Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fences And Walls topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ARB approves alternative-design fence at 13680 Paddock Drive with setback and screening conditions
Summary
The Architectural Review Board approved a request to allow galvanized metal fencing that simulates wood at 13680 Paddock Drive, subject to relocating a front-plane gate to meet a five-foot setback, flipping a reversed panel, and adding screening where required.
The Village of Wellington Architectural Review Board on April 28 approved an alternative-design fence at 13680 Paddock Drive for owner Ricardo Garcia, with conditions that the fence meet setback requirements, be flipped where installed backwards, and be screened from the street where required.
Jonathan Sandoval, a planner representing the Planning and Zoning Department, presented petition 2025-0004-ARB and said the proposed six-foot galvanized metal fence is not on the ARB’s approved list of fence materials and “is neither similar or compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.” Sandoval said the double gate currently installed fails to meet the required five-foot setback from the front plane of the structure and that, on the western side, a panel was installed with the ornamental face turned inward (installed “backwards”). Sandoval provided a survey highlighting the fence’s locations and recommended conditions that the fence be moved to the location shown on the survey, that the east-side panel meet the five-foot setback, and that the west-side panel be flipped so the finished side faces the neighbor.
Ricardo Garcia, the property owner, said he replaced a previous wooden fence after installing a pool and that the pool contractor removed the front fence pieces to bring equipment in and did not replace or pull permits. Garcia said he believed the new material “does simulate wood” and that others who saw photos assumed it was wood until he noted it was galvanized metal. He told the board he intends to replace the reversed wood panel and to comply with code requirements once clarified during the permit process.
Board members and staff discussed screening requirements for fixed fence panels visible from the road. Sandoval and Kelly explained that vegetation screening is required for non-movable fence panels and that the applicant will need to provide at least one or two plants to meet screening definitions where applicable. The board emphasized that ARB can approve an alternative material in a specific case without making it a system-wide precedent, and that the ARB cannot grant setback variances; setback relief must come from the planning manager or other appropriate authority.
A board member moved to approve petition 2025-0004-ARB, with staff recommendations; a second was provided and the board voted in favor by voice vote.
Conditions noted in the approval include: relocating the double gate to meet the five-foot setback from the front plane of the structure on the eastern side, flipping the reversed western panel so the finished face faces neighbors, and installing required screening vegetation where the fence is fixed and visible from the street. The approval is subject to the applicant obtaining required building permits and any additional review by the planning and building departments.
