Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies privacy-fence variance for 330 East 9th Street after safety concerns
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied Richard Mitchell’s request for a 6-foot privacy fence at 330 E. 9th Street, citing staff and engineering recommendations and public-safety concerns related to a nearby fire station; the appellant and a supporting resident argued the denial discriminated against disabled people.
The Mishawaka Board of Zoning Appeals voted July 14 to deny an appeal by Richard Mitchell seeking a variance to install a 6-foot privacy fence on the exterior side yard of his home at 330 East 9th Street.
Mitchell told the board he bought the house last September and had been told by his realtor that he could replace an existing chain-link fence with a privacy fence. He said his sister, who lives with him and is disabled, is frightened by people walking close to the house and that moving the fence back would leave too little usable yard for his family. “I'm not going to go with that because to me, that is not good enough,” he said, adding that he might put the house back on the market if denied.
Board members, however, said city departments including engineering and public safety recommended denial or, at minimum, a compromise that would move the fence back about 6 feet. Several board members flagged a fire station across the street and raised concerns that a privacy fence at the corner could reduce sightlines for emergency vehicles. “When I saw this, it concerned me,” said Mike Compton, citing potential risk to motorists and emergency responders.
After public comment — including Cindy Mitchell, a resident who said denying the request felt discriminatory toward disabled people — the board made and seconded a motion to deny the variance. The denial passed on a unanimous roll-call vote, with board members citing staff and engineering recommendations and unresolved public-safety concerns.
The board noted that approval would have been contingent on the appellant accepting the staff-recommended setback compromise, which Mitchell said he would not accept.
