Warrick County BZA denies variance for six-foot fence on Oak Grove Road

The Warrick County Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request for a six-foot fence that encroached into a required 25-foot front-yard setback at a property on Oak Grove Road, voting 4-2 in favor of denial.

The requested variance (filed as BZA-VD-2025-16) would have permitted a six-foot fence where the county's comprehensive zoning ordinance limits fences to four feet within the first 25 feet of the road right of way. Board member Sherry Sherman moved to deny the variance, and the motion passed after a roll-call vote in which four members voted in favor and two opposed; one member was absent.

Staff reported the complaint said the fence extends roughly 22–23 feet into the required front yard measured from the edge of the road right of way and that the existing fence begins about two feet inside the front property line. The staff report noted the property's current use as a single-family dwelling with unattached accessory structures and said the case had been before the Area Plan Commission earlier in 2025; the APC gave the owners time to bring the fence into compliance or file this variance.

Pamela Etheridge, identified at the hearing as the applicant and trustee, told the board she built the fence to protect crops and family from an adjacent neighbor and cited recommendations from extension and insurance agents. "It's been a real struggle dealing with this neighbor," Etheridge said, describing alleged trespassing and herbicide damage to plantings on the parcel. She said the fence also supports planned agricultural uses, including grazing and growing luffa and elderberries, and that she expects to use electric fencing and movable grazing practices.

Board members questioned whether the additional two feet of height near the road provided meaningful agricultural benefit and raised safety concerns related to sight lines for drivers backing from the driveway. Members discussed whether reducing the first 22 feet of fence to four feet (while allowing six-foot height beyond that) might address visibility concerns. Several members also flagged that the fence appeared to be a self-created violation because it had been installed without a permit or prior authorization.

The board read and discussed the variance criteria on the record, including whether granting the variance would be injurious to public health and safety, whether the hardship was self-created, and whether the variance was the least modification necessary. In making the motion to deny, Sherry Sherman stated the denial was based on the findings read into the record.

The board recorded the roll-call vote as follows: Terry Davalt — yes; Sherry Sherman — yes; Jeff Valiant — yes; Jeff Willis — no; Dave Goldenberg — yes; Mike Masner — no. With four votes in favor of denial and two opposed, the board denied the variance. The applicants may pursue compliance by removing or lowering the portion of fence within the setback or pursue other remedies allowed by county procedures.

The matter was originally addressed by the Area Plan Commission earlier in 2025, which gave the applicants a deadline to either reduce the fence or file this variance; the APC granted a short extension before the board hearing. No formal permits were presented at the BZA hearing. The board returned to other agenda business after the vote.