Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board allows Mark Williams to keep 11 dogs but denies fence remaining in county right‑of‑way
Summary
The board split a high‑interest neighborhood case, approving the applicant's request to keep 11 dogs with a phased reduction condition but rejecting a request to retain a privacy fence that encroached onto county‑owned right‑of‑way.
The Delaware County Board of Zoning Appeals on June 30 split a contentious request from Mark Williams, allowing him to keep an expanded number of dogs while denying his request to keep a privacy fence where it extends into county right‑of‑way.
Williams told the board he has many dogs and that the fence was installed to keep them from the road. “They don't make no problems to anybody. They're not noisy,” Williams said in response to neighbors' concerns about noise and vehicle safety.
Neighbors and the county engineer raised safety and sight‑line issues around the corner where the privacy fence now sits. Dean Thomas, county engineer, inspected the corner and told the board that the fence on Country Club Road blocked left‑turn sight lines and would need to be moved, while the segment along Hines Street was less problematic. Thomas confirmed the county treats right‑of‑way encroachments as a separate issue the county must handle.
The board separated the applicant's two requests. On the dogs, members approved a motion to let Williams keep 11 animals with a condition that as animals die they are not replaced, stepping down toward the standard ordinance limit (board vote: 4 yes, 3 no). On the fence height/location, the board found they had no authority to grant an encroachment into county‑owned rights‑of‑way and voted to deny the fence variance (outcome: denied, 5 no, 2 yes). The board's decision requires Williams to relocate portions of the fence that lie outside his parcel.
The board recorded a mix of sympathy for long‑standing property improvements and firm application of right‑of‑way limits. Members encouraged Williams to work with the county engineer and noted that enforcement of right‑of‑way is ultimately a county‑level responsibility.
