The Board of Zoning Appeals met 10/17/2022. One of the items they took up was a request from a residential property owner on Eighth Street to erect a fence in the rear and side yard that was 6’10” even though city code limited fence heights to 6’.
This variance request was dealt with very quickly. Two neighbors appeared and voiced their opposition to the variance. Neither the property owner nor a representative appeared to make a case for the variance. The board voted unanimously to deny the variance after only minimal discussion.
As stated above, two neighboring residents spoke to the board and expressed opposition to the variance. Norma told them that the property was owned by someone who lived in another country and was used as an Airbnb. The fence was very high and was built right next to a chain link fence so weeds grew between the two and were not tended to. The fence had been built without a permit, and a permit was only applied for months after the fact.
Another neighbor, Kathy, confirmed the fence was an eyesore and the weeds between the two fences were not taken care of.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen told the board that he had spoke to the property manager late in the previous week. The property manager had told Supervisor Craanen that he didn’t know if he would be coming to the meeting or not. Apparently, he did not end up coming.
Board Chairman Paul McCann asked about the two fences. Apparently, both of the fences were on the same property and the maintenance of the space in between them was the obligation of the property owner. There was a section in the municipal code that required property owners to maintain both sides of their fences. There was not, however, a code saying a property owner couldn’t put up two fences right next to each other.
Based on the application, board member Scott Engstrom said he didn’t see any evidence of a hardship that might lead to a variance being approved.
Chairman McCann agreed, saying that while there were sometimes unusual situations that might warrant a variance such as a neighboring property being 10 feet higher in which case one could argue that the same privacy could not be achieved without a taller fence, but he didn’t see such a situation being applicable to the current variance request.
Given that neither the applicant nor an agent of the applicant making an appearance to plead their case, the board had nothing further to discuss and voted 4-0 to deny the variance request.
In the questionnaire that was submitted in regards to the variance request, the applicant indicated that they had increased the height of the fence out of consideration for their neighbors as a way to give them more of a visual barrier between their house and the Airbnb, but none of the neighbors showed up at the meeting to voice support for the fence, and the neighbors who did show up far from wanting a visual barrier, seemed to prefer that the fence be removed completely.
[I guess an easy way to lose your case before the variance board is to (a) be an absent landlord, (b) not maintain your property, (c) build a fence without a permit, (d) alienate your neighbors, and (e) not even bother showing up for the variance hearing. I feel kind of sorry for the neighbors because it sounds like they’re stuck next to a property owned and managed by some irresponsible people.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=999525&GUID=A24C52D8-B20D-445E-AB82-7EF04C5633BA
Be the first to reply