Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies request for 9-foot fence at 9237 Lakeshore Drive
Summary
The Pleasant Prairie Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request to construct a 9-foot fence at 9237 Lakeshore Drive after staff and neighbors said the application failed to prove the statutory "unnecessary hardship" standard; the vote was taken by roll call and the motion passed.
The Pleasant Prairie Zoning Board of Appeals voted to deny a variance request that would have allowed a fence measuring nine feet from the petitioner’s grade at 9237 Lakeshore Drive.
Petitioner Joseph Trygar told the board the fence was sought "primarily [for] privacy and appearance" and to reduce noise from a neighboring elevated yard, saying his household helps care for a 91‑year‑old father and that loud pool parties and barking dogs make his home unusable at times. "It's not intended to go to the length of the entire yard… It'll be something appearance wise, it'll be good for both homes," Trygar said while noting photos and his application were part of the record.
Neighbor Michael Treba opposed the application, arguing it "fails to establish the strict compliance with zoning ordinance would prevent [the Trigers] from continuing to use their home" and calling the request a personal dispute rather than a zoning hardship. Treba told the board he provided police reports and written correspondence (identified in the packet as exhibit 5) and said a 9‑foot freestanding fence "would be both unsightly and unpleasant to look at."
Village staff reviewed permit history and site inspections, citing a 2014 building permit and a 2015 pool permit and an on‑site inspection on 08/22/2024. Staff concluded the application did not meet the village code standard for an area variance under section 18‑43 and recommended denial; staff also recommended landscaping as an alternative buffer.
After closing the public hearing and deliberating, a board member moved to deny the application and another board member seconded. The board conducted a roll‑call vote and the motion to deny carried; the chair announced the variance was denied.
What happened next: the board did not adopt the variance, and staff advised landscaping or code enforcement remedies where applicable. No further action on this application was recorded at the meeting.
