Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Exception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission Upholds Director’s 8‑Foot Fence Condition After Emotional Testimony
Summary
The commission upheld the community development director’s conditional approval limiting a rear fence to 8 feet at 370 North Central Avenue (vote 5–1) after the appellant described trauma from a 2022 fire and neighbors raised concerns about precedent and privacy.
The Campbell Planning Commission on July 22 denied an appeal and upheld the community development director’s condition requiring a maximum 8‑foot rear fence at 370 North Central Avenue, despite moving testimony from the appellant about a house‑destroying fire.
Staff presented the appeal, explaining the subject fence was built without permits and now exceeds the code height (approximately 9'10"). Staff summarized the appellant’s four main arguments — limited public visibility of the fence, privacy and safety concerns, alleged exceptional circumstances because an adjacent ADU sits close to the property line, and potential hardship of removing or lowering the fence — and recommended upholding the director’s condition to reduce the height to 8 feet.
Appellant Andrea Shahane described losing her home to a 2022 fire she said began in an unpermitted shed at 373 Harrison and said the new ADU and the current tall fence re‑ignite trauma; Shahane asked to retain a 3‑foot redwood lattice atop the fence to provide privacy and emotional relief. Neighbors and family members supported her request, citing the fire, close proximity of the neighboring structure, and the lattice’s aesthetic appearance. In response, staff said building‑division records include permits dating back to at least 2001 for the neighboring accessory structure and that, regardless of visibility from the public right‑of‑way, the fence height affects adjacent private properties and neighborhood character.
Commissioners expressed sympathy for Shahane’s experience but also concern about setting a citywide precedent as more ADUs are built under recent state laws. After discussion, a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the director’s conditional approval (limit to 8 feet) carried 5–1 (one commissioner opposed). The chair noted the decision is subject to appeal to the city council within 10 calendar days.
The commission’s decision preserves the city’s neighborhood‑compatibility standard while the appellant was advised of appeal rights and the possibility to seek other measures (landscaping, non‑structural screening) that do not conflict with code.
