Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy City board denies variance request for 4368 Virginia after debate on setback, safety and sidewalk easement
Summary
A requested 6-foot privacy-fence variance at 4368 Virginia was denied June 4 by the Troy City Building Code Board of Appeals after board discussion about line-of-sight, a sidewalk easement and whether the lot’s characteristics warranted an exception.
The Troy City Building Code Board of Appeals on June 4 denied a requested variance for a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence at 4368 Virginia, concluding the application as submitted did not demonstrate the exceptional property characteristic required to grant a variance.
The appellant sought permission to install a 6-foot-high vinyl privacy fence placed 25 feet from the Webb property line on a corner lot in the R-1-B zoning district. Staff read the application into the record, explaining that R-1-B requires a 40-foot front-yard setback along the street and that the zoning ordinance limits fence height to 30 inches in the designated front yard.
The appellant told the board, “It is a corner lot, and it's a really busy lot. I have 2 young kids, and that's across area where a lot of kids kind of get into our property as well. And that's the reason, just for the safety as well for the kids as well.” The appellant also confirmed the permit materials show a gate on one side and that there is an existing five-foot sidewalk easement on the property.
Board members discussed the lot’s unique dimensions (staff noted the lot at about 104 feet by 138.5 feet), the sidewalk’s location on private property, prior changes made by the applicant since the previous month’s review (setback increased from 15 feet to 25 feet), and alternatives that would not require a variance, including running a fence to the back corner of the house under a permit or using a lower 30-inch fence in areas within the front-yard restriction. Staff also mentioned a diagonal fence option that had been discussed previously as a line-of-sight solution.
A motion to deny the variance was put forward and, after roll call, the board recorded two votes in favor of denial and one vote opposed. The chair announced, “Unfortunately, your appeal has been denied as currently submitted.” Staff advised the appellant they could meet with city staff to revise the plan or apply again with a materially different proposal (for example, a different setback, height, or fence alignment) or pursue a permit-limited installation that conforms to the ordinance.
The board’s disposition leaves in place the zoning setback and front-yard limitations for the property; staff clarified portions shown in green on the submitted drawings would be permitted without variance.
