The Board of Zoning Appeals met 09/20/2021 and took up William’s request for a variance to install a 4-foot-high fence along the front yard of his property even though city code only allows front yard fences to be three feet high.
As he explained in his application, he was requesting the variance because his lot has odd dimensions and resembles a trapezoid. Most of the neighboring lots are traditional lots and many of them have 4 foot tall or higher backyard fences; however, because William has a corner lot and most of what is considered the back yard runs along the street, city code would only allow him to erect a 3-foot-tall fence. This is not tall enough to adequately keep their medium sized dog fenced in. Although it would be possible to install a taller fence 20 feet back from the property line, it would be aesthetically unpleasing and would severely impact the usability of the yard space.
Although Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen did not explicitly recommend either approval or denial of the variance request, he did note in his memo to the Board of Zoning Appeals that “it appears that the owner is able to build a fence that is code compliant and still use the property for its intended use.”
The video recording of the meeting was only 16 minutes long; however, it seems to pick up somewhere in the middle of the meeting and a fairly decent amount of the discussion seems to have not been recorded. Additionally, William’s microphone seems to have either not been turned on or not working during much of the portion of the meeting that was recorded, but at least some of it was recorded. The June 21 meeting wasn’t recorded at all.
When the recording started, the Board members seemed to be viewing the property on Google Street View.
Chairman Paul McCann pointed out that the arbor vitae hedgerow that was planted near the lot line did not conform to code and that it needed to be no taller than 3 feet while in the setback area. [It must be fun to come get a variance for one thing and be told that a completely different thing on your property doesn’t meet code requirements.]
Chairman McCann summed up the situation and said that William did have an unusually shaped lot with two front yards, but he could build a compliant fence by either putting a taller fence 20 feet off the sidewalk or a 3-foot-high fence by the lot line. He asked William to speak to both of those options and why either of them would create hardships.
William’s microphone was not working, so his answer was completely not available to anybody watching via video. Going off of his application, building a fence 20 feet off the lot line would result in a loss of much of the yard’s functionality, and building a 3-foot-high fence closer to the lot line would result in a safety hazard because it would not be high enough to properly contain their dog.
Various Board members seemed to be pleased that the fence had an open design and was not a privacy fence.
Board Member Karen Cain asked if the 3-foot heigh restriction was strictly for the sight line.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen responded, “Well, I think the reason for the standard is so you look down a street in a neighborhood–and you’ll see this any city in the country–you don’t want to see 6-foot fences–wood fences for example, so you can’t see the house. And then, of course, there’s vision. You don’t want to come to a corner and have a 6-foot fence there. So, the standard’s three feet–granted, arbitrary. Well, somewhat arbitrary. So, like when you’re driving a car you can kind of see over it, but that is the reason–it’s for the character of the neighborhood and vision.”
Board member Cain asked if the neighbors had been informed of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Inspections Supervisor Craanen told her that they had. He had received a couple calls from neighbors who had been seeking more information about what the issue was and who were indifferent to whether the variance was granted or not.
Chairperson McCann returned to the issue of a 2-foot-tall dog and a 3-foot-high fence and wondered if there really was that big of a difference between a 3-foot-high fence and a 4-foot-high fence in terms of containing the dog. He wondered if that was a serious concern or if it was more about other people’s dogs coming into William’s yard.
William’s microphone seemed to start working and he answered that, he hadn’t thought about that up until Chairperson McCann mentioned it but they did have an incident in the neighborhood where the dog at the house across the street from them got out. That dog was typically contained, but it was a bigger dog and, if it got out, it would easily get over a 3-foot fence.
The applicant had nothing further to add and the Board had no other questions, so the Chairperson opened it up for a motion.
Board member Kelly Sperl made a motion to approve the variance because there were unusual and practical difficulties due to the irregularly shaped lot. He also liked that the proposed fence was not a solid wall fence but was instead open. He thought that the proposed fence design and placement would allow William to better maximize the irregular lot. The hardship, if there was any, was that the lot had two frontage sides and was unusually shaped on top of that.
This motion was seconded by Board Member Engstrom. He said that the hardship could not be related to the animal itself because that would be what was considered as “self-created” hardship, but William didn’t create the shape of the lot. That lot shape was unique and he viewed it as a hardship which is why he seconded the motion.
Board Member Cain added that the design of the fence was what convinced her to allow the variance because the fence didn’t create a visual blockade.
Another Board member felt that it was consistent with the code. [Presumably the spirit of the code and not the letter of the code.]
The Board did take steps to make sure that the variance was limited to an open, wrought iron design as proposed by the applicant. Because the variance stays with the house, they did not want to have a situation where a future property owner would be able to use the variance to erect a solid fence.
[I’m a little curious how that gets recorded in the city records, because the actual minutes of the meeting only say “Sperl moved, seconded by Engstrom, that the Report Action Item be approved, the hardship being the unique shape of the lot,” which, 20 or 30 years from now could be taken a number of different ways. At any rate…]
The Board had no further discussion and voted 4-0 to approve the variance.
[Of the last 6 Board of Zoning Appeals meetings, 4 have involved property owners seek to erect front yard fences that are taller than 3 feet. 3 of those requests involved a desire to more adequately contain dogs. I feel somewhat badly for Matt from back in May. He was the only one to have his fence variance denied, but his case didn’t seem all that different from the situation in this meeting in that he had a multi-frontage lot where the only way to build a taller fence would be to build it 20 feet back and decrease the functionality of his back yard. He also had dogs he needed to contained and was proposing erecting a decorative, wrought iron fence that would not have impeded the line of sight. But his request was denied and this one was approved.
If the number of variance requests over this last year are any indication, people seem to find the current 3-foot height limit on fences to be too small. And, the truth is, it is very easy to step over a 3-foot-tall fence; they don’t do much to contain anything. I can say that I have started looking around at the front yard fences, and it seems pretty easy to find fences that are higher than 3 feet. I’m not sure I want to become the weirdo who goes out with a tape measure and a camera collecting photographic evidence of the number of non-conforming fences in the city because that seems like an easy way to get the cops called on you, but, looking around, it does seem like there are a lot of non-conforming fences and one wonders if maybe the city should consider upping the height limit on front yard fences, particularly given that Inspections Supervisor Craanen acknowledged that the current 3 foot limit was somewhat arbitrary.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=892665&GUID=2447C0DC-2B93-4FF9-90D9-62B1A728F146
Be the first to reply