Resident Eli Schultz seeks approval for high-privacy fence; board outlines conditional compromise

Eli Schultz asked the board for approval of a six‑foot privacy fence around his corner lot, saying he wanted the "most aggressive" option so he could "take that phone to my wife and say, hey. This is the max." (Eli Schultz, public commenter).

Board members raised sight-line and aesthetic concerns for corner lots and street frontage, noting a past preference against tall fences along the public-facing side of houses. The Chair proposed allowing a six‑foot wood privacy fence where it follows the side property line but requiring a four‑foot fence within 4 feet of the sidewalk or where the fence fronts a street. The Chair also said that if the fence is set back 3 feet from the sidewalk, a four‑foot fence could be permitted in that location.

Schultz described his intent as a privacy-maximizing strategy and said he understood the board's concerns. The board asked him to consider the proposed conditions and confirmed the compromise would address line-of-sight and precedent concerns. The board did not record a formal roll-call vote in the transcript; the Chair and other members indicated agreement with the described conditions during the discussion.

The Chair asked staff to confirm property lines and setbacks before finalizing any permit; as discussed, the board’s approval would be conditioned on the fence following the outward property line and meeting the setbacks discussed. The board did not direct a permit issuance in the transcript beyond endorsing the conditional approach and asking the applicant to refine the plan.