Taylor planning board approves variance to allow 6-foot fence at Honeybucket site

The City of Taylor Planning and Zoning Board approved a variance on a voice vote to allow a 6-foot fence at a Honeybucket portable-restroom cleaning facility at 1900 OLG Cemetery Road.

Planner Preston Gunn told the board the property sits off FM 112 next to the city wastewater treatment plant and that staff mailed six notices and received no inquiries or opposition. Gunn said the request would increase the existing frontage fencing from the Land Development Code maximum of 4 feet (and 50% see-through) to a 6-foot chain-link fence with slats and added landscaping.

The variance resolves an apparent conflict between the Land Development Code and the city’s vegetation rules. Gunn said the vegetation ordinance (Chapter 28) calls for 6-foot screening for storage-type uses along the road, while the Land Development Code limits frontage fences to 4 feet and 50% visibility. “Porta potties aren’t generally something that people wanna see along that road,” Gunn said, describing the screening goal.

Gunn told the board the applicant volunteered both taller fencing and additional shrubs and trees so the site would be screened immediately and increasingly by vegetation over time. He also said the taller fence would add security at the site.

Board member Craig moved to approve the variance “to allow the fence height to be 6 foot instead of 4 feet.” The motion was seconded by a board member whose name was not specified in the record and passed on a voice vote with no recorded opposition. The board did not record individual roll-call votes.

Staff told the board the applicant could, without a variance, meet the Land Development Code by using vegetation in place of a taller opaque fence; the applicant elected to pursue both taller fencing and plantings. Gunn advised the board that state law requires a variance to be consistent with at least one state standard and that the conflict between the local codes made the requested variance supportable under that framework.

The board provided no additional conditions in the motion; a board member asked whether the board should supply a written justification and was told the board’s action could be supported by referring to staff recommendations.

No further public comment was recorded on the item. The meeting moved on after the vote.