Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic board denies variance for 8-foot fence at 338 Cornell Drive
Summary
The Historic Resources Preservation Board voted to disapprove a variance request for an 8-foot fence along the west alley at 338 Cornell Drive after staff said the unpermitted work did not meet variance criteria; the applicant argued the taller fence was needed for safety.
The Historic Resources Preservation Board on an evening hearing denied a variance that would have allowed an eight‑foot fence along the west alley property line at 338 Cornell Drive in the College Park Historic District. Staff told the board the permit application requested a six‑foot fence and that an eight‑foot fence is allowed only on rear alley lot lines, not on side lot lines, and therefore the request did not meet the applicable variance criteria.
Anne Hamilton, presenting the staff report, reviewed the property's history and fence rules and recommended denial, saying, "since the variance doesn't meet the 4 criteria…a hardship cannot be established in this circumstance, and we are recommending that you not approve the variance." She noted the permit originally approved a six‑foot fence and staff found no special circumstances that would justify an after‑the‑fact increase to eight feet.
The applicant's realtor, Robert Glickenhaus, told the board the fence was built to eight feet for safety. "The fence at this property was constructed to 8 feet, for more of a safety issue," he said, describing repeated loitering, people sleeping in the banyan tree at the corner, and incidents of harassment near the site. Glickenhaus said the owners are out of the country and he was representing their interests at the hearing.
Board members debated alternatives — including requiring the front portion adjacent to Cornell Drive be cut to six feet, planting a hedge, or relying on code enforcement to address safety and visibility — and discussed whether the side alley functions like a rear alley for adjacent commercial properties. After an initial motion to approve a partial variance (allowing eight feet along the alley but reducing the front portion to six feet) failed, a later motion to disapprove the variance passed. The board asked staff and code enforcement to address compliance steps for bringing the fence into alignment with the code.
The decision means the applicant must either seek further relief through the proper code‑change process or bring the fence into compliance through permitting and any necessary enforcement steps. Staff and board members suggested the city could consider whether the fence rules should be revised to address rare side‑alley/rear‑alley situations in a future code workshop.
