Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Design board continues 85 Gelder Drive fence/retaining wall variance to a date uncertain; asks for detailed sections
Summary
The board continued an application by Erin and Vincent Acurso to move a fence inside the property line, add a 3-foot retaining wall, and grant a 7-foot-6-inch fence height variance, requesting topo sections and clearer elevations before making a decision.
Tiburon’s Design Review Board continued an application for 85 Gelder Drive that requested permission to move an existing fence to the property line, build a retaining wall and approve a fence height above the town’s usual limit.
Applicants Erin and Vincent Acurso asked to move their fence roughly 8 inches inside the surveyed property boundary, build a 3-foot retaining wall below the new fence and allow a 7-foot-6-inch fence above it. The applicants said the change would improve yard safety and enable future landscaping. They said their proposed retaining-wall work would not change runoff to the street and that detailed building‑permit drainage and structural designs would follow permit submittal.
Neighbors Richard and Marilyn Candel opposed the requested variance, citing long‑standing plantings (an oleander hedge) they maintain in the area between the fences, site drainage concerns, and possible difficulty maintaining existing retaining walls and the hedge if the fence and wall are moved. Richard Candel said the Acurso survey stakes had been adjusted in ways the Candels believed shifted the fence alignment and higher fence elevations would change the character of the area.
Board members and staff asked for clearer technical drawings. Several commissioners said the packet lacked planimetric elevations and profile sections that show existing and proposed grades, the retaining wall, and how fence heights would relate to both uphill and downhill neighbors. Planner Samantha Bonifencio confirmed the building‑permit review would require drainage and structural details but noted the board must decide the zoning/variance question first or continue the item.
After deliberation the board voted to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow the applicants time to prepare more detailed sections and elevations, and for staff to provide standard drawing examples. A motion to continue was made and approved 4-0 with one member absent.
Board members suggested the applicants consider adding porous or partially openings at the fence top or other measures to reduce the visual massing while retaining privacy. Staff confirmed that if the applicants reduce the combined wall+fence height to meet a 9-foot combined threshold (for example a 3-foot wall plus a 6-foot fence in some site configurations) they may avoid a variance but the project still would require architectural and site‑plan review and could be referred to the board by staff for final action.
The board set no new decision date; staff will provide guidance on required drawings and the applicants will return with revised materials.
