Board of Adjustments approves 10-foot fence variance for sports court at 1055 Country Club Road

The Lucas Board of Adjustments on a 4–1 vote approved a variance allowing a 10-foot fence around a private sports court at 1055 Country Club Road in the Edwards Addition, the board decided after hearing staff presentation and applicant testimony.

Development services director Joe Hilborn told the board the applicant sought to install a 10-foot fence around a sports court on a roughly 3.934-acre lot and that city code normally limits rear-yard fences to 8 feet. Hilborn said the board’s packet cited two prior similar requests — at 872 Bristol Park and 901 Parchment Way — that were denied unanimously.

Applicant Conrad Feagin described the court as a tennis court with a basketball goal on one end and said it sits about 2 feet below the house slab. He told the board the lot is heavily wooded and separated from neighboring Saddle Brook Estates by a tree line and a ravine; he said some clearing near the court (about 10–15 feet) had been done but the tree buffer remained in place.

“I’m asking for a 10-foot fence around the court,” the applicant said when members asked about the height. The board raised an apparent discrepancy between a submitted plan that listed “12 foot” and the public-notice and written request that said 10 feet; staff and the applicant said the 12-foot notation came from a pool company submitting a separate pool permit and that the official request before the board was for a 10-foot court fence.

Several members said the lot’s size and heavy tree buffer made it distinct from prior denials in more visible neighborhood settings. “I am inclined to vote for a variance for this, not only because it’s completely surrounded by trees,” one committee member said, adding that if the lot were in a typical neighborhood visible to many neighbors the vote would have gone the other way.

Board members also noted that variances run with the property: the chair emphasized that a variance, if granted, extends with the property to future owners. The board discussed the risk that trees could later be removed and said that possibility should factor into deliberations.

Committee member S7 moved to approve the variance; the motion was seconded by Committee member S5. The motion passed by voice vote with four in favor and one opposed (Committee member S6). The board recorded the official request as a 10-foot fence around the sports court; staff noted the 12-foot plan label related to separate pool permitting.

The variance will allow the applicant to install the higher fence as requested; the board did not place additional conditions on the approval at the meeting. The City’s code section cited in staff materials was transcribed unclearly in the recording; staff referenced the relevant rear-yard fence limit that the board relied upon in considering the request.

The board moved on to its next agenda items after the vote.