Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Variance Denial topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission denies request to raise shed-area fence to 10 feet at 503 Vernon Street

Crescent City Planning and Zoning Commission · June 19, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The commission denied a variance request to increase a backyard fence from 6 to 10 feet at 503 Vernon Street after staff said the application did not meet the land-development-code criteria for a variance; the property owner cited repeated trespass and safety concerns.

The Crescent City Planning & Zoning Commission on June 18 denied a variance request that would have allowed a 10-foot fence around a shed at 503 Vernon Street.

The applicant, Robert Sedani (who identified himself during the public hearing), described a history of trespassing, break-ins, and safety concerns at the property and said he needed a taller fence to protect tools and materials and to reduce liability. Sedani told the commission he had invested in a survey and had experienced multiple incidents that left him concerned for safety and property loss.

Planning staff (S8/S10) recommended denial and told the board the request did not meet the statutory variance standard in the land development code because there was no unique property hardship (no major change in topography or other characteristic particular to this lot) and because surrounding properties are similarly constrained by the 6-foot fence standard. Staff noted administrative relief for taller fences is limited to situations with significant grade differences or hazards that cannot be mitigated by a code-compliant fence.

Commissioners questioned the applicant on the condition and structural integrity of the shed, on whether law enforcement had been involved (Sedani said some deputies had been helpful but responses varied), and on whether a 6-foot perimeter fence or other measures might address the concerns without granting a taller fence. After deliberation, a board member moved to follow staff’s recommendation to deny the variance; the motion carried in a roll-call vote.

The applicant was advised that standard permitting and enforcement paths remain available and that any future request would be evaluated on case-by-case grounds. The denial preserves the municipal 6-foot height limit for rear-yard fences in the SR-1 district in this case.