Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA grants variance for 6‑foot fence at 540 Grant Avenue citing corner‑lot safety and privacy
Summary
The Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a 6‑foot fence in the front‑yard setback at 540 Grant Avenue, concluding special conditions on the corner lot and safety concerns justified the exception.
The North Augusta Board of Zoning Appeals on Sept. 2 approved a variance allowing a 6‑foot fence to remain in the front‑yard setback at 540 Grant Avenue.
Application ZV25-009, filed by homeowner Timothy Thomas, sought relief from Article 6, Section 6.3.4.1 of the North Augusta Development Code, which generally limits fence height in front yards to 4 feet. The board found all ten tests the city uses for a variance were met and granted the request with two conditions: that the increased fence height be limited to its existing height and that the fence may be repaired, maintained and replaced with similar materials and design if damaged or destroyed.
Staff presented aerial photos and site images showing the property’s corner‑lot configuration and an in‑ground pool in the backyard; staff noted the fence had been in place previously and was replaced in the same location following hurricane damage. The staff analysis cited privacy and safety for grandchildren and a dog, visibility concerns arising from the corner lot and the limited backyard space as reasons supporting a variance.
Owner Timothy Thomas told the board the fence was installed originally around 2019 or 2020 and was replaced in the same footprint after storm damage. “We bought yeah. I haven't redone it, and then, we own the house next to it too… that's why we've got it up here for the safety of our grandkids and for our privacy,” Thomas said. He also said the fence was professionally installed.
Staff and the board discussed whether the prior fence was lawful and whether it was grandfathered; staff noted that if a fence was lawfully erected it could be considered a lawful nonconforming structure, but an unlawfully erected fence would not be entitled to conformity. The board nonetheless concluded that the parcel’s corner‑lot conditions and the demonstrated safety/privacy needs constituted an unnecessary hardship and exceptional conditions that differentiated the property from neighboring lots.
The board approved the variance unanimously by a show of hands. The staff‑recommended conditions recorded in the motion restrict the variance to the existing fence height and require repair/replacement with similar design and materials if damaged.
The record includes a supporting email from a neighbor — identified in the hearing as Linda Yolens McDonald — stating she had no objection to the fence.
