Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner seeks fence variance at 2 North Circular Street citing site grade and pool equipment; board requests documentation
Summary
Jacqueline Neuringer requested variances Sept. 15 to allow an existing fence/wall that, combined with a retaining wall, exceeds UDO height limits along the property's east and south lines. Neighbors support the fence; board asked for communications with the fence contractor, cost estimates to relocate the fence, and evidence of permitting.
Jacqueline Neuringer asked the Zoning Board of Appeals on Sept. 15 for area variances to keep an existing fence and wall at 2 North Circular Street that exceed the Unified Development Ordinance height limit when combined with an existing retaining wall. The application seeks relief for an east fence/wall where the combined wall/fence totals about 13 feet (UDO max 6 feet) and a south fence/wall of about 8 feet (UDO max 6 feet), according to applicant statements.
Neuringer said the fence was installed in 2021 by a professional contractor who assured her it complied with code; she said the fence provides privacy and a buffer from adjacent commercial property (Burke Funeral Home) and Route 50 traffic. Neighbors submitted letters of support that the owner read into the record. The applicant stated that moving the fence inland would conflict with pool filtration and heating equipment and would expose that equipment to view; she also said that, because of sloping topography and a retaining wall, a compliant 6‑foot fence measured from the lower side would still exceed the UDO limit when combined with the wall.
Board members asked for additional evidence including: the permit(s) submitted for the fence and pool, any communications or plans from the fence contractor, and a cost estimate for removing or moving the fence and replacing with a compliant alternative (including potential landscaping alternatives). Staff and board members suggested the applicant document the location of pool equipment and show possible alternative layouts. Several board members and one neighbor said the fence is not out of character for the sloped neighborhood, and one board member recused from deliberation. The public hearing was left open; the board requested supporting documentation before further consideration.
