Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harrison zoning board approves variance for front‑yard fence at 1108 Stone Drive
Summary
The Harrison Zoning Appeals Board approved a homeowner’s variance to allow a solid board fence in the front yard at 1108 Stone Drive after brief testimony from the owner’s daughter and a short discussion about permits and sight-line safety.
The Harrison Zoning Appeals Board approved a variance to allow a solid board fence in the front yard at 1108 Stone Drive after hearing testimony from the applicant’s daughter and a short exchange about permits and safety.
Chair Gordon introduced Case No. 2020-555, saying the homeowner, identified in the record as Omar Rodriguez, asked for permission to allow a solid board fence to extend into the front-yard setback. Rita Rodriguez, who testified that she is the applicant’s daughter, said the new fence replaced an older picket fence that had been deteriorating and that the family submitted photographs with their application. "It's more for privacy and safety of residents and in the property," Rita Rodriguez said during her sworn testimony.
Board staff cited city ordinance 1147.16(f), which the board summarized as prohibiting fences in required front yards and barring solid fences that extend beyond the front of a structure, and noted typical concerns about emergency access and vehicle sight lines at intersections. Board members said they saw no line-of-sight impairment from the replacement fence and complimented its appearance.
Members asked who installed the fence; Rita Rodriguez said her father installed it. Board members reminded applicants and contractors to obtain required permits and to follow proper procedures when work is performed.
A motion to approve the variance was made by Bob Cox and seconded by Sonny Ross. The board recorded unanimous affirmative votes from Russell Montgomery, Steve Burger, Sonny Ross, Bob Cox and Joe Combs. After the vote, the chair told the applicants they could keep the fence. The board then had no further business and adjourned.
The record shows minor inconsistencies in the transcript about exact spellings of some board members’ names and about the fence height (the case introduction references a request to allow a 4‑foot fence while other remarks describe the replaced fence as 3 feet); those points are documented in the meeting record and were not material to the board's determination.
Next steps: the board took formal action to approve the variance; applicants were reminded to complete any required permitting or paperwork with city staff.
