Macomb Township ZBA denies variance to allow double fencing at Pointe Drive property

On Thursday, July 3, 2025, the Macomb Township Zoning Board of Appeals denied a variance request that would have allowed a homeowner to install a privacy fence directly adjacent to a neighbor's existing chain-link fence.

Aaron Tuckfield, chairman of the Macomb Township Zoning Board of Appeals, opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and placed the request from the owners of 24072 Pointe Drive on the agenda. Township staff described the request as a variance under the township's code of ordinances to permit roughly 48 feet of 2double fencing2 in a rear yard where the ordinance requires a 3.5-foot separation between fences.

Mr. Box, planning director for Macomb Township, told the board that the code "states that no fence may be erected closer than 3 and a half feet to any other fence" and that double fencing is generally prohibited. He summarized department reviews: assessing raised no objections; building inspection said the proposed condition does not create building-code issues but could create a maintenance problem; fire had no objections; public works provided no comment; and engineering found no unique lot conditions that would constitute a practical difficulty. Planning staff told the board a compliant fence could be installed at the required setback.

Applicants Curran Hellman and Tyler Platts told the board they sought a privacy fence to reduce stress and reactivity for their dog and said a permit exists for the existing fence. Hellman said, "we have had a permit pulled and paid for since that date." The applicants also said moving four sprinkler heads and other adjustments to meet the 3.5-foot setback would impose additional cost.

Board members focused on the ordinance's legal standard for a variance, which requires a finding of practical difficulty plus three additional factors about property rights and harm to others. Mr. DeCoster said he did not find a qualifying practical difficulty and moved to deny the request, saying, "I do not see a practical difficulty here." The motion to deny, made by Mr. DeCoster and supported by Mr. Mazzara, passed unanimously on a roll-call vote: Mr. DeCoster, Mr. DeBruin, Mr. Tuckfield, Mr. Piper and Mr. Mazzara all voted yes.

The board's denial means the applicants cannot install the privacy fence in the 48-foot area directly adjacent to the neighbor's chain-link fence under the requested variance. Mr. Box and other staff advised the applicants to coordinate with the building department about the existing permit and any required changes to comply with township regulations.

The board's discussion and vote were limited to this item; no additional public commenters addressed the variance during the public-comment period. Planning staff later noted there were likely no items for the next month's ZBA agenda.