Hanford council discusses at-length changes to backyard setback and accessory-structure rules; directs staff to draft ordinance

City planning staff and the Hanford City Council spent an extended study-session segment Tuesday reviewing the city’s single‑family setback rules and whether the municipality should relax rear and side yard restrictions for accessory structures such as sheds, gazebos and small open‑air shelters.

Senior Planner Myers led the presentation, explaining how setbacks define the buildable area on a lot and outlining current rules: a 15‑foot front setback for livable building space (20 feet for garages), a 15‑foot rear setback for single‑story homes (25 feet for two‑story), and a typical 5‑foot interior side setback. “Setbacks are the required distances a building or structure must be placed from a property line. They effectively define the buildable area of a lot,” Myers said.

Myers told the council staff had developed two principal alternatives for change: (1) broadly reduce rear setbacks in single‑family zones to as little as 5 feet for all structures, and (2) allow larger accessory structures — for example structures between about 121 and 240 square feet — to encroach into rear setback areas under a defined rear‑encroachment permit process. He reminded the council that California building code already requires a building permit for any structure over 120 square feet.

Council members and members of the public raised concerns about fire safety, privacy, lot coverage and enforcement. “I don’t like the idea of making somebody ask their neighbors permission to do something on their own property,” Councilwoman Regan said, opposing a mandatory neighbor‑consent rule. At the same time Council Member Kyres and others repeatedly emphasized potential noise, privacy and stormwater impacts if the buildable area is reduced citywide.

Discussion focused on practical tradeoffs. Staff recommended caution about a blanket 5‑foot rear‑setback change because it would significantly reduce private open space and raise enforcement questions. Several council members, however, said they wanted to allow some flexibility for open‑air accessory structures — gazebo‑style, non‑enclosed improvements — because those present a different fire and privacy profile than fully enclosed buildings. Staff and council also discussed adding a rear‑encroachment permit review that could require plans, engineering, neighborhood notice or an owner‑signed agreement and that would preserve the state‑required building‑permit process for structures above 120 square feet.

By the end of the session council members reached consensus to direct staff to prepare ordinance language that would: allow limited encroachment for open‑air accessory structures in rear yards (up to 240 square feet was discussed) with a rear‑encroachment permit and clear standards for setbacks, separation from other structures and height; continue to require building permits and engineering for structures over 120 square feet; and return the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission and back to council for formal adoption.

Ending: Staff said it will draft the proposed amendments, including definitions (for “accessory unenclosed”/open‑air structure), size and height limits, and a rear‑encroachment permitting process and return the item to the Planning Commission and then to council for a formal ordinance vote.