LISBON — A Park Boulevard, East Liverpool property owner won his appeal against an East Liverpool Board of Zoning Appeals order to remove his fence.

In a decision file-stamped with Tuesday’s date, Columbiana County Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Bickerton ruled in favor of the challenge filed by John Viscoglosi II in May 2024 against the city of East Liverpool.

She wrote that she found the decision to require him “to remove the fence in total, thereby denying (him) a variance, to have been unreasonable and unsupported by the preponderance of the evidence as provided to this court.”

According to the judgment entry, Viscoglosi received a letter in January 2024 from the city saying that his fence, which surrounded the perimeter of his residence, was constructed without a zoning certificate issued by the city and was too tall, violating city ordinance. He appealed to the city Board of Zoning Appeals and attended a hearing in April 2024, then received a letter ordering him to remove the fence.

Bickerton wrote that it’s clear Viscoglosi failed to apply for a permit prior to constructing the fence and it’s clear that the portion of fence located in front of the house is taller than what is permitted. The ordinance permits 3 feet but will allow up to 4 feet for fences in front of a property. The fence in question was 5 feet tall in front.

Despite that, Bickerton wrote there was no indication that the city considered whether Viscoglosi would qualify for a variance.

Bickerton referred to an Ohio Supreme Court case that indicated the standard for granting a variance relating solely to area requirements should be a lesser standard than that applied to variances relating to use. In another case, the Ohio Supreme Court cited several factors to consider for whether a property owner was facing practical difficulties in the use of his property while seeking a variance.

Bickerton said it’s clear from reviewing the record that the city didn’t consider those factors when issuing its decision to remove the fence. The court agreed with the argument by George Gbur, the attorney for Viscoglosi, that the factors favor the variance. She also wrote that the remainder of the fence complies with the city ordinance for being no more than 6 feet tall.

She wrote that if he had requested a permit, the fence that exists, with the exception of the front area, would have been approved. She also noted that none of his neighbors appeared to speak out for or against the fence after being invited to the zoning board meeting.

mgreier@mojonews.com