Police chief, zoning board members testify in variance case

LISBON - The case involving a zoning variance on a Liverpool Township property went to an oral hearing for trial Thursday afternoon in front of Judge C. Ashley Pike in the Court of Common Pleas.

Gary D. Bonnell, of Broadview Circle, filed an administrative appeal after a zoning variance, regarding a fence that would be two feet higher than the zoning law's six-foot restriction, was denied by the Liverpool Township Zoning Board of Appeals back in January.

At the hearing, several witnesses were called to the stand and evidence was submitted to the court. Police Chief Charlie Burgess and zoning board members Gary Weekley, Robert George and William Horrocks submitted testimony in the courtroom. Bonnell also took the witness stand.

Photographs of Bonnell's property along with documents that included the minutes and briefs from the zoning appeals meetings were issued to the court.

The appeal focused on the security and privacy due to Bonnell's involvement in a federal court case as a witness. Bonnell also stated an open police investigation involving a threat against his life as another reason for the privacy concerns.

Bonnell's attorney, John E. Drumm, questioned the lack, or interpretation, of the zoning laws regarding grade levels on properties. Bonnell's property consists of one grade level that is centered around the home and another that centers around the garage. Railroad ties acting as retainer walls were also discussed in the courtroom.

The matter of the importance of the two extra feet, from a six-foot fence, was also a topic that concerned the judge. Drumm and Bonnell argued that the extra fence height would prohibit a line-of-sight from surrounding, higher vantage points. In addition, Drumm explained that George recommended to increase the grade level -by adding dirt or extra railroad ties - and install a six-foot fence on top of that, which according to Bonnell's attorney, constitutes the same results as an eight-foot fence.

Bonnell stated that water drainage problems and unsightly ties, being that they would be above the grass level, as main reasons why the fence was a better option. Further costs and installing construction equipment were also discussed.

George testified that the appeals board protects property and does not protect self-imposed hardships. Horrocks also added he personally did not feel Bonnell justified his claim for the variance during the zoning variance hearing.

A letter, written by Burgess that cited the variance was warranted due to the federal court case and the other incident where Bonnell was threatened with a weapon was brought up in court as well.

Burgess told the court that he was not there there as a witness for or against the variance, but as a professional, law enforcement officer who issued his opinion on Bonnell's current safety regarding a fence. Burgess also gave an open invitation, in his January-submitted letter, to the zoning board for any discussions relating to the matter, but was never contacted.

The installation of a fence was brought about when Bonnell installed a new structure on his property that required a treeline to be removed. According to Bonnell, he has never thoroughly used his backyard, due to the lack of privacy and security, since 1999 when the treeline was removed. The proposed fence would be put up on sections of his property, mostly located at the back of his home with some fencing on the sides.

Bonnell said no neighbors have objected to the fence.

The trial began at approximately 1 p.m. and lasted until just after 4 p.m. There was one short recess granted by Pike to allow Drumm to gather necessary photographs regarding the different grade levels to be shown to Weekley.

A non-oral motions hearing is scheduled for August 22 at 4 p.m.