15 - Fence Code Review & Discussion

Home Browse Search

The summary of all fence permit activity in the City from 2014 -present is as follows: Applications Inspections Total Fees Building Permit (Fences) 532 190 $10,338.25 2. Fence Height Requirements. A concern is identified with regard to allowing fences in the side and rear yards up to a height of eight (8) feet. Again, according to the ICC engineering plans are required for 7 feet in height or taller to verify wind loading and assure that they will not fall over and cause injury or damage to property. This has not been done in the past and has become a new permit requirement. Common practice in the majority of all communities from my experience is to limit fences in residential areas to a maximum of six (6) feet. Taller fences over 6 feet can further reduce air and light to side and rear yards with smaller lots which can impact health or psychological effect of being more boxed into a yard by causing the feeling of more structure massing on lots and the effects of claustrophobia. The most recent fence causing the concern before Council was constructed at 8 feet in height. The original complaint received regarding the fence was that it was too high. Although it met the maximum height requirement, the point is that it was perceived by the neighbor as being too tall. Consideration should be given to reducing the maximum height to below a height requiring structural wind loading analysis and a permitting requirement for solid fences and allowing all previous constructed fences over 6 feet to become non -conforming. If, however, Council chooses not to reduce this height standard for single family residences, then perhaps a dual permit vs. no permit requirement could be required with 7 feet in height being the permit trigger. A change to a maximum 6 foot requirement by council is suggested. 3. Fence Facing/Orientation Requirements. The placement of the post -side of the fence as being required to face inward toward the rear and side yards of the lot was the principal concern expressed at the last meeting. In each and every position I have ever worked this has been the standard requirement for all communities. Apparently the practice in Paris has been hit and miss depending upon what the customer instructs the fence contractor to do. The ordinance clearly requires them to face internal to the lot, but past enforcement has been inconsistent or non-existent. There are safety, aesthetics and practical reasons for this requirement. First, from a safety standpoint it helps to preclude persons from outside the fenced yard to climb the fence by use of the posts and cross board members from a board -on -board type fencing. This is particularly important where restrictions to pool areas are the reason for a barrier. It also assures greater safety to residents from outside intruders attempting to peer in or trespass onto private property. From the appearance aspect, the smooth or non -post side of the fence is typically considered the decorative side of the fence. It is out of common curtesy and respect to adjoining neighbors and the public views from the street that this side be faced outward. An additional consideration from the practical side of things is that maintenance of both the fence surface and grass on the post side of a board fence is much more difficult. The smooth side can typically be mowed right up against without additional trimming required to keep a yard well groomed. This is not true of the post side of the fence and reversing the direction of the fence imposes that additional work on the neighbor when fences are constructed up to or very near the property line. In such instances, the owner of the fence is imposing this additional maintenance work on the adjoining neighbor without mutual consent and can lead to disharmony amongst neighbors. Staff does not support making this change. If, however, the Council decides to modify this requirement, it is recommended that the fence type of construction or design be required to be double -sided with the decorative side facing both directions to avoid the above concerns should the fence owner choose to place the decorative side inward. Page 3 of 4