Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board grants variance for 7‑foot backyard fence at Church Avenue historic home
Summary
After extended discussion about historic‑district standards, privacy and enforcement, the Planning Board granted a variance allowing a 7‑foot fence at 37547 Church Avenue, citing privacy and a deep backyard pool as extraordinary conditions; the final vote was 3–2 in favor.
The Dade City Planning Board approved a variance allowing a seven‑foot fence on the side and rear property lines at 37547 Church Avenue, a designated historic property in the Church Avenue Historic District.
Staff recommended denial, saying the fence as built does not conform with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) and that the site had no extraordinary or exceptional conditions to warrant a variance. The Historic Board had recommended reductions to better match the district, and staff said the historic board’s recommendation was advisory rather than binding.
Why it matters: the property is within the Church Avenue Historic District and the LDR normally limits residential fences to six feet. A variance affects how historic‑area design character and privacy considerations are balanced in a neighborhood with mixed conditions.
Arguments and evidence
Staff noted the house (built 1918) is a designated historic structure and recommended denial because granting a variance would confer a special privilege not available to other properties and the strict application of the 6‑foot rule would not deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land.
Supporters of the variance emphasized privacy and safety. One board member, speaking from personal experience, cited an “exceptionally deep pool” in the backyard and said, as a former law‑enforcement officer and a parent, he preferred greater privacy for children and pool safety; another board member noted the house sits elevated above grade, which increases visibility into the yard. The homeowner said the fence was installed by a contractor who failed to pull the required permit.
Board action
After an initial motion to deny failed, the board voted on a motion to approve the variance based on cited extraordinary conditions related to privacy and the deep pool. The final roll‑call vote recorded on the transcript was: Board member Barker — Aye; Board member Chaff (McKeef) — Aye; Chair Michael Stout — Aye; Board member Simon — No; Board member Levins — No. The motion carried 3–2.
Consequences and compliance
The board framed the approval narrowly: it cited privacy and the presence of a very deep pool as the extraordinary conditions that justified relief from the six‑foot fence limit. Staff noted that failure to obtain a permit is a separate code‑enforcement matter; code enforcement remedies (fines, lien) remain available if compliance is not obtained. The historic board’s nonbinding recommendation remains part of the public record and staff will monitor any follow‑up required by code enforcement or building‑permit review.
Ending: The variance authorizes the existing fence as installed; staff and the board said they expect that code enforcement, permits or small modifications may follow to ensure the fence meets any additional safety or historic‑area standards required by the city.
