of dangerous situations, such as

vehicular traffic.

The couple wants to keep their son from running into the road,

especially Jefferson Road, which runs along one side of their

property. The couple said they have had to pull him back from the

side of the road.

The es received a building permit Sept. 22, 2003, to erect a

fence with 42-inch tall posts on his property at 17 Eastview Terrace.

After it was constructed, however, was summoned to

Pittsford Town Court for allegedly violating the village's fence

regulations, he said. The case was heard April 1, and 54 days later,

the Admases received the verdict. They were ordered to pay a $350

fine and fix the fence so it meets the codes. They were to be fined

an additional $100 for each week the fence remained.

" The fence meets all of the village guidelines except the height, "

said.

The front corner post of the fence is 46 inches tall and the pickets

in that area are 44 inches tall, according to . Village

regulations allow for a fence that is three feet tall in the front

yard.

He said the difference between the fence that was built and what is

specified in the permit was due to contractor error and the sloping

nature of his property. They paid $8,500 to have the fence built, and

it would cost between half and one-third of that to have the fence

taken down and rebuilt to meet the regulations, he said.

The es thought they had found an easier solution to deal with

the situation instead of taking down the fence, said. They

applied for a variance, which would allow them to legally keep the

fence, despite the deviation from village regulations.

" This truly does better suit him (my son), " said.

During the meeting June 28, he presented a petition supporting the

fence with signatures from 17 of his neighbors.

There were two reasons for the denial, according to Osborn. Since the

house is a corner lot, a fence higher than three feet in the front is

a safety hazard, he said. The house is on a corner lot - at the

intersection of Jefferson Road and Eastview Terrace - and the concern

is with the view pulling onto Jefferson Road from Eastview Terrace.

Second, the village code calls for a fence with pickets no higher

than three feet to protect the views of the homes, which are a

prominent part of the village's historic character. He said the fence

would have to be limited to three feet on two of the four sides of

the ' property because two sides of the house face roadways.

Essentially, he said, they have two front yards.

In terms of safety, Osborn said the board was empathetic to their

situation, but it chose to bow to the issue of public safety.

He said the decision is consistent with others made by the board.

" We've been real fussy about corner lots, " Osborn said.

argues that a shrub near the corner across the road from

his property is more dangerous than his fence and that the fence, as

it is, does not obstruct the view at the intersection.

To take the fence down would be expensive and an additional burden,

particularly on top of medical costs related to his son,

said.

The situation has left the couple unsure of their next move.

said suing the town through an article 78 proceeding, a way to

legally challenge municipal proceedings, may be an option,

particularly in reference to the Americans With Disabilities Act. He

is, however, hesitant to resort to that because he believes that may

drain away money that could be better spent caring for his son.

" It's been an emotional roller coaster, " said.