Plain Board of Zoning Appeals signals approval for corner‑lot fence variance after homeowner testimony

The Plain Board of Zoning Appeals opened a public hearing on variance application 24‑3 and heard staff and applicant testimony before indicating approval.

Staff summarized the request and relevant code. A presenter (S1) told the board that current fence rules treat corner lots differently — they lack rear yards and require a clear site‑distance triangle of 25 feet at intersections. The applicants asked to extend a 4‑foot opaque fence 10 feet toward the side street, a configuration allowed under the previous code but now constrained by the newer fence standards. "If the permits have been approved, they could start releasing that," S1 said when explaining how permits and infrastructure timing interact with development approvals.

The applicants (S5) — who said they bought their lot partly because they were told they could fence to the sidewalk and paid an $11,000 premium — told the board they want the largest yard possible for two large dogs and social gatherings. "We would be willing to, like, adjust that opacity if that would, like, help the board feel more comfortable," S5 said, and added they plan to install two gates to permit utility access.

Board members reviewed specific ordinance criteria by citation. The board examined ordinance 11.38.05(c)(3)(a) (public interest) and related subparts addressing special conditions, substantiality, and whether the variance meets the standard of substantial justice. Members discussed sight‑distance and neighborhood character, repeatedly noting the timing of the code change that occurred after the applicants began their HOA and builder discussions. S2 summarized the timing issue as a special condition and several members said they did not see the request as substantially altering neighborhood character or creating an undue safety risk.

On utility easements and access, staff reminded the applicants that utility easements can require removal of fence sections at the owner’s cost if utilities must perform work. The applicants said their contractor advised that gates would mitigate access concerns; staff emphasized this condition is recorded on permits.

At the conclusion of deliberations, members signaled approval for the limited variance as discussed — permitting a 4‑foot opaque fence to extend 10 feet toward the side street on the corner lot. The transcript records multiple affirmative responses but does not include the exact wording of the motion, the name of the mover or seconder, or a complete roll‑call vote tally. The board instructed staff to record the findings of fact consistent with ordinance 11.38.05 and proceed accordingly.

The board also received a brief planning update earlier in the meeting: staff reported several large developments, including a new industrial 'Flex Park' annexation and roughly 2,000 approved residential units that may await water‑plant expansion projected for construction of lines in 2026–27 and plant online by 2028.

Next steps: the record should reflect the board’s findings under ordinance 11.38.05 and any permit conditions (utility‑access gates and limits on height). The transcript does not record formal motion text or the mover/second; the minutes should capture those items for the official file.