Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Troy City Building Code Board of Appeals postpones fence-variance hearing for 505 Leetonia to July 9
Summary
A fence-variance appeal for 505 Leetonia was postponed to the board's July 9 meeting after the appellant chose to wait for a full panel; the request sought a 6-foot privacy fence in a front-yard area limited by the City of Troy zoning code.
The Troy City Building Code Board of Appeals on June 4 postponed a requested variance for a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence at 505 Leetonia until its July 9 meeting, after the appellant opted to wait for a full five-member panel rather than proceed with only three voting members present.
The variance request seeks permission under Chapter 83 (fence code) to install a 6-foot-high vinyl privacy fence where the R-1-C zoning district limits fence height to 30 inches in the designated front yard. The petitioner told the board the property is a corner lot with front lot lines along Leetonia and Tallman and that the proposed fence would match an existing 6-foot wood privacy fence and run 81 feet along Tallman with additional returns for a total of 117 feet in the Tallman-designated front yard.
Chair said, “You will have the ability to ask for a postponement, if you do not wanna proceed under the conditions of only having 3 board members.” The chair opened the option to postpone after explaining that, because only three members were present, an affirmative vote would require all three members to approve the appeal.
Board members and staff discussed prior practice of allowing replacement fences by permit without variance in some past cases and noted the applicant could seek a permit if the replacement conforms to code or return with a different proposal. Salim (staff member) read the case information aloud at the start of the hearing.
The public hearing was reopened for the record and no members of the public spoke. A motion to postpone the hearing to July 9 passed on a roll call vote. The board directed staff to republicize the hearing for the new date.
The appellant may return on July 9 with the same request or change the proposal; the chair and staff explained that if the board were to vote and the appeal failed, the applicant would have to pay a new filing fee to return unless they choose only to postpone.
