The board voted 4-0 to deny the variance, adopting staff's recommendation that the applicant had not demonstrated the “exceptional, exceptional or unusual” characteristics of the property necessary to grant a variance. The board then rescheduled discussion of reasonable accommodations to the next meeting to allow the applicant to provide an updated site plan and additional materials.
Staff told the board that Greenfield's municipal code allows decorative front yard fences up to 3 feet tall and requires such fences to be more than 75 percent open. The applicant's request sought both an increase in height and a fully enclosed (solid) fence. Staff recommended rejection because the lot did not present any special circumstances that would warrant an exception to the Code.
At the meeting, the homeowner described the request as a safety measure for her son, who she said had turned six on the day of the meeting and was “a serious runaway.” The homeowner said therapy and alarms had not prevented repeated escapes; She said she tracked 12 escape attempts in four days and that a government program and an unnamed contractor would cover the cost of the fence. The homeowner also said a nearby bar, shopping center and heavy traffic at the intersection increase the safety risk.
The neighbors' reactions were mixed. Thomas Anik, who said he lives next door, told the board he has lived in the neighborhood for more than 50 years and is opposed to additional fencing, which he said would cause “trouble.” Dina Fleming, an Edgerton resident, said she sympathizes with the family but worries that a permanent sidewalk fence would detract from the character of the neighborhood and could encourage similar desires.
Board members and staff discussed the alternative legal route to relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act: a reasonable accommodation that would be tied to those living on the property rather than running away with the land. The employees explained the legal difference: There is a difference with the property; An ADA-based reasonable accommodation is not limited to, and may be limited to, current residents and for a period selected by the Board.
Several board members urged the applicant to work with staff on a revised plan that could maintain the neighborhood's visibility while providing greater security. Proposed compromises included setting the fence back from the property line, using an open (slatted) design to allow for sight lines, adding decorative elements, or exploring a taller fence built to ADA guidelines (some board members cited research suggesting 5 feet or more and no handholds for flight-risk children).
The board took two formal actions. First, it voted to reject the amendment (4-0). Second, the board voted to table the reasonable accommodation request at the next meeting and requested that the applicant return with a clearer site plan, any supporting documentation (e.g., therapist evaluations or local safety programs), and a representation of the proposed gates and driveway access. Board members suggested that the applicant work with staff in the meantime and provide city departments (police, DPW, fire) with any documentation regarding traffic or safety contacts.
The board did not adopt a final design or approve any construction. Staff said they would accept the paperwork and work with the applicant on options; The Board encouraged the applicant to provide detailed drawings addressing driveway sight lines, gate operation, sidewalk clearance, and whether the requested accommodation should only be granted while the child resides in the residence.