Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants variance for higher masonry wall in Summerlin subdivision amid neighbor concerns
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance to allow parts of a masonry wall in the Summerlin PUD to exceed the 6-foot fence limit (up to an 8-foot measured point due to footing and grade); applicant cited drainage, footing needs and privacy; two neighbors submitted written concerns.
The Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 4 authorized a variance to allow portions of a masonry perimeter wall in the Summerlin subdivision to exceed the SF‑2 six-foot height limit where grading and a poured concrete footing raise the effective height.
Applicant Nick Lombardi, representing the Summerlin development, told the board the wall sits on a concrete footing needed for the masonry structure and that grading and an overland drainage easement create a height differential along the wall. “Part of the reason for the hardship is that we wanna create privacy for our residents, and also a barrier between the subdivision to the north and our subdivision,” Lombardi said, explaining that drainage and footing require higher sections at points along the wall.
Staff reported the site-plan-review committee had given conditional approval subject to a variance and told the board that the wall reaches an 8-foot maximum only at the highest exposed points, not uniformly. Two written comments in the packet — from Andrew and Casey Lazar and from a Mr. Mead — raised concerns, including that the wall as built appears taller in places and that the neighborhood process had not followed regulations in parts. A board member noted those concerns but also observed the homes in the new development are high quality and the constructed wall appears consistent with the subdivision materials.
After reviewing the variance criteria (including unique topography, hardship not self-created, and lack of anticipated adverse effects to neighbors), Commissioner Gary Israel moved to authorize the chair to sign a resolution granting the variance for case BZAV25-0013; the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The board directed staff to prepare a written resolution for the applicant within 45 days and reminded attendees that appeals may be filed to district court within 30 days after the resolution is signed and filed with the zoning administrator.
The board’s decision acknowledged neighborhood concern recorded in written comments but concluded the evidence demonstrated the five statutory conditions for the variance were met. The applicant said drainage holes had been provided in the wall so stormwater flows through to the storm sewer system and the increased height occurs only where topography exposes the footing.
