Board approves 6‑foot front‑yard fence variance for 231 Grove Street

5834085 · September 16, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Logansport Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 15 approved a variance allowing a 6‑foot privacy fence in a front‑yard setback at 231 Grove Street to screen a residential pool, with conditions including permits and compliance with other ordinance standards.

The Logansport Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 15 approved a variance permitting a 6‑foot privacy fence in the front‑yard setback at 231 Grove Street, granting Elizabeth Barnett relief from the R‑3 district fence-height rule. The board voted in favor by roll call; the zoning administrator will send a letter with the results and information about the 30‑day appeal to circuit court. The planning staff said the R‑3 district limits fences in the front‑yard setback to 48 inches and that corner lots have two front yards and a 20‑foot front‑yard setback. The staff report said Barnett currently has a 4‑foot fence and requested a fence adjacent to the property line to provide privacy for a backyard pool; the house is set back roughly 9 to 10 feet, which would have left little yard if the fence were lined up with the house. At the hearing Barnett said she did not expect the proposed location to impair sight lines for turning and stopping and said, “I feel like, honestly, it will increase the property value. I feel like it'll look better than the chain link fence.” The board attached standard conditions requiring that the petitioner meet all other ordinance standards, obtain all applicable state and local permits and provide proof to the zoning administrator, and make the petitioner’s proposals conditions of approval. The board also required that commitments noted in the record be followed; the petitioner told the board she would abide by those commitments. The board voted by roll call; the secretary recorded affirmative votes and the administrator announced that case 2524 was approved with conditions. Interested parties were advised of the 30‑day period to appeal to the circuit court.