Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance letting 5-foot fence at 469 Ramsgate Drive
Summary
The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals approved a variance allowing a 5-foot ornamental fence at 469 Ramsgate Drive, siding with applicants who cited steep slopes and safety for children and large dogs despite staff's recommendation of denial and concerns about precedent.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Beavercreek Board of Zoning Appeals voted to approve a variance allowing a 5-foot ornamental fence at 469 Ramsgate Drive after a public hearing and deliberation. A committee member moved to approve the variance, a second was made, and the motion passed by a majority vote.
Staff had recommended denial, citing the magnitude of the requested encroachment into the 40-foot front-yard setback and the goal of bringing multi-frontage lots into compliance. Staff member (speaker 5) told the board that code changes in 2023 increased front-yard permitted fence height to 48 inches and allowed a 20-foot encroachment for double-frontage lots, and that a 34-foot encroachment "would be outside of what we allow" and therefore substantial. The board, referencing the lot's cul-de-sac orientation and steep grades, concluded the request showed sufficient uniqueness to grant the variance.
Applicants Louis Martin and Jennifer Reynolds described family and pet safety concerns and said other remedies had not proven reliable. Louis Martin argued the lot's slope and layout made a 4-foot fence functionally inadequate and said, "We're just asking for the additional 12 inches of height that would guarantee that our dogs cannot escape through our backyard." The board recorded public input and the clerk noted six emails from neighbors were received supporting or commenting on the case.
The board framed its decision as narrowly tailored to the lot's uniqueness; staff had offered a compromise to allow a 20-foot encroachment typical for double-frontage lots, but the motion as moved and seconded approved the applicants' plan. The hearing concluded, the board voted, and the meeting adjourned.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

