Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Weirton zoning board denies Rudy Rosnick's appeal over neighbor's fence, cites missed deadline
Summary
The City of Weirton Board of Zoning Appeals denied an administrative appeal from resident Rudy Rosnick on March 3, 2026, concluding his challenge to a neighbor's fence was filed after the 30'day filing period in Article 3.08(a) QDO. The board acknowledged slow communication but said statutory timelines control and advised Rosnick he may seek relief in Hancock County Circuit Court.
The City of 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 in Article 3.08(a) QDO.
Rosnick told the board the permit for the neighboring fence was submitted Nov. 7, 2025, approved Nov. 13, 2025, and installed Nov. 24, 2025, and that he filed his appeal with the board on Jan. 21, 2026. He said he did not receive a clear determination that the structure was permanent until Dec. 29, 2025, and therefore maintained his appeal was timely. The board, citing the ordinance, said the 30'day period runs from the original order/approval and held Rosnick's filing outside that window.
The dispute turned on timing and on whether the fence had been represented as "temporary." Rosnick said city staff used that term in earlier communications and described safety problems he attributed to the fence, including limited emergency stretcher access and difficulty replacing a hot water tank via the backyard. He also raised historical survey and property line concerns and named surveyors Parsons, Paul Hicks and Carl Carlisle in support of competing boundary claims.
City staff acknowledged slower-than-normal responses to emails and voicemails and said staff had visited the property and involved other city officers. During the hearing the board went into executive session to discuss the appeal (Director Mark A. Miller and Code Official Stewart left). After the session the board concluded the appeal was untimely and denied it on the basis of the filing deadline, explaining that allowing late appeals could undermine ordinance deadlines and procedural consistency.
On the substance of Rosnick's hardship claim the board said the fence appeared to sit on the correct property line and pointed to other factors that could impede access, including a large juniper bush, and advised that landscaping changes could address passage concerns. The board said the inconvenience described did not meet the ordinance threshold for a hardship variance.
The board directed Mark A. Miller to prepare findings of fact from the hearing for Rosnick's signature. The minutes record that the appellant was advised he may seek remedy by filing in the Circuit Court of Hancock County if he wished to challenge the board's procedural ruling. The meeting adjourned after the action items were assigned.
