Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Dimensional Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
El Paso County Board of Adjustment approves fence setback variance for 240 Stephen Drive
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a dimensional variance allowing a 6-foot fence at the front of 240 Stephen Drive, with a condition reducing fence height to 30 inches within 9 feet of the sidewalk. The decision follows staff review, engineering confirmation on sight lines and the applicant's explanation of privacy and safety concerns.
At a meeting of the El Paso County Board of Adjustment, the board approved a dimensional variance for 240 Stephen Drive to allow a six-foot fence at the propertys front, subject to a requirement that the fence be reduced to 30 inches in height within nine feet behind the sidewalk. The vote was unanimous, 5-0.
The request came after the property owner, Luke Scholenberger, erected a privacy fence in 2024 and received a notice of violation for placing an opaque, six-foot fence inside the 25-foot front setback required in the RS-6,000 (residential suburban) zoning district. Scholenberger told the board he pursued the fence because of repeated conflicts with a neighboring property, security cameras pointed into his yard, a floodlight that he said blinds the front yard at night and safety concerns for his nine-year-old son. "I believe I have made a case and provided suitable evidence to allow for my dimensional variance request of a 10 foot front setback where 25 feet is required," Scholenberger said before revising his request to a 0-foot setback measured from the property line with the 30-inch reduction near the sidewalk.
Planning staff presented the application and the applicable criteria in Chapter 5 of the El Paso County Land Development Code, including the hardship and equitable-consideration standards. Miranda Benson, planner with El Paso County Planning, told the board that the approval was limited to the plans as submitted and read the revised condition into the record: "The approval applies only to the plans as submitted. Any expansion or additions to the proposed dimensional variance to allow a 0-foot front setback for a 6-foot tall fence may require a separate Board of Adjustment application and approval if the development requirements of the applicable zoning district cannot be met. A reduction to 30 inches of height shall occur within the 9 feet behind the back of the sidewalk."
Engineering staff reviewed sight-distance and right-of-way issues. Joe Sandstrom, associate engineer with the Department of Public Works, said he inspected the site and that, without a survey, the property line could not be definitively fixed on the spot but that the countys engineering group did not object to the fence being within the right-of-way line in that neighborhood. Sandstrom also confirmed that the modified conditioncutting the fence to 30 inches within 9 feet of the sidewalkwould provide adequate sight distance for pedestrians and vehicles: "Yes, there is adequate [sight distance]."
Board members discussed the difference between where the fence currently sits (near the back of the sidewalk) and the formal property line (which staff estimated to be set back from the road). Several members expressed concern about approving a reduced setback in a way that could be interpreted as changing the formal property-line setback for future building placement. Staff and the board agreed to limit the approval to the fence as shown on the submitted site plan and to add a condition that the reduced height applies only within the nine-foot area behind the sidewalk. Justin Kilgore, planning manager, advised that the board could grant a 0-foot setback if it chose to do so; the board's final action treated the decision as a variance specific to the fence as depicted.
The board then voted on a motion to approve the variance (motion language cited the equitable-consideration standard in the staff report and referenced the revised condition). The motion passed unanimously. The board and staff noted that further encroachment into right-of-way, future changes in use, or additional structures could prompt separate reviews or enforcement under the county's engineering criteria and zoning enforcement processes.
Votes at a glance - Adoption of minutes (meeting of Nov. 18): adopted (unanimous, recorded ayes from voting members present). - Adoption of 2025 sunshine law statement (annual housekeeping): adopted (unanimous). - Postponement of designation of officers to the May annual meeting: motion passed (unanimous); staff noted associate-member voting limitations under the bylaws. - BOA-251 (240 Stephen Drive) dimensional variance for fence: approved, motion cited equitable considerations and the modified condition (0-foot front setback for a 6-foot fence with reduction to 30 inches within 9 feet behind the sidewalk); vote 5-0.
The board's approval is limited to the fence shown on the submitted plans and includes the staff-read condition reducing fence height within the nine-foot zone behind the back of the sidewalk. Staff and engineering reiterated that future changes or additional structures that affect sight lines or development standards may require separate review or action.
