Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaver City board denies request for six‑foot front fence on Canyon Road
Summary
The Board of Adjustments denied Byron and Trina Condy's request for a six‑foot solid fence at the front of their Canyon Road property, citing city code, precedent concerns and doubts that a front fence would meaningfully reduce traffic noise; the board discussed requiring written staff denials before appeals.
The Beaver City Board of Adjustments voted to deny a variance request from Byron and Trina Condy that would have allowed a six‑foot solid fence along the front of their property on Canyon Road.
Clerk (speaker 1) read the Condys' written application: the applicants asked for a six‑foot, solid, white "bridal" fence across their frontage, citing annoyance and aggravation from loud vehicles and attaching speed and traffic data. The application asserted a traffic count described in the supporting materials as "14,450 plus vehicles per 24 hours." The clerk noted city rules that limit front‑facing fence height to 4 feet and allow 6‑foot fences only beyond the setback line.
Board members questioned whether a front fence would reduce noise and whether granting an exception would set a precedent. "If you do set a precedence for this, you're gonna have a bunch of compounds," one board member said, expressing concerns about streetscape character. Another member called noise enforcement a law‑enforcement matter and said a solid front fence might not provide meaningful relief. "I don't know that's gonna get much relief from the noise with the bridal fence anyway," Mitch Stewart (speaker 6) said.
After discussion, a board member moved to deny the Condy variance and another member seconded; the board proceeded to deny the request. Members cited the existing code standard, the risk of precedent, and that 6‑foot fences are permitted only beyond the required setback from the street.
The board also discussed improving administrative practice so that building‑department denials are issued in writing before appeals reach the board, giving applicants clearer documentation of the reasons and reducing informal or verbal confusion.
The transcript does not show a roll‑call vote tally for the denial. The clerk and board members indicated the denial was enacted at the meeting and that applicants may seek additional remedies such as addressing traffic enforcement with law enforcement or pursuing a council change to the ordinance.
