Oglesby zoning board denies variance to let homeowner finish fence on lot line

The Oglesby Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request from property owners seeking permission to finish a fence and leave a shed adjacent to the property line at 123 Caitlin Court.

Petitioner Brian Kamanish asked the board for a variance for a roughly 25.5-foot section of fence that would run up to the corner of an existing shed, saying neighbors to the north and west had agreed informally and that a prior city email and building permit supported his reliance. Kamanish told the board, "All we're looking for is to be able to finish our fence on the line," and argued moving the fence and shed would be costly and unnecessary because the existing structures have been in place since 2021.

Neighbors opposed the variance. Chris, who said he lives at 125 Caitlin Court, described repeated tensions with the petitioner and raised safety and maintenance concerns if the fence ran along the parcel line, including a utility pedestal and an electric line in the area. Another resident, Kat, told the board surveyors had identified a missing pin and said gravel under the shed occasionally slid onto adjacent property. Chris said he and others had deliberately set their fence back "two feet" as a courtesy and that they were not approached about the petitioner's plan.

Board members and staff questioned the legal and practical basis for the request. Staff noted informal neighbor agreements submitted with the application were not notarized or recorded, and therefore would not substitute for a recorded division-fence agreement that the building department would accept. The petitioner cited an April 5, 2021 email indicating the city had issued a building permit for the shed and that a prior communication suggested the five-foot setback did not apply; the petitioner and staff discussed whether that reliance might create estoppel, with staff saying estoppel against the city is uncertain and would be a legal question beyond the board's authority.

The board also raised public-safety and maintenance issues tied to utility easements. A city employee and other members pointed to a five-foot utility easement along the south side and additional easements that run between the properties and argued structures in easements can impede emergency access and utility maintenance.

After questioning whether the petitioner had demonstrated the "hardship" required to grant a variance, a board member moved to deny the variance. The motion to deny carried in roll call, and the board denied the requested relief. The board noted the disagreement over the shed and existing fence remains primarily a civil matter between neighbors and suggested the parties pursue recorded division-fence agreements, building-permit clarifications, or private negotiation as alternatives.

The board did not order removal of the existing shed or fence during the meeting; it limited its decision to the variance request before it.