TO: Zoning Commission
THRU: Craig Harmon, CZO - Senior Planner
FROM: Demetrios Moutos, AICP - Planner II
DATE: March 10, 2026
RE:Title
A26-11 - Variance (Fence Height/Minimum Setback)
SteelFab of Virginia, Inc. (Chuck Craig, owner/agent) requests a variance from the City’s fence/wall standards (Section 30-5. D.4). The company seeks to keep the existing chain-link fence at 0 Shaw Mill Rd (PIN 0429257544000) at six (6) feet in height and in its current yard/setback location to secure an industrial steel fabrication site. This request is in place of the four (4) foot maximum height and minimum setback requirements for fencing in the front and corner side yard areas.
Title
end
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
City Council District 3 - Antonio Jones
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
This request directly supports the City’s FY2025 Strategic Plan mission to provide “quality and sustainable public services” that support communities and businesses.
Most Direct Alignment
• Goal I - Safety & Security (Objective 1.3): The applicant states that the existing fence height and location deter unauthorized access and illegal dumping on an active industrial site. This intent supports the City’s goal to maintain a safe and secure community, including the objective to ensure a low incidence of property and violent crime.
Secondary Alignment
• Goal II - Diverse & Viable Economy (Objective 2.4): The request enables the established industrial business to continue operating by maintaining site security and limiting operational disruption related to relocating or downsizing the fence. This approach helps the City sustain a favorable development climate that encourages business growth.
• Goal III - City Investment Planning (Objectives 3.2 and 3.4): The City applies land use regulations (strategic land use) in this case and addresses recurring dumping and trespass, described by the applicant as a quality-of-place and compliance issue. These actions help the City manage growth, strategic land use, and neighborhood revitalization through effective code enforcement and violations abatement.
Executive Summary:
SteelFab of Virginia, Inc. requests a variance for 0 Shaw Mill Rd (PIN 0429257544000). The applicant seeks relief from UDO §30-5. D.4 to keep the existing chain-link fence at its current location and at 6 feet in height.
Table 30-5. D. 4 limits chain-link fences serving other development to 4 feet in front and corner side yards and requires a 10-foot minimum setback in those areas. The applicant says the request is for site security, preventing unauthorized dumping, and keeping an internal site road within the fenced area.
Background:
Zoning Permit Request and Staff Determination
On January 15, 2026, the applicant submitted a zoning permit request to replace a damaged chain-link fence at 0 Shaw Mill Rd (PIN 0429257544000). Zoning staff denied the request, citing UDO fence standards that require a 10-foot setback and limit fence height to 4 feet in front and corner side yards for chain-link fences serving other development.
Applicant Response
After the denial, the applicant explained that the previous fence was 6 feet tall and that the replacement restored that height. The applicant said the fence secures the industrial business and lowering it to 4 feet would make the site vulnerable to theft, safety risks, and illegal dumping.
Variance Application
After staff denied the permit, the applicant filed a variance application (Project #2029178) to seek relief from UDO §30-5. D.4 for fence height and minimum setback. The applicant requests to keep the fence at 6 feet, even though the ordinance allows only 4 feet for chain-link fences in front and corner side yards.
The applicant says the request is for security, preventing dumping, and keeping the fence location to secure an internal road. The applicant claims moving the fence to meet the setback would place the road outside the secured area and affect operations, while increased security would help deter dumping and limit unauthorized access.
Ownership Documentation
The case file includes a recorded deed showing that SteelFab of Virginia, Inc. owns the property.
Issues/Analysis:
What Fence Standards Apply to This Request?
The UDO establishes fence location, height, and appearance standards to maintain visual harmony, protect adjacent properties from unsightliness, and ensure safety, security, and privacy.
Key provisions applicable to this request include:
• Location in relation to right-of-way and visibility
o Fences must stand outside the public right-of-way and cannot exceed 30 inches in height within a required site triangle.
o The UDO also states that fences and walls cannot exceed 30 inches in required sight triangles or visibility areas.
• Height and minimum setback for chain-link serving nonresidential (“other”) development
o Chain-link fences serving other development may be 4 feet tall in front and corner side yards and 6 feet tall in interior and rear yards. The minimum setback is 10 feet in the front and corner side yard.
o If the property line extends into the right-of-way, measure the front or corner side setback from the edge of the sidewalk (if there is one) or 10 feet from the edge of the pavement.
• Landscape screening when taller fences sit near a street
o If a fence or wall exceeds 4 inches in height and sits within 15 feet of a public right-of-way, the owner must include landscape screening between the fence and the right-of-way.
o Fences subject to this screening requirement must stand at least 5 feet from the edge of the public right-of-way to provide space for landscaping.
• Appearance standards (when visible)
o Where a fence has more finished site, the owner must face the finished side toward the perimeter of the lot, not the interior.
o Fence segments along a single lot side must use a uniform style and compatible colors.
What the Applicant Requests (Height and Location)
The applicant requests a variance from UDO §30-5. D.4 for fence height and minimum setback. The applicant seeks to keep the fence in place at 6 feet in height, even though Table 30-5. D. 4 lists a 4-foot standard for chain-link fences serving other development in front and corner side yards.
The applicant also states that commercial and industrial businesses, including those across the street, surround the property. The applicant describes the fence as serving an industrial steel fabrication site.
What Decision Standards Govern a Variance?
Decision makers may approve a variance only if all listed standards are met, including:
1. Strict application causes practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships (without requiring a reasonable use),
2. Unique circumstances related to the land (such as location, size, or topography) cause hardships that are not common to the neighborhood or general public.
3. The variance allows reasonable use with the least deviation from the ordinance,
4. The variance aligns with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and
5. The variance assures public safety and welfare and achieves substantial justice.
What Evidence Did the Applicant Provide in the Record?
The applicant provides the following statements to support the variance standards:
• Practical difficulties/unnecessary hardship:
o The applicant says strict application leaves the property vulnerable to unwanted visitors and fails to prevent illegal dumping. Moving the fence to meet the setback would place a road on the wrong side of the fence, slow production, and increase access for unwanted visitors and dumping.
• Unique circumstances related to the land:
o The applicant says limiting the site to a4-foot fencing so far in on the property leaves the industrial property vulnerable to unwanted visitors and creates additional safety issues.
• Minimum action:
o The applicant says the variance would secure the industrial property, include the site road within the fence to allow efficient daily production, and reduce illegal dumping and uninvited visitors on the work site.
• Harmony with ordinance purpose/intent:
o The applicant says the site is in an industrial, commercial, and retail area, and the fence will help slow or stop illegal dumping.
• Public safety/welfare:
o The applicant says the fence will prevent uninvited persons from entering an area where they could get injured.
Related Fence Requirements That Might Be Affected by the Request
Because the applicant requests a 6-foot fence without meeting the required setback, any fence segment over 4 feet tall and within 15 feet of a public right-of-way triggers the UDO’s landscape screening requirement and the minimum 5-foot offset from the right-of-way for screening space.
Budget Impact:
This variance request does not directly change City expenditures or revenues. Staff expect any fiscal effects to stay limited to normal administrative costs for application intake, noticing, staff review, and the quasi-judicial hearing process. If the fence stays nonconforming without approval, the City may incur routine compliance and enforcement workload as part of standard code administration.
Options:
After the evidentiary hearing and close of evidence, the Zoning Commission must consider the application, support materials, and sworn testimony or evidence in the record, and then take one of the following actions based on the variance standards in UDO §30-2. C.14.f:
1. Approval of the application as submitted.
2. Approval of the application subject to conditions.
3. Denial of the application.
Voting threshold: Granting a variance requires an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5) of the members who are eligible to vote.
Decision and notice: The chair (or other authorized member) signs the written decision and files it with the clerk to the board, making the decision effective. The notifying party must deliver the decision to the applicant, property owner, and any person who submitted a written request for a copy before the effective date, using personal delivery, email, or first-class mail, and must certify proper notice.
Recommended Action::Recommended Action
N/A
end
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Aerial Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Future Land Use Map
5. Subject Property Photos
6. Surrounding Property Photos
7. Site Plan