Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance 3978 Stowe topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables request for 6‑foot front‑yard fence at 3978 Stowe Road to allow owner to measure setback
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals paused action on a variance request from the owner of 3978 Stowe Road seeking a 6‑foot privacy fence in a front yard on a corner lot. The board signaled willingness to consider a reduced 10‑foot setback if measurements show it will allow reasonable driveway access.
The Stow City Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 11 tabled a request (BZA2024‑035) from Peter Olis to allow a 6‑foot privacy fence in the front yard at 3978 Stowe Road, a corner lot, to give the applicant time to measure a proposed 10‑foot setback from the right‑of‑way and confirm vehicle access to his garage.
The property is R‑3 residential and the zoning code (Section 1140307e1) limits front‑yard fences to 4 feet except that no vision‑impairing fence may be constructed within 20 feet of the right‑of‑way. Staff presented a site plan showing the existing right‑of‑way and property pin and recommended as a condition that any approved fence be inside the property line rather than on the right‑of‑way.
Applicant Peter Olis described repeated trespassing, property damage and concerns about theft and privacy at the Conwell–Stowe corner where he keeps classic vehicles. “We’re just tired of just nonsense,” Olis said, describing prior confrontations with renters at a neighboring property and instances of people coming onto the property at night. He said the land where the garage sits had been a separate parcel and that, in 2019, the lots were combined, so he does not consider the former Conwell parcel a separate front yard.
Board members discussed prior practice of requiring a 20‑foot setback from right‑of‑way for front‑yard privacy fences on corner lots but acknowledged the driveway in this case creates a unique constraint. One member proposed that, because the fence would abut a driveway access to a garage, the board could consider reducing the typical 20‑foot condition to a 10‑foot setback in this particular situation. Staff measured from a utility pole (commonly located at the back edge of the right‑of‑way) and reported roughly 36 feet from the pole to the garage face; the applicant estimated roughly 39 feet to the garage face. The applicant asked whether a 10‑foot setback would still allow him to park; board members requested the applicant obtain a precise measurement from the garage face to the relevant property pin and return next month.
The applicant agreed to provide the measurement. A motion to table the application until the next meeting carried on roll call; the board indicated it is inclined to approve a 10‑foot setback only if the measurement confirms the applicant can park a typical vehicle between the garage and the proposed fence. The board cautioned that approval of a full 6‑foot fence flush with the right‑of‑way would be unlikely if the 10‑foot option is not feasible.
The board also noted a prior neighbor concern about a possible home occupation on the property; staff said no evidence of a home occupation was found.
