Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment affirms staff denial of fence permit at 417 Sundance Trail

The Sunnyvale Board of Adjustment on Aug. 4 upheld a staff denial of a building permit for an 8-foot wooden fence at 417 Sundance Trail, saying the town's Development Services director had authority to treat the south and west sides of the property as front yards and to consider a nearby pedestrian-access easement adjacent open space for the town's fence-visibility rules.

The decision followed a public hearing and an executive session. The board's motion, made by the chair and seconded, found the director had authority under the town's Unified Development Ordinance and confirmed staff's interpretation that the property lines along Sundance Trail and Stoney Creek Boulevard should be treated as front yards for fence-height and visibility standards. The motion passed unanimously, with all members present voting in favor.

Why it matters: The case turned on how the Sunnyvale Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) defines front yards on a corner lot and how the town interprets a 22-foot PAUDE (pedestrian access, utility and drainage easement) and a dedicated open-space lot adjoining the subject property. Those interpretations determine whether an 8-foot solid wood fence can be placed next to the easement and on which sides of the corner lot higher fences are permitted.

What appellants said: Mike Sturgill, an attorney with Themis Legal Group PLLC representing homeowners James Barker and Georgina Corona Cortez, argued the permit was wrongly denied. Sturgill said the denial cited the wrong plat number in its first written notice and that the reviewer applied the wrong UDO standard. He told the board the applicants had HOA approval and that, in his view, the proposed fences complied with the UDO. Sturgill summarized the appellants' position this way: "the permit was improperly denied." (Mike Sturgill, attorney for the appellants.)

Staff explanation: Saroopa Sen, the town's Director of Planning and Development, said she reviewed the fence permit and explained staff relied on the UDO's fence standards (section 3.0605 and Table 12A) in concluding that parts of the lot are front yards and that sections of the proposed fence abut dedicted open space or easements such that 50% visibility is required. "I was the staff member who made the original decision on the permit," Sen told the board. Sen described the town's interpretation that the recorded plat shows 70-foot front building lines on both streets for that lot, which informed staff's reading that both sides function as front yards for fence standards.

Applicant testimony and evidence: Property owner James Barker testified that he met with staff, provided the application and that his HOA had approved the fence. Barker told the board he had filed open-records requests after learning neighbors circulated a petition opposing the permit; he said the town's records response showed no town employee was part of the petition and that some requested records remained outstanding. Barker argued the PAUDE is a sidewalk/utility easement and said the UDO's usable-open-space definition excludes "easements for streets and alleys," a point he urged the board to apply to his case.

Board's decision: After hearing testimony from staff and the applicants and reviewing plats and photographs submitted at the hearing, the board moved into executive session for legal consultation. Returning to open session, the board stated it did not classify the PAUDE as dedicated open space for purposes of reversing staff solely on that ground, and it found the director had the authority to reach the determinations she made about front yards and adjacency. The chair made the motion to affirm staff's determination; the motion was seconded and passed by all members present.

Procedural notes: The board convened the hearing, accepted testimony from staff and the applicants, and received photographic and plat exhibits introduced at the meeting. Some exhibits were produced at the hearing and contested by the appellants as not having been provided before the denial; the board considered those materials as part of the administrative record during the proceeding.

What remains: The board's action affirms the administrative denial; the transcript records no further board direction to staff about next steps. The meeting closed after the board handled a separate item (a variance request for 280 Ontario Drive), which staff moved to table to a future meeting.