Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Height Landscaping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves 5‑foot maximum for front‑yard fence and gates at 954 Conchaloma Drive after lengthy discussion
Summary
After extended public and board discussion about safety, neighborhood character and unpermitted work, the Architectural Review Board approved a motion to allow the applicants a maximum 5‑foot fence and gate across the front setback; staff advised the existing unpermitted fence will need modification to comply with the decision.
The Carpinteria Architectural Review Board voted to allow a maximum 5‑foot fence and driveway gate at 954 Conchaloma Drive after extensive discussion of neighborhood character, sight lines and an unpermitted existing fence.
Staff told the board the applicant had installed redwood fencing across roughly 75 feet of street frontage and erected gate framing without required permits; the front‑yard setback for the property is 20 feet, where the city’s standard allows only 3‑foot fences in that setback without a permit. The complaint‑driven review also revealed nearby properties with fences and hedges that exceed approved heights.
Tom Brown, a Carpinteria general contractor who lives on Conchaloma, said the bluish‑gray fence across the front “has been there for a long time” and that the owners had assumed prior practice allowed a like‑for‑like replacement. The owners said they seek increased security and privacy: they cited heavy on‑street parking, adjacent apartments and a medical office across the street, and asked for a gate and a uniform frontage that matches the neighboring twin‑driveway appearance.
Neighbors and a resident speaker, Susan Allen, urged the board to prioritize the city’s design guideline that favors more open, split‑rail front fences and to avoid approving a tall, opaque wall across the setback. Board members and staff repeatedly raised pedestrian and vehicle sight‑line concerns around the driveway and noted the existing hedges and parked vehicles reduce visibility.
After a period of deliberation, a board member moved to approve the proposal with a 5‑foot maximum height for fencing and gate; another member seconded the motion and the board carried it with a 4‑to‑1 vote. Staff clarified that because the unpermitted fence was built without prior approval, the approval obligates the applicant to modify or replace fence sections that exceed the newly authorized 5‑foot maximum to match the approved design. Staff also said any final director decision based on the ARB direction would be appealable to the planning commission.
The board suggested several ways to reduce visual bulk and safety concerns: lower gate height where it adjoins the public right‑of‑way, increase landscape screening set back from the curb to preserve sight lines, consider open or semi‑open paneling at the top of the fence, and coordinate gate location and operation so vehicles have room to wait inside the property while gates open. The fire department reviewed the proposal and asked only for a Knox box (knockbox) at the gate.
