Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board grants variance to keep six-foot privacy fence at 1034 Princeton Street
Summary
The board approved a developmental variance allowing a 6-foot privacy fence in a corner side yard at 1034 Princeton Street, citing forthcoming zoning ordinance changes and staff support if property corners are verified.
The Elkhart City Board of Zoning Appeals approved a developmental variance to allow an existing six-foot solid privacy fence to remain at 1034 Princeton Street.
Petitioner Gaidu Gorduola sought relief from Section 26.4.a.6, which limits front and corner-side yard fences to open styles such as split-rail, wrought iron or open picket not to exceed 4 feet in height. The petitioner said the taller, solid fence was installed to protect a child with a disability and family pets.
Zoning staff reported the property had been cited for a zoning violation after a 6-foot wood privacy fence was installed in a corner side yard on July 2, 2025. Staff noted the petitioner originally received a staff-issued fence permit on May 5, 2025 that depicted a fence even with the home; the installation extended past the wall of the home along Williams and did not comply with placement standards. Staff recommended approval, noting the city is updating its zoning ordinance and the anticipated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would allow a 6-foot privacy fence one foot from the property line. Staff said it would support the request if the petitioner can confirm property corner markers or provide a survey showing the fence location consistent with the forthcoming UDO language.
The staff report listed findings supporting approval, including that the fence is consistent with typical residential features and will be constructed in a workmanlike manner. Fourteen notice letters were sent with no returns. The board adopted staff findings and approved the developmental variance; roll-call votes were recorded as: Mulvaney — yes; Lightman — yes; Newbill — yes; Evander Rykov — yes.
Gorduola told the board the fence was installed to prevent the petitioner’s daughter, who has a disability, from reaching over the fence and to contain family animals. "The fence was for her protection to make sure that she didn't go outside of the fence," Gorduola said.
Staff recommended the variance with the caveat that the petitioner locate property corner markers (with or without a surveyor) so staff can confirm the fence complies with expected UDO standards. The board approved the variance and the petitioner was told the fence may remain as installed if it meets the forthcoming ordinance's placement rules.
