HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
July 11, 2012
PRESENT: Robert Cornell, Janet Duellman, Dennis Penney, Kathryn Larson, Jane Cryan
EXCUSED: Dan Carpenter, Robert Krasniewski
STAFF: Todd Muehrer, Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator; Deborah Foland, Recording
Secretary
Chairperson Cornell called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum declared
present.
The minutes of June 13, 2012 were approved as presented. (Penney/Cryan)
ITEM I: 2435 SANDSTONE COURT
Aran E./Shannon L. Walter-applicants/owners, request the following variances to permit an 8’ high privacy
fence with a 0’ side (west) and rear yard setback:
Description Code ReferenceRequired Proposed
Side yard setback for 8’ high fence 30-17 (B)(3)(b) 7.5’ 0’
Rear yard setback for 8’ high fence 30-17 (B)(3)(d) 25’ 0’
Mr. Muehrer presented the item and distributed photos of the subject site. He stated that the property was
zoned R-1 Single-Family Residence District featuring a single-family dwelling and bordered by single-
family homes in all directions. The applicant is requesting a variance to permit an 8’ tall privacy fence that
would run along portions of the west and south property lines for the protection and safety purposes of the
family’s three special needs children. The two foot extension on top of the existing six foot fence was
constructed as a result of one of their children with autism recently scaling the existing fence. The fencing
extension was constructed of similar material that would eventually weather to match in appearance and was
removable allowing the fence to be returned to a compliant manner upon the home being sold or the children
with special needs no longer residing there. The children with special needs are protected under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, (ADA), and federal law requires a requested accommodation to be first
“reasonable” and second “necessary” and the Board needs to determine if this modification to the zoning
ordinance standards meets this requirement. The applicant’s request appears to be reasonable and no
objections have been received from neighboring property owners. The applicant also submitted a letter
affirming the need for protective measures for the child from the family’s pediatrician.
Shannon Walter, 2435 Sandstone Court, stated that the staff report covered most the details of their situation
and their child has been looking for a way out since they installed the fence extension.
Mr. Cornell requested a history of the six foot fence on the site.
Ms. Walter responded that the six foot fence along the back lot was already in place and they added the sides
to close off an area of the yard.
Mr. Cornell questioned if a variance was granted for the original fencing.
Board of Appeals Minutes 1 July 11, 2012
Mr. Muehrer indicated that a variance was not necessary for the six foot fence as it met code requirements
however when they added two feet to the height, it required a variance. Their child had scaled the fence and
the applicants felt the need to address the safety issue immediately so the two foot extension was added
along the west and east sides.
Mr. Cornell stated that he reviewed Chapter 30 of the zoning ordinance and could not locate the section that
addressed the six and eight foot fencing requirements and questioned where it was located.
Mr. Muehrer read from Chapter 30-35(E), paragraph 4, of the zoning ordinance which states that a 7.5 foot
side yard and a 25 foot rear yard setback was required for an eight foot fence.
Ms. Larson questioned if the fence follows the elevation of the ground.
Ms. Walter indicated that the entire fence was all eight foot in height and displayed the area where the child
went over. She further stated that they were aware that a variance was necessary; however, they needed to
address the issue immediately and they did discuss the matter with their neighbors prior to installing the
extension.
Mr. Penney commented that they had a similar case a few years ago and according to the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act, (ADA), a requested accommodation must be “reasonable” and “necessary” to grant the
variance and that appeared to be the only determination required.
Mr. Cornell stated that the previous case had different circumstances than the case presented today.
Motion by Larson to approve the request for a variance to permit an 8’ high privacy fence with a 0’
side (west) and rear yard setback with the following condition:
1)The proposed fence height extension is removed upon the home being sold or upon the
children with special needs no longer residing in the home.
Seconded by Duellman.Motion carried 5-0.
Finding of Facts:
Meets reasonable and necessary requirements of the ADA.
Unique situation.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:43 p.m. (Penney/Cryan).
Respectfully submitted,
Todd Muehrer
Associate Planner/Zoning Administrator
Board of Appeals Minutes 2 July 11, 2012