Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning administrator denies Hansen request for 5‑foot front fence variance in Granite Bay
Summary
A request to allow a 5‑foot open metal fence and gate in the front setback at 6107 Rockhurst Way was denied by the Placer County Zoning Administrator, who found the property did not demonstrate the unique constraints needed to support a variance; neighbors had opposed the higher fence on safety and aesthetic grounds.
The Placer County Zoning Administrator on Sept. 18 denied a fence‑height variance sought by Annie and David Hansen to permit a five‑foot black metal open fence and gate within the front setback at 6107 Rockhurst Way in Granite Bay. County code limits front‑setback fencing to three feet in most circumstances.
Staff recommended approval, citing special circumstances including a sweeping highway easement along the parcel’s frontage, the proximity of the house to the front property line (the home is about 70 feet from the road) and mature landscaping that constrain fence placement. The applicants said the fence is intended to protect four young children who play in the front yard; the gate is designed to slide to avoid obstructing sight lines.
Opponents and neighbors, represented in part by attorney Bruce Ryle, argued against the variance on safety and aesthetic grounds and warned of precedent effects for tall fences across the neighborhood. Several neighbors submitted written comments opposing the variance; county engineering and Public Works reviewed the site and did not identify sight‑line safety issues.
The zoning administrator reviewed prior variances in the immediate area and conducted an on‑site review. The administrator concluded the Hansen parcel — although substantial in size and level — did not display the irregular lot shape, severe topographic constraint or other unique limitations that had supported other fence variances nearby. The administrator stated she could not make the findings required under county code and denied the variance. She noted that the decision may be appealed within the normal appeal period and specified the appeal fee if filed.
Why it matters: The decision underscores that similar‑looking fences in a neighborhood are not automatically precedent‑setting; each variance must be supported by site‑specific findings that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by neighbors with identical zoning.
Next steps: The Hansens may file an appeal of the decision within the county’s appeal period; the administrator cited an appeal filing fee of $774.
