[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6372713,"mediaKeyId","2147298-f57d3d694824442caa744e96876d5d17","parentId",2147298,"title","Zoning board: front yard starts at primary dwelling; denies 6-foot solid fence at 3320 W. Lyndale Ave.","audioSeconds",3882,"startMs",3600000,"endMs",7482000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147298-f57d3d694824442caa744e96876d5d17&start=3600&end=7482","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147298-f57d3d694824442caa744e96876d5d17/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6372713/Greenfield/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Zoning-board-front-yard-starts-at-primary-dwelling-denies-6-foot-solid-fence-at-3320-W-Lyndale-Ave","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372713-047bdc02940c0cb95c7cf40942db5567/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168773&Signature=BvgA2C9WLk7kqotnlnYy8AjxMIxsbC6aLo4at58NCphgN~jCXeAbfu6att38CbyG6P~C-GozgBDCGTSmiliViPc~Q7oL13~Rxz3iUwRJRkf5m66MokLgJzHIzGdJnmPFKHO2rjbV-veKYnGzP3GIGpnSUgyqF62Dxt-7ZZcOAhqtHHyQGpuEEF8--WYOnuvN02DKXWfaaa6tAG4rANrFagota2P3qOggFVZnJzvlArod3BhYaMZTnE8FdMURhSZlBiWsgdbU1es4NPzexJchfdVmomPHKui38aA~Or3DsFxXhpBlsspginolDY6rg6rqPOVBc1tO6W3-LT9MnWuWuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-24T14:20:47.663Z","article","The Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 determined that the city had not erred in identifying the front yard at 3320 West Lyndale Avenue and then voted to deny a request to leave a 6-foot solid fence in the front yard.

On the first question — whether staff incorrectly identified the front yard — the board unanimously (4-0) affirmed staff’s determination that the front yard is measured from the primary dwelling toward Lyndale Avenue rather than from the outer edge of the porch. The zoning administrator explained that the porch appears to be a projection into the front yard and that staff had no independent evidence that the porch is a load-bearing portion of the primary dwelling.

Following that determination, the applicant sought a variance for a 6-foot solid fence that would have exceeded the city’s decorative-fence standard (decorative fences in front yards may be up to 3 feet tall and must be mostly open). Staff recommended denial, citing lack of exceptional property circumstances and noting that changes the owner made after purchase — including a garage enlargement in 2023 and retention of an existing shed — reduced rear-yard area and weakened the argument that the lot faces an exceptional hardship.

After public comment from the property owner, Marsha Hernandez, who described the porch as a structural element built with the house in the 1930s, and from neighbors in support, the board voted to deny the 6-foot solid-fence request. The roll call produced a 3-1 result: Don Reid recorded the lone opposing vote; the other board members voted to deny the variance.

The property owner told the board she hired a contractor who installed the fence without a permit and that the contractor said he would not appear at the hearing. She said the fence is cedar and that the concrete it is anchored to predated the work; she raised concerns about removing the panels because of drilled holes and possible permanent damage. The owner provided photographs, before-and-after appraisals and argued the lot is nonconforming and unique in the block.

Board members and staff discussed options the applicant could pursue if she wants to preserve some fencing: move the fence back from the lot line; reconfigure sections facing the street to be more open or decorative; reduce height; present evidence that the porch is load bearing (an engineering or building-inspector report); or apply for an alternate variance with a new submittal. Staff noted the applicant can work with planning staff to develop a revised design and that a new or supplemental application would likely be required for formal consideration.

Board members and staff also discussed enforcement and timelines. The board suggested a pragmatic enforcement window (several months) to allow the applicant to pursue corrective steps; staff said typical enforcement windows vary and suggested a month or two but the board indicated six months would be reasonable to allow the applicant time to arrange alternatives or pursue documentation. If the fence remains nonconforming after that period, staff indicated it would pursue code enforcement action.

No new variance was approved. The denial means the existing 6-foot solid portions located in the front-yard area are not in conformance with code; the owner was advised to work with staff on next steps, including documentation that the porch is load bearing or a revised plan that reduces height and increases openness toward the street.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Common Council Meeting 1/21/2025 Part 2","oneSentenceSummary","The board determined the city’s front-yard delineation was correct and denied a petition to leave a 6-foot solid fence in the front yard at 3320 West Lyndale Avenue, voting 3-1. The applicant may pursue alternative designs or present evidence that the porch is load-bearing.","taxTitle","Greenfield, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin","taxId",51134,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6372718,"Zoning board denies variance for front-yard fence; tables ADA accommodation for family with elopement risk",3213,355000,3568000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2147298-f57d3d694824442caa744e96876d5d17&start=355&end=3568","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2147298-f57d3d694824442caa744e96876d5d17/thumbnail_355000.jpg","/articles/6372718/Greenfield/Milwaukee-County/Wisconsin/Zoning-board-denies-variance-for-front-yard-fence-tables-ADA-accommodation-for-family-with-elopement-risk","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6372718-1bd03eaf4bf7b9f59236598327b9facf/orig.mp4?Expires=1776168773&Signature=ERoZ1BLBV8iAuuHtM3YPeJGBEsFhhMsQfQTbP0kl3i2WIzI02lPqvqOvuUYi45DH3Bg2onaJ4r7gsULZoNW4Seevwid-Ng9TwMf~mxtNzkmEEwSNcvAPKV2K4RlG5G~n78e3Nz2m9bEigsnD4uBGk9wOzdYOwSkc0fNYh7o~2P3r~nMfhf-IXGkN8ZCxBcoihYOmI~bIPFnqs6-HxAKYl5-vONOi19ubVd5taq4mvrrC0KDixtv-K6Cq2deeTGehbxJ9UideeXI7JFXBm6NZYK9E50IHGO6WSPZRUXI0Oie9cPiUhCHbqMUxF2JqOarzK8~l9l~SZNjdn6mQ14jWXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Zoning Board of Appeals on Jan. 23 denied a variance request to install a 4-foot solid fence in the front yard at 68100 West Edgerton Avenue and tabled consideration of a separate reasonable-accommodation request tied to the homeowner’s son with autism until the board’s next meeting.

The board voted 4-0 to deny the variance, adopting staff’s recommendation that the applicant had not shown the “exceptional, extraordinary or unusual” property characteristics required to grant a variance. The board then moved the reasonable-accommodation discussion to the next meeting so the applicant can present an updated site plan and additional materials.

Staff told the board the Greenfield municipal code allows decorative front-yard fencing up to 3 feet tall and requires such fencing to be more than 75 percent open. The applicant’s request sought both an increase in height and a fully closed (solid) fence. Staff recommended denial because the lot did not have unique circumstances that would justify an exception to the code.

At the meeting, the homeowner described the request as a safety measure for her son, who she said turned 6 on the day of the meeting and “is a severe eloper.” The homeowner said therapy and alarms have not prevented repeated elopement; she said she tracked 12 escapes in a four-day period and that a state program and an unnamed contractor would cover the fence cost. The homeowner also said a nearby bar, mall and heavy traffic at the intersection increase the safety risk.

Neighbors offered mixed reactions. Thomas Anik, who said he lives immediately adjacent, told the board he has lived in the neighborhood more than 50 years and opposed additional fences that he said would create “hassles.” Dina Fleming, a resident across Edgerton, said she sympathized with the family but worried a solid fence at the sidewalk would hurt the residential character and could encourage similar requests.

Board members and staff discussed the alternative legal pathway for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act: a reasonable accommodation that would be tied to the individuals living at the property rather than running with the land. Staff explained the legal difference: a variance runs with the property; an ADA-based reasonable accommodation does not and can be limited to the current residents and a duration the board chooses.

Several board members urged the applicant to work with staff on a revised plan that might preserve neighborhood visibility while providing more safety. Suggested compromises included setting the fence back from the lot line, using an open (picket) design to allow sight lines, adding decorative elements, or exploring a taller fence built to ADA guidance (some board members cited research suggesting 5 feet or more and no handholds for children at flight risk).

The board took two formal actions. First it voted to deny the variance request (4-0). Second, the board voted to table the reasonable-accommodation request to the next meeting and asked the applicant to return with a clearer site plan, any supporting documentation (for example assessments from therapists or local safety programs), and a depiction of proposed gates and driveway access. Board members suggested the applicant work with staff in the interim and to bring any documentation of outreach to city departments (police, DPW, fire) about traffic or safety measures.

The board did not adopt a final design or approve any construction. Staff said it would accept documentation and work with the applicant on options; the board encouraged the applicant to bring back detailed drawings that address sight lines at the driveway, gate operation, setback from the sidewalk, and whether the requested accommodation should be granted only while the child lives at the residence.","The Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance for a 4-foot solid front-yard fence at 68100 W. Edgerton Ave., then agreed to consider a reasonable-accommodation request tied to the homeowner's son with autism at next month’s meeting.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board: front yard starts at primary dwelling; denies 6-foot solid fence at 3320 W. Lyndale Ave.

Zoning board denies variance for front-yard fence; tables ADA accommodation for family with elopement risk