WEIRTON — A dispute over a fence and property line could be heading to Circuit Court following a decision by the Weirton Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday.

The Zoning Board denied a request for an administrative appeal from Rudy Rosnick, 141 Lafayette Circle, who cited “safety and hardship” as a result of a decision to allow his neighbor to install a fence.

According to Planning and Development Director Mark Miller, the fence – made of metal poles and wires – was approved Nov. 13, with Rosnick’s appeal filed in early January.

“I didn’t have a decision from them until the 29th of December,” Rosnick said, claiming he had reached out to the city numerous times to find out if the fence was supposed to be temporary and when it might come down. “There was no way I could respond in the 30 days if I didn’t have a decision.”

Rosnick cited an incident from several years ago when he said another neighbor had an emergency situation in the wooded area behind the properties as justification for his request.

“It causes a safety issue,” Rosnick claimed, stating the placement of the fence – which Code Official Nick Stewart said was on the property line – causes difficulty for Rosnick to reach his back yard from his front yard. “It’s about access from the front of my lot to the back of my lot during an emergency.”

Stewart, though, said there is space available for Rosnick and others to access the back of his property, but it is partially blocked by a tree on his property.

“If he trimmed the bush, or tree, he would have plenty of room to get back there,” Stewart said.

In addition, officials noted Tuesday, Rosnick had a meeting in December on the matter, with his council representative, Councilman Anthony Rocchio, as well as Mayor Dean Harris, Police Chief Charlie Kush, City Manager Mike Adams, as well as Miller and Stewart, at which time the officials recommended Rosnick trim back the tree to ensure he has access to his back yard.

“The neighbor applied for the fence,” Miller said, adding the timing for an appeal to be filed was based on the initial decision and not when Rosnick received an answer as to whether the fence was temporary or permanent.

Under Article 3.08 of the city’s Unified Development Ordinance, an appeal must be filed within 30 days “of the original order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official or board charged with the enforcement of the zoning provisions.”

The UDO further stipulates that, within 10 days “of receipt of the appeal by the Board, the Board shall set a time for the public hearing of the appeal and give notice,” and the hearing must be held within 45 days of receipt of the appeal.

“You missed the 30-day window,” Zoning Board Chair Bill Frohnapfel told Rosnick. “We don’t want to set a precedent.”

Under city code, Rosnick would have 30 days from Tuesday’s decision to appeal to the Circuit Court if he so chooses.