The board’s primary focus was on Variance Number 18-2024, submitted by Charles Federly III, seeking permission to install a six-foot tall fence in the front yard setback of his property on Alpine Lane. The property in question, a corner lot, presented unique challenges due to its configuration and the local zoning regulations that limit front yard fence heights to four feet. Federly’s application aimed to exceed this limitation, citing the need for privacy and family use.

Staff presented a thorough analysis of the variance request, outlining the criteria that must be met for approval. Specifically, they noted that variances can only be granted under conditions of peculiar circumstances that are not applicable to other properties in the same zoning area. In their assessment, staff found no such special conditions and recommended the board deny the request. They highlighted that the applicant had alternative options, such as installing a four-foot fence with a vegetative buffer, which would comply with existing regulations.

During the public comment portion, Federly articulated his vision for the property, stating, “I feel like I made a bad decision, and you know I wouldn’t have purchased the house,” expressing frustration with the restrictions. He emphasized his desire for a private space for family activities, drawing from his childhood experiences. However, a board member clarified that while the property could accommodate a six-foot fence on certain sides, it would still need to adhere to the 25-foot setback requirement along Alpine Lane.

The discussion also delved into the complexities of interpreting which side of the property constituted the front yard, as zoning code defines it as the side abutting the street with the least frontage. This point of contention added to the challenges of the variance request. Questions arose about the possibility of combining Lots 11 and 12 into one contiguous property to potentially eliminate the setbacks dictated by the original lot lines. However, staff clarified that the overall dimensions of the property were the basis for setback rules, not the individual lot lines.

Further debate among board members focused on the broader implications of granting the variance. Concerns were raised about setting a precedent that could lead to additional, potentially conflicting requests. One board member remarked, “The spirit of the code is still met by allowing a six-foot fence on Maple,” but acknowledged the potential complications that could arise from such a decision.

Ultimately, the board motioned to deny the variance request, citing that granting it would provide rights to the property owner that were not available to other citizens. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. Federly was informed of the decision and reminded of alternative options, such as pursuing administrative interpretation or adjusting the fence’s placement.

In other significant business, the election of new officers for the Board of Adjustments and Appeals (BAA) took place. The current chairwoman announced her impending departure from the board effective December 31, due to a new position. Al Taylor was elected as the new chair, and Margaret Vanen was appointed vice chair, both through unanimous consent. The board members expressed their understanding of the chairwoman’s situation and acknowledged her contributions.

The meeting concluded with confirmations of upcoming sessions and discussions of pending variances for future deliberations. No further petitions or public comments were presented, and the board members reflected on their service, with one member expressing nostalgia and appreciation for their tenure.