COUNTY OF SAN MATEO Inter-Departmental Correspondence | ||
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AGENCY | ||
DATE: |
October 18, 2005 | |
BOARD MEETING DATE: |
November 8, 2005 | |
SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING: |
10 days, within 300 feet | |
VOTE REQUIRED: |
Majority | |
TO: |
Honorable Board of Supervisors | |
FROM: |
Marcia Raines, Director of Environmental Services | |
SUBJECT: |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Consideration of a Fence Height Exception, to legalize a 7-foot high fence on the right side and rear yards, and a 6-foot high fence along the front and left side yards where 6 feet on the right and rear yards and 4 feet on the right and rear yards are allowed on the property located at 65 Inyo Place, in the unincorporated Sequoia Tract area of San Mateo County. (Appeal of Planning Commission's decision for denial.) | |
RECOMMENDATION | ||
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the fence height exception. | ||
VISION ALIGNMENT | ||
Commitment No. 3: “Ensuring basic health and safety for all.” The Planning Commission in making its decision found that the approval of the fence height exception was in conflict with this commitment. | ||
Goal No. 7: Maintain and enhance the public safety of all residents and visitors. The Planning Commission’s denial of the over-height fence, if upheld, would result in the fence being lowered as not to jeopardize public safety. | ||
BACKGROUND | ||
In July 2004, the owner of 65 Inyo Place, a corner lot, was cited with a violation for an over-height fence. In response, the owner applied for a retroactive fence height exception to which several objections from neighbors were received. On December 14, 2004, the Planning Director denied the application for the fence height exception to legalize the fence because Section 6412.2(3) of the Zoning Regulations requires the Planning Director to deny such an exception if any member of the public or organization or association has submitted to the Planning Director written objection to the exception request. The applicant appealed that decision on December 29, 2004. | ||
Planning Commission Action: On May 11, 2005, the Planning Commission on a 3-2 vote denied the appeal, citing difficulty in making the finding that public safety would not be jeopardized due to perceived safety issues at the intersection of the two streets. | ||
The Planning Commission heard testimony from the property owner and concerned neighbors. The neighbor’s concerns focused on compromised line-of-sight issues for pedestrians and vehicular traffic, and possible negative safety impacts on the neighborhood should the fence be approved in its current configuration. | ||
On May 31, 2005, the property owner filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision, and this item was referred to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision. | ||
FISCAL IMPACT | ||
No fiscal impact. | ||