Wells planning panel denies front‑yard sound‑barrier fence permit, urges town council to consider medical variance

The Wells Planning and Zoning Committee denied a building‑permit application for an 8‑foot sound‑barrier fence intended to reduce truck noise for a resident with medical needs and recommended the applicant seek a variance from the town council.

Don Perry, who said he was representing applicant Natalie Howard, described a proposed fence of roughly 82 feet consisting of a 7‑foot section, a 12‑foot vehicle opening and a 40‑foot 8‑foot section, with heavy 2x8 construction on concrete intended to block vibrations. "She'll have headphones on because she cannot handle the noise," Perry said, explaining that truck noise has caused seizures and substantial disruption to the resident's daily life.

The committee's chair said the planning and zoning body does not have the authority to grant variances and must follow the town code and state open‑meetings requirements. "We don't do variances here," the Chair said, reading height and clear‑view triangle rules to the group and noting the town ordinance generally limits fences to 6 feet and to 4 feet in front‑yard setbacks.

Committee members acknowledged the applicant's medical hardship and discussed the legal criteria for a variance — unreasonable hardship, special circumstances connected to the property, and not contrary to the public interest — but concluded the formal variance must come from the town council. One committee member moved to deny the building‑permit request under the committee's limited authority while urging an expedited variance review by the council; the motion passed unanimously among those present. The Chair said the committee would prepare findings of fact and a recommendation letter to attach to any appeal filed with the city recorder.

The committee advised the applicant or her representative on next steps: file a written appeal or petition with the city recorder including contact information, the petitioner's relationship to the property and a comprehensive statement citing specific ordinance provisions alleged to be violated. Staff offered to prepare a findings letter for the council to expedite review, and the committee discussed the possibility of scheduling a special council meeting if prompt action were required.

The decision leaves the applicant with the option to seek a variance from the council; the planning and zoning committee noted the record will include a denial from the committee alongside the committee's recommendation that the council consider a medical‑necessity variance.

The committee handled other routine business and discussed updating development code language to clarify processes for atypical applications. The meeting adjourned after the committee agreed to draft the findings and support materials for the appeal.