Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Replacement Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds staff: Kaufman appeal that new fence qualified as a replacement fence not granted
Summary
The board declined to reverse staff's October determination that the rear-yard vegetation and trellis did not meet the city code definition of a replacement fence; the appellant argued for inconsistent inspection and presented neighborhood fence data, but the appeal failed on a procedural record burden.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted not to grant Mitchell Kaufman's administrative appeal challenging staff's determination that a rear-yard fence at 7068 Anselmo Court was not a qualifying "replacement fence" under the Code. Law counsel and staff briefed the board on the narrow scope of administrative appeals — the board's review is limited to the record available to the administrative official — and staff said aerial images and site evidence did not show the supporting structures required by the replacement-fence definition.
Mitchell Kaufman told the board the fence was installed for safety reasons for two disabled neighbors and criticized what he characterized as an inadequate site inspection by the city. "The reason for the fence was for the safety of these two disabled individuals," Kaufman said, explaining why the fence was installed. Staff replied that their October determination applied the Code's definition of fence and that the materials submitted did not contain probative evidence of a prior qualifying structure to support a replacement claim. The board discussed the burden of proof for appeals and whether probative evidence existed from the effective date of the ordinance; after deliberation, members voted to deny the appeal, leaving staff's determination in place.
