Mayfield appeals board approves variance for taller backyard fence near pickleball courts

Mayfield 'The Mayfield Board of Appeals on Monday approved a variance allowing a homeowner to build a fence higher than the town's 6-foot maximum along a lot that borders a public park and the town's pickleball courts.

Board members said repeated late-night use of the courts, loud language, music and light spill from 20-foot LED fixtures created an unusual hardship for the property owner and justified a narrowly tailored exception. Unidentified Speaker (S4), who read the ordinance language and the board's required variance findings, said the town's literal enforcement of the 6-foot rule "would cause unreasonable hardship" for the applicant.

The variance request grew out of a staff denial of a permit for a fence that neighbors and the applicant described in the hearing as about 10 feet tall. Unidentified Speaker (S2) told the board the proposal was a private expense and "I'm all for it. Let them do it," while other members cautioned that a 10-foot wooden fence is "a pretty significant deal" that could set a precedent if broadly applied.

Why it matters: The decision allows an individual homeowner to alter the fence height where their property abuts public land. Board members emphasized the narrow scope of their approval, saying the combination of frequent pickleball play, lighting and late activity distinguishes this site from typical residential lots.

What the board decided: Unidentified Speaker (S3) moved to grant the appeal; Unidentified Speaker (S5) seconded. At least two members voiced approval and the chair declared the motion carried. The board instructed staff to prepare the approval findings citing hardship, special circumstances related to adjacency to the courts, and minimal impact on the general plan, and to bring a proposed ordinance change to the planning commission for further consideration.

Details from the hearing: Several neighbors described repeated weekly pickleball groups, after-hours gatherings and dogs on the courts. Speakers said the park lighting is mounted at roughly 20 feet and that noise and light were transmitted into adjoining yards; one speaker identified the applicant's lot as running about 80 feet along the park. Board members discussed alternatives including installation of a sound wall along the courts, shielding or dimming fixtures, and enforcing park time limits; those options were described as potentially costly or technically difficult.

Board members who supported the variance cited the standard five-part variance test read into the record: literal enforcement would create unreasonable hardship; special circumstances exist because the lot abuts active public recreation; granting the variance is necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the property; it would not substantially impair the general plan; and substantial justice would be served. Members said they would limit the approval to the area adjacent to the pickleball courts rather than endorse a blanket change allowing 10-foot fences townwide.

Next steps: Staff confirmed it will draft the written findings and take a proposed amendment to the town's fence ordinance to the planning commission for consideration. The record and the board's guidance will accompany any draft ordinance.

Quote highlights from the hearing: Unidentified Speaker (S4): "The literal enforcement [of the ordinance] would cause unreasonable hardship." Unidentified Speaker (S2): "I'm all for it. Let them do it." Unidentified Speaker (S5): "Ten foot fence, that's a pretty significant deal."

The meeting adjourned after members completed administrative instructions to prepare paperwork and notify affected parties.