Board approves variance to allow 6-foot fence at 216 Buckingham Lane

The Conway Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 28, 2025, granted a two-foot variance to allow a 6-foot fence in the front yard at 216 Buckingham Lane, approving an after-the-fact fence permit application despite objections from nearby residents.

City planning staff said the owner, Jay Sellers, built a 6-foot fence without a permit and subsequently applied for a fence permit and submitted an engineer’s letter saying the fence meets minimum requirements of the International Residential Code, but that the fence height exceeded the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) limit of 4 feet in a front yard. Kim, a city staff member, told the board the parcel was annexed into the city on 05/15/2023 and is zoned R low–medium density residential.

Attorney Mike Battle, representing the property owner, argued the lot’s size, shape and slope create “extraordinary or exceptional conditions” that justify a variance. "The extraordinary and exceptional conditions that I would point to deal with the fact that you have a 4-acre lot," Battle said, describing a downhill slope and nearby new development that, he said, increase runoff and necessitate a mitigation buffer.

Opponents, represented by attorney Rob Shelton of the Bellamy Law Firm, told the board the structure functions as an impoundment and has caused new drainage and erosion problems for neighbors. "It is an impoundment," Shelton said, adding that the neighbors had not been provided a hydrological or geotechnical study and that the wall had already failed once. Neighbor Ryan Jenga said a recent survey showed soil and erosion on his property since the wall was built: "Until 02/2019, our property has never experienced flooding or damage. This has changed since this wall has been built."

Kim, the city staff member, said the section of wall she measured was 6 feet from grade: "I didn't measure every part of the brick wall, but the section that I measured was 6 feet." Jay Sellers told the board parts of the wall have not yet been backfilled because of adjacent development and said he planned to bring in fill so the wall would measure 6 feet from finished grade.

The board noted its review was limited to the height variance under the UDO and not to structural, hydrologic or building-code compliance, which fall to other city departments. Two members — identified at the meeting as recused for this item — did not participate in the vote. A motion to approve the two‑foot variance carried; the board did not record a roll-call vote on the record.