Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

BZA denies request for 8-foot fence at 1144 Navajo Trail, cites code and lack of practical difficulty

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division 2 · August 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board denied Harriet Greenland’s request for an 8-foot fence (a 2-foot lattice addition over a 6-foot fence), with staff saying the lattice counts as an addition under the zoning ordinance and that the petitioner failed to show the required practical difficulty.

The Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals denied a petitioner’s request to allow an 8-foot fence at 1144 Navajo Trail South Drive, recording three no votes.

Petitioner Harriet Greenland testified she had maintained an earlier fence for 14 years and said recent behaviors by a neighbor led her to add a 2-foot lattice for privacy. “This is just in the middle to discourage unpleasant behaviors and for me to have the privacy, security, and safety that I had for 23 years before this started,” Greenland said.

Neighbor Robert Bridal opposed the variance, describing past interactions and citing ordinance limits on front- and side-yard heights. Staff explained that a lattice element counts as an addition under the consolidated zoning and subdivision ordinance and that staff found no true practical difficulty justifying the lattice. The staff report noted alternatives such as landscaping and that six-foot privacy fences typically satisfy privacy needs.

After rebuttals from both sides, the board voted to deny the variance. The official tally recorded Tom Barnes no, Craig Van Dalen no, and Beth Brandon no; the variance was not granted.

The denial leaves the property subject to enforcement under the zoning code; the petitioner may seek other remedies or bring forward a revised application addressing staff’s concerns and the board’s reasons for denial.