My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2002-10-01 P & Z
Centerville
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Minutes
>
2000-2022
>
2002
>
2002-10-01 P & Z
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:59:57 PM
Creation date
1/31/2006 3:00:25 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS <br /> <br />1. Encroachment/Zoning Permits/Fences (Ordinance #4) <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that City Staff has been inundated with questions concerning <br />fencing and has found themselves being pulled into several neighborhood disputes. She <br />then indicated she had met with the Staff and Staff would like the Commission to <br />consider amending Ordinance #4 as the draft document shows. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine asked if any other city requires a two-foot setback when <br />permission cannot be obtained from the neighbor. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that the change is causing more problems because neighbors <br />do not want to sign or those putting up fences do not want to ask for permission. She <br />then said she feels that all fences should come before Staff and/or the Planning <br />Commission to ensure that residents are determining where the property lines are. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wilharber indicated he felt the fencing should be an administrative issue <br />and not something the Planning Commission should deal with. <br /> <br />Commissioner DeVine indicated he liked the way the Ordinance was amended by Staff <br />but said that wording the ordinance in such a manner would require a homeowner to <br />obtain a survey if an agreement could not be reached with the neighbor. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wilharber indicated there is also an issue with the maintenance of the <br />other side of the fence. <br /> <br />Mr. Richard Thompson of 1657 Peltier Lake Drive addressed the Commission and <br />explained what goose fencing was and asked whether the ordinance would cover that <br />type of fencing. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated she did not feel that Ordinance #4 would govern goose fence <br />because a fence is a barrier and a goose fence is only a barrier to the geese. <br /> <br />Commissioner McLean suggested using the word permanent. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson asked if the goose fence could go back up if he takes out the other <br />fencing. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that one section of Mr. Thompson’s fence would be <br />grandfathered in. <br /> <br />Mr. Thompson asked if he put the rails in at 45 degrees if that would be considered a <br />fence or if that would be ornamental. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kilian said he felt that would still be considered a fence. <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.