Chairman Bernard Johns stated that it’s his understanding that they put fences up for
construction all the time, but when the construction is completed, the fences typically
go down so if someone decide to leave it there, it would stay. Ms. Hammel responded
that in this specific situation it was not constructed for security purposes, probably to
make it a selling point. Chairman Johns replied that it was put up inappropriately. Mr.
Hattaway added that if it was part of the plat and the Board of County Commissioners
approved it, they have blessed it. Ms. Hammel replied that it wasn’t part of the plat, it
was part of the engineering plans.
Mr. Kunzen asked staff if the required setback in that area it would be fifteen (15) feet
and that would include any part of the fence, not just the fence running parallel to the
county right-of-way that would also include the perpendicular side. Ms. Padin
responded that yes, any fence would be included as part of that. Mr. Kunzen added so
that mean that fence would end eleven and one-half (11.5) feet shorter than it actually
does. Mrs. Padin responded correct.
Mr. Kunzen asked if there have been any other variances approved in that subdivision
for corner lots. Ms. Padin responded yes there have been multiple and listed out that
2662 Estuary Loop was approved to five (5) feet was approved in April 2022, 2715
Estuary Loop was approved to three (3) feet in 2020, 3096 Cristal Water Run was
approved to five (5) feet in 2021 and 2641 Estuary Loop was denied twice at three (3)
feet and eight (8) feet.
Michael Dantes, Applicant, was present and stated that he was able to get an approval
from his HOA and provided a copy of it to the Clerk. He advised that they have spoken
to the neighbors and they don’t have any issues with it. He stated that they are
currently building a pool, so this fence would bring privacy and security for the kids.
Chairman Johns asked Mr. Dantes how much distance he wanted to leave in between
the edge of the pool and the fence, and the applicant responded ten (10) feet.
Chairman Johns asked if they were going to erect the fence at the edge of the of the
patio deck, how far that would put it off from the corner of the house and Mr. Dantes
responded it would be right off the lanai and he further stated that there were previous
variances that they approved for more or less and the builder told him that they were
able to attach to that fence. He advised that the variance that was approved for five (5)
feet is actually measured at almost three (3) feet from the sidewalk. Chairman Johns
replied that if they put it in the wrong place, that would be a Code Enforcement issue
and just because this happened doesn’t make it right and the setback is measured
from the property line, not the sidewalk.
No one from the audience spoke in favor or opposition to this request.
A motion was made by Jim Hattaway, seconded by Tom Kunzen, to deny this variance
request.
Mr. Hattaway stated that it’s unfortunate to the homeowner that he is going through
this, but that doesn’t give him an entitlement.
Chairman Johns asked the Board if there’s a lesser distance that they could agree on
and Mr. Hattaway replied that this homeowner already has these expectations since