Citizen Portal
Sign In

Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows

Stow Board of Zoning Appeals approves six variances for fences, sheds and garages

6429702 · October 14, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Oct. 13 meeting the Stow Board of Zoning Appeals approved six variances allowing taller front-yard fences and reduced setbacks for accessory structures and a garage, and the board expressed support for an upcoming zoning code update.

The Stow Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 13, 2025, approved six separate variances for residential and one commercial lot, allowing several property owners to install 6-foot privacy fences in front yards or place accessory structures closer to houses and lot lines than current code permits.

The variances cover six addresses in Stow City: 4664 Edgewater Drive (BZA25-029); 2562 Maplehurst Drive (BZA25-030); 2144 Conwell Road (BZA25-031); 4502 Fish Creek Road (BZA25-032); 1906 Marhofer Avenue (BZA25-033, commercial zoned lot); and 4964 Long Drive (BZA25-034). Each application was approved by the members present; applicants were directed to proceed with permit applications and to resolve any private property-line disputes outside the variance process.

Votes at a glance

- BZA25-029, 4664 Edgewater Drive: Approved — 2-foot height variance to allow a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard (requested setback 20 feet from the right-of-way). Approved by members present. Applicant: Donna Bridal. The applicant told the board: “With the same investment, I can just build [a] privacy fence.”

- BZA25-030, 2562 Maplehurst Drive: Approved — 2-foot height variance to allow a 6-foot privacy fence in the front yard (proposed 25-foot setback). Approved by members present. Applicant: Mr. Herring, who said he wanted a fenced area for his dog and privacy because of foot traffic and nearby cameras.

- BZA25-031, 2144 Conwell Road: Approved — 11-foot-6-inch variance to place a 12-by-6 greenhouse about 6 inches from the principal structure (applicant cited thermal sharing and convenience). Approved by members present. Applicant: Mr. Markham; staff noted similar small exceptions will be allowed in the draft code update.

- BZA25-032, 4502 Fish Creek Road: Approved — two variances combined (4-foot variance from side-yard setback and 12-foot variance from the accessory-to-principal-structure separation) to allow a 6-by-8 accessory structure adjacent to the house. Approved by members present. Applicant: Jewel Lehi Dollar; the shed is lightweight and already in place, the applicant said it could be moved if required.

- BZA25-033, 1906 Marhofer Avenue (commercial zoning): Approved — 5-foot side-yard variance for a detached garage to be placed on an existing concrete pad, and a variance for building coverage (about 169 square feet over the commercial-district maximum). Approved by members present. Applicant (owner): Mr. Weber. The applicant said an earlier garage had stood on the slab and that rebuilding on the existing pad would match the original placement.

- BZA25-034, 4964 Long Drive: Approved — two variances (6-foot variance from the side lot line to allow the shed at the property line and a 7-foot variance for accessory-structure separation from the principal house). Approved by members present. Applicant: Mr. Visco, who cited the lot shape and slope constraints and said the shed would store patio furniture and yard equipment.

What the board said and next steps

Planning staff and the board repeatedly noted that fence and accessory-structure variances are commonly requested when lots are corner or unusually shaped, when existing slabs are being reused, or when neighbors have already agreed to placement. Staff reminded applicants that property-line disputes and fence tie-ins are private matters to be resolved between neighbors or clarified through a property survey; the city’s permit review uses the site plan and surveyed lines when issuing a building permit.

After the cases the board briefly discussed and indicated support for a draft zoning-code update. Planning staff told the board the draft would go to the Planning Commission the next night for a recommendation and, if approved, would advance to City Council for the three required readings before the end of the year; staff cautioned that, even if adopted, administrative changes and permit-process updates would cause a delay before the new rules take effect.

Applicants were advised to apply to the Building Department for permits and to resolve any private boundary issues with neighbors or a surveyor before construction.