Residents press Fruit Heights council for clear fence, pool setback rules after months of uncertainty

Homeowners told the Fruit Heights City Council on an extended public-comment item that they have waited months for clear, enforceable guidance on fence placement, setbacks around a neighboring in-ground pool and the city—s interpretation of landscaping/hard-surface limits. The council said it would schedule staff-level meetings to work through the questions but did not take immediate action.

The dispute began when residents said they could not get a clear answer from city staff or the city attorney about where to place a fence and whether a neighbor—s pool met ordinance setbacks. "We don't know where to put our fence," one resident said during public comment, adding they had been seeking answers since January and that "everything's a gray area. Everything's gotta go to the attorney." The resident asked the council for clarification so they could proceed with landscaping and fencing plans.

Mayor John Coleman and City Manager Darren Pranson described the limits of the council's and staff's authority in land-use matters. Coleman said land-use decisions are first presented to the planning commission and that, "once planning commission has done the deliberation and they have had the public hearings, that resolution or that ordinance ... would then come to city council for us to deliberate and to approve." Pranson told the speakers he had visited the property and that staff were working with the attorney to update and clarify ordinances.

Residents raised several specific concerns: whether required pool setbacks are measured from the pool concrete or from other features, whether an issued building permit was consistent with the ordinances in place when it was issued, and whether a neighbor had altered grading or filled to direct water onto adjacent yards. One resident said she had taken down part of her fence after receiving conflicting guidance and later reinstalled it when told the neighbor—s landscaping would be accepted.

Council members emphasized the procedural limits: planning and permit interpretations are driven by existing ordinances and prior permit conditions, and the council cannot retroactively change permits issued under then-applicable rules. Council members also said staff cannot unilaterally "negotiate" ordinances. "How the city has interpreted the ordinance and issued the building permit is how the city had interpreted the ordinance," a council member said during discussion.

Action and next steps: Mayor Coleman said staff would get together with the resident group and schedule a meeting this week to review the documentation residents provided and to "talk this through." The council made no formal decision at the meeting and did not amend ordinances; the mayor and manager said ordinance revisions remain under attorney review and that land-use interpretation generally begins with the planning commission.

Why this matters: The residents said the uncertainty has delayed property work since December and created friction between neighbors. Clarifying rules on setbacks, fence heights and hard-surface limits affects individual property rights, drainage and enforcement of building permits.

Additional context and unresolved items: Residents asked whether a change from a prior 15-foot setback interpretation to a new 6-foot rule applied to the permit in question; staff said permits are applied under the rules in effect when issued. Several residents requested more timely staff responses; staff acknowledged the delay and said they would prioritize a meeting. The record shows staff inspections and a staff report were produced, but residents said they needed clearer written determinations.

Ending: The council concluded the public comment period by offering to meet with the residents and city manager to review the supporting documents and to pursue ordinance updates through the attorney and planning process where appropriate.