Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landscape Buffer Fence Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design Review Board allows existing fence to remain but requires compliant landscape plan for 821 Wasamasa Road
Summary
The Summerville Design Review Board conditionally permitted a retroactive fence behind townhomes at 821 Wasamasa Road on June 25, 2026, ordering the owner to submit a landscape plan that meets the 15-foot buffer requirements or return to the board if staff deems the plan noncompliant.
Get email alerts on the Landscape Buffer Fence Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Summerville Design Review Board on June 25 conditionally allowed an existing perimeter fence that had been installed behind a row of townhomes at 821 Wasamasa Road while requiring the property owner to submit a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with the town’s buffer ordinance.
Staff told the board the townhomes originally received a buffer-reduction approval in 2023; the buffer on one side had been reduced to 15 feet and another to 5 feet. Staff said the fence and the plantings behind the homes were installed without inclusion in the approved plans and that the current plantings do not meet Chapter 8 landscape standards because only magnolias were used where the ordinance requires at least two species.
“We were not aware that the landscaping had already been installed or the fence,” staff said, adding that the shrubs planted immediately under the fence are unlikely to thrive and that the depth of the installed buffer does not match the approved plan. The applicant’s representative confirmed the plantings and fence were already in place and described gates installed to allow maintenance access.
The property owner of 821 Wasamasa Road told the board the fence was intended to protect residents and to prevent people from cutting through the lots. “We just want to have a fence on the property line like to protect our property,” the owner said.
A resident’s written comment, read into the record, urged the board to issue a “cease and restore” order, asserting the developer had exceeded the approved activity and saying that allowing the unpermitted work would set a poor precedent for controlling development.
Board members and staff discussed compromise options. Staff recommended allowing the divider portion of the fencing that separates individual rear yards to remain but removing the continuous back-line portion that blocks staff’s ability to verify and maintain the required buffer. Several board members said the fence improves the project’s appearance and provides privacy and security for residents.
The board approved a motion—moved and seconded in open session—to allow the fence to remain on the condition that the applicant submit an accurate landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the 15-foot buffer and related density and species requirements. If staff determines the submitted plan does not comply, the applicant must return to the DRB for further action.
The board did not record a roll-call tally in the public discussion; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff will review the submitted landscape plan for compliance and enforce maintenance requirements if the plan is approved.

