The most debated topic was the variance request submitted by Alio Reior, seeking permission to install a fence at the property line of his home, located on Maple Terrace. The request was controversial due to the property’s location east of the Palmetto Expressway, which required a 15-foot setback according to local zoning regulations. However, the property is adjacent to a 20-foot greenway, complicating the matter as the greenway is technically town property.

Justin Teleria from Planning and Transportation introduced the variance application, explaining that the proposed six-foot wood fence would conflict with existing zoning laws. The applicant, Reior, argued that the fence was necessary to protect a mango tree from which people had been taking fruit. He presented photographs to support his case and stated that he maintained the green area between the sidewalk and the street.

Board members were split on the issue. Some noted discrepancies between the survey and site observations, questioning the existence and actual measurements of the greenway. Further complicating the matter was the fact that the applicant’s request would place the fence on town property, rather than adhering to the required setback.

A board member suggested conditioning the fence approval on the retention of the mango tree, emphasizing that the variance would be invalidated if the tree were removed. The applicant confirmed his intention to maintain the tree. Additionally, a motion was suggested to limit the size of any gates along the fence to prevent future misuse, specifically proposing a six-foot wide double gate for lawn care access only.

Despite the complexities, the board voted to approve the fence request, with four members in favor and one opposing. The approval came with the stipulation that the fence must be set six feet from the property line and include two three-foot gates for access.

In addition to the fence variance, the board discussed a proposed ordinance to establish a new RM30 zoning designation. This zoning change aims to fill the gap between the existing low-density RM23 and higher-density RM36 and RM50 designations. The RM30 designation would allow for medium low-density residential projects, providing developers with more options without imposing excessive restrictions.

The ordinance also included a correction to the maximum building height, adjusting it from four stories to five stories, with a total height limit of 65 feet. This change was intended to offer flexibility in negotiations with developers.

Board members emphasized that the RM30 designation was not tied to any specific properties but would serve as a framework for future high-density residential projects. The designation was designed to prevent situations where the town might have to compromise on development outcomes. The ordinance was unanimously recommended for council consideration, underscoring its strategic importance for the town’s planning and negotiations with developers.