Planning board denies variance for six-foot chain-link fence after neighbor objections

The Dade City Planning Board voted 5–0 to deny a three-part variance request for a six-foot chain-link fence on a corner property at Palm Avenue and 8th Street.

Staff presentation and applicant request: Community and economic development director Catherine Rolston told the board staff’s recommendation: approve the requested increase in front-yard fence height (from 4 feet to 6 feet) and the increased opacity but not the chain-link material. Rolston said staff preferred a decorative metal or other code-permitted material if the board approved the height and opacity changes.

Neighbors and applicant: The applicant, speaking at the hearing, said cost would affect whether he would accept a different material and described repeated dumping on the lot and a recent problem that included animal carcasses, saying he had installed cameras to address security concerns. Nearby resident Robert Kelly, who identified himself at the meeting as living at 13727 8th Street, said the neighborhood is historically residential and that a six-foot chain-link fence would create “industrial commercial sprawl” in the area. Another resident, Anthony Simon, who lives directly across the street, said neighbors were united in opposition and criticized the timing of notification during the holidays.

Code and board discussion: Staff identified the relevant zoning standard (code section 6.3 in the transcript) prohibiting chain-link as a permitted front-yard material when visible from the public right-of-way and noted standard opacity and setback requirements. Board members discussed alternatives: approving the height and opacity with decorative metal (which would meet opacity standards) or denying the material variance. One board member advised that any approval must include a specific development order so staff can notify the owner precisely what was approved.

Motion and vote: A board member moved to deny all three parts of the variance (location/height on the property line, increased opacity, and chain-link material). The motion to deny carried on a roll-call vote, 5–0.

What happens next: The board’s denial means the applicant does not get the requested permissions as presented; staff will issue the appropriate development order reflecting the board’s decision. The applicant was told he may remain for the next item and thanked for attending.

Reporting notes: Quotes and attributions come from the hearing transcript. The applicant did not give a name at the hearing; neighbors Robert Kelly and Anthony Simon identified themselves and were quoted directly. The staff recommendation and the cited code section were read into the record by Catherine Rolston.