Waunakee planning commission pauses decision on allowing fences in public utility easements

The Waunakee Plan Commission discussed an ordinance amendment to section 129-159 of the Village code that would allow fences in public utility easements only after affected utilities grant permission, but commissioners deferred any decision and asked staff to seek more information from utilities and the village planning consultant.

The proposal would change current practice by creating a limited exception for fences in public utility easements subject to three conditions and to the utilities' prior approval. Staff explained the draft is intended as a compromise between the existing code, which prohibits any structures in easements, and repeated requests from property owners and developers for flexibility. "We have language in our code right now ... you really shouldn't put anything over or on, public utility easements," a staff member said. The staff member added, "If you do that and you damage any of the utility facilities, you are going to be responsible to pay that utility for any damage that you caused."

Why it matters: public utility easements are used by multiple service providers — Waunakee Utilities, TDS, AT&T, and MG&E were cited in the discussion — and easements are intended both to house facilities and to guarantee access for repairs. Commissioners raised concerns that allowing permanent features in easements could impede repairs and shift costs to homeowners. Brian Wallace, a Plan Commission member, described the issue this way: "When you start taking away, you know, 3 feet, 6 feet around the entire perimeter of the lot ... that's ridiculous." Kristen Runge asked whether the draft would exceed state statutory requirements and whether property owners would remain responsible for repair costs; staff responded that the amendment would not change the legal relationship between utilities and property owners and that property owners would remain responsible for damage or removal costs.

Commissioners and staff noted enforcement and equity issues. Several commissioners said many subdivisions already have fences and other structures in easements despite the existing prohibition; staff said pending fence permit applications that would place fences in easements are on hold until the commission reaches a conclusion. Commissioner Todd (staff) told the commission that a shift in utility practice has prompted confusion: "There is reference to the utilities recent objection to permits for fences. I want to clarify that that is a change ... and that's creating concern and confusion for the developers and rightly so."

Action and next steps: the commission took no formal vote to amend the code and instead agreed to pause consideration. Commissioners asked staff to convene a future discussion that includes representatives from the utilities and the planning consultant, Tim Semmon, to present approaches from other communities and possible technical solutions such as removable panels or gates. A staff member said the item will return to the commission after that outreach and additional research.

The commission's decision to defer leaves the current code in effect: structures placed in public utility easements remain noncompliant and subject to removal at the property owner's expense until or unless the village adopts an amendment.