Havre de Grace board denies variance for fence and shed at 728 Water Street

The Havre de Grace Board of Appeals on April 2 denied a request by the owner of 728 Water Street to keep a six-foot fence and a front-yard shed, concluding the applicant had not met the city code standards for an area variance.

The planning department recommended denial under city code section 25-16E, citing a fence exceeding the four-foot front-yard height limit and placement of a shed in the front yard. Eric Lawrence, speaking for the Department of Planning, told the board the staff report ‘‘recommends denial for the variance request for a fence exceeding 4T in height and a shed in the front yard’’ and made the report available online.

Applicant Mark Pearl told the board he installed the fence and a small plastic shed to store kayaks and recreational equipment and to ‘‘match’’ a neighboring fence for a consistent streetscape. ‘‘I requested the variance so that I could have the fence adjacent to my neighbor’s fence to store our outdoor equipment,’’ Pearl said, and acknowledged he could shorten the fence to four feet or relocate the shed if denied but argued that doing so would ‘‘look wonky.’’

An attorney for the adjacent property owner, Carolyn Evans, presented exhibits and urged denial. She said the property at 724 Water Street ‘‘is similar to most of the properties’’ and that the fence and shed at 728 Water Street ‘‘jarringly interrupt’’ the neighborhood’s historic streetscape, noting the rear yard at 724 could accommodate storage instead. Neighbor William B. M. Arnold IV told the board the front-yard installation was ‘‘unkempt’’ and that it reduced his view and harmed his property’s appearance.

During deliberations the board reviewed the four statutory variance criteria spelled out in the staff report—unique physical conditions of the lot, exceptional circumstances beyond financial considerations, literal enforcement causing practical difficulty, and assurance that relief would not substantially injure public health or safety. Board members noted the applicant placed the fence and shed without permits and said the proximity of an objecting neighbor carried significant weight under local practice.

A board member moved to deny both variance applications; another seconded, the board voted in favor, and the motion to deny was adopted. The transcript does not record individual roll-call votes, only that members voted in favor and the request was denied. The applicant indicated he could revise the fence to a code-permitted four-foot open design or remove the shed.

The hearing concluded with the board denying the variances. No further appeal or enforcement steps were recorded in the transcript.