Several months separated the last two Board of Zoning Appeals meetings so I thought perhaps we would have to wait a similar time frame for the next meeting, but–happy day–that has proven not to be the case. In the words of Peter Ustinov, “I tingle.”
The Board of Zoning Appeals is meeting 05/17/2021 at 7pm.
On the agenda is a request from a homeowner to erect a 5 foot tall see through metal fence in what he considers to be his back yard. The property is a double frontage lot and both the front and the back sides of the property abut streets, so under city code both yards are considered front yards and are subject to the fencing regulations regarding front yards which limit fences to no more than 3 feet in height.
7 other houses in his neighborhood are similarly situated and 4 of them have fences like he wants to erect. Per city Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen, those other fences may have been put up without permits or permits may have been issued erroneously. Regardless, in his memo, he states that being a double frontage lot is not a hardship and city code does not provide an exemption for fences on double frontage lots.
I must admit, I don’t actually know what the reasoning is behind limiting the height of front yard fences to no more than 3 feet, and part of me thinks homeowners should be free to build barracuda stocked moats and 10 foot tall stone walls with gun towers around their houses. But if you judge this case strictly on the law and the merits, it doesn’t sound like the homeowner has a very good case.
It does kind of suck for homeowners who own multiple frontage properties, though. And if multiple other properties on the street have fences, I could envision a situation in which a house hunter looking at the property wouldn’t realize that they couldn’t erect a similar fence given that over half the neighboring houses had them.
View full meeting details here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=860799&GUID=E091F170-51BC-4BD8-BD62-372062E43C26&Options=info|&Search=
Be the first to reply