Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piscataway zoning board denies homeowner’s request to keep 6-foot fence in current location
Summary
The Piscataway Zoning Board voted to deny Harold Israel’s request to retain a six-foot fence on the property line after finding no planning testimony to justify a variance; the board offered two alternatives (a 6-foot fence moved 9 feet in, or a 4-foot solid, property-line fence) and will mail a written resolution. (Vote: 8–0 to deny.)
The Piscataway Zoning Board denied Harold Israel’s application to keep an existing six-foot fence where it now stands, citing a lack of planning testimony to support a variance and the board attorney’s recommendation that financial hardship alone did not justify relief. The board voted to deny the application and will memorialize the decision in a written resolution to be issued after the next meeting.
Israel, who spoke for himself, said he installed the fence in 2020 and urged the board to allow it to remain for safety reasons, including an in-ground pool and concerns about security. “It took me 17 years before I put up this fence because I couldn’t afford a fence around my house,” he said, describing the expense and the safety rationale behind keeping the 6-foot height.
Board counsel told members there was no planning testimony in the record to support a variance and said the cost to the applicant is not a legal basis for relief. “There is no planning testimony that constitutes evidence to support a variance in this application,” the board attorney said, and recommended the board deny the application if it moved forward without such testimony.
Staff and members offered two options the applicant could pursue: move the fence 9 feet from the Richards Avenue property line and keep a 6-foot solid fence, or keep the fence on the property line if it were reduced to a 4-foot solid (which staff said meets New Jersey pool-code requirements). Israel requested additional time to consult an attorney; the board proceeded to vote that evening.
A motion to deny was made, seconded and carried by roll call. The board’s stated next step is to prepare a resolution that will be finalized on August 13 and mailed to Israel; board staff encouraged him to meet with counsel to learn his options.
The denial was procedural in nature: the board recorded the decision and advised the applicant on follow-up steps rather than ordering immediate physical alterations. The resolution will state the board’s findings and provide information about appeal or reconsideration procedures.
