Design Review Board denies 60-inch estate fence proposed for 2452 Freetown Drive

The Reston Design Review Board on Sept. 16 denied an application to install a 60‑inch wooden estate (paddock-style) fence at 2452 Freetown Drive, rejecting the design and placement as submitted after hearing an appeal and a de novo presentation.

The decision followed a contested hearing in which the homeowner argued that similar paddock-style fences exist nearby and presented a photocollage of neighborhood examples. Board members concluded the new examples did not justify the requested departures from the DRB’s design guideline maximum of 48 inches and noted differences in ornamentation and setback. The board voted to deny the application as submitted by roll call, 5 in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstention.

Board members focused their objections on three points: the proposed 60‑inch height exceeds the 48‑inch guideline that the DRB generally enforces; the decorative cross‑buck (an ornamental “X” at the fence top) represents a new, non‑standard style the board has not authorized across the neighborhood; and the proposed fence terminus would come significantly closer to an affected neighbor’s patio than the guideline-recommended rear‑corner placement.

Susan, the affected neighbor, told the board her home (built in 1974) has a long-standing clear area along the shared property line. She said the proposed fence would end about 6 feet from her patio and lower‑level entrance, rather than at the rear corner about 13 feet away, and that the closer placement would “disrupt my decade‑long use of my patio, my lower entrance and family room.”

The applicant (who introduced himself in the record as Miles) described a 1x6 horizontal board fence, pressure‑treated or red cedar, following the property line with three gates. He said one nearby example at 2464 Freetown Drive influenced the request. Staff and RA records showed that the prior approval for the referenced property allowed up to four panels at 48 inches but explicitly did not approve a cross‑buck feature, and that what was ultimately installed differed in detail (a three‑board paddock installation rather than the four‑board cross‑buck the applicant proposed).

Cam Adams, director of covenants administration for the Reston Association, cautioned that approving a new ornamental fence style and increased height would set a precedent for the neighborhood and noted missing setback data in the submittal; RA staff suggested a four‑foot rear setback in this location to avoid encroachment on RA common area.

After discussion, a motion to deny the application as submitted was made and seconded. In the roll call, five members voted to disapprove, one member opposed and one abstained. The board’s chair invited the applicant to resubmit a substantially different application that addresses height, ornamentation and the affected neighbor’s concerns.

The DRB’s denial applies only to the design as presented; the applicant can revise the fence design, lower its height to conform with guidelines, alter decorative elements, and adjust the terminus to address the neighbor’s access and privacy concerns before seeking further review.

The DRB also reminded applicants that staff and RA documentation on prior approvals will be considered in future cases; if a proposed design departs from the guidelines, applicants should provide clear evidence of comparable approvals and explicit setback information.

The board’s decision concluded the 2452 application; no fines or enforcement actions were announced at the meeting.