Brandon staff says homeowner must seek variance; no immediate change to fence ordinance

Brandon planning staff and commissioners discussed a homeowner's request to place a privacy fence that would encroach toward a city sidewalk and whether the town's zoning code should be changed to allow such fences on corner lots. Planning staff said the immediate option for the homeowner is to apply for a variance because the commission was not prepared to rewrite the ordinance.

The matter arose after a property owner described a proposed alteration to a privacy fence and asked whether it would be permitted. Brandon (a meeting participant) said the town likely has “probably a 100 plus houses in town that are corner lots that have privacy fences that go over the sidewalk, at least on part of the sidewalk.” Planning staff replied that city sidewalks are public and “must stop at the property line,” and that changing the code to allow fences in the front yard could lead to many front-yard fences the commission may not want.

Planning staff detailed the practical and legal hurdles to a code change. “Does not having a fence in a certain location prevent the reasonable use of the property? That's the standard for a variance,” the staff member said, adding that the hardship standard is high and that applicants would need to show the lack of the specific fence location “deprives the owner of the reasonable use of its property.” Staff also warned that a variance application carries fees to cover notices and other processes required by local and state law.

Commissioners and staff also discussed technical code definitions under review, including how to define a primary front yard on double- or multi-frontage lots, whether the “address front yard” should determine setbacks, and how to treat flagpole lots (lots with less than minimum frontage). Staff said they had drafted a flagpole-lot definition and were refining language around primary and secondary front yards; examples discussed included properties on Cedar and South Sixth streets, where house orientation can complicate which side is treated as the front.

No formal ordinance change was adopted. Planning staff recommended that, absent a code amendment supported by the commission, the homeowner pursue a variance and review prior board-of-adjustment decisions to gauge how similar requests have been handled. Staff suggested placing the broader definitions discussion on a future agenda for additional review.

The commission also highlighted safety-related restrictions that already exist in zoning drafts, including potential line-of-sight requirements and limits on six-foot fences facing streets with driveways. No vote was taken on changing the ordinance during the meeting.