Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waunakee plan commission sends fence/easement rule change to village board after debate over utility access
Summary
Plan Commission voted to recommend an amendment to the Village's subdivision/zoning rules to allow fences in utility easements subject to conditions and property‑owner responsibility; commissioners debated enforcement, retaining walls, trees and precedent.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Village of Waunakee Plan Commission on Tuesday voted to recommend that the Village Board consider an amendment to sections of the subdivision and zoning code that would allow property owners to place fences within utility easements subject to conditions and explicit property‑owner responsibility.
Nut graf: the draft amendment would keep trees, retaining walls and permanently fixed structures out of easements while permitting fences along property lines "at the owner's risk" with conditions (recorded acknowledgement, maintenance responsibility and utilities having access to move or remove fences if needed). Tim Simon, consulting for planning staff, summarized the intent: the proposal would "provide regulations for those living in the community that most can live with" while making clear that utility owners retain access rights.
Discussion focused on enforceability, precedent and technical limits. Commissioners and utility representatives raised operational concerns: Guonig Utilities's Tim Herliskov said utilities will remove obstacles to restore service when necessary and attempt to avoid damage but that repairs and replacement costs would fall to the property owner; utilities urged that retaining walls, deep concrete footings and trees remain prohibited in easements. Several commissioners recommended clarified permit language and a signed acknowledgement form so future property owners would know they assume the risk. Village attorney analysis warned that allowing exceptions may create precedent and urged caution.
The commission debated whether the ordinance should include technical constraints (for example, forbidding post set in concrete) or leave details to permit documentation and property‑owner acknowledgements; some members asked staff to prepare explicit language and a standard waiver to be signed at the time of permit issuance. Commissioners also discussed the uneven history of enforcement on existing lots where trees and other features have already been installed in easements.
Ending: the commission voted to forward the proposed ordinance amendment to the Village Board for public hearing and action, with the staff direction to draft clear permit and acknowledgement language and to consult utilities and legal counsel on responsibilities and practical enforcement.

