Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence And Accessory Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues fence height question but approves accessory building variance at 4747 S. Columbia Place
Summary
The Board continued a special exception request for fence height at 4747 South Columbia Place to June 10 for additional dimensions, and approved a variance allowing a 20x24 accessory building to be rebuilt three feet from the side lot line.
The Tulsa Board of Adjustment on May 27 continued a request to allow a 5½-foot fence within the street setback at 4747 South Columbia Place and approved a variance to permit an accessory building to be rebuilt closer to the side lot line.
Property owner Candace Parham sought two forms of relief: a special exception to exceed the four‑foot fence height allowed in the street setback and a variance to permit reconstruction of an accessory building that, due to a recent lot adjustment, no longer meets the five‑foot side setback. The board voted to continue the fence-height request to its June 10 meeting so the applicant can provide clearer elevations and pillar dimensions; the board specifically asked for measured dimensions or a marked‑up image showing the tallest corner pillars and the panel heights.
On the accessory‑building variance, the board approved reducing the required five‑foot side setback to three feet to allow reconstruction on the existing 20‑by‑24 slab. Parham told the board the slab dated to 1971, was in place when she bought the property in 2018, and she rebuilt the structure after storm damage. Neighbors at the hearing, including Carrie and John Krause (former owners of adjacent property), objected on grounds that some work was performed without permits and raised concerns about drainage and a planned city stormwater project in the area.
Staff explained the lot split altered the rear property line so that what had been a rear setback location became a side‑setback issue requiring relief. The board found the structure predated the current zoning code and that rebuilding on the existing slab represented the minimum variance necessary; the variance passed on an affirmative vote. Board members also said drainage and any code‑enforcement issues remain separate matters for public works and code enforcement to resolve.
The special exception for the fence was continued to June 10 with staff direction that the applicant provide exact pillar and panel heights and a clearer site elevation so the board can verify whether the built fence complies with the standard for approving a taller sight‑obstructing element in a street setback.
