2007-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Discussion of and possible action on recommending the adoption of fencing regulations. John Fuston questioned the two options on page 3 of 8. Chairman Wilson suggested that the committee get through the document then revisit any issues that need to be addressed. Chairman Wilson said that the committee needed to start on page 7 of 8. A. Construction and maintenance of fences. Don Taylor asked who would the City send a notice to if a fence falls into despair. Steve Brown said when he puts up fences, the fence line is on the property line between the two houses, so would the fence be the property of the person who had the fence built or would each property owner maintain and be responsible for the fence side on their property? Lisa Wright said that Code Enforcement would have to use their judgment on things like this. If the fence along a side property line matches the fence of one house and not the other, you can presume the fence goes with that house. Where they legitimately can't tell the difference, they would probably send the letter to both property owners and let them tell us which one owns it. A motion was made by John House, seconded by Don Taylor, to change the wording of subsection (b) as follows: "If the fence is located along a boundary between two properties, both sides shall be maintained by the owners of the fence." Motion carried. Opposing were Will Biard and Bee Gannon. B. Nonconforming fences. A motion was made by Steve Brown, seconded by Cheryt Moore, to change subsection (e) Damage or Destruction, as follows: "Any non - conforming fence, or any non- conforming element of a fence capable of change or discontinuance separate from other elements of the fence, damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated by any means to the extent of thirty -five percent (35 %) or more shall be removed or brought into conformity with the provisions of this article "; subsection (f)(2) Dilapidated Fences or Walls, as follows: "Each non - conforming fence that is dilapidated or deteriorated to the extent that the replacement of more than thirty -five percent (35 %) of the fence is required." Motion carried unanimously. C. General Standards for fencing, page 3 of 8 Chairman Wilson asked the Committee if they wanted to give one or two options. Will Biard said he suggested giving two options because the Council might kick it back if the only option is no fences. Pete Kampfer said the purpose of the Committee was to make a recommendation. Everyone was in agreement. A motion was made by Pete Kampfer, seconded by Jim Lassiter, to change subsection (b) Fence heights, (1) Front yard fence requirements, as follows:. (a) No fence shall be permitted in the front yard, except in the Historic Districts, on lots of two acres or more, and in LI and HI districts "; subsection (b) as follows: adding "decorated metal" as an