BZA approves privacy fence after the fact

Thursday, December 3, 2020

Vowing not to be fenced in by its latest decision, the Greencastle Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approved a standards variance for a privacy barrier that had already been erected.

The variance makes an eight-foot-high cedar privacy fence legal for Michael and Lisa Chadd, 805 Robin Wood Place in the Deer Field Subdivision.

The Chadds’ property is at the north end of Robin Wood Place, which is often used as a cut-through for traffic trying to avoid the stopsign where Shadowlawn and Fawn View Drive meet. Their property is perpendicular to their neighbors in the westernmost house on Shadowlawn, putting their backyards at odds.

The Chadds’ eight-foot fence, which is 42 feet long, runs parallel to their house and does not pose a visual hazard to motorists. The fence allows them to better enjoy their backyard, which includes a gazebo and fire pit.

They said an eight-foot fence -- two feet higher than the six-foot standard -- was necessary to adequately provide privacy for themselves and the adjoining property owner.

Their request for a variance takes into account “a couple of unique aspects” to the property. The adjoining property is two feet higher in elevation and has a deck three feet taller than that on the Chadds’ property, so in order for the fence to provide privacy, it needed to be eight feet tall, the Chadds said.

No one had any quarrel with that, but it was how the Chadds went about it that was called into question.

Michael Chadd admitted that he was told the height restriction was six feet but went ahead -- without initially asking for a variance -- and had the eight-foot fence installed.

“It’s just about the height,” Chairman Andrew Ranck reminded fellow BZA members. “It may be a beautiful fence. It may be the Taj Mahal of fences, but we have to remember what the question is.”

Ranck pointedly asked if Chadd was aware of the six-foot building code. And when the petitioner answered “Yes,” Ranck responded with “That’s where I have a problem.”

He suggested Chadd knew the rules and “willfully ignored” them and went ahead with the project.

“If you would have taken the extra month and come to us,” Ranck said, “it would have been a no-brainer. Now we’re looking at a willful violation of rules.”

City Planner Scott Zimmerman said the fine for a violation can vary from $100 a day to $2,500. He did not, however, suggest the Chadds should be fined.

Worse yet, as City Attorney Laurie Hardwick noted, the Chadds had the fence installed “at their own risk.”

“You did it, knowing we could tell you to take it down,” Hardwick added.

Chadd agreed, saying he’d learned his lesson and assuring city officials it wasn’t done with an attitude of “screw the city, I’m going to do this.”

Meanwhile, Zimmerman noted that the BZA was not setting a precedent with the variance. Such things are reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

“We would acknowledge the terrain issue and close proximity of living space,” he said, “unique aspects of the property that you didn’t cause.”

Like Ranck, BZA member Margaret Kenton said she was concerned that the Chadds “knowingly violated” the standards in place.

Kenton said she was surprised that permits aren’t required in the city for putting up a fence. She also noted that the fence in question was “more of a landscaping feature” since it has “no egress and no gate.”

If the petitioners had put in eight-foot-tall shrubs, would they be in front of the BZA? Kenton asked.

“They wouldn’t have to be here,” Zimmerman responded.

As discussion moved toward conclusion, Ranck said he would be abstaining from the vote. “Personally I don’t oppose the fence as it is,” he said. “I’m not seeking a fine but I want to make the point clear that information was provided to the citizen and he chose not to observe it.

“I don’t like being this position,” Ranck added, “it’s hugely uncomfortable. Why do we have rules? ... That’s my soapbox for the day.”

He added that the Chadd issue is “not the first situation where the public has been aware” and chose to disregard the rules.

Ignorance of the law, Ranck noted, is no defense, just like not knowing a speed limit when driving too fast and getting pulled over.

Via Zoom, Mayor Bill Dory agreed but added, “Try as we might, there’s always going to be a few people who don’t follow the rules. We still have people who don’t know you need a building permit to build a house.”

BZA member Wayne Lewis made the motion to approve the variance, which was granted 3-0 with yes votes from Kenton and Doug Wokoun and Ranck abstaining.

Stressing this will not be a precedent, Ranck noted. “In the future I will not be this nice. I’d appreciate you spreading the word on how this works.”

In other business, the BZA approved its 2021 calendar. With no elections in 2021, the BZA will meet the first Tuesday of each month at 6 p.m. at City Hall.

While Ranck, Kenton, Lewis and Wokoun attended the December meeting, BZA member Brian Cox was absent.

Comments
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • God forbid a family put up a privacy fence on their own wholly owned private property. Who would want to live in a city with a city-wide HOA?

    -- Posted by techphcy on Thu, Dec 3, 2020, at 10:18 PM
  • A 3-0 vote is not a majority of the board, how did this get passed?

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Fri, Dec 4, 2020, at 11:40 AM
    Response by Jared Jernagan, Editor, Greencastle Banner-Graphic:
    Are you thinking of a different board with more members? The city BZA is a five-member board, so 3-0 is a majority.
  • So glad that I got the he** out of city limits. It's unreal the regulations they want to enforce, yet look the other way on the dumps and eyesores that have BZA violations. I'm with techphcy, it is truly a city-wide HOA.

    -- Posted by Hmmmmm on Fri, Dec 4, 2020, at 2:41 PM
  • Yes, I assumed it is a 7 member board. My bad.

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Fri, Dec 4, 2020, at 7:51 PM
  • Maybe it is time that Greencastle either send each resident a printed copy of the local ordinances or put a complete and easy to navigate copy on the cities website. The copy that is presently posted seems incomplete and hard to navigate through.

    -- Posted by Workingthesoil on Sat, Dec 5, 2020, at 10:26 AM
  • It was suggested at this meeting to send noticeS in water bills.

    That recommendation did not make it into this story.

    -- Posted by GladysK on Sat, Dec 5, 2020, at 11:00 AM
  • Speaking of the city’s website, where does one find the reports on past common council meetings? The most recent that is posted is 2018.

    -- Posted by 3m50 on Mon, Dec 7, 2020, at 8:33 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: