A Victor homeowner received approval from the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals to build an 8-foot privacy fence after arguing that a nearby townhouse development dramatically changed the character of the view from her property and created new privacy concerns that did not exist when she built her home a decade ago.
The board voted unanimously June 15 to grant Deborah Hogan an area variance allowing a fence two feet taller than what is permitted under town code at her property on Saurer Farms Drive. The decision followed a lengthy discussion about the impacts of nearby development, tree removal, neighborhood character and the challenges homeowners face when surrounding land changes over time.
Hogan told board members she built and designed her home approximately 10 years ago and intentionally oriented many of its primary living spaces—including the kitchen, living room, sunroom and primary bedroom—toward the rear of the property. At the time, the area behind her home was heavily wooded.
That changed with the construction of the nearby Highline Trail townhouse development by Morrell Builders. Hogan said extensive clearing removed trees that once provided a natural visual buffer between the properties. The closest townhouse is approximately 105 feet from her property line, but because her home sits at a higher elevation, she said residents can now see directly into one another’s homes.
The situation became particularly noticeable after construction began and vegetation was removed. Hogan explained that while deciduous trees provide some screening during the summer months, the view becomes largely unobstructed for roughly half the year after leaves fall.
She said the issue is most apparent from the first floor of her home, where she now looks directly toward the townhouse development from multiple rooms.
“I am looking right down into the town homes,” Hogan told the board. “They can see me.”
Board members spent considerable time examining whether a standard 6-foot fence, which is allowed under current zoning regulations, would adequately address the problem. Hogan argued it would not.
Because of the elevation differences between the two properties, she said a 6-foot fence would still leave sightlines open between the homes. An 8-foot fence, while not eliminating visibility entirely, would significantly improve privacy from the first floor and provide a more immediate solution than waiting years for new trees and landscaping to mature.
Several board members indicated they had visited the area before the meeting and understood the concerns being raised.
Board member Matt Rogers noted he could see portions of the townhouse development even from a position well in front of Hogan’s house. Other members agreed that the existing conditions differed substantially from what had existed before development occurred.
The discussion also focused heavily on the legal criteria required for granting an area variance.
Board Chairman Christopher Phelan walked through each factor the board must consider, including whether the variance would create an undesirable change in neighborhood character, whether the benefit could be achieved through another means, whether the request was substantial, whether it would create environmental impacts and whether the difficulty was self-created.
Board members repeatedly returned to the issue of visibility and who would actually see the fence.
Hogan explained that because her property sits at the end of a cul-de-sac, very few neighboring homeowners would be impacted. Aside from one adjacent property owner who attended the meeting in support of the request, she said most nearby residents would never see the fence.
Members ultimately agreed.
The board concluded the proposed fence would primarily be visible to Hogan, a neighboring property owner and some residents of the townhouse development. Because of its location at the rear of the property and its distance from surrounding homes, members found the fence would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood.
The board also determined there were few practical alternatives available.
While members encouraged additional landscaping and tree plantings, they acknowledged that meaningful screening from vegetation could take many years to achieve. Hogan indicated she plans to install landscaping and trees along the fence line, but said she wanted the fence erected first so she could better design the remaining improvements.
One of the more extensive conversations centered on whether the need for the fence was technically “self-created,” a factor boards must consider when reviewing variances.
Board member Rogers argued the circumstances were unusual because Hogan had lived on the property for a decade without needing a fence and only sought the variance after neighboring development altered conditions around her home. Other members noted that while the request itself could be considered self-created under zoning law, the circumstances that led to it were largely outside the homeowner’s control.
Before approving the application, the board also modified the request to avoid future complications.
Hogan initially proposed approximately 145 feet of fencing along the rear property line. However, planning staff warned that slight adjustments during construction could inadvertently place the homeowner out of compliance if the variance were approved too narrowly.
After discussion, board members approved a maximum fence length of 160 feet along the eastern rear property line. The additional flexibility was intended to account for field conditions and final layout adjustments while still limiting where an 8-foot fence could be constructed.
Planning staff reminded Hogan that the variance runs with the land rather than the homeowner, meaning future owners could also benefit from the approval. Staff also noted that a building permit would still be required before construction could begin and that the final fence location would need to be verified during the permitting process.
The Hogan application was the only matter ultimately decided by the board during the meeting. A separate request from Fairways Townhomes seeking a sign variance at 652 Championship Drive was tabled after officials determined additional information was needed regarding the proposed sign’s location, dimensions and lighting.
Following the unanimous vote, Hogan thanked board members for approving the request and indicated she would immediately move forward with final plans for the project.
FingerLakes1.com is the region’s leading all-digital news publication. The company was founded in 1998 and has been keeping residents informed for more than two decades. Have a lead? Send it to news@fingerlakes1.com.