Hilliard zoning board rejects request to place six-foot privacy fence near Copland Court sidewalk

The Hilliard Board of Zoning Appeals on Oct. 16 failed to approve a variance that would have allowed a six-foot privacy fence to be installed near the public right of way along Copland Court at 5270 Gladstone Place.

The board voted against the applicant’s request after a staff presentation that said the proposed placement would put a privacy fence within roughly 3 feet of the right-of-way line and about 4 feet from the sidewalk at its closest point, and that the zoning code’s intent was to allow a lower, open ornamental fence nearer the street on corner lots. "Staff respectfully recommends that the proposed hearings be denied," the staff member told the board.

The applicant told the board she sought more privacy for her children and described wanting to alter where the fence begins on the house but was concerned about losing yard space. At the podium she said, "I don't wanna... cover all the house. You know? Yeah. And I hope you guys approve me because I have 3 kids." She also later referred to one child during discussion; the transcript contains both statements.

Why it matters: Board members said a six-foot, opaque privacy fence close to the sidewalk would alter the character of the corner lot and reduce visibility for neighbors and passersby. Staff cited the zoning provisions that allow a 4-foot open, ornamental fence closer to the right of way in many corner-lot cases and recommended denial because the proposed privacy fence would be substantially different and could cause detriment to adjoining property owners.

The staff presentation showed the property is on a corner and that the public right of way curves near the long side of the parcel, increasing the visual impact of an opaque fence compared with cases where the right-of-way runs straight. The staff member described a 35-foot build line and a 17.5-foot reference in plan exhibits and said the proposed privacy fence would be considerably closer to the sidewalk than the code-intended ornamental fence.

Board discussion focused on alternatives rather than the applicant’s stated design. Several members asked whether the applicant would accept a different layout or a lower, open-style fence; the applicant said she was open to changes in style but was concerned about losing usable yard space. President Jessica Deisel said she would vote no, explaining: "I will say that I vote no, and I'll tell you why. I think that there are options that we've discussed in this meeting that are not part of the current application." Member Antle and Members Steele and Vice President Steve McGee also voted no. The motion to approve the application as submitted did not carry.

Staff said the board had received two written emails and one phone call from neighbors opposed to the proposed fence.

What happens next: The board did not approve the variance as submitted. During the meeting members encouraged the applicant to return with a revised plan that follows the layout staff described (an open ornamental fence nearer the right-of-way or a privacy fence set farther back), but no formal direction or continuance was recorded. The board moved on to administrative business after the vote.

Votes at a glance - Motion to accept meeting documents into the record: passed (vote recorded as "all in favor; none opposed"). - Motion to approve minutes of the Sept. 18 meeting: passed (one opposed; names not recorded in the transcript for that vote). - Election for vice president of the Board of Zoning Appeals: Steve McGee elected by roll call, 4-0 (Jessica Deisel — yes; Steve McGee — yes; Mr. Steele — yes; Mr. Antle — yes; Mr. Epplein and Mr. Mills absent; Mr. Barfield resigned). - Motion to approve BZA25-26 (variance for 5270 Gladstone Place allowing a privacy fence past the build-to line on Copland Court): motion failed (vote recorded as Deisel — no; Antle — no; Steele — no; McGee — no; outcome: failed). - Motion to adjourn: passed.

Board members and staff said the case was unusual because of the curved right of way; staff recommended denying the submitted layout and offered the open-ornamental fence layout as a code-compliant alternative. The applicant may submit a revised application for a future meeting.