Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Privacy And Flooding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants variance for 310 NE Fifth Ave wall height after owners raised lot for flood protection
Summary
The board approved a variance allowing a privacy wall up to 10 feet along the north and south property lines at 310 NE Fifth Avenue after the owners elevated the rebuilt home to meet flood elevation requirements; immediate neighbors supported the request.
Get email alerts on the Property Privacy And Flooding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Planning & Zoning Board on Aug. 21 approved a variance to allow a wall up to 10 feet in height along the north and south property lines for the property at 310 Northeast Fifth Avenue. The variance passed unanimously, 6–0.
Zoning manager Tory Boone explained the request arose after severe water damage to the previous structure during a May 2022 rainstorm prompted the owners to demolish and rebuild. The rebuilt home was elevated to comply with flood‑plain requirements (to about 8 feet, 6 inches), which created a grade difference of up to about four feet between the petitioners’ lot and the adjoining north lot where unpermitted fill had been placed. From the adjoining properties’ lower perspective, a six‑foot wall on the petitioners’ lot would appear much taller; to achieve usable privacy and to retain the elevated yard, the owners requested the board permit a wall up to 10 feet when measured from adjoining grades as described in city code.
The applicant’s attorney, Ryan Abrams, told the board the owner also designed on‑site stormwater exfiltration trenches and drainage to prevent runoff to adjacent lots and that both immediate neighbors had submitted letters of support. He cited a recent similar variance in the neighborhood granted under comparable circumstances.
A neighbor spoke during public comment opposing exceptions that would allow taller walls generally, saying the owner who added unpermitted fill should address the situation. The property owners responded that planting or shrubbery would not provide the privacy they require and that both adjacent property owners had formally supported the variance.
Board members voted to approve the variance, subject to the conditions noted in staff’s report (grading, drainage and required permitting and inspections).
