A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board approves taller corner-lot privacy fence at 208 Eda Avenue

June 23, 2026 | Harrison, Hamilton County, Ohio


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board approves taller corner-lot privacy fence at 208 Eda Avenue
The Harrison Board of Zoning Appeals on June 23 approved a variance allowing a corner-lot privacy fence at 208 Eda Avenue to exceed the city's 72-inch front-yard height limit to match the existing top elevation on site.

Anthony Hill, who said he owns the corner property and was sworn for testimony, told the board his yard is roughly two feet higher than neighboring yards and that an in-ground pool and grading make the top-of-fence height consistent around the property. He said he planned to replace the existing fence in the same location and presented a petition of neighbor signatures in support.

"My yard literally is 2 foot if not more higher than my neighbors' yards," Hill told the board, adding that the fence sections were installed to account for grade and that he intended to replace the panels "exactly" as they exist but in better condition.

Board members asked about perimeter ownership and setback concerns. A member who visited the site said the height itself was not problematic but noted that very small setbacks (one to two feet) can become overgrown and difficult to maintain. Hill said he would be willing to consider moving the fence back "a foot, foot and a half" if that helped with landscaping.

Mr. Ross moved to approve the variance as submitted; Mr. Cox seconded. Board members Sunny Ross, Bob Cox and Wilson Montgomery voted in favor by voice vote, and the motion carried.

The variance approval permits the applicant to replace the fence in the existing location with a top height the board recorded in the file as 80 inches, above the 72-inch limit cited in the meeting. The board did not record additional conditions or a formal requirement to relocate the fence, though members discussed maintenance and potential overgrowth at small setbacks.

With the vote complete the board moved on to a second case and later adjourned.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee