Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance Frontage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fence variance paused after board questions about neighborhood pattern and UDO interpretation
Summary
The board continued Benjamin Wright’s request to install a five‑foot fence along 71st Street at 112 Southeast 71st Street to the next meeting, after discussion about whether the street should be treated as a front yard under the UDO and suggestions that the HOA or a text amendment may be a better route.
The Oak Island Board of Adjustment on May 13 continued a request from Benjamin Wright to allow a five‑foot fence along the 71st Street frontage of his property at 112 Southeast 71st Street, after board members split over whether the town’s Unified Development Ordinance permits fences taller than 4 feet adjacent to a public street right‑of‑way.
Town staff told the board the applicant seeks relief from UDO section 7.572 and related fence provisions; staff noted the parcel lies in the St. James by the Sea neighborhood where homes are oriented to an alley and vehicle access is from the alley, but the UDO defines a ‘street’ to exclude alleys. That definition means the town treats 71st Street as the property’s front yard for zoning—so taller fences within the 25‑ft street right‑of‑way require relief.
Benjamin Wright said he obtained unanimous approval from his homeowners association for the fence proposal and submitted HOA email approval plus photos of two neighboring five‑foot fences he said were permitted. "Before I even put in for a permit with the town of Oak Island, I submitted for approval with the HOA, the homeowners association and had unanimously voted to approve my project," Wright told the board.
Board members cited competing considerations: a recurring theme of consistency and streetscape protection under the UDO (which limits fence height near public streets) versus neighborhood practice in St. James, where 71st Street functions as a row of backyards with no driveways and several existing five‑foot fences. Several members suggested the issue may be better addressed by a text amendment or an HOA petition (or by the applicant filing a text amendment) rather than by granting an individual variance that could create a patchwork of different fence styles along the street.
Town counsel reminded the board that a variance requires a four‑fifths vote and unanimous findings among four of five members, making approval difficult where members are divided. Given the split and the possibility that multiple neighborhood properties could seek similar relief, a motion to continue the hearing to the next meeting carried with one opposed to allow the applicant time to pursue HOA coordination, gather additional evidence, or consider a text amendment.
The board emphasized that any subsequent hearing will be limited to the evidence and testimony introduced into the hearing record and warned against ex parte contacts between participants and board members. The applicant may withdraw and refile or pursue a separate planning‑board/text‑amendment route if he prefers.
