City of Maitland
FL

Public Hearing

Ordinance - Modification of Chapter 21 of the Code (Nonconforming Fences)

Information

Department:Community DevelopmentSponsors:
Category:Public Hearing

Attachments

  1. Printout
  2. Chapter 21-5. Nonconforming and Fences Final (This file has not yet been converted to a viewable format)

Financial Impact

N/A

Ord and Res Only

<Erase and Leave Blank>

Meeting History

Aug 17, 2017 6:30 PM Media Planning and Zoning Commission Regular
draft Draft

Mr. Berns-Cadle stated that the proposed ordinance modifies Chapter 21-5(I)(d) - Nonconforming structures, to provide relief for property owners in areas annexed by the City, to repair or replace pre-existing fences in part, or whole, provided the repair or replacement does not increase the nonconformity with respect to height or setback, and subject to Section 21-6(II) - Visibility at Intersections. In addition, a modification is proposed for Section 21-5(III)(a) - Fences and walls, to address preexisting fences in the Winfield Subdivision as that area maintains fence requirements which were in place in Orange County at the time of annexation into the City of Maitland. These modifications will eliminate the undue burden placed on property owners to seek variances to repair or replace pre-existing fences in an effort to adapt to current City of Maitland Code requirements for fence placement.

Ms. Blanchard, Chief Planner, answered questions from the Commission regarding the different fence variances that have been brought to the City.

Chairperson Wilde opened the item for public comment. There being no one who wished to speak, the public comment period was closed.

Mr. Holloway expressed his concerns with the unintended consequences of the proposed ordinance which would allow for non-conforming fences to be placed back on the redeveloped site.

Mr. Wilde expressed his concerns with the unintended consequences the ordinance might cause and was concerned with inequity of fence requirements for annexed vs. non-annexed properties.

A motion was made for denial of the proposed ordinance due to the exception provided in the draft ordinance being overly broad and that the circumstances under which the exception is used should be narrowed in scope by adding criteria that if the lot is completely re-developed, the fence must be brought into compliance with the current code.

Mr. Kalmanson offered a friendly amendment to suggest that the City Council narrow the scope by also adding criteria to address scenarios when re-development is not occurring; and there are no conflicts with pre-existing structures or accessory structures prohibiting fence replacement consistent with the code; in those cases specific distance requirements from pre-existing structures should be delineated in the code and applied accordingly.

Mr. Guthrie accepted the friendly amendment.

RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Vance Guthrie, Member
SECONDER:Barry Kalmanson, Member
AYES:Barry Kalmanson, Keith Holloway, Michael Wilde, Vance Guthrie

Discussion