Board grants variance for six-foot fence at 6714 Balmoral Road despite sight-triangle concerns

The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 1 granted a variance allowing a six-foot wooden fence at 6714 Balmoral Road, voting 3-2 at a public hearing. The petition sought relief from the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance that limits front‑yard fences in residential districts to 3.5 feet and prohibits encroachment in clear sight triangles.

Petitioner Hestia Campos told the board the fence was installed for safety after “incidents directly affected our house,” and submitted police reports, including an incident in which her German shepherd was shot. “We put up a fence to protect our safety,” Campos said, and said the fence also helps her children safely wait for the school bus. Neighbor Jordan Cody of 717 Haymount Drive spoke in support, saying the fence “now forces people to make that stop” at the nearby intersection.

Planning staff opposed the variance. Staff told the board the property is a corner lot and therefore has two front yards; a portion of the installed fence lies within the city’s clear‑sight triangle where ordinance requires unobstructed visibility for traffic and pedestrians. Staff also noted the fence is a solid wood construction, which staff said obscures sight lines and runs counter to the city’s infill housing guidance for transparency in front‑yard features.

Board members questioned how far the fence encroached into the sight triangle; staff responded that part of the fence was within the triangle and that the 3.5‑foot front‑yard height limit still applies regardless of whether the fence is pulled out of the triangle. After additional testimony and clarification, the board voted. Beth Brandon, Peter Nelson and David Duncan voted yes; Andrew Catona and Patrice Duckett Brown voted no. The board’s announcement recorded: “The variance is granted.”

The board’s approval permits the existing six‑foot fence to remain as described in the petition. The board record notes compliance requirements for any conditions attached to variances, including that proof of compliance must be filed if the board imposes conditions; the hearing also reminded petitioners that separate encroachment or right‑of‑way permits may be required for improvements that extend into dedicated right‑of‑way.

The case was filed as 2025DV1023. Staff indicated the fence drew one letter of neighbor support and that staff would supply measurements showing the exact degree of encroachment into the sight triangle if needed for follow‑up enforcement or permitting.