Resident asks Danville board for variance to place fence in drainage easement over child‑safety concerns

Lucas Callahan told the Danville Town Board of Zoning Appeals on July 1 that he needs a 4½‑foot black aluminum fence placed inside a drainage and utility easement at his home because a recent land‑use ordinance left his backyard too steep and unsafe for his young children.

Callahan, who said his family entered a purchase agreement for the lot in 2023 and closed in June 2024, told the board he was unaware the town’s new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would reduce the property’s usable principal area. "We closed on our home in June 2024," he said, describing a backyard with steep grades and safety hazards. He recounted being attacked by a dog and finding a 25‑pound snapping turtle at the property’s perimeter, and said, "I have 3 young kids" and did not feel he had time to wait for a permit process before installing a fence.

Callahan presented supporting materials that he said included a prior permit for a similar fence in the subdivision (February 2024), signed affidavits from adjacent neighbors reporting no drainage issues, and rainfall data showing April 2025 as an unusually wet month used as a baseline for assessing drainage performance. He argued that the proposed fence is an HOA‑approved style and would not substantially impair drainage performance.

Board members questioned whether the ordinance took effect before Callahan closed and pressed on long‑term drainage risks. One member summarized the ordinance’s intent: fences in drainage easements can trap debris and obstruct water flow depending on soil and site conditions. Board members suggested engineering mitigations such as elevating the fence by several inches to allow water to pass underneath and discussed requiring a recorded deed restriction that would put future property owners on notice and make the current owner responsible for removing the fence at their expense if it later caused problems.

Staff read a recommendation stating that the petition (BZA‑2025‑2250) "has satisfied the requirements for variances under state law" and suggested conditions be attached, including a deed restriction and written maintenance and removal obligations tied to the property record. The board discussed tying any approval to a restrictive covenant recorded with the county so future buyers would see the condition.

The transcript records the petitioner’s explanations, the board’s technical concerns about debris and enforcement, and staff’s conditional recommendation, but it does not include a clear roll‑call or final recorded vote on the variance in the provided excerpts. The meeting later proceeded to adjourn after a separate motion to close the session.