Board denies fence setback variance at Sycamore Trace, cites precedent and neighborhood uniformity concerns

The Hilliard Board of Zoning Appeals rejected a request to reduce the rear setback for a fence at 2794 Sycamore Trace after deliberating on a discrepancy between the recorded plat, the multi-use path easement, and a previously issued fence permit.

Staff told the board the existing fence sits approximately five feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the bike path but that plat language and the developer’s notes had created confusion about the proper measurement. The property’s fence was installed, then moved once at developer direction, and then inspected by staff, who found it did not match both the permit and the plat simultaneously because the path easement is only 20 feet wide and centered, resulting in conflicting measurements.

Staff recommended a remedy that would avoid reinstallation multiple times and proposed approval only with a clear condition that the homeowner, not the city or utilities, bear the cost of moving the fence if later utility work required relocation. Several board members expressed concern about setting a precedent that would make a single house in the subdivision different from its neighbors; members also worried that future owners or developers could repeat the same problem.

The presiding officer moved to approve the variance to reduce the minimum setback from 10 feet to five feet for a 4-foot wrought-iron fence with the homeowner bearing responsibility for any future relocation costs; the motion was seconded. During roll-call votes several members said they opposed the variance for reasons of neighborhood uniformity and precedent. The motion failed on a 2–5 vote. The board recorded no alternative remedy at the meeting and left the existing fence status unresolved pending further action by the homeowner, developer, or other parties.

Board members and staff discussed next steps for preventing similar future issues, including clarifying permit checklists, developer notes and plat language.

The denial leaves the fence without a granted variance; responsibility for any required future relocation was emphasized as an important condition in staff discussion but not approved as part of the failed motion.