ZBA deadlocks on variance for 6-foot fence installed at 985 West Wooster; request denied

The Bowling Green City Zoning Board of Appeals voted 3–3 on a variance request for a six-foot privacy fence at 985 West Wooster Street that had already been erected. Because the vote was tied, the board announced the variance had not been approved.

The board heard from the property owner, contractor and planning staff about a protracted permit exchange, the fence’s placement on a lot with frontage on three streets and a disagreement over which sides of the lot should be treated as front yards for setback purposes. Staff said the fence is compliant in most locations but extends past the front-facing elevation of the neighboring house on an adjacent lot, which triggers the variance requirement under section 150.79 of the zoning code.

Contractor Aaron Valentine of Nex Fence testified that he and his crew misunderstood how the lot’s orientation would be interpreted for fence-height limits and apologized for installing the fence before the permit process was complete. “I did not think this was the first issue that I’ve ever had with fence not meeting zoning codes,” Valentine said. Owner Michelle Raelle told the board she had been dealing with a recent bereavement and believed the contractor had secured a permit; she said the fence was intended to provide privacy in a yard exposed to three streets.

Planning staff outlined a timeline showing multiple communications beginning in October 2024, a permit put on hold for missing or inconsistent sketches, the fence being erected in late October/early November, and the issuance of a certified letter of violation in late November after staff discussed options with the city attorney. Staff confirmed that public-notice and posting requirements for the hearing were completed.

Board members expressed conflicting views. Several members criticized the contractor’s and owner’s pre-construction installation as a disregard for the permit process; one called it “blatant disregard” even while voting in favor. Others described corner and “double corner” lots as difficult to treat under the code and said they were sympathetic to the owner’s privacy needs. After discussion, board member Tim Emmert moved to approve the variance; Mr. Fleager seconded. The roll-call vote recorded Yes votes from David Flager, Jeff Crawford and Tim Emmert and No votes from Rod Noble, Jay Sockman and Hobie Johnson, resulting in a 3–3 tie and denial of the request.

The planning director noted an enforcement history and the city attorney’s earlier recommendation that staff issue a certified letter. Members recorded that the permit application process had been open for about two months before construction occurred and that the contractor acknowledged prior work in the city and familiarity with zoning rules.

The owner told the board she would remedy the situation at her own cost if the variance were denied, either by lowering fence height in the disputed area to four feet or reconfiguring sections to preserve some six-foot privacy. The chair reminded the owner that an adverse decision could be appealed to the Wood County Court of Common Pleas.

Because the motion failed on a tie, the variance request was not approved and the installed fence remains out of full compliance unless the owner pursues an appeal or modifies the fence to meet code.