Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds planning commission denial of variance to keep six‑foot fence at Shady Creek Lane
Summary
After a contested appeal and extensive public comment, Port Orange council voted to uphold the planning commission’s denial of a variance that would have allowed a six‑foot fence in a corner‑lot secondary front yard at 5968 Shady Creek Lane; the denial rests on variance criteria and absence of the special conditions staff requires.
The Port Orange City Council on Monday upheld a planning commission decision to deny a variance request that would have allowed a property owner to retain a six‑foot privacy fence within a corner‑lot secondary front yard.
Tim Bourbon, a city development staffer, told the council the application asked to keep an existing six‑foot fence in the secondary front yard of a corner lot. Staff recommended denial because it found no special conditions or circumstances peculiar to the lot that would meet the city’s variance criteria; staff also cited aesthetic and visibility objectives that guide front‑yard setbacks.
The applicant, Peter Francis, argued the fence has been in place about ten years, that it “does not obstruct required sight triangles” and that it serves a medical accommodation for a family member. “We’re not asking for additional fencing. We’re simply asking to keep the same existing fence that has been there for a decade,” Francis told council members. He also pointed to two earlier 2016 variances that approved six‑foot fences in similar situations and said denying his request would be inconsistent with past practice.
Multiple neighbors both supported and opposed the variance at the hearing. Supporters said the fence is well maintained, has been in place for a long time and provides privacy and safety. Opponents — including the homeowners association president and other HOA leaders — argued the fence was installed without a city permit or survey and that permitting rules must be enforced equally.
City Attorney guidance to council emphasized that the appeal is limited to the record presented to the planning commission: the council must decide whether the planning commission’s denial was supported by competent substantial evidence and applied the city’s variance criteria correctly. The applicant offered additional context, including a medical‑necessity letter, but staff and the attorney noted that material not in the planning‑commission hearing record could not be relied on in this appellate review.
After deliberation the council voted to uphold the planning commission’s denial by roll call (Council Gford, Councilman Green, Vice Mayor Grubs and Mayor Scott Stilner voted to uphold). Council members stressed the decision rests on the city’s variance standards and on the lack of an evidentiary showing in the planning‑commission record that would justify a variance.
The council’s vote leaves the property owner the options available under code (staff noted that, depending on the property line and a required survey, a four‑foot fence placed correctly within the front yard setback can be permitted).
