IN THE MATTER OF THE

1. The Applicants and Owners are Dwight N. Simmons and Janet J. Simmons of 7920 Rider Lane, Harrisburg, West Hanover Township, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania 17112.

2. The subject property is located west of Route 39 along Rider Lane.

3. The subject property is located within the Medium Density Residential (R-2) zoning district.

4. The tax parcel number for the subject property is 68-030-090.

5. The subject property is currently improved with a house with a garden in the rear yard around which is a mesh fence and with mature landscaping in the front yard area to the east of the house.

6. Applicant submitted a building permit application for construction of a fence around most of his property, which permit was denied for the reason that Applicant sought to install fencing in the front yard which exceeds the forty-two (42) inch height restriction.

7. In connection with the request for a variance, Applicants submitted not only a narrative, but two sketch plans and a summary sheet outlining the existing features of the property as well as the proposed fencing.

8. Several changes were made to the summary which contained a key to the proposed fencing.

9. Although the drawings indicated fencing around most of the property, the only fencing at issue are the two sections on each side property line extending from the right-of-way of Rider Lane to the front of the house and a section of fence approximately forty-two (42) feet long extending from the edge of the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house to the eastern property line.

10. The area between the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house and eastern property line is improved with mature landscaping which would have to be removed if the fence were placed in strict conformity with the Zoning Ordinance, which prohibits it from being in front of the house.

11. Applicants wish to erect the fence at six (6) feet in height, as opposed to the permitted forty-two (42) inches, in the front yard for security purposes to prevent vandalism and damage to their landscaping which has been caused by children entering from the rear of the property and to help prevent the children’s basketballs, etc. from entering the property from the eastern property line.

12. Applicant testified that the forty-two (42) inch high fence is simply not high enough to keep the balls out and would not prevent the children from entering the property, but to the contrary, would attract them and encourage them to try to hurdle the fence.

13. Applicant submitted a picture of the vinyl fencing which he proposes to install and it will all be uniform in appearance and design.

14. The Township representative expressed concern that the six (6) feet high fence along the two property lines in the front of the house could impede the sight distance of neighbors.

15. One member of the public, an individual residing at 7917 Rider Lane across from the subject property, testified that she was concerned about the resale value of her home if a six (6) foot fence were constructed in front of the house at any location.

16. That individual also testified that she was not aware of any vandalism in the neighborhood which would justify erection of the fencing around the perimeter of the subject property.

17. Another neighbor residing at 7913 Rider Lane thought the fence along the front of the right-of-way would be six (6) feet high, and when he was advised that the fence along the right-of-way of Rider Lane would only be forty-two (42) inches high he indicated he was not opposed to the request.

18. The fence along the right-of-way of Rider Lane would have a gate installed at the driveway which would have to be opened manually. Although there is not sufficient distance to park a car in the driveway between the proposed fence and the edge of the road, the Applicant testified there is sufficient area where he can pull off the cartway of Rider Lane to open the gate and then drive his car through it.

19. Notice of the public hearing held on April 10, 2003 was properly advertised, notice was posted at the municipal building, the subject property was properly posted and all adjoining property owners were notified by certified mail.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Section 195-95.D. of the Zoning Ordinance restricts the height of a fence in the front yard to three and a half (3 1/2) feet.

2. The fence proposed to be erected along each of the side yard lines between the front of the house and the street right-of-way is in the front yard and, in accordance with the strict terms of the ordinance, is limited to forty-two (42) inches in height.

3. The section of fence extending from the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house to the eastern property line is also in the front yard, but was designed to be placed so that it did not interfere with existing landscaping materials and vegetation in that area.

4. Section 195‑199 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 910.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code allow the Zoning Hearing Board to act on requests for variances and to grant such requests under certain conditions of hardship.

5. With regard to the proposed fence along the each side yard extending from the street right-of-way to the front of the house, Applicant did not establish any unique physical circumstances or conditions as to the size or shape of a lot, or any exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property to justify construction of a fence six (6) feet in height as opposed to three and a half (3 1/2) feet in height.

6. Applicant did not demonstrate any legal hardship with regard to the subject property except as to that section of proposed fencing extending from the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house to the eastern property line.

7. With regard to the hardship, Applicant demonstrated nothing more than that the Zoning Ordinance itself creates the inability for him to do what he wishes to do with the fencing along the two side property lines in the front yard.

8. With respect to the fencing proposed along the eastern and western sides of the property extending from Rider Lane to the front of the house, Applicant has not satisfied his burden of proof in establishing an “unnecessary hardship.”

9. With respect to the requested variance to permit a fence six (6) feet in height extending from the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house to the eastern property line, Applicant did establish that in order to construct a fence in strict compliance with the ordinance established vegetation and landscape materials would have to be removed.

10. Granting the variance with respect to the height of the fence extending from the sidewalk at the east end of the house to the eastern property line would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located nor would it substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property nor would it be detrimental to the public welfare.

DECISION

In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions and in view of the evidence and testimony presented to the Zoning Hearing Board, the requested variance for the height restrictions as to the proposed fence along the eastern and western property lines extending from Rider Lane to the front of the house is DENIED for the reason that Applicant has not established a “unnecessary hardship.” With respect to the requested variance to permit a fence six (6) feet high extending from the sidewalk at the eastern end of the house to the eastern property line, the requested variance is GRANTED.

DATE: WEST HANOVER TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD

Linda L. Turns

Norma J. Gruber

George O. Kline

Beth Carricato

Dissented: