Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Toledo zoning board grants 6-inch variance for Winona split-rail fence amid neighbor dispute
Summary
The Administrative Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a 48-inch split-rail fence in the front-yard setback at a Winona Drive property after testimony about safety concerns and a neighbor dispute; the board noted its authority is limited to the code variance.
The Administrative Board of Zoning Appeals in Toledo on an appeal approved a variance allowing a homeowner to keep a 48-inch split-rail fence in the front-yard setback at 5068 Winona Drive, despite objections from adjacent neighbors.
The board approved the variance by roll call after hearing testimony from neighbors and the property owners. The board noted the applicable code (code reference shown on the agenda packet) sets a front-yard fence limit at 42 inches and that the requested variance was therefore six inches over that standard.
Brian Bedehan, a neighbor who said his property is at 5058 Winona Drive, told the board the fence was installed "without a permit or a survey" and that it is "partially on our property." He said the neighboring household’s dogs and repeated confrontations have created safety concerns for his family and grandchildren and that he filed for a civil protection order after an incident that prompted a 911 call. Sandy Bedehan described repeated instances she said were intended to intimidate the family, including letting dogs out and comments from the neighbor.
Matthew King, who identified himself as a resident of 5068 Winona Drive, urged the board to approve the variance and described the fence as a security measure for his family. "As far as the height of the fence, it's more for security purposes. I work third shift. She's home by herself alone most of the time," King said, adding the fence has been in place since May 16, 2022.
A staff member and the board clarified that their legal authority is limited to the zoning code question — whether the front-yard fence height may remain at 48 inches — and that other disputes (including trespass, property-line, and harassment claims) appear to be civil matters outside the board's power. The record shows staff cited the code section from the packet and said the front-yard standard is 42 inches.
After discussion, the board voted to approve the variance. Roll-call responses recorded at the meeting were: Devan Overton — yes; Julie (Randalls/Bridal — as recorded) — yes; Eric Craig — yes; Christie (Sondrant/Sonnkran — as recorded) — yes; Robert Pasker — no; Nathan (last name recorded earlier as Napke) — yes. The board did not record a motion text in the minutes beyond approval of the variance; staff said a letter of approval would be sent to the applicant with next steps for permitting.
The board cautioned the Bedehans that the zoning remedy was narrowly tailored to the fence height; the board does not adjudicate private civil claims or criminal allegations, and those matters were raised by speakers at the hearing. The Bedehans and the Kings were each encouraged to pursue separate legal remedies for property-line or conduct disputes.
The board’s vote resolved only the zoning variance request; any enforcement, permit requirements, or civil claims remain separate and were not decided by the board.
