Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Encroachment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Columbia City board approves fence encroachment at East Boulder Run, tables North Line Street request for stakeout and line‑of‑sight review
Summary
The Board of Works and Safety granted retroactive encroachment approval for a fence at 1329 East Boulder Run and tabled a request for 216 North Line Street until staff can stake the proposed line and verify sightlines; both matters involve utility easement considerations and potential rework if future access is required.
Columbia City’s Board of Works and Safety on Tuesday approved a retroactive encroachment permit for a fence at 1329 East Boulder Run and voted to table a second fence request at 216 North Line Street so staff can verify sightlines in the field.
The action matters because both properties back up to a utility easement and the board flagged pedestrian and vehicle line‑of‑sight safety as a core concern before final permitting.
At the meeting the board chair opened the East Boulder Run item and asked the homeowner for details. Julie A. Piatek, who gave her address as 1329 East Boulder Run, told the board she bought the lot long distance and had a fence installed before she moved in, saying, “I wasn't aware anything was wrong until I got your letter.” The board approved the encroachment unanimously; the chair told Piatek the city would attempt to notify her if access to the easement were needed and that she would be responsible for restoring the fence after any required work.
On the 216 North Line Street request, Paul Keaton, who gave his address as 216 North Line Street, told the board he wants a chain‑link fence and proposed several layouts, including cutting the corner back about 15 feet from the intersection. Board members and staff expressed safety concerns tied to previous complaints about a fence at a nearby corner that obstructed sightlines. A board member noted the proposed line would place the fence about three feet from the sidewalk and said, "that's a big concern with line of sight there at Jefferson Street," while staff asked Keaton to stake the proposed fence location so they could assess the actual sightlines on site.
The board unanimously voted to table Keaton’s permit request to the June 10 meeting and directed staff to inspect a staked fence line before the board acts. Staff also told Keaton that if the board approves his fence, the city will request that any previous fence permit related to the corner be formally rescinded for permitting clarity, and that planning and building staff would complete final permitting steps.
The board repeatedly cautioned both homeowners that fences within utility easements may need to be removed for emergency access or maintenance and, if removed, restored at the homeowner’s expense. Craig Wagner, identified in the meeting as the building inspector, was referenced by the chair as the county/city contact for permit payments and questions.
Less urgent details discussed included approximate siting: Piatek said her fence sits about 6½ feet from a property line and appears close to the back property edge; the North Line Street layout discussion referenced a roughly three‑foot setback from the sidewalk and a possible 15‑foot corner cutback as an alternative to the originally proposed line.
The board indicated that, if the site stakeout shows acceptable sightlines, staff would clear the application administratively and Keaton would not need to return to the Board of Works. If not, the board may require a larger setback or an alternative alignment.
