HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1 - SupplementalMichael Schoendorf
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
(
January 30, 2007
Dear Planning Commissioners:
For the following reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission decline Mr. Papp's application
for a fence permit on the Town's easement that abuts my property.
1. The easement has been in existence since the subdivision of Mr. Abraham's property in about
1980. Mr. Papp bought his property subject to the conditions of the easement.
2. Placing a fence where Mr. Papp has requested it would eliminate the 203 Japanese Boxwoods
that I planted more than 15 years ago and that I have maintained ever since. During this entire
time, Mr. Papp has failed to voice any objection to the plants.
3. In order that the proposed fence not intrude on my property, there would have to be at least a 4"
to 6" setback into the easement to allow holes to be dug for fence supports. It is my under-
standing that Town regulations do not permit this. In fact, when a property owner builds a fence, he is
usually required to have a slight setback onto his property — away from the easement.
4. Although a 10 -foot opening at one end of the proposed fence (at the southeastern portion of the
easement) would allow wildlife to enter Mr. Papp's property, the fence would make it extremely
difficult for wildlife to exit the property. Almost on a daily basis, 1 see deer entering Mr. Papp's
property, and they have an easy exit through my Japanese Boxwoods. Construction of the fence,
however, would create a "hazard zone;' whereby fawns and other animals incapable of vaulting the
fence would be easy prey for bobcats and coyotes.
5. 1 believe no portion of an easement can be fenced off to restrict access to the easement along its
entire course. A single 10 -foot opening for a 250 -foot easement is not a reasonable access to
that easement.
6. Another 550 -foot easement exists out to Natoma along the Liccardo's property. Granting Mr.
Papp's application would create a precedent and justify granting a similar permit to Mrs. Liccardo,
should she decide to construct a fence. The net effect would be the creation of an 800 -foot ease-
ment with but a 10 -foot opening all the way to Natoma.
7. If Mr. Papp truly wants to secure his property with a fence, he should move the fence back 10 feet
to his side of the Town's easement and completely seal off his property.
In summary, Mr. Papp's proposed fence would not benefit him', instead, it would seriously damage the scenic
beauty that now exists. Indeed, well -kept Japanese Boxwoods are far more in keeping with the Town's
rural environment than is another sterile fence. As well, it is apparent that Mr. Papp is at least 15 years too
late to voice legal or other objections to the location of the Boxwoods.
In summary, I hope you understand that, without some compromise, my rights to the enjoyment of my property
would be infringed by the proposed fence. I think I'm proposing a reasonable solution, and I hope you give it due
consideration.
Sincerely,
Michael Schoendorf