Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Dade City Planning Board approves variance for 6-foot privacy fence at 38375 Honeysuckle Drive, 4–0

Dade City Planning Board · February 4, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Dade City Planning Board voted 4–0 to allow a 6-foot, greater-than-50%-opaque privacy fence on a corner lot at 38375 Honeysuckle Drive, with staff citing extraordinary lot frontages and an HOA sign easement as justification.

The Dade City Planning Board voted 4–0 to approve a variance allowing a 6-foot privacy fence that exceeds the usual front-yard height and opacity limits at 38375 Honeysuckle Drive.

Planner staff presented the request and told the board the lot is in the Clinton Corner subdivision with a planned-development residential zoning and a medium-density future land use designation. The presentation said the petitioner seeks an exception to the code that limits front-yard fences to 4 feet and to 50% opacity on corner lots. The planner said the site has two extraordinary conditions: the parcel has three frontages (Clinton Avenue to the north, Kiley Court to the east and Honeysuckle Drive to the south) and an HOA monument sign easement in the northeast corner of the lot. "Staff's recommendation is to approve the variance request for the maximum height requirement as well as the variance request for the opacity," the presenter said.

Board members asked whether the fence could be built along the house line and whether the applicants would have the option to locate the fence to increase privacy for windows. The planner confirmed the proposed plan shows the fence set back in blue, but that the property owner could lawfully place a fence closer to the front in some configurations.

A board member moved to approve the variance and the motion was seconded; the board then voted and the motion passed 4–0. No opposing votes or abstentions were recorded.