Hampshire commission recommends denial of front-yard fence variance

The Hampshire Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a variance requested by homeowner Mr. Marquez to allow a fence in the front yard of his property. Planning staff told the commission the application had been processed with an approval letter and stamped plan that nevertheless included a condition prohibiting front-yard fences, a condition the petitioner said he did not read before posting fence posts.

Planning staff member Mo summarized the file for the commission and said staff had concluded three of the four required findings of fact were met but that the first finding—relating to unique topographic or land conditions—was not satisfied. “There was a condition on the approval letter that the fence cannot be in the front yard,” Mo said, adding that the condition was missed both by the petitioner and during plan/inspection review.

Commissioners focused much of the discussion on two issues: whether the permit-review process failed to flag the restriction and whether a fence in the front yard would impede emergency access. Commissioner remarks cited prior instances where the village required fences to be set back so first responders could reach a front door. The record contains an explicit code comment read by staff: “fence shall not exceed 6 feet in height from the ground level; no fence shall be allowed in the front yard.”

The petitioner described the fence as an open, farm-style structure with 4x4 posts and said some posts had already been installed. He told the commission the posts sit roughly 25 feet from the roadway and that in places the fence is essentially on the property line. He said he believed he had followed the permit process and that he had been advised to place posts during construction.

Several commissioners said they sympathized with the homeowner but remained concerned about public-safety access and about approving a variance where the first finding of fact was not met. Staff acknowledged an error by the plan reviewer and the building inspector (both functions performed by the same outside contractor in the record) and said staff had discussed process changes with that contractor to reduce the risk of missed conditions.

After discussion the commission took a motion and voted to recommend denial of the variance. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board, which is scheduled to consider the case on Feb. 6. Staff said it would notify the petitioner by email with the next steps.

The meeting also included routine business: roll call, approval of minutes, and an announcement that there will be no meeting on Jan. 27 and that a joint planning/zoning training with the American Planning Association is scheduled for Feb. 10 at Village Hall.