Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment approves multiple variances for fences, garage enclosures and data‑center security fencing
Summary
At a packed meeting the Board of Adjustment approved a block of consent items and several contested variances, including a garage enclosure at Storywood Drive and security fencing for a data center; commissioners added conditions on materials and privacy protections in several fence cases.
The Board of Adjustment approved a string of variances and special exceptions in a single session, granting relief for residential and commercial properties while attaching conditions intended to protect nearby residents.
Staff introduced each case and recommended approval for several items that had staff findings of hardship or long‑standing built conditions. For 150 Storywood Drive, staff presented historic photographs showing an existing rear garage; the applicant, Kim C. Jones, told the board the structure had been on site for decades. Commissioner Pregment moved to approve the setback and enclosure variances, saying the evidence showed a physical constraint; the board voted 10–0 to grant the relief.
The board also approved POA‑25‑103‑0141, a request from Iván Almanger at 838 Culebra Road to reduce rear separation and to allow an open fence with stone pillars; staff noted neighborhood support from the Martínez Creek association and recommended approval. The motion carried with supporting comments about alley access and parking.
A proposed 8‑foot front fence for a site adjacent to a new data center on Rogers Road drew discussion about material and visibility. Ted Guy, representing applicant Austin Ford, told the board the fence would be predominantly open chain‑link to preserve sight lines; commissioners amended the motion to require predominantly open material and a capped top and approved the exception 10–0.
Several industrial and commercial fence cases that requested corrugated metal or barbed‑wire material prompted commissioners to require specific conditions. In multiple votes the board approved corrugated‑metal fences only if the top edges are covered and removed barbed wire on sides that face residential lots. In one case the applicant agreed to add a covering on the metal and remove barbed wire facing homes; the board recorded a 10–0 vote on the amended motion.
Why this matters: the decisions allow property owners to retain or build physical security measures and existing enclosures in areas with mixed residential and commercial uses while establishing conditions — such as covered edges, predominantly open screening, or removal of barbed wire facing residences — intended to reduce visual blight and safety concerns for neighbors. The approvals also illustrate how the board balances code requirements against evidence of existing conditions and neighborhood support.
What’s next: Staff told applicants they must still secure any building permits and meet construction and drainage requirements spelled out by planning and building departments.
