Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance Fence topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board allows 6‑foot front fence at 1311 Wilderness Lane for mother seeking protection for son with autism

3108052 · April 24, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board approved variance 9‑2025 to allow a 6‑foot front‑yard fence at 1311 Wilderness Lane to protect the applicant’s disabled son; staff had recommended denial and suggested a vegetative buffer instead.

The Titusville Board of Adjustment and Appeals voted April 23 to grant Variance 9‑2025, allowing a six‑foot fence in the front yard of 1311 Wilderness Lane in the multifamily high‑density (R3) district.

Applicant Alyssa Antilles asked for the variance to provide a secure front‑yard area for her 17‑year‑old son, whom she described as having an autism diagnosis with a history of elopement (wandering). Antilles said she provided medical verification of the condition and related exhibits to the board and told members she needs a taller fence because her son is now 5'10" and “the 4‑foot fence is too short for my son’s height.” She said the top two feet of the proposed fence are decorative to reduce the appearance of a solid barrier and that she has a neighbor who submitted a letter supporting the request.

City staff recommended denial, saying the subject lot ‘‘does not appear to exhibit any special conditions or circumstances’’ and that privacy and screening could be achieved through a vegetative buffer combined with a 4‑foot fence. Staff also noted the city engineer found the proposed fence would not encroach on required visibility triangles.

Board members asked whether a variance could be limited to the current owner; staff answered that zoning variances typically run with the land and cannot be conditioned to bind only the present owner. After discussion, a motion to allow the variance on the basis of special conditions carried on a roll call vote in which Chairman Taylor, Vice Chairwoman Van Diven, Member Beckles, Member Green and Member Wheelers were recorded as voting YES.

Why this matters: The decision lets the owner construct a 6‑foot front‑yard fence at the property to address an identified safety need for a household member with a disability. Staff had urged denial and suggested non‑structural screening alternatives; the board decided the individual safety argument met the variance test.