Sunbury BZA approves setback variance and 4‑foot ornamental fence for garage at 100 North Street

The Sunbury Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 20 approved a variance allowing a homeowner at 100 North Street to construct a garage closer to the street than the standard centerline setback and to install a 4‑foot ornamental fence around the property.

Staff reported the applicant requested a change from the code requirement that buildings be set back 75 feet from the center line of the adjoining street when the right‑of‑way is less than 60 feet. The proposal would place the garage approximately 35 feet from the center line and about 10 feet from the property line; staff estimated the garage would sit roughly 5 feet from the opposite property line in one location. Staff noted that a 10‑foot setback from the property line for garages is not uncommon in the R‑3 zoning district and that there are similar garages in the immediate vicinity. The applicant also requested approval for a 4‑foot‑high ornamental fence; staff said the proposed fence would not impair sight lines at the adjoining streets.

Applicant Linda Davis described recent renovations to the house, said she moved to the property in April, and said she designed the garage and picket‑style fence to match the home and neighborhood. Davis told the board the proposed garage would be set slightly behind the front of the house and not visible from the primary street view. During board questions, Davis said the front of the lot is elevated by about 2 feet with a roughly 6‑foot drop toward the rear; she and others reported they had located an existing stormwater drain at the back property line and discussed downspout connections to that drain.

A neighbor, Larry Watts of 47 North Street, spoke in support of the application and praised the applicant’s renovations. After board discussion — which included a reminder from legal counsel to apply the standard variance (Duncan) factors and that comparisons to nearby approvals are informative but not controlling — a board member moved to approve the application as submitted. The motion passed 6–0. The recorded yes votes were Board member Stark (yes); Board member Palma (yes); Board member Wittman (yes); Board member Dureth (yes); Board member Renz (yes); and Chairperson Shrewsbury (yes).

The board admitted the applicant’s materials, the staff report and the public‑hearing notice into the record. No additional conditions were recorded during the hearing; any required permits, inspections or stormwater connections will be handled through the city’s normal review processes.