Jacqueline Neuringer, owner of 2 North Circular Street, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 15 for area variances to allow an existing fence and retaining-wall combination to remain as built. Two different sections were noted: an eastern property-line run with a combined fence-and-wall height that the owner described as building to a 13-foot appearance when measured from the outside, and a southern run adjacent to Burke Funeral Home measured about 8 feet above the retaining wall; the UDO allows a maximum fence height of 6 feet and requires the combined height of wall plus fence to meet that standard.

Applicant statements and neighborhood support: Neuringer told the board she relied on a fence contractor and building-permit process during a 2021 redevelopment and that the installed fence was intended to be compliant. She submitted multiple neighbor letters in support and read a portion of a letter calling the fence “attractive” and a noise buffer from nearby Route 50 traffic. The applicant said moving the fence would expose pool equipment, reduce privacy and impose costs; she asked the board to allow the fence to remain because of the adjacent commercial property and steep topography.

Board questions and requested materials: Board members asked whether the owner pulled permits and whether the submitted as-built matched the plans reviewed during permitting. Staff and board requested the applicant provide: (1) any fence-permit documentation or correspondence with the fence contractor that shows what was represented to the owner at the time of installation; (2) cost estimates to remove or relocate the fence to a compliant location; and (3) clarification of whether the fence panels were placed on top of an existing retaining wall or if the retaining wall location changed relative to the permit plan. The applicant said she would seek those documents and supply them to staff. One board member recused themselves from this item.

Next steps: The board kept the public hearing open and requested the applicant upload permit records, fence-contractor correspondence and a cost estimate for relocation or replacement prior to the next hearing. The board indicated neighbor support and the property’s unique topography and adjacency to a commercial parcel are relevant to its consideration.