Board of Zoning Appeals

HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING City Hall, 1507 Main Street, Hays, KS Monday, July 20, 2026 – 4:00PM AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN. 2. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Minutes of the meeting of June 15, 2026 Action: Consider approval of the minutes of the June 15, 2026 meeting B. Citizen Comments (on non-agenda items) 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. A. Public Hearing for a height variance from 6ft to 7ft for a fence at 509 E 19th St Action: Consider the variance request for 509 E 19th St 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. None. 5. ADJOURNMENT. Any person with a disability and needing special accommodations to attend this meeting should contact the Planning & Development Division office (785-628-7310) 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting time. Every attempt will be made to accommodate any requests for assistance  HAYS AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS June 15, 2026 4:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN: The Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals met for their regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, June 15, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at City Hall. Chairman Matthew Wheeler called the meeting to order. Roll Call: Present: Matthew Wheeler, Jim Schreiber, Bernie Gribben, Joseph Boeckner, Mike Vitztum, Dustin Schlaefli and Brian Garrett Absent: City staff in attendance: Collin Bielser, Deputy City Manager, Jarrod Kuckelman, Assistant City Manager, Curtis Deines, Superintendent of Planning and Development, and Ashley Kinderknecht, Administrative Assistant. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Minutes: Matthew Wheeler asked if there were any changes to the May 18, 2026, Hays Area Board of Zoning Appeals meeting minutes. There were none. Motion: Jim Schreiber moved, Dustin Schalefli seconded the motion to approve the minutes from the May 18, 2026, meeting. Vote: AYES Matthew Wheeler, Jim Schreiber, Bernie Gribben, Joseph Boeckner, Mike Vitztum, Dustin Schlaefli and Brian Garrett B. Citizen Comments: There were no citizen comments. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: None. 4. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: A. A height variance from 6ft to 7ft for a fence at 509 E 19th St Curtis Deines provided a PowerPoint Presentation regarding a request of a one-foot height variance for a proposed fence at 509 E 19th St. The variance for the proposed fence would increase the allowable height from 6ft to a maximum of 7ft. In 2024 the owner, Diocese of Salina, demolished the single-family home on the lot, and in its place built a new 4,257 sq ft Rectory with 4 bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms for Priests and Seminarians. The fence will be located on the eastern half of the property and would not go all the way back to the rear property line. 1  Mr. Deines provided the variance criteria stating that the site slopes downward from neighboring properties, which may reduce the effective screening of a code-compliant fence. The Board must determine whether these site-specific and personal conditions constitute sufficient uniqueness to support the variance. Staff has concerns that other residents could consider themselves to be classified as “highly visible members of the community” (as classified in the applicant justification letter) and may expect similar judgment. The proposed request is unlikely to negatively impact the rights of adjacent property owners. The closest property is to the east and is owned by the Diocese of Salina. The applicant contends the site’s grade relationship limits the effectiveness of a fence built to the maximum permitted height. The request is limited to additional fence height and does not alter the principal use of the property. Additional fence height would not necessarily conflict with the spirit and intent of the code if it is needed to address site- specific conditions. Dustin Schlaefli asked for clarification on where the fence would be located. Mr. Deines stated that the fence would be located to the east of the residence. Mr. Schlaefli asked how high the offset of the elevation was. Mr. Deines stated that in the alley it is about 18 inches lower and maybe a foot at where the proposed fence would be located. Brian Garrett stated that he noticed that fence posts were already up. Mr. Deines stated that they were put up within the last week and that no other materials would be put up until the variance had been completed. Mike Vitztum asked what Mr. Deines meant by staff having concerns that other residents could consider themselves to be classified as “highly visible members of the community”. Mr. Deines stated that within the write-up the applicant stated that Priests are “highly visible members of the community”. Someone in a different career field could deem themselves to also be highly visible members of the community and make the same request. Matthew Wheeler asked if there were any other questions. There were none. A public hearing has been set for July 20, 2026. 5. ADJOURNMENT: Matthew Wheeler adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Submitted by Ashley Kinderknecht, Administrative Assistant 2  Hays Area Board of Zoning & Appeals Agenda Memo Agenda Item: Height Variance for a Fence at 509 E. 19th St. Owner: Diocese of Salina Type of Review: Consider a Height Variance from 6 ft to 7 ft for a Fence at 509 E. 19th St. Presented By: Curtis W. Deines, Planning & Development Superintendent Date Prepared: June 18, 2026 Agenda Date: July 20, 2026 Summary The applicant requests a 1 ft. height variance for a proposed fence at 509 E. 19th St. The variance for the proposed fence would increase the allowable height from 6ft. to a maximum of 7 ft, an increase of 1-foot. Staff does not feel this variance request meets the statutory criteria to justify approval of the request. The property itself or the circumstances offered by the applicant do not present a unique condition sufficient to justify granting the variance. Since the circumstances presented do not constitute sufficient hardship or other qualifying conditions to warrant approval of the requested variance, staff recommends denial of the variance request. Background The applicant is requesting a 1 ft. height variance for a proposed fence, increasing the maximum height from 6 ft to 7 ft. The Unified Development Code regulation for interior side fence height is as follows: The maximum height for any fence or wall within a required interior side, street side, or rear yard shall be 6ft. In 2024 the owner, Diocese of Salina, demolished the single-family home on the lot, and in its place built a new 4,257 sq. ft. Rectory with 4 bedrooms and 4.5 bathrooms for priests and seminarians. Standards of Evaluation (Per State Statute 12-759 and City Unified Development Code)   The BZA has the authority to grant a variance if a literal enforcement of the provisions of the adopted regulations will, in an individual case, result in unnecessary hardship, provided: o The spirit of the regulations shall be observed. o Public safety and welfare secured. o Substantial justice shall be done.  The applicant must show that the property was acquired in good faith and the variance is needed due to extraordinary or exceptional circumstances of the property such as exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot.  Before granting a variance on the basis of unusual difficulty or unreasonable hardship, there must be a finding by the Board that all of the following conditions exist: a. The uniqueness of the property is not ordinarily found in the same zone or district and not created by willful action of the owner. Staff Analysis: The applicant has cited the property’s topography, site layout, occupant visibility, and adjacent ownership as the basis for the request, with emphasis on the occupant(s) being “highly visible members of the community”. However, staff is concerned that approving this variance could establish a precedent for other residents who may also view themselves as “highly visible members of the community,” as described in the applicant’s justification letter, and who may therefore expect similar consideration for similar variances. Staff does not find that the property itself or the circumstances offered by the applicant present a unique enough condition sufficient to justify granting the variance. b. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners. Staff Analysis: The proposed request is unlikely to negatively impact the rights of adjacent property owners. The closest property is to the east and is also owned by the Diocese of Salina. The property to the north has an alley and the fence is 21ft away from the rear property line. c. The strict application of the code will constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner. Staff Analysis: The applicant contends the site’s grade limits the effectiveness of a fence built to the maximum permitted height. The request appears to be based in part on physical site conditions and in part on the desired degree of privacy. Staff does not find these circumstances constitute a sufficient hardship or other qualifying conditions to warrant approval of the requested variance.  Page 2  d. The variance will not adversely affect public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, or general welfare. Staff Analysis: Staff finds the request is limited to additional fence height and does not alter the principal use of the property. If compliant with other code requirements, the fence does not appear inherently detrimental to the public welfare but may set a precedence for others desiring a taller fence for similar reasons of level of privacy and/or property topography. e. The granting of the variance desired will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of the regulations. Staff Analysis: Staff finds that granting the variance would be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of the regulations because the request is based primarily on a desired greater level of privacy and site conditions that are not unique or exceptional. Approval under these circumstances may also undermine consistent application of the code and create an expectation of similar relief for comparable properties. Staff does not find that all the required criteria for a variance has been met. Action Requested Motion to deny the variance request. Supporting Documentation Visuals Application & Owner Justification  Page 3  Subject Property Subject Property Proposed Fence Location  509 E 19th Front Rear fence 25 ft from rear property line  05-2026 5/21/2026 May 21, 2026 50.00 Ashley Kinderknecht, Administrative Assistant  Applicants write up justification A. Uniqueness: The unique nature of this property is directly related to its intended use and the residents who will occupy it. The home was specifically designed and constructed as a rectory for Catholic clergy. In addition to serving as the permanent residence of parish priests, it will periodically house transitional deacons and seminarians who are assigned to the parish as part of their formation and training for the priesthood. The rectory will also serve as a gathering place for priests from throughout the diocese for meetings and other professional and social functions. Unlike a typical private residence, a rectory is occupied by individuals whose lives and ministry place them in the public eye. Essentially, the priests often “live in a fishbowl” so to speak. Priests are highly visible members of the community, and there is often significant public interest in their daily lives. As a result, clergy frequently experience a level of observation and scrutiny that exceeds that of most homeowners. This can create challenges in maintaining reasonable personal privacy within their own residence as the public are often quite curious about the lives of priests. At the same time, people often have preconceived notions about the lives of priests, including what they should wear, what they should eat, what they should drive, how late they should be awake and how early they should wake up, etc. For example, most people would have no problem with someone who enjoys the occasional steak accompanied by an alcoholic beverage (in moderation of course) and perhaps a social cigar. However, if a priest wishes to partake in any of this, some people become scandalized. To summarize, people want to know about the personal lives of priests, and when the personal life of a priest does not match the preconceived idea, this can lead to occasional undue judgements and critiques. It should also be noted that the proposed fence will be located only along the east side of the property. The parish owns the property immediately to the east, so no neighboring homeowner will be adversely a ected by the fence. Additionally, the homes to the north are situated at a higher elevation, and the rectory site slopes downward. Because of this topography, a standard six-foot fence would not provide an e ective six-foot privacy screen for the rectory. The additional height requested is necessary to achieve the level of privacy that a standard fence would ordinarily provide on level ground.  This is the main reason to point out of the uniqueness of this request – to protect the privacy of the residents in a manner that is more necessary than other residential homes. B. Adjacent Property: The granting of the variance will not adversely a ect adjacent property owners. The neighboring structure on the east is: 511 E 19th St. This property is also owned and occupied by Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish. C. Hardship: the strict application of a 6’ fence would not allow for privacy to the occupants due to the occupants’ height. Further, the elevation of the backyard of the house is higher than that of the houses to the north (alley). Thus, the standard 6’ fence would allow visibility to the backyard from that vantage point of the alley houses. D. Public Interest: the granting of the variance will not adversely distract or encumber any business or neighbor. There would be no safety, health, moral, or general welfare concerns for the citizens of Hays. E. Spirit and Intent of Zoning Regulation: the zoning regulation for a 6-foot maximum is to ensure the fence does not adversely a ect the neighborhood. The granting of this variance will not oppose the general spirit and intent of the regulation (we own next property, it will be aesthetically pleasing, and no safety/visible violation)