Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Wall Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board rejects requests for higher wall and pool‑deck stairs at 1194 North Peninsula Avenue
Summary
After heated public comment and staff safety concerns, the board voted down two variance requests for a newly constructed riverfront house: one to allow portions of a block wall to exceed the 6‑foot residential maximum and one to allow two sets of pool‑deck stairs within the side yard setback.
The Planning & Zoning Board considered two separate variance requests for 1194 North Peninsula Avenue (case V‑17‑24): (1) allow sections of a block wall that measures up to about 7 feet 9 inches (measured from neighboring grade) where the residential maximum is 6 feet, and (2) allow two sets of pool‑deck stairs that encroach into the side yard setback.
Planning staff described the lot as an atypical riverfront parcel with significant grade differences between the subject property and neighboring yards. Staff noted some wall sections meet the 6‑foot limit but others exceed it because measurements are taken from the neighboring grade; staff flagged that the owner elevated the lot during construction and that exterior swales and pool‑deck enlargement contributed to the need for stairs inside the setback. Staff also said some constructed elements were not on the original house permit and that the wall is now functioning in parts as a retaining wall, which raises structural concerns and suggests a stamped engineer’s design may be appropriate.
The owner’s counsel, Michael Lyons, and the contractor (introduced as Bennington) said the lot is one of the naturally highest in the block, argued a leveled, continuous wall would be more aesthetically pleasing than a jagged stepped wall measured from neighboring grades, and said the side stairs provide necessary egress to the dock and river. Neighbors presented a petition opposing the taller wall; other neighbors supported the project and two‑way egress. A board member with engineering credentials voiced safety concerns about the wall’s footing and recommended a structural engineer stamp if the board were to consider approval.
The board separately voted on the wall variance and the stairs variance. Each motion failed (0‑4 on both items). Staff had proposed conditions if the board chose to approve, including a finished stucco/earth‑tone finish facing neighbors, but the board declined these actions. Because both motions failed, the owner must either modify the work or seek alternative remedies through building‑department processes.
