Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission grants variances in Sky Valley subdivision, approves one fence height variance
Summary
The commission approved two variances reducing front and rear setbacks to allow homes in Sky Valley subdivision and granted a variance for a 7‑foot total fence (6‑foot fence plus 1‑foot concrete barrier) after the LPA recommended approval despite staff’s initial denial recommendation.
Hendry County commissioners approved multiple land‑use variances May 13 for lots in the Sky Valley subdivision and granted a separate variance for a fence that exceeds the usual height limit.
Ryan Alexander, director of planning and community development, presented three variance items in Sky Valley. The first two requests (VA25‑0001 and VA25‑0002) sought reductions in minimum setbacks — reducing the rear setback by 10 feet (resulting in 15 feet) and the front setback by 10 feet (resulting in 25 feet) — to allow placement of homes on unusually shaped lots. Alexander said replating the subdivision would have required a large replat and that variances offered a practical route to permit homes in character with the neighborhood. Commissioners supported the relief as an alternative to replatting; motions to approve both variances passed by voice vote.
A third application (PA25‑0003) requested permission for a six‑foot fence with a one‑foot concrete barrier at the base, yielding a total elevation of seven feet. Staff initially recommended denial because the lot did not present a peculiar hardship and the fence had already been built not matching the original permit. The Local Planning Agency (LPA) recommended approval after reviewing photos and site conditions. Commissioners debated precedent and the “ask‑forgiveness‑later” risk; county staff clarified an after‑the‑fact permit requires double fees and that some other cases would require fence removal. The board ultimately approved the fence variance but emphasized the county must be careful about setting precedent and that owner‑builders must follow permit rules.
Why this matters: Variances allow development on nonconforming lots without an expensive replat; the fence decision illustrates tradeoffs between enforcing code and avoiding costly removal of already‑constructed improvements. Commissioners directed staff to ensure permitting adjustments and to apply after‑the‑fact permit penalties where applicable.
