Board pauses decision on 8-foot fence request after neighbors, staff disagree on property line and privacy needs

A local board closed public comment and paused action Thursday after neighbors and the applicant disagreed about where a proposed fence would sit and whether a short 8-foot section is needed for privacy.

Philip Stark, who lives at N 27 W 27391 Woodland Drive, told the hearing he opposed a fence on the property line and "we do not want an 8 foot high fence," saying an 8-foot structure would be out of character for the neighborhood. Stuart Ellis, another Woodland Drive resident, pressed the applicant for details on the proposed route and materials, asking, "Why would there be a need for an 8 foot high fence?"

The applicants, speaking during the public hearing, said most of the fence would be the code-allowed 6 feet but that a short 8-foot section was necessary because of a drop in elevation and the placement of security cameras. "The size of the fence is at 8 feet to provide us privacy in our bedroom and privacy on our entertaining area on our front porch," the applicant said, arguing the higher section would block sight lines from a camera they said has been positioned near the base of a garage peak.

City staff summarized the zoning standard and the department recommendation. Staff noted the typical setback for a residential fence is 2 feet from the property line and that 6 feet is generally the maximum height; staff told the board it recommended allowing a fence up to the property line in some places but recommended denying both an extension closer to Woodland Drive and the requested 8-foot height. "Staff did feel it was reasonable to allow a fence up to the property line and ... however, we're recommending denial as far as ... the 8 foot height," a staff member said.

Neighbors and the applicant also debated factual details. The applicant cited a dog-bite incident and said the fence would address safety and trespass concerns; the Starks said they had photos and affidavits showing the former arborvitae that provided privacy and maintained their cameras do not point into the applicant's bedroom. The board repeatedly asked whether a formal survey depicting the proposed fence location had been submitted; participants disagreed about the precise placement of existing flag markers.

Board members noted the site’s unusual lot layout and elevation changes and that those conditions can be grounds for a variance. But several members said they could not make a sound decision without a clearer depiction of the proposed fence in relation to the lot line and to existing structures. One member suggested the parties try a technical fix first—moving or re-aiming cameras—before approving an 8-foot section.

Rather than vote, the board closed the public-comment portion and directed the parties to work together with a surveyor or the existing surveyor to map the proposed fence location and show elevations. The board said the applicants should return with a mutually agreed plan and a survey that depicts where the fence would be located; staff cautioned that if the hearing is continued the board must follow noticing rules for any new hearing date.

A board member formally moved to adjourn/continue the item so the applicants and neighbors can present a plan and survey; the motion carried and the hearing was continued to allow the parties and staff time to develop a compromise and required documentation.

Next steps: the applicants and neighbors were asked to coordinate on-site to mark flag locations for the fence, have the surveyor illustrate the proposed placement and elevations, and return to the board with a revised plan that may still require a variance. If the hearing is rescheduled, the board or staff will follow statutory notice requirements.