Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Decks Patios topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates allowing covered decks on shared-wall setbacks, rejects rear-setback encroachment
Summary
Planning commissioners discussed proposed code language to allow uncovered raised patios to extend toward common walls and considered whether covered decks (with roofs) should be treated differently; consensus favored allowing covered decks to abut shared side property lines on new construction but not to encroach on rear-yard setbacks.
Brandon Planning Commission members discussed an amendment proposal that would allow open, unenclosed patios or decks under certain conditions to extend to the common wall of single‑family attached housing. Commissioners wrestled with whether a roofed (covered) deck should receive the same leniency as an uncovered patio and whether any change should apply citywide.
Staff explained the current code treats an unenclosed, uncovered patio under 12 inches above grade differently from raised decks over 12 inches and that, historically, the zoning code required larger setbacks for decks and covered structures because of privacy and sightline concerns. A staff speaker referenced ongoing ordinance work (section 7‑31) that aims to allow certain uncovered patios to be located closer to interior lot lines but said that applying the same standard to covered decks would raise building-code and fire-safety issues because roofed areas are treated as part of the principal structure.
Commissioners repeatedly said they were reluctant to allow roofed or enclosed structures to intrude into rear-yard setbacks. Several members expressed willingness to consider covered decks abutting a shared side/property wall as part of new-construction designs, provided any encroachment into a side setback included appropriate fire-rating and limitations on openings (to prevent direct views into neighbors’ yards). One commissioner said, “Once it has a roof on it… that should fall within the building setback limits.” Another commissioner said the group is “not interested in going to the rear setback” for covered decks.
The commission discussed options for handling builder requests and subdivision scenarios (where a shared deck built before subdivision can create nonconformities after lot splits). Staff said the proposal could be addressed either by amending the code broadly or by handling specific situations through variances; commissioners asked staff to draft clearer language and limits, such as a depth cap for patios extended into setbacks and explicit treatment of fire-rated walls and permitted openings.
No formal vote was taken on code language. The commission indicated a policy direction: favoring side‑setback allowances for covered decks on new construction in some cases, but rejecting rear‑setback encroachments and requesting staff to prepare draft ordinance language and options for future consideration.
