Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 8‑foot agricultural fence in setback to protect crops from wildlife at Meadow Ranch
Summary
The Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a 2‑foot height variance to permit an 8‑foot perimeter fence within a required yard setback to protect greenhouse, fruit trees and crops on a roughly 9.16‑acre Meadow Ranch LLC parcel at 45 Westerly Lane in the AR‑10 zone.
The Pitkin County Board of Adjustment unanimously approved a height variance to allow up to an 8‑foot fence within a required setback to protect agricultural crops at Meadow Ranch LLC’s property at 45 Westerly Lane.
Michael Kramer of Kramer Land Planning, representing Meadow Ranch LLC, said the request covers roughly three‑quarters of an acre around a greenhouse and planned orchard on a 9.16‑acre AR‑10 parcel in the north end of the county. Kramer told the board the area is subject to frequent visits by elk, mule deer, black bears and other wildlife, and that the additional two feet above the 6‑foot setback limit is necessary to keep animals from destroying plantings. He said Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommended one electrified strand at about 6 feet to deter climbing bears.
David Johnston of DJ Architects attended as a design resource. Kramer showed a fence detail that uses horizontal wood slats and a top wire; staff and the applicant agreed to remove a decorative gate arch from consideration pending clarification of its dimensions so the board’s action would be limited to the fence height request.
Joanna, planning staff, read staff’s recommendation in support of a 2‑foot variance within the setback for agricultural protection. She and the applicant emphasized that the proposed fenced area is a small portion of the larger parcel and that other property‑perimeter fencing outside the setback would comply with the 8‑foot allowance.
Board members asked questions about gates and whether the gate elements shown in a detail (which the applicant said he provided only that day) needed separate approval. The applicant agreed to remove the decorative arch from the materials before finalizing the record; the board approved the variance limited to the fence height and left gate‑design details to be clarified later.
Christophe moved to approve the 2‑foot height variance (to permit an 8‑foot fence in the setback) on grounds of peculiar and practical difficulties related to wildlife impacts on crops; a board member seconded. The board voted unanimously to approve the request.
The board’s approval includes the usual requirement that the applicant obtain building permits as necessary and that any gate or additional decorative elements be clarified in subsequent submissions if they exceed the approved height or design scope.
