Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Beavercreek BZA denies request to keep 6‑foot privacy fence on Haines Road
Loading...
Summary
The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals on Nov. 12 denied a variance request allowing a 6‑foot privacy fence to remain in the required front yard along Haines Road for a double‑frontage lot at 1680 North Lattie Court, citing uniform enforcement, prior code changes and the fence’s full encroachment into the front yard; the board recorded a majority‑
The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals voted on Nov. 12 to deny a variance request that would have allowed a 6‑foot privacy fence to remain in the required front yard along Haines Road at 1680 North Lattie Court.
Staff explained the city’s R1A zoning generally limits fences in a required front yard to a maximum of 48 inches and that, after a 2023 zoning‑code amendment, double‑frontage lots may allow fences up to 48 inches to encroach up to 20 feet into the required front yard. Staff told the board the Mogenbergs’ fence encroached the full required front‑yard area (effectively 100% encroachment) and had been constructed without a permit. Staff recommended denial because the application requested full encroachment that would be substantial and because staff did not find the practical‑difficulty criteria were met.
Haley and Andrew Mogenberg told the board they installed the 6‑foot fence in August after replacing an old chain‑link fence that they said was rusted and hazardous to their 3‑year‑old daughter. Haley said their contractor (Troy Copley) agreed in their contract to pull permits; they learned only after a neighbor complaint that the lot is double‑frontage and that the new fence violated code. The applicants argued that moving the fence 20 feet would require removal or severe trimming of mature trees and would reduce their usable backyard by about 17 percent; they also said they plan to build an in‑ground pool, which requires a 5‑foot safety fence.
Board members asked whether a 6‑foot fence could be built anywhere inside the 20‑foot encroachment allowance; staff and the chair confirmed that a 6‑foot fence may be built within the east end of the green hashed area (i.e., within the 20‑foot encroachment), but that the applicants’ current placement encroached further and replaced a lower chain‑link fence. Staff emphasized that property owners are ultimately responsible for permitting even when contractors promise to obtain permits.
After extended questioning about neighborhood character, precedent (staff referenced a similar denial on South Latte in 2021), trees and the difficulty of relocating the fence, a board member moved to deny the variance for not meeting the criteria in 158.172(h)(5)(a); the chair seconded. The board voted to deny the variance. The chair closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting.
Staff identified two practical options available to the homeowners without a variance: move the 6‑foot section 20 feet back into the allowed encroachment area or reduce the height of the encroaching section to 48 inches. The homeowners said both options would be difficult because of tree canopies and the location of an existing shed, but the board concluded the zoning criteria did not justify granting full encroachment.
