Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Reston DRB defers homeowner's fence appeal after split votes; owner may revise design
Summary
The Reston Design Review Board accepted an appeal for 2452 Freetown Drive for further review but ultimately voted to defer consideration to the next full DRB meeting to allow the homeowner to amend plans or wait for a fuller board. The board flagged differences in style and setback concerns.
Miles, the homeowner at 2452 Freetown Drive, appealed a previous Design Review Board panel denial of a proposed fence, saying the proposed style is similar to fences already in the neighborhood and that the design is "not out of the ordinary" for the street. Board members asked whether a nearby property at 2464 had been approved with a paddock‑style fence and whether that constituted new evidence for rehearing the case.
The board debated whether the presence of a previously unreviewed fence in the neighborhood constituted new information sufficient to rehear the appeal. After a procedural vote and follow‑up motions, the DRB concluded the de novo rehearing motion was unresolved under the panel quorum rules. A subsequent motion to defer the appeal to the next full DRB meeting passed on a 4‑0‑2 vote. The deferral gives the homeowner the option to (a) continue pursuing the existing design at the next full meeting or (b) withdraw the appeal and submit an amended application that may be routed to a panel sooner.
Board members were explicit that the deferral addressed process, not final design approval. Samantha and other members emphasized stylistic differences between the applicant’s proposed fence and the nearby example, noting concerns about fence openness and neighborhood compatibility. Staff clarified that some existing neighborhood fences exceed the guideline heights and that Reston Association had registered affected‑party involvement in the earlier panel review. The DRB also noted a separate concern about placement relative to property lines and a recommended 4‑foot setback from RA open space—issues the homeowner can address in an amended design.
Next steps: The applicant may amend the application and request panel review sooner, or the DRB will consider the appeal again at the next full board meeting. The DRB advised the owner that concessions—such as modifying height or the fence orientation—could produce a design acceptable to both neighbors and the DRB.
