1992-05-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

'. . . May 27, 1992 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 6 PROPOSED REPEAL OF SECTION 34-52.5(d)' POST. RAIL AND STRUCTURAL MEMBER FACING OF FENCES Mr. Goldman stated that Mary Schuman and Joe Adams of the City Council were proposing a repeal of the ordinance requiring that all new or replacement fences shall be constructed with posts, rails, framing and other exposed structural members facing the interior of the property upon which they are constructed. They had stated to Mr. Goldman that they were attempting to come up with possible amendments to the ordinance but had decided it should be repealed. Mr. Goldman stated that he favored repeal of the ordinance. He asked Mr. Hill to speak on zoning enforcement of the ordinance. Mr. Hill stated that the fence ordinance has been an enforcement problem. An excessive amount of time is spent by the Zoning Administrator and the Building Inspector on extra inspections, ticketing and the processing of violations for non-compliance, administrative hearings and "defense of the rationality" of the ordinance to the public. People may construct the fences along property lines, as normal, so if they wish to put the posts and rails toward the exterior of their property, they need only have their abutting neighbors take out the permits. That has occurred on numerous occasions. This practice defeats one of the stated purposes of the ordinance which was to show "ownership" of fences by the direction they face. It is Mr. Hill's opinion that an ordinance that causes citizens to create deviations as often as this, mocks the purpose of that ordinance and the whole Zoning Code. The ordinance's purpose: to enhance the visibility of fences for neighbors and the general public is irrelevant when the fences are constructed in the middle of a block. In many instances, it causes a new fence to have the "good" side facing out toward the "bad" side of an existing fence built prior to the ordinance. It has been Mr. Hill's experience in dealing with the public about fences, that the public is not supportive of the ordinance. It is his recommendation that the ordinance be repealed. Ms. Kreishman and Mr. Safe stated that they agree with repealing the ordinance. Mr. Kendall stated he felt the "bad" side should be facing the person who erects the fence and the "beauty" should go to those who look onto the fence and therefore is against the repeal. Ms. Ratner stated that she felt that the ordinance is there to prevent the selfishness that goes on between uncaring neighbors. It is the government's job to regulate against uncaring behavior, even if sometimes such regulation is unpopular. Unless the ordinance is absolutely impossible to enforce, than she feels it should not be repealed. Mr. Safe stated that technically there is no "good" or "bad" side to a fence. He further stated that regulations such as this are far too intrusive on property owners and should be left for the private citizens to decide on their own. Mr. Safe moved that the Plan Commission recommend repeal of Section 34-52.5(d) of the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by Ms. Kreishman and failed by a vote of 2 - 2. m-5-27.plc