Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Cup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves 8.5-foot fence at 5905 Grant Street after split votes
Summary
After a split 2-2 vote and a successful reconsideration, the Shorewood City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit to legalize an 8.5-foot fence built at 5905 Grant Street. The council debated consistency of fence enforcement, neighbor concerns, and an engineer's certification provided by the applicant.
The Shorewood City Council approved Resolution No. 25-048 on May 12, 2025, allowing an 8.5-foot fence at 5905 Grant Street after an initial 2-2 vote prompted a reconsideration and a final 3-1 approval (Councilmember Sanschagrin opposed). The fence had already been erected and the applicant, Richard Pearce, asked the council to legalize it through a Conditional Use Permit because the site's retaining wall made the effective height exceed the City's six-foot normal limit.
Pearce told the council he has lived at 5905 Grant Street since 2015 and described the situation as “an honest mistake,” adding that he felt singled out by a neighbor who had repeatedly complained since Pearce rebuilt his home. Pearce said he could not move the fence because of topography and that removing the top portion would remove his privacy.
Planning Director Dan Griffiths explained the code framework: because the fence is higher when measured from the lower grade created by a retaining wall, the Zoning Code treats the combined height as exceeding the typical six-foot maximum; however, the CUP provision allows the council to approve taller fences in unusual circumstances. Griffiths noted the applicant provided structural certification from an engineer, which the Planning Commission considered when unanimously recommending approval.
Council debate centered on two issues: consistency of enforcement across the city and the visual/privacy impact on the adjacent neighbor. Councilmember Gorham summarized the practical concern, saying the fence “looks like six feet tall from one side and eight and a half feet tall from the other.” Councilmember Sanschagrin asked whether allowing this fence would create an enforcement inconsistency with other cases; he said he would prefer the fence be set back so footing posts were not visible. City Attorney Shepherd urged the council to apply the CUP criteria before considering whether a variance analysis might be more appropriate in other cases.
The council first voted on the resolution and the motion failed on a 2-2 tie, with Sanschagrin and Gorham opposed. After a motion to reconsider passed 3-1 (Sanschagrin opposed), the council again voted to adopt Resolution No. 25-048, approving the Conditional Use Permit to allow the 8.5-foot fence.
The action legalized the existing structure rather than ordering removal. The council did not direct any additional modifications to the fence as part of the approval. The resolution record does not show a required follow-up inspection other than the ordinarily applicable building or zoning compliance checks.
The decision highlights how the city's code treats fences combined with retaining walls, and how engineering certification can affect the council's judgment on site-specific safety and structural concerns.
A final procedural note: the record shows City Attorney Shepherd and City Engineer Budde recused themselves from an earlier unrelated land-use item on this agenda; an outside city representative (Scott Baumgartner) was available via Zoom for that item.
