Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Improvements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homewood BZA denies variance request for privacy fence on Eighth Avenue South
Summary
The Board denied a request to legalize a privacy fence set above the allowable height because it was built atop a newly constructed retaining wall; the applicant said neighbors had signed letters of approval but the board voted not to grant the variance.
The Homewood Board of Zoning Adjustment on June 2 denied a variance that would have legalized an existing privacy fence built atop a new engineered retaining wall at a property on Eighth Avenue South (case SV250602).
Applicant representatives described the work as part of a backyard renovation and said they believed the fence was covered by the building permit for the retaining wall. Danny Treywick, vice president of engineering with GSLD Land Management, explained the fence mounting: the posts are bolted into a notched cap of the new retaining wall and the property’s grade drops about five feet to an adjacent neighbor, which makes the fence appear taller from that neighbor’s lot.
Two adjacent property owners submitted written approvals to staff, and the applicant said letters were included in the record. Planning staff confirmed receipt of those letters but noted the project as constructed exceeded the allowable fence height on the lot where it is built and that a fencing permit was not pulled prior to construction.
Board members questioned whether the fence posts were set into the wall and whether the alignment was on the property line. The applicant said the fence was placed essentially on the property line and that neighbors had been advised prior to construction. The applicant also said the proposed pool that prompted the privacy fence had not been submitted for permitting and was not part of the current request.
After discussion, a board motion to approve the requested increase (about 2 feet 3 inches above the allowed fence height measured on the subject lot) failed; the board denied the variance. The administrative staff advised the applicant to contact Emily Harris Miller for next steps and appeals information.
The denial leaves the owner responsible for remedying the fence to comply with the zoning code or pursuing administrative remedies outlined by city permitting staff.
