Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wauwatosa Board of Appeals grants 5‑foot side‑yard fence variance after permit confusion
Summary
The Wauwatosa Board of Appeals unanimously approved a variance allowing a 5‑foot fence in a side yard after the applicant said a later-issued permit and contractor guidance led them to believe a taller fence was allowed; the board cited misleading permit language and owner hardship in its decision.
The Wauwatosa Board of Appeals voted 3–0 to grant a variance allowing a 5‑foot fence along the side yard of a corner lot owned by Greg Frederick after the owner and his contractor said city permit language led them to believe a taller fence was permissible.
Board chair Jim Curran moved to approve the request, saying email exchanges and a permit issued April 25 included language suggesting the fence could be ‘‘up to 6 feet,’’ which misled the builder and owners. Curran argued the later permit language, by recency, undermined strict enforcement and that forcing the owners to reduce the fence’s height would cause significant expense and aesthetic harm.
Applicant Greg Frederick told the board he and his daughter, Kelly Frederick Meiser, sought a permit and contracted Chuck Ewers of Chuck's Fences. Frederick said the contractor told them using 5‑foot boards was more cost‑efficient and that they did not intentionally flout the code. Meiser described the financial strain as a single parent and a local public‑school teacher and said the fence provided needed privacy and safety for her child and pets.
Staff member Art displayed an aerial exhibit and explained the property is a corner lot on 120th Street; under Wauwatosa code the narrowest dimension of a lot is treated as the front yard, which made the fenced side technically a front yard where the ordinance limits fences to 4 feet 6 inches. The board noted the existing fence extends about 68 linear feet and that the owners submitted three or four letters of neighborhood support and photos of nearby 5–6‑foot fences.
Curran compared the case to prior enforcement actions where fences were built knowingly in violation and denied a variance; he said this instance differed because of the permitting language and that the owners had not taken advantage of a full 6‑foot allowance even if they believed it existed. Following discussion, board member Michael Mazmanian seconded the motion. Ying called the roll: David Kern — yes; James Bittner — yes; Michael Mazmanian — yes. The motion passed.
Art told the board that next month’s Board of Appeals meeting will be canceled because no applications were received. The board adjourned after expressing appreciation for the applicants’ explanation and neighbor support.
