Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves fence height and reduced clear‑vision at 569 Calumet Place with conditions
Summary
After testimony from the owner’s representative, the board granted a 4‑ft solid front fence and a reduced driveway clear‑vision line at 569 Calumet Place, citing neighborhood support and privacy concerns; staff had urged denial of the fence material but recommended vision‑clear relief.
The Board of Adjustment approved a pair of variances for a corner property at 569 Calumet Place, allowing a 4‑foot solid front fence and a reduced driveway clear‑vision distance.
Staff told the board the case (BOA 26‑10300055) involved a request to permit a solid 4‑ft front fence where the standard limit is 3 ft and to reduce the clear‑vision triangle at the driveway from 15 ft to 10 ft. Staff recommended denial of the fence material for being out of character but described circumstances supporting a reduced vision‑clear requirement and reported roughly 30 mailed notices with a mix of returned comments.
Chris, representing owner Justin Dicks, said the owner had replaced a chain‑link fence with a solid wood fence to create privacy for his young children and that several neighbors signed letters of support. “La altura y la privacidad son para la seguridad y la tranquilidad de la familia,” the representative said, requesting flexibility on the design.
Commissioners raised concerns about sight‑lines at the driveway and about whether a solid fence would obstruct pedestrians or drivers. Commissioner Bonilla moved to grant both the fence height variance (to allow 4 ft) and the reduced clear‑vision at the driveway, concluding the proposal would not create a public safety hazard and that neighbor support weighed in favor. The motion passed; the record shows the clear‑vision vote passed 9–1.
The board recorded conditions intended to preserve sight lines and asked the applicant to coordinate with staff on exact fence placement and any sight‑triangle mitigation measures. Staff also noted it would review permit documentation for the replacement fence material and whether retroactive permitting was required.
The board continued to stress that solid materials inconsistent with a neighborhood’s characteristic fencing can be denied; in this case, the board accepted the privacy argument and neighborhood support as sufficient to approve an adjustment in both fence height and the clear‑vision distance.
The board instructed staff to follow up on permits and to confirm any required changes before final inspection and release of permits.
