Mayfield Board of Appeals approves variance for 10-foot fence next to park after residents cite noise, light and security issues

The Mayfield Board of Appeals voted Feb. 17 to grant a property owner a variance to build a fence taller than the town's six-foot limit along a lot that borders a town park and its pickleball courts.

The variance will allow a taller, 10-foot fence on private property immediately adjacent to the park; the board cited noise, light spill from 20-foot LED field lights and security and privacy concerns as the reasons for approving the appeal. The board also discussed taking the issue to the planning commission to consider amending the ordinance to address similar situations.

Neighbor Celia Slayton, who identified herself as a neighbor of the park, told the board the activity at the pickleball courts had produced repeated disturbances. "We've had issues with swearing," she said. "We've had issues with a lot of music. We've had issues with dogs running... so we're trying to... figure out how to deal with it for this next year." Slayton said the property owners were proposing a higher fence primarily for privacy and to mitigate sound.

Kevin, the town zoning administrator, read the ordinance language cited in the appeal and explained the town's current six-foot maximum. "As the zoning administrator, we I can't do anything," he said, describing the appeal path available to the applicants. The transcript records the ordinance citation as section 18 48 1 48 (as cited to the board).

Board members debated the merits and the potential precedent of permitting taller fences where private property borders public space. One board member questioned the long-term implications if many residents bordering public rights-of-way sought similar exceptions, while another urged a narrow ruling focused on the specific circumstances of the lot adjoining active pickleball courts. Governor Christiansen said, "No. No. I'm all for it. Let them do it," when asked whether he had concerns about granting the variance.

Several board members and participants described alternative or complementary mitigation measures discussed during the meeting, including dimming or shielding the LED lights, installing sound barriers on the court side, and limiting hours of play. Resident Tracy Keel offered to advise on ways to shield light without changes to the fixtures. The board noted those options but said they were separate from the variance decision.

A motion to grant the variance was made and seconded; the board called the vote and approved the appeal. The transcript does not record individual vote tallies or named votes. After approving the variance, board members agreed to bring the larger question of whether the ordinance should be modified (to allow taller fences where private lots border public parks) before the planning commission.

The board read and recorded the five findings they relied on in approving the appeal: that literal enforcement would create an unreasonable hardship for the applicant, that special circumstances exist for the property because it adjoins the park and active courts, that granting the variance is necessary to preserve substantial property rights similar to other properties in the zone, that the variance would not be contrary to the public interest, and that the spirit of the land-use regulations would be observed. The board emphasized the approval was specific to the circumstances described at the hearing.

Board members also raised concerns about precedent and potential requests from other adjacent property owners, including the Peterson family, who were discussed as likely to raise similar requests in the future. The board did not set a townwide rule change at the hearing but directed staff to take the topic to the planning commission for further consideration.

The decision allows the applicant to proceed with a taller fence on private property abutting the park; detailed permit requirements, construction specifications and any additional conditions will be handled through the town's permitting process and follow-up with the planning commission if the ordinance is amended.