Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. John zoning board denies corner-lot fence variance over safety concerns
Summary
The St. John Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request by a homeowner to build a 6-foot privacy fence past the building line at 9322 West 96th Place, citing impaired sightlines at a street curve and potential risk to pedestrians and drivers.
The St. John Board of Zoning Appeals voted 3-0 on May 7 to deny a developmental variance (STJMC 24.5.16E3) that would have let the owner of 9322 West 96th Place erect a six-foot privacy fence past the lot building line near the corner of Triana Lane.
The board's decision followed public testimony and emailed remonstrances from neighbors who said a solid privacy fence near the sidewalk would reduce visibility around a curved intersection and create a safety hazard for drivers and children. A board member moved to deny the variance, saying the request "will be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community." The motion carried 3-0.
Neighbors said the property is an atypical corner lot where the applicant's backyard effectively faces another home's front yard. Rocco Graham, who lives nearby, told the board the proposed fence "impairs my vision backing out" and that the fence would effectively be "a 6 foot privacy fence in my front yard," a change he opposed on safety and aesthetic grounds. Ken Swinarski, another nearby resident, said "there's no 4 way stop there... a lot of children... I just think it's not safe."
Owner Anthony Brown said he planned the fence for pool privacy and described the placement as roughly "about 8 or 9 feet closer to the sidewalk," while also noting that the fencing company had told him the utility line was about 12 feet from the sidewalk. During questioning, neighbors and board members disputed those distances and described how sightlines would change if a fence were placed near the tree line shown in the applicant's photos. The record includes multiple emailed objections citing safety and curb appeal from addresses in the Renaissance Subdivision.
Town staff and the board discussed the purpose of building lines to maintain uniform front setbacks along the street. One board member said building lines were established to keep garage fronts and house alignments consistent across a subdivision. The applicant and his agent said prior variances have been granted elsewhere on U.S. 41 corridors and that the fencing company had advised him regarding utility lines; neighbors countered that the corner's curve and lack of stop signs make the location particularly sensitive.
Following public comment and discussion, a board member moved to deny the requested variance under STJMC 24.5.16E3, finding that the approval would pose a safety risk to pedestrians and vehicles and that the use and value of adjacent property would be adversely affected. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously by the three voting members.
No direction to staff or follow-up tasks were recorded in the hearing minutes; the action was a final denial of the relief requested.
Neighbors and emailed remonstrances urged the board to preserve the existing building-line setback for sightlines and neighborhood character. The applicant may seek to redesign the fence to remain within the existing building line; that option was discussed during the meeting but no formal application to alter the request was recorded.
