Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 -- September 25, 2005 <br /> <br /> Zoning Code -- Board rules cyclone fence with slats is an open fence <br /> Open fences do not require zoning permit under code <br />Citation: Grant v. Marinette County Zoning Board of Adjustment, Court of <br />Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 2004AP3]]7 (2005) <br /> <br />WISCONSIN (07/26/05) -- Miller was granted a zoning permit for one fence. <br />The zoning code recognized two types of fences, open and privacy. Miller's <br />fence was a cyclone fence with slats in it. <br /> After approval, Miller sent a letter requesting her fence be recognized as an <br />"open" fence. Under the applicable ordinance, an open fence did not require a <br />zoning permit. The Marinette County Zoning Board of Adjustment approved <br />the request. <br /> Grant, MilIer's neighbor, sued the board. The court rUled in the board's <br />favor. <br /> Grant appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> No ordinance defined privacy fence or open fence. When words or phrases <br />were undefined, the court followed their con<non and ordinary meaning. <br /> Privacy was defined in the dictionary as the "quality or state of being apart <br />from company or observation." The board relied on a photo showing that <br />despite the slats in the cyclone fence, a person could see through it. Because <br />the fence was transparent, it was not a privacy fence and, therefore, was an <br />open fence. Consequently, Miller did not need a zoning permit. <br />see also: Ziervoget v. Washington County Board of Adjustment, 676 N.W. 2d <br />40] (2004). <br />see also: State V. Wausha'ra County Board of Adjustment, 679 N.W. 2d 514 <br />(2004). <br /> <br />Special Use -- Landowner claims billboard would fit in with commercial <br />area <br />Offers no other evidence but his opinion <br />Citation: Ludema v. Callaway, Superior Court of Delaware, Sussex, No. 04A- <br />]1-002 (THG) (2005) <br /> <br />DELAWARE (07/27/05) -- Ludema owned a 0.79-acre piece of commercially <br />zoned property south of the town limits of Bridgeville. <br /> Ludema requested a special use exception from the county board of ad- <br />justment to build a 10-by-30-foot monopole steel billboard on the property. <br />He testified the double-sided billboard would comply with all relevant set- <br />back and height restrictions. He also testified the billboard would not be out <br />of character with the surrounding area, which was filled with commercial <br />businesses. <br /> <br /> © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br />212 <br /> <br /> <br />