Zoning board approves privacy-fence variance for 8019 Concord; patio request withdrawn

The Huntington Woods Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance Monday, Sept. 8, allowing a privacy fence along a 55-foot section of 8019 Concord to exceed the usual side-yard height restriction; the fence will measure 7 feet from the homeowner's side and 6 feet from the adjacent neighbor's side. The board also accepted the applicant's withdrawal of a requested 135-square-foot front-yard patio variance.

The variance matters because the property has a very narrow practical backyard and the homeowners said the enclosed space is needed for child and pet safety. Hank, a city staff member who presented the case to the board, described the request as three separate variance issues: a height variance for the fence, a location/privacy variance for installing a privacy fence in the side yard, and a front-yard accessory-structure (patio) variance. The board granted relief only for the privacy-fence portion and limited it to the specific segment described in the application.

At the hearing the applicant (identified in the record as the homeowner at 8019 Concord) said he and his wife, Erica, had closed on the house the month before and moved in the week of the meeting and that keeping their daughter, Nina (4), and son, Leonard (2), safe was the main reason for the fence. He told the board the existing fence is dilapidated and that neighbors immediately adjacent to the property had agreed to the replacement. "My wife and Erica and I are excited to be part of Huntington Woods," the applicant said during his presentation.

Hank explained the property's configuration: the lot is platted such that York is technically the front, Concord the side; because of grade differences the fence sits about 7 feet from the applicant's side of the lot but appears 6 feet high from the neighbor's yard. Hank said the requested privacy fence has historical precedent on the lot and that the tree and grade contributed to the fence's irregular profile. He asked the board to consider the height and privacy variances separately.

Commissioners debated the patio request and the fence. Commissioner Sheldon Com said he is "concerned about precedent" and stressed the ordinance's 4-foot/6-foot side-yard rules, asking whether approving this request would open the door for larger walls on other lots. Other commissioners expressed concern that a front-yard patio built of pavers or concrete would set a visible precedent along the street; several board members noted that landscape features such as benches or stepping stones typically do not require a variance, while hard-surface patios do. After discussion the applicant withdrew the patio variance; the board recorded that the applicant may return with a materially different proposal.

One neighbor, Megan Martin Campbell of 26117 York, spoke in public comment and said she had spoken with the immediate adjacent neighbors and that a like-for-like replacement of the fence would be acceptable to nearby residents. "If as long as it's something that's, like, like for like, if Galena's cool with it being on whatever, that's between you and her. That's great," Campbell said.

When the board voted, the motion to approve the privacy-fence variance passed by roll call without individual vote attributions recorded in the transcript; the board announced the motion carried with four votes in favor and one opposed. The board's approval was limited to the yellow-marked fence segment shown in the applicant's materials (about 55 feet in length) and specified the relief was granted because of the lot's configuration, the topography and the narrow usable rear-yard area.

The board also clarified several technical points during the hearing: concrete or paver surfaces would be defined as an accessory-structure "patio" under the zoning ordinance and therefore require a variance to be placed in the front yard; gravel, bark, stepping stones or scattered pavers used only as a walkway or landscape feature generally do not trigger the accessory-structure rule and can be installed without a variance. Board members emphasized that a neighbor's permit to place a 6-foot fence on the neighbor's lot would not by itself grant privacy status in the side yard unless the board approved such a variance.

The board recorded that the patio variance is withdrawn and that the approved privacy-fence variance applies only to the specific segment described and shown in the applicant's submission. The applicant and the neighboring property owner may proceed with permits consistent with the board's decision and applicable code requirements.