Legislation Details

File #: 26-0089    Version: 1 Name: A26-03 Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: A variance request to permit taller ornamental fencing
Type: Consent Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 2/3/2026 In control: Zoning Commission
On agenda: 2/10/2026 Final action: 9/9/2026
Title: A26-03. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: A variance request to permit taller ornamental fencing than allowed under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) fence standards, located at 3200 Cliffdale Road (REID 0417775939000), owned by Fayetteville Academy, represented by Harold Smelcer of Smelcer Contractors, Inc.
Attachments: 1. A26-03 Findings of Fact Draft _Legal (Clean)

TO:                                            Zoning Commission

THRU:                      Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner

 

FROM:                     Demetrios Moutos, AICP - Planner II

 

DATE:                      February 10, 2026

 

RE:Title

A26-03. Order of Approval - Findings of Fact: A variance request to permit taller ornamental fencing than allowed under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) fence standards, located at 3200 Cliffdale Road (REID 0417775939000), owned by Fayetteville Academy, represented by Harold Smelcer of Smelcer Contractors, Inc.

Title

end

end

COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):                      

Council District(s)

 City Council District 8 - Council Member Shaun McMillan                         

 

 

b

Relationship To Strategic Plan:

Strategic Operating Plan FY 2025

Goal I - Safety & Security

•                     Objective 1.3 (property and violent crime) and Objective 1.4 (community watch and safety events). Perimeter security improvements can help support a safe school campus environment.

Goal IV - Live, Work, & Recreate

•                     Objective 4.4 (clean and beautiful community). The requested fence is ornamental with brick columns and is intended to be visually compatible with existing fence styles along the roadway.

 

Executive Summary:

Harold Smelcer, Smelcer Contractors, Inc., on behalf of Fayetteville Academy, requested a variance from UDO Section 30-5. D (Fences and Walls), including Table 30-5. D.4, to allow a six (6) foot ornamental perimeter security fence with brick columns in an area designated as a frontage/front yard, where the base code limits fence height to four (4) feet. 

The Zoning Commission conducted an evidentiary hearing on January 13, 2026, and approved the variance by a 5-0 vote. The attached Order to Approve A26-03 (dated February 10, 2026) memorializes the Commission’s findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the hearing record. 

 

Background: 

Property Owner: Fayetteville Academy

Applicant: Harold Smelcer, Smelcer Contractors, Inc.

Requested Action: Variance from UDO 30-5. D (Table 30-5. D.4) to allow a six (6) foot ornamental perimeter security fence with brick columns in a frontage/front yard area.

Zoning District: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential 10

Address / REID: 3200 Cliffdale Road / 0417775939000

Site Context: Fayetteville Academy campus (dual frontage condition)

Noticing: Mailed notice to owners within 300 feet (Dec. 30, 2025); posted on-site (Dec. 29, 2025); newspaper publication scheduled for Jan. 2, 2026 and Jan. 9, 2026.

 

Issues/Analysis: 

UDO 30-5. D establishes standards for fences and walls, including maximum height requirements outlined in Table 30-5. D.4. For “other individual development,” Table 30-5. D.4 limits fence height to four (4) feet in the front yard and six (6) feet in corner side yards.

The applicant requested approval of a six (6) foot ornamental perimeter security fence with brick columns in an area designated as a frontage/front yard, where strict adherence to the four-foot height limit would not permit the requested height needed for perimeter security.

Because this case is quasi-judicial, the findings of fact must be supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record. The attached Order reflects the Zoning Commission’s adopted findings and conclusions following the January 13, 2026 evidentiary hearing.

Insufficient Justification for a Variance:

The following do not constitute valid grounds for granting a variance (UDO 30-2. C.14.

g):

•                     The existence of conforming or nonconforming uses or structures elsewhere in the same or other zoning districts.

•                     A request to establish a use that is expressly or implicitly prohibited within the zoning district.

•                     Claims of economic hardship or increased profitability that would result from approval.

Findings:

The statements below reflect the findings adopted by the Zoning Commission in its Order to Approve A26-03. These findings were made after consideration of sworn testimony, admitted evidence, and arguments presented at the January 13, 2026 evidentiary hearing.

1.                     Practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships:

a.                     Strict enforcement of the ordinance requirements would result in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships because the site’s layout includes dual frontages, and the frontage design limits the ability to install the requested six-foot security fence height necessary for the project’s security purposes.

2.                     Unique circumstances; not self-created:

a.                     Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships arise from unique circumstances specific to the property and are not caused by actions taken by the landowner, as demonstrated by the site’s dual-frontage condition and the security-driven nature of the request.

3.                     Minimum action necessary:

a.                     The requested variance is the minimum action needed to reasonably use the property because the request is specifically tailored to allow the six-foot fence height required for perimeter security, in line with the project’s stated safety and security purpose.

4.                     Harmony with the Ordinance; spirit preserved:

a.                     The variance aligns with the overall purpose and intent of the Ordinance and maintains its spirit because the proposed fence is ornamental with brick pillars and is designed to be visually compatible with other fencing styles along the road while providing a legitimate security function.

5.                     Public safety and welfare; substantial justice:

a.                     Granting the variance promotes public safety and welfare and ensures substantial justice because perimeter security for a school campus directly advances safety objectives.

 

Budget Impact: 

There is no immediate budgetary impact beyond routine staff time for processing, noticing, and supporting the evidentiary hearing and decision documentation.  

    

Options: 

1.                     Approve Findings of Fact as drafted (consistent with the adopted Order to Approve A26-03).

2.                     Approve Findings of Fact with specific changes, as directed by the Zoning Commission and consistent with the hearing record.

     

Recommended Action::Recommended Action

No staff recommendation is provided. Any action should be grounded in the evidentiary record and the Zoning Commission’s decision in Case A26-03. 

end

Attachments:

1.                     Order to Approve A26-03 - Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

2.                     Application (A26-03)

3.                     A26-03 Zoning Map

4.                     A26-03 Future Land Use Map

5.                     A26-03 Aerial Notification Map

6.                     3200 Cliffdale Road - Plot Drawing