Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves variance allowing existing fence to remain in county right of way with conditions
Summary
After a prolonged public hearing, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors granted an appeal and approved a variance permitting an existing masonry-and-iron fence that extends 10–13 feet into the county right of way on North Alpine Road to remain, subject to conditions including a recorded deed restriction and insurance requirements.
The San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors on April 14 granted an appeal and approved a variance allowing a private fence that extends into county right of way along North Alpine Road to remain in place, but imposed conditions that require the property to be insured and the encroachment to be removed if the county later needs the land for roadway work.
The fence, constructed as a mixed masonry wall topped with iron, was the subject of a multi‑year enforcement matter. County planning and public works staff had opposed the variance, saying they could not make the four legal findings required under county development rules and California planning law because the structure encroaches on the county right of way and could pose safety and sight‑distance risks on a roadway with a 55 mph speed limit. Public Works also documented landscaping and lighting placed in the right of way without permits.
The applicant's representative, attorney Paul Coslo, urged the board to grant relief, saying removal would cost the owner more than $300,000 and that the wall has stood for years without reported accidents; he offered an insurance policy naming the county as additionally insured and proposed a recorded agreement that would require removal if the county later needs the land. Neighbor Sean Brown testified that sight lines and bright exterior lighting at night had created safety concerns for residents who must pull into traffic on a high‑speed roadway.
After extended questions and deliberation the board voted to approve the appeal and the variance with conditions that include an encroachment permit, a minimum insurance policy naming San Joaquin County as additional insured, and a recorded deed restriction requiring removal of the fence upon sale of the property or if the county exercises right‑of‑way needs. County counsel noted that granting a variance requires affirmative findings supported in the record; the board's resolution cites the appellant's statements and the stipulated conditions as the basis for those findings.
The decision drew both support and criticism at the hearing. Proponents framed the outcome as a pragmatic balance that protects the county while avoiding immediate hardship to the property owner; opponents cited public safety concerns and argued the county should not permit private structures on public land. The board's action does not alter other outstanding staff code‑enforcement remedies, and the recorded conditions will appear in property records.
Next steps: The county will process the encroachment permit, confirm required insurance coverage, and record the deed restriction. If the county later needs the corridor for roadway improvements, the property owner or future owners will be required to remove the structure.
Representative quotes from the hearing include attorney Paul Coslo: “To remove and reconstruct this perimeter wall would cost my client more than $300,000”; neighbor Sean Brown: “You have to pull out within three to four feet of the edge of the roadway to see what’s coming.”
