The Boone County Drainage Board on Oct. 20 conditionally approved a variance request from petitioners Zach and Kaylee Bessard for Lot 203 in Brookhaven Subdivision at 11142 Glen Avon Way, subject to final documentation about gate size and surveyor-office sign-off.

The variance allows a fence and gate installation near a regulated drain but is contingent on the petitioners providing evidence about whether their fence manufacturer can supply larger openings (two 6-foot or two 5-foot gates, creating a 10- to 12-foot opening). If documentation shows larger gates are not available, the board said an 8-foot opening may be accepted with the agreed removal of a fence panel when county maintenance requires access.

Board members and staff stressed access to the regulated drain and the physical limits set by the easement. Carrie Daley, engineering consultant with Christopher Burke Engineering, described the layout and confirmed the site has a 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) regulated drain with a 15-foot easement measured from the pipe. The petitioners’ measurements show 23 feet from their house to the pipe, leaving an 8-foot buffer from the house to the easement line.

County staff and petitioners discussed gate configurations at length. The petitioners told the board their fencing company said it does not manufacture a single 12-foot gate in the style proposed and cautioned that a 12-foot single swing gate “would be inadvisable due to a malfunction over time due to the heaviness of the ... gate.” The petitioners said panels are removable and offered to remove panels if needed for county access.

County counsel clarified how variances are commonly applied: they typically run with the petitioner rather than the land, making the petitioner responsible for changes required by the variance. The board and petitioners agreed to amend the waiver language for the fence so that, on sale of the property, the requirement would be to bring the fence back into compliance or remove the back portion rather than necessarily removing the entire fence.

The board asked the petitioners to obtain written documentation from their fence company about available gate sizes (two 6-foot, two 5-foot, or two 4-foot sections) and said the petition could be finalized subject to that documentation and the surveyor’s office review. The petitioners agreed to be financially responsible for any damage to the gate caused by county maintenance and to the change in the waiver language about the back portion of the fence.

A motion to approve the variance “subject to finalizing those issues” (gate opening documentation and revised language requiring the back portion of the fence be brought into compliance or removed on sale) received a second and passed by voice vote.

The board recorded additional clarifications on the record: the county will seek to avoid damaging private property except in emergencies; if county crews must access the drain they may remove panels or a section of fence, and petitioners will be responsible for damage outside of emergencies. The surveyor’s office suggested wording that would require the back portion of the fence to be brought into compliance rather than fully removed upon transfer of ownership.

The board closed the item after confirming there were no remote comments and taking the voice vote approving the motion.

Ending: The petitioners were asked to return documentation from their fence manufacturer and to accept the revised waiver language before the county finalizes the variance paperwork with the surveyor’s office.