TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Zoning Commission
FROM: Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: August 12, 2025
RE:
Title
A25-33. Variance to reduce fence setback from the corner side property line and increase the fence height at 782 Yorkshire Drive (REID: 0417325421000), owned by Peaches Michelle Ambert.
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
9 - Deno Hondros
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal I: Safe and Secure Community
• 1.2: Ensure traffic and pedestrian safety - The variance addresses a fence setback that maintains safe visibility and does not obstruct pedestrian paths.
• 1.3: Ensure low incidence of property and violent crime - The applicant’s justification emphasizes the need for a 7-ft. fence for personal safety, privacy, and deterrence after a past break-in.
• 1.4: Engage citizens in community watch and safety events - The application aligns with a shared local approach to safety and visibility by referencing surrounding fences and neighborhood forms.
Goal III: Invest in Today and Tomorrow
• 3.2: Manage future growth and strategic land use - The request balances ordinance requirements and unique site constraints (typography, driveway location).
• 3.4: Revitalize neighborhoods with effective code enforcement and violation abatement - The applicant is working within the system rather than defying it, using the variance process to reconcile older fence lines and topographical issues with current code.
Goal IV: Desirable Place to Live, Work, and Recreate
• 4.4: Provide a clean and beautiful community with increased green spaces - The request preserves a visually consistent and aligned fence layout with the neighborhood.
• 4.5: Ensure a place for people to live in great neighborhoods - The applicant’s home includes accessibility improvements (handicap ramp), and the variance supports the applicant’s efforts to age in place safely and independently.
Goal VI: Collaborative Citizen and Business Engagement
• 6.2: Ensure trust and confidence in City government through transparency and high-quality customer service - By applying for a variance rather than building noncompliant, the applicant is engaging constructively with City procedures.
• 6.3: Inform and educate about local government by enhancing public outreach and increasing community dialogue - The applicant’s detailed variance narrative demonstrates civic engagement and understanding the ordinance’s intent.
Executive Summary:
The applicant requests a variance to allow a fence to remain as built, encroaching into the minimum corner side yard setback beyond the standard required by Section 30-5. D.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO, due to exceptional topographical conditions and safety considerations. The subject property is on a raised lot with a sloping driveway and a newly installed handicap ramp at the rear of the home. The fence was installed with one foot of its total height buried below grade to accommodate large breed dogs to prevent escape or injury. The applicant, a single woman with a disability, has experienced a prior home break-in and seeks to retain a 7-foot privacy fence for safety and security.
Section 30-2. C.14 Variance:
The purpose of a variance is to allow certain deviations from the dimensional standards of this Ordinance (such as height, yard setback, lot coverage, or similar numeric standards) when the landowner demonstrates that, owing to special circumstances or conditions beyond the landowner’s control (such as exceptional topographical conditions, narrowness, shallowness, or the shape of a specific parcel of land), the literal application of the standards would result in undue and unique hardship to the landowner and the deviation would not be contrary to the public interest.
Variances are to be sparingly exercised and only in rare instances or under exceptional circumstances to relieve undue hardships to the landowner. No change in permitted uses or applicable conditions of approval may be authorized by variance.
Background:
Owner/Applicant: Peaches Michelle Ambert
Requested Action: Reduce the minimum corner side yard setback and increase the maximum height of a fence.
Zoning District: Single Family Residential 10 (SF-10)
Property Address: 782 Yorkshire Drive
Size: 0.43 acres ±
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling
Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
North: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential
South: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential
East: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential
West: SF-10 - Single-Family Residential
Letters Mailed: 38
Issues/Analysis:
The subject property is in the Montclair Subdivision at the corner of Montclair Road and Yorkshire Drive. The property owner received a notice of violation from Code Enforcement regarding a newly installed section of wood privacy fencing constructed without a permit to replace a deteriorating and unsafe existing fence. While applying for an after-the-fact permit, it was discovered that the new fence exceeded the maximum allowable height of six feet and had been installed beyond the property line - within the public right of way - where the previous fence had also been situated. Only the portion of the fence northwest of the driveway along Montclair Road was replaced with the new wood privacy fencing. The remaining sections of fencing southeast of the driveway, extending along the front yard facing Yorkshire Drive, consist of a legally nonconforming chain-link fence that predates current ordinance requirements.
For individual single-family homes (whether attached or detached) and two- to four-family dwellings in the City of Fayetteville, fences and walls must comply with specific height and setback standards outlined in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), Section 30-5. D.4.
In front yards, fences are generally limited to a maximum height of four feet. However, if the fence is made of wrought iron or a similar open-style metal, the height may be increased to five feet. In corner side yards, fences may be up to six feet tall. The same six-foot height limit applies to fences located on the interior side and rear yards. Within designated sight triangles - areas near street intersections that must remain clear for driver visibility - fences may not exceed 30 inches in height.
Setback requirements vary depending on the height of the fence. If a fence is 36 inches or less in height, it may be placed directly on the property line without a setback. For fences taller than 36 inches, the setback must be the lesser of five feet or aligned with the corner side of the dwelling.
Material restrictions also apply to fences located in front yards. Acceptable materials include wrought iron or similar open-style metal, picket or shadow-box fences, or other partially open designs that are at least 50% transparent. Solid fences are also permitted if constructed with a defined structural pattern - specifically, at least three horizontal and two vertical elements for wood fences, or two horizontal and two vertical elements for masonry walls. Chain link and wire fences, including those with slats or screens, are not allowed in front yards.
When property lines extend into the public right-of-way, the setback must be measured from the sidewalk’s edge. If there is no sidewalk, the setback is measured ten feet from the edge of the pavement.
These requirements balance privacy and security needs with community aesthetics, safety, and visibility standards.
Insufficient Justification for Variance
The following circumstances do not constitute valid justification for the approval of a variance:
1. The presence of similar nonconforming or conforming uses or structures in the same zoning district or nearby districts;
2. A desire to establish a use that is expressly prohibited - either explicitly or implicitly - within the zoning district; or
3. Claims of economic hardship or assertions that the property would be more profitable if the variance were granted.
Subsequent Development:
The applicant is requesting these reductions to retain the newly constructed section of fencing at its current height (with some wiggle room should moving it change its height when measured) and to relocate it onto the property. However, the proposed placement avoids pushing the fence so far back that it would create a visually abrupt and impractical offset from the existing chain link fence, particularly where a new gate is planned across the driveway.
The following findings are based on the applicant’s submitted responses and the best available information regarding the proposal, absent any testimony that may be presented during the evidentiary hearing.
Findings of Fact Statements as reviewed by the Planning Staff:
1. There is sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “My home is situated on a slight hill, with a grade change of approximately 2 to 3 feet. To ensure the security of my large dogs, I installed a new fence with one foot buried below ground. As a result, although the fence measures approximately 7 feet, the visible height from my property is around 5 feet 10 inches. Given the lot’s elevations, this installation helps prevent my mastiffs from escaping.”
2. There is sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “The repositioned fence causes the interior gate to swing into my vehicle, as the setback places it too close to the driveway. Additionally, my driveway sits on an incline leading up to the house, and shifting the fence further back would reduce the usable driveway area, making access more difficult. The current placement also creates a noticeable offset between the new front fence and the existing chain-link fence, which has existed since I purchased the property.”
3. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “This variance would allow me to feel safer in my home and preserve the functional use of the property I originally purchased - specifically, the full half-acre backyard that was a key factor in my decision to buy. Allowing a 3-foot setback instead of the required 5 feet would avoid disrupting the overall layout of the property and maintain consistency in the fencing alignment.”
4. There is sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “There is no meaningful difference in visibility or safety at the intersection, despite the intent of the ordinance to ensure visual clearance. The existing conditions - including the nonconforming chain-link fence in the front yard - do not obstruct views for drivers or pedestrians approaching the intersection.”
5. There is sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
The applicant states, “I do not believe the requested variance would negatively impact public safety. Similar fences along the sidewalk are common throughout the neighborhood, and relocating mine no more than three feet from its current position would be consistent with the existing streetscape and pose no public hazard.”
Budget Impact:
None
Options:
The Board has the authority to approve or deny the requested variance. Its decision must be based on the five required findings of fact. If a member believes that the evidence presented is substantial, competent, and sufficient to support all five findings, they may make a motion to approve the variance. In doing so, the member must clearly state each of the five findings of fact and cite the evidence supporting each.
Suppose the Board determines that specific facts presented in the record cannot support one or more of the required findings. In that case, the appropriate course of action is considering a motion to deny the variance. Any such motion should identify which of the five findings of fact are unmet.
The Board also has the discretion to impose reasonable conditions on any variance it approves.
When making a motion to approve, the member should briefly summarize the evidence that supports each of the five findings. Subsequent Board discussion may further elaborate on this evidence to ensure the record supports the findings.
Possible Motions and Factual Findings:
Motion to approve the application as submitted.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
_____________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
______________________________________________________________________
Motion to approve the application subject to conditions.
Findings of Fact Required to Approve this Request with added conditions:
1. Strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
2. Any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
3. The Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
4. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
5. In the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured, and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
___________________________________________________________________
Motion to deny the application.
Findings of Fact Statements Required to Deny this Request:
1. There is not sufficient evidence that the strict application of the Ordinance requirements results in practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships, as shown by the following evidence:
________________________________________________________________
2. There is not sufficient evidence that any practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships result from unique circumstances related to the land, and are not the result of the actions of the landowner, as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
3. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is the minimum action that will make possible a reasonable use of land or structures, as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
4. There is not sufficient evidence that the Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and preserves its spirit as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________
5. There is not sufficient evidence that in the granting of the Variance, the public safety and welfare have been assured and substantial justice has been done as shown by the following evidence:
_______________________________________________________________.
Recommended Action:
N/A
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Notification Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Survey