Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates proposed fence code changes; agrees to allow solid fencing, rejects narrow double-fence language
Summary
Council discussed proposed amendments to the city's fences code (Chapter 11.65). Members agreed to permit solid (no-gap) fences, rejected a proposed allowance of double fencing with only a 6-inch gap, and left in place a requirement that applicants provide a survey or written neighbor consent for a permit.
Willowick City Council discussed proposed amendments to Chapter 11.65 of the codified ordinances concerning fences, and instructed the law director to prepare revised language for further consideration.
Council members said planning commission recommended three changes: permit solid-type (no-gap) fencing, allow so-called double fencing (a new fence placed next to an existing one) with a maximum 6-inch separation, and require either a survey or written consent from adjoining neighbors when issuing a fence permit. During the meeting councilors agreed to allow solid fencing by striking the prohibition. They declined the planning commission’s proposed narrow allowance for double fencing and sought to retain the original language (which prohibits double fences); several members said the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) already addresses exceptions in particular cases.
Council kept the survey-or-neighbor-signature requirement in place but discussed practical concerns: city staff and the law director noted that requiring a professional survey can be burdensome and expensive for homeowners, and that BZA can grant variances where neighbors cannot or will not sign. Housing and zoning staff said disputes over property lines more appropriately remain between private property owners and that the city’s requirement reduces municipal liability by ensuring permit applicants document consent or property lines.
Council asked the law director to prepare amended ordinance language reflecting the decisions to permit solid fencing, to retain the original prohibition on double fencing (i.e., revert the proposed change), and to keep the survey/neighbor-consent requirement. The item will return for a subsequent reading after the law director’s revisions.
Council discussion included multiple practical details: a previous BZA case was cited where a three-foot gap plus a gate was approved for maintenance access; members voiced concern that a six-inch gap is impractical to maintain. Staff and the law director noted that applicants who cannot secure neighbor consent can seek a variance from BZA, but that variance application fees apply.
