Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 6-foot fence variance for Patricia Lopez after neighbors cite harassment
Summary
The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a six-foot fence along the front/east side of Patricia Lopez’s property, citing neighborhood testimony about longstanding harassment and alternate findings that the neighboring yard’s slope creates practical difficulty for a 4-foot fence.
The Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 18 approved a variance allowing a six-foot fence along the front east side of a single-family lot in the Park Ridge East subdivision.
Zoning and Long Range Planner Joe Patterson told the board the fence did not meet UDO Section 20.04.08, which limits front fences to 4 feet, and staff recommended denial because the property has no peculiar physical conditions that would normally justify relief. Patterson said the fence was installed to address safety and privacy concerns and that several neighbors submitted letters of support.
Carolina Lopez, speaking on behalf of her mother Patricia Lopez, who is recovering from surgery, said the taller fence was needed to block repeated harassment from an adjacent neighbor and to prevent damage to a prior 4-foot fence. Multiple neighbors testified in favor of keeping the fence, describing the adjacent property as an ongoing eyesore with trash, a camper and disruptive behavior. Nancy Martin said the fence made it safer for Patricia to enter her home without being harassed; Craig Mercer and others said the fence improved the cul-de-sac’s appearance.
Board members questioned staff about enforcement and whether a protective order existed; the assistant director of planning and transportation said the city is pursuing enforcement actions, fines are accruing and legal referral could follow if the property is not brought into compliance. Staff also noted prior cases in which protective orders were considered in variance findings.
After deliberation, a board member moved to adopt alternate findings that the neighboring yard’s higher elevation creates a practical difficulty under the third variance criterion. The motion to approve case B-13-25 (VAR-202503-63) passed on a roll call vote (Kosinko/Kacinko: Yes; Ballard: Yes; Burrell: Yes).
The board’s approval included findings tailored to the lot’s circumstances; staff’s recommended denial was not adopted. The board noted the city’s ongoing code enforcement actions against the neighbor as a parallel matter.
