Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment denies 8-foot fence variance at Oak Lake Trail
Summary
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment denied a request to replace an 8-foot backyard privacy fence at 5729 Oak Lake Trail, finding the applicant did not demonstrate the legal hardship required for a variance.
The Seminole County Board of Adjustment on a motion denied a request to allow an 8-foot privacy fence at 5729 Oak Lake Trail, a variance from the county's fence-height limits.
The property owner sought permission to replace a previously taller fence that was damaged in a hurricane. The applicant's representative, Jonathan Mosquera, said the prior fence had been taller and “the last hurricane destroyed the fence, so she just want to replace the fence.”
The board's staff presentation said the existing 90 linear feet of 8-foot privacy fence exceeded the zoning limit and cited the variance request to Section 30.14.0.19 of the Seminole County Land Development Code. Staff indicated no prior variances for the lot and that a building permit could be approved only if the variance were granted.
Board members focused discussion on whether the applicant had met the legal standard of demonstration of hardship. Members questioned whether the request reflected a permanent hardship or a neighborhood dispute. After debate, the board took a motion to deny the variance. The chair summarized the outcome: “No. As I told the other people, this one has been denied.”
The county planning staff advised the applicant of the right to appeal the decision to the County Commission and offered to assist with the appeals process.
Background details from staff: the fence sought to be replaced was described in the staff packet as 90 linear feet of 8-foot privacy fence, and the staff report cited Section 30.14.0.19 of the Seminole County Land Development Code as the controlling authority. The applicant said the taller fence had existed prior to the current ownership and that it had been damaged by the storm.
The board did not adopt the variance, so the applicant may either revise the proposal to comply with code or seek an appeal to the county commission.
