Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Appeals OKs 6-foot fence replacement at 505 Leetonia
Summary
The Troy City Board of Appeals granted a variance allowing a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence to replace an existing wood fence at 505 Leetonia, voting 5-0. City staff said most of the fence is replacement of an existing installation and that a permit record exists.
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Troy City Board of Appeals on June 4 approved a variance allowing a homeowner to replace an existing wood fence with a 6-foot vinyl privacy fence at 505 Leetonia, granting the request by unanimous vote (5-0).
The variance was approved because the property is a corner lot in the R-1C zoning district, where front yard fences are limited to 30 inches. The board recorded a 5-0 vote in favor; the clerk read the tally as: Mister Dezerman — yes; Mister Friesen — yes; Mister Nastasi — yes; Mister Abathira — yes; Miss Brooks — yes.
City staff described the request as largely a like-for-like replacement. Dominic (city staff) said the property qualifies as a corner lot, that the zoning district limits fence height to 30 inches in the front yard, and that the petitioner seeks a 6-foot-high privacy fence. He said the proposed fence would sit about 12 feet from the Tallman property line, run 81 feet along Tallman, return 18 feet along the rear property line and another 18 feet to the southeast corner of the house for a variance length of 117 feet within the Tallman-designated front yard. Dominic also noted that of the total 276 feet of fence proposed, 159 feet complies with zoning and does not require a variance.
Applicant Aaron Zirugian told the board the existing wood privacy fence "is probably over 25 years old" and is "rotting" in places; he said the request is to replace the fence "in the exact same location at the exact same height" with vinyl.
Board members discussed permit history; Dominic said a pool and fence permit had previously been pulled for the yard, and that there was no record of a variance for the earlier fence. No letters or emailed objections were reported.
The board found that the property’s configuration made strict compliance difficult and voted to grant the variance. The petitioner was advised about the usual process for any changes to the approved plan.
The board moved on to the next variance matter after the vote.

