Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Code Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davie council grants after‑the‑fact variance for homeowner’s opaque gate after heated neighborhood debate
Summary
After extended public comment and council discussion over code precedent and neighborhood aesthetics, the council granted a variance allowing an opaque, higher gate at a West Davie property. The motion passed 4–1.
The Town of Davie granted a variance Wednesday allowing a homeowner to retain a recently installed opaque gate on a West Davie property after several residents, staff and council members debated whether the installation violated town opacity and height rules.
Why it matters: the item drew lengthy public testimony and council scrutiny because council members said approving the variance could set a precedent for similar opaque, taller gates across town. Opponents pointed to unpermitted work and concerns about enforcement equity; supporters emphasized private‑property safety and aesthetics.
Public testimony and factual background The homeowner’s representative said the gate replaced a previously permitted, more open fence and was fitted with an anti‑theft backing after an attempted burglary on a vehicle. The representative said the original 2016 permit authorized a 3½–4‑foot fence; at some point the property then had a taller, mostly open rail fence. When the current owner added the opaque backing, the gate became more than 50% opaque, which the representative said triggered the current code issue.
Planning staff and the applicant’s attorney both told council that an earlier town building‑department email and a 2016 permit number complicated the record. Planning and zoning manager David Quigley noted an additional objection letter had been submitted after the prior council meeting and was included in the meeting backup.
Council debate and legal points Council members discussed whether the applicable ordinance clearly regulates gates as opposed to fences, and whether noncompliant work from a previous owner carries forward when a property is sold. Town staff confirmed unpermitted work typically remains the responsibility of a new owner. Several council members said they had driven past the property and did not find the gate objectionable on aesthetic grounds. Others said approving the variance would invite numerous similar applications and complicate enforcement of rural‑lifestyle regulations.
Council action A motion to approve the variance (V25‑065 / Marty) passed 4–1. Council member Whitman voted no and later requested a motion (the vote passed after a second). Council members Starkey, Hatton and Lewis voted yes.
What the variance does and next steps The variance permits the existing gate and certain elements of the fence in their current configuration. Council members directed staff to consider town‑wide code clarifications about gates and fencing so the town can address whether rules should change and how to handle similar applications going forward. There was no immediate ruling on fines or removal; the variance effectively resolves the immediate compliance question for this property.
Speakers quoted or cited in this report include the homeowner’s representative, planning and zoning manager David Quigley, and council members who participated in the debate.
