Danville board denies homeowner’s variance to keep fence in drainage and utility easement

Danville — The Danville Board of Zoning Appeals denied a variance request from a homeowner seeking to keep a fence that encroaches into a drainage and utility easement after a public hearing and staff recommendation to deny.

The petitioner, identified in the hearing as Mr. Calpian, told the board the fence matches neighboring permitted fencing and presented engineering excerpts and calculations he said show minimal drainage impact. He said the peak modeled flow through his yard in a 100-year storm is 0.94 cubic feet per second (about six gallons per second) and that engineering review he consulted estimated depth at less than three inches. "The fence serves all essential safety functions well," he said, and offered to file a development-commitment form, assume financial responsibility for any required removal and to raise the bottom of fence posts where they cross the easement.

Town staff and board members disputed the petitioner’s reading of available permissions. Staff explained the development’s Planned Unit Development ordinance prohibits fences or walls within drainage and utility easements; the board’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) took effect May 1, 2024, and the petitioner’s permit had been denied because the fence lies in an easement. At the hearing a staff member said, "the ordinance was adopted in February and became effective May 1," to explain the regulatory timeline.

Board members discussed site topography, the routing of nearby drainage structures, and the long-term risk that posts or a fence in the flow line could damage subsurface underdrains if they are present. Staff emphasized that responsibility for maintenance and any future removal or replacement would remain with the homeowner if work in the easement becomes necessary.

Following deliberations and a staff recommendation to deny, a board member moved to deny the variance, a second was recorded, and the board carried the motion in a roll call vote. The board’s action means the variance was denied for the fence as built within the drainage/utility easement. The board recorded the decision and moved to the next agenda item.

The hearing record includes petitioner commitments to bear costs for removal if required and to file a development-commitment form; the town also noted that existing fences installed under prior rules may be treated differently depending on whether they were permitted and when they were constructed.