Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board approves variance for two privacy screens at 1152 Shearbrooke, subject to HOA sign-off
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing two privacy screens that do not meet the code's 25% vertical-opening requirement, contingent on homeowners association approval and payment of permitting fees.
At a Board of Zoning Appeals meeting called to order at 7:06 p.m., members voted to approve a variance for two privacy screens installed at 1152 Shearbrooke, subject to approval by the property's homeowners association (HOA) and payment of any required permit fees.
The variance affects a pair of wood privacy screens installed by the property owners, identified in the hearing as Mr. and Mrs. Barter. The board's approval allows the screens to remain even though they do not meet the zoning code's 25% vertical-opening requirement for fences.
Board members and staff focused discussion on whether the structures should be classified as fences (which must meet the 25% vertical-opening rule) or as privacy screens, which the zoning code does not clearly distinguish. A staff member referred to the 25% rule as the long-standing measurement used by code enforcement: "25% vertical'... that's what they're looking at 25%." The Barters told the board they had replaced earlier panels and did not know the installation would trigger a code violation: "I had no idea that there was a, ordinance that this that separated between the vertical and the horizontal," one of the applicants said.
Applicants described the panels as roughly 6 feet tall with board spacings that average about 1 inch, producing an estimated total open area of roughly 12 to 13 inches if stacked from ground to top. Board discussion noted that, by that estimate, the vertical open area equates to about 15%–16% of the fence height, less than the code's 25% requirement; one participant observed that 18 inches of cumulative gaps would be needed to reach 25% on a 6-foot structure.
Several board members and attendees said similar horizontal-panel privacy treatments exist elsewhere in the community and that many were installed before current rules or approval processes were enforced. Board members also said the town solicitor and mayor were reviewing possible clarifications to fence and screening language in the zoning code.
After discussion, a board member moved to approve "a fencing variance to permit two privacy screens without the required 25% vertical openings subject to HOA approval and payment of any permitting fees." The motion was seconded and the board recorded affirmative votes from Andy Hirschk, Lindsay Smith, Mary Rachael and Cindy Mitchell. The motion carried and the variance was approved with the stated conditions.
The board and applicants noted two administrative follow-ups: the applicants must secure the HOA's written approval before permits are finalized, and they must pay any permit fees required by the town. The board also flagged broader code-clarification work by town counsel and the mayor's office to better define screening versus fencing in future revisions.
No fines, deadlines for removal, or additional enforcement timelines were specified during the hearing; the board's action was limited to the variance approval with the HOA and permitting conditions.
The BZA case was introduced in the meeting as "BZA case number 25-11" and the property was described in the record as 1152 Shearbrooke.
