2002-09-03 P & Z - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Encroachment/Zoning Permits/Fences (Ordinance #4) Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that City Staff has been inundated with questions concerning fencing and has found themselves being pulled into several neighborhood disputes. She then indicated she had met with the Staff and Staff would like the Commission to consider amending Ordinance #4 as the draft document shows. Commissioner DeVine asked if any other city requires a two-foot setback when permission cannot be obtained from the neighbor. Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the change is causing more problems because neighbors do not want to sign or those putting up fences do not want to ask for permission. She then said she feels that all fences should come before Staff and/or the Planning Commission to ensure that residents are determining where the property lines are. Commissioner Wilharber indicated he felt the fencing should be an administrative issue and not something the Planning Commission should deal with. Commissioner DeVine indicated he liked the way the Ordinance was amended by Staff but said that wording the ordinance in such a manner would require a homeowner to obtain a survey if an agreement could not be reached with the neighbor. Commissioner Wilharber indicated there is also an issue with the maintenance of the other side of the fence. Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive addressed the Commission and explained what goose fencing was and asked whether the ordinance would cover that type of fencing. Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she did not feel that Ordinance #4 would govern goose fence because a fence is a barrier and a goose fence is only a barrier to the geese. Commissioner McLean suggested using the word permanent. Mr. Thompson asked if the goose fence could go back up if he takes out the other fencing. Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that one section of Mr. Thompson’s fence would be grandfathered in.