Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning agency approves variance for fence at 6985 Maple Terrace with gate-size condition
Summary
The Miami Lakes Local Planning Agency approved a variance allowing a homeowner at 6985 Maple Terrace to construct a six-foot wood fence on a side yard property line that would otherwise require a 15-foot setback on the town's east side, conditioned on limited gate width and standard setback from the property line.
At a meeting of the Miami Lakes Local Planning Agency, members voted 4–1 to approve variance VARH-2025-0153 allowing a six-foot wood fence along the side-yard property line at 6985 Maple Terrace, provided the owner meet setback limits and restrict gate width.
The variance sought relief from Section 13-1509, which requires a 15-foot setback for fences on the town's east side. Planning staff had recommended denial, saying the property does not demonstrate a unique hardship compared with other east-side lots; the property does, however, abut a town-owned greenway and sidewalk area that separates the sidewalk from the proposed fence line.
Planning and transportation staff member Justin Talleria told the agency that the fence would be along the northwest perimeter of the property at the intersection of Dade Pine Avenue and Maple Terrace and that survey materials show a town-maintained greenway between the sidewalk and the applicant’s property line. Applicant Emilio Ramirez said he is proposing a six-foot wood fence placed at his property line to protect a mango tree and create a small private yard for gardening; Ramirez provided photographs to the agency.
During discussion agency members and staff clarified several technical points: survey measurements presented at the hearing showed roughly 17.6 feet from sidewalk to property line at one corner and about 21.9 feet from sidewalk to the house at another point (combined distances the panel described in the hearing as roughly 40–45 feet along the block). Staff and commissioners also confirmed the strip between sidewalk and property is town property and that maintenance responsibility currently falls to the resident. Staff noted that even with a fence the side-yard would remain subject to limits on hardscape and would not be permitted as a driveway or vehicle storage area; vehicle gates were described as discouraged.
Board members questioned whether approving a fence at the property line would set an unusual precedent because most east-side properties must place fences back 15 feet. Several members said the town-maintained greenway lessened harms in this specific case. One commissioner recommended placing a condition limiting gate size to avoid future vehicle access. The applicant said he did not receive neighbor letters and had not discussed the proposal with adjacent homeowners prior to applying.
A motion to approve the variance carried after the panel added conditions drawn from the discussion: the fence must meet the town-required setback measurement as stated during the hearing (the mover referenced a 6-inch interior setback from the property line as the technical requirement cited in the motion) and the approval was conditioned on limiting gate openings to two three-foot panels (a combined six feet of gate width) for pedestrian and small-equipment access only. The roll call on the motion recorded Board member Valencia voting no and Board members Cruz, De La Sierra, Vice Chair Rodriguez and Chair Senra voting yes; the motion passed.
Next steps: the applicant may proceed to apply for building permits consistent with the variance approval and the conditions imposed by the agency. Any permit that proposes vehicle access across the greenway or a larger vehicle gate would be subject to review and possible denial by code enforcement and planning staff.
