Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Exemption Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies 10‑foot security exemption for Brandywine basketball‑court fence
Summary
After competing testimony from the Reed family and nearby Morrisons, the board denied a requested 10‑foot security exemption for a backyard basketball court fence at 15601 Taylorton Lane (V‑23‑26), finding the application did not meet the security‑exemption standard.
Get email alerts on the Security Exemption Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Prince George's County Board of Appeals on June 3 denied a requested 10‑foot security exemption for a fence around a backyard basketball court at 15601 Taylorton Lane in Brandywine.
Petitioners, the Reeds, told the board their lot is the first home in the neighborhood and that every vehicle entering the area passes their front yard. The petitioner said the fence is needed to contain balls and protect their three children from hazards, including copperhead snakes in nearby woods: “We are actually seeking a variance because our property is subject to extraordinary conditions…we have 3 children that range from ages 5 to 15,” the petitioner said.
Neighbors Anthony and Sharon Morrison opposed the 10‑foot request, saying a 10‑foot fence was “probably not necessary” and raising questions about setback and where the fence would be placed relative to the court and property line. The Morrisons said they had documented multiple balls entering their yard and had installed tree screening.
Board members questioned whether a 6‑foot fence would address containment, the exact placement and setback of the proposed fence, and whether alternatives — such as nets or different court placement — had been adequately considered. The chair said the board did not find the case met the standard for a 10‑foot security exemption and noted the application requested 10 feet rather than 6.
Vice Chair Johnston moved to deny V‑23‑26; Member Stanton seconded. The board administrator called the roll and recorded a unanimous 3–0 vote to deny the application. The chair noted the board could support a separate application for a 6‑foot fence but could not substitute a lower height in the current order because the petition requested 10 feet.
The board’s decision means the Reeds may either submit a new application for a lower fence height or pursue other remedies with their neighbors; the board did not adopt a modification to grant 6 feet on this application.
