Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
North Providence planning board recommends 8‑foot fence variance at 9 Barrie Court with 2‑foot offset
Summary
The North Providence Planning Board voted to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a two‑foot height variance allowing an 8‑foot fence along the rear property line of 9 Barrie Court, provided the fence is set two feet off the property line to allow homeowner access.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The North Providence Planning Board recommended that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant a two‑foot height variance allowing an 8‑foot fence along the rear property line at 9 Barrie Court.
Applicant Boris Nakhlis told the board his property backs onto a tennis court and described an existing 6‑foot fence he wants to replace and extend with 8‑foot fencing to prevent tennis balls, limit trespass and increase privacy. “I want to prevent trespassers. I want to prevent…tennis balls flying around. I have 3 small children,” Nakhlis said.
The board questioned the exact placement and long‑term maintenance of a taller fence that abuts municipal property. Planning Board members asked whether the fence would sit on the property line or be offset; Nakhlis said he would set the fence “a couple of feet off the property line” to preserve access to maintain the fence. Members also asked about materials; Nakhlis said the fence would “probably [be] wood.”
After discussion the board moved to send a favorable recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals approving the two‑foot variance to allow an 8‑foot fence, subject to the condition that the fence be offset two feet from the rear property line to preserve access for maintenance. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the chair declared that Nakhlis “have[s] a favorable recommendation.”
The Planning Board’s vote is advisory; the final decision rests with the Zoning Board of Appeals. The board also advised Nakhlis to obtain a property boundary survey to avoid future disputes with abutting town land or the neighboring church, and a member reminded the applicant that adverse possession requires a Superior Court judgment, not just long‑term use.

