Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weirton board denies resident’s appeal over neighbor’s fence, says filing was late
Summary
The Weirton Board of Zoning Appeals on March 3, 2026 denied an administrative appeal from resident Rudy Rosnick challenging a neighboring fence, concluding the appeal was filed after the 30‑day window in Article 3.08(a) of the zoning code; the board advised Rosnick he may seek relief in Hancock County Circuit Court.
The Weirton Board of Zoning Appeals denied an administrative appeal from resident Rudy Rosnick on March 3, 2026, finding his challenge to a neighbor’s fence was filed after the 30‑day deadline set by Article 3.08(a) of the city’s zoning code.
Rosnick had asked the board to overturn a permit approval and to grant a variance, saying the fence did not support the intent of the ordinance, created a safety hardship by blocking emergency and utility access along his property line, and that he had been unclear about whether portions of the fence were meant to be temporary. According to the record, the permit was submitted Nov. 7, 2025, approved Nov. 13, 2025 and the fence installed Nov. 24, 2025; Rosnick says he was not told the fence was not temporary until Dec. 29, 2025 and filed his appeal on Jan. 21, 2026.
Board members focused the dispute on the ordinance’s 30‑day appeal window. The board said the 30‑day period runs from the original order or approval, not from the later date Rosnick cited. After discussing the matter in executive session, the board concluded the appeal missed the deadline and denied the appeal; board members cited concerns about undercutting ordinance deadlines and establishing inconsistent precedents.
On the substance of Rosnick’s hardship claim, the appellant described scenarios in which backyard access would be needed in an emergency and cited historical survey and subdivision irregularities that he said contributed to confusion over property lines. The board maintained that the fence was on the correct property line, suggested that vegetation (a large juniper) also limited passage, and said the inconvenience described did not satisfy the threshold for a variance under the code.
The board directed Mark A. Miller, director of the Department of Planning & Development, to prepare findings of fact from the hearing for Rosnick’s signature. The board also noted that Rosnick retains the option to seek remedy through the Circuit Court of Hancock County if he wishes to pursue judicial review.
At the start of the meeting the board approved the minutes from February and later moved to adjourn. No date was set for further action on this appeal unless prompted by external legal action.
