Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Shakopee council pushes fence ordinance revisions back to staff after extensive questions
Summary
Councilors reviewed a proposed text amendment to city code section 11.02 addressing fence construction, opaque materials, shoreland rules and appeals, and sent the draft back to staff to clarify language on property‑line placement, repair vs. replacement, appeal timing and opacity rules.
The Shakopee City Council on June 3 reviewed a proposed amendment to city code section 11.02 governing fence construction and placement but asked staff to redraft multiple provisions for clarity before voting.
Councilors raised questions about permits for repairs and replacements, whether fences may be built up to the property line, the proposed appeals period, and the ordinance’s opaque‑fence rules. City planning staff said the rewrite is intended to clarify long‑running issues about materials, shoreland restrictions and temporary snow fencing.
Nut graf: Staff presented a multi‑point rewrite to address recurring enforcement problems — including fences built across property lines, temporary snow fences, prohibited materials and Shoreland Overlay height limits — and the council unanimously asked staff to return with clarified language before formal adoption.
Planning staff explained proposed changes that would require written notarized permission from adjacent property owners when a fence is proposed to be constructed on the property line or physically connects to a neighbor’s fence; define “opaque” for locations that require opacity; prohibit materials such as barbed wire, razor wire, sheet metal and pallet construction; and shorten the appeal period so appeals would be heard by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Several council members said the draft contains internal inconsistencies: for example, the ordinance text simultaneously described repair as requiring a permit while another section exempted repairs or replacements of up to 20% of the fence length.
Council Member Whiting and others asked staff to clarify that a property owner may place a fence up to (but not beyond) the property line without needing a neighbor’s permission if the fence is conforming and previously permitted. Council members agreed on a target of 15 days for filing an appeal (down from 30 days in earlier drafts) and asked staff to remove the word “repair” from the section that would require permits so routine small repairs are not unintentionally captured. Staff said existing grandfathered fences and existing temporary uses would remain recognized and that materials already on the ground would not be retroactively required to be removed.
The council did not vote on the ordinance; the mayor and council directed staff to return with revised language incorporating the requested clarifications, and encouraged members to submit any additional comments to staff before the next meeting.
