Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance for wooden privacy fence attached to chain‑link on North Connecticut Avenue
Summary
After a public hearing, the Royal Oak Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5–1 to grant a variance allowing a wooden privacy fence to remain attached to an existing chain‑link fence where the materials differ, citing site constraints and safety concerns.
The Royal Oak Board of Zoning Appeals voted 5–1 to grant a variance for a wooden privacy fence at a property on North Connecticut Avenue after the petitioner said the replacement corrected a hazardous, deteriorated fence and removing it now would create a temporary safety gap.
Staff told the board the case began as a code‑enforcement matter after a fence was installed without a permit and that the city’s fence ordinance generally requires fences of the same material. The deputy building official recommended a variance because the wooden fence was affixed to an existing metal chain‑link post, a configuration the building division said required relief from the materials rule.
Homeowner Rob Matouk, who said he lives at 1806 North Connecticut Avenue, told the board he replaced a failing fence he found when he moved in and used the existing chain‑link posts because there was insufficient room to install independent posts. “This is nothing more than retaliation,” Matouk said, describing how a neighbor asked a city inspector to cite his fence after the neighbor altered gutters that directed water onto Matouk’s property.
Board members split on the legal sympathy for a post‑hoc variance after a code case was opened. One member, identified as Mister Wolf, said he sympathized with the resident but could not find a sufficient practical difficulty because the dispute arose after the homeowner’s purchase. “Not having nice neighbors is not fun,” Wolf said, “but that is not something that runs with the land.” Other members emphasized the site‑specific constraints and the safety risk of removing the fence where the chain‑link had been removed in sections.
Board Member Claire moved to approve the variance; Mister Reddy seconded. The motion carried on a 5–1 vote. The board did not specify additional conditions in the approval. With the variance granted the petitioner may keep the wooden privacy fence as constructed; Matouk had said he would remove it if the board denied the request.
The case is closed unless appealed under the city’s procedures for zoning actions.
