Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Fence Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board removes fence‑orientation condition in D‑24‑15 after neighbor denies access
Summary
The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 24 voted to remove a condition from its October approval of petition D‑24‑15 that had required the applicant to orient fence support posts toward the applicant's property, after the adjoining property owner refused access to perform the work.
The Morgan County Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 24 voted to remove a condition placed on petition D‑24‑15 that had required the applicant to install fence support posts facing the applicant's side of a shared property line. The board said the condition could not be implemented because the adjoining property owner refused access to the land needed to rearrange the fence.
The case was brought to the Feb. 24 meeting by Luana Jackson, who said the board had approved the petition in October with a condition requiring work on the neighbor's side of the boundary. "We were here on October 28, and we were ... given an approval on a petition ... with a restriction that we complete the other side for the neighbors. And, we've attempted several times, for approval to access our property to, do the work, and they repeatedly told us no," Jackson told the board. She said the neighbors posted "no trespassing" signs and denied her contractor access.
Board members and the county attorney discussed options. The board attorney noted two choices: rescind the condition or require the neighbor to move the fence back onto their property where it can be maintained. "We really only have 2 choices. We either have to rescind what was in our original motion about them having to turn the fence, or they're gonna have to move that fence back into their property where they can mow between there and there," the attorney said during the discussion.
Board members said the applicant and her contractor had made repeated offers to the adjoining owner to facilitate the work, but without access the condition could not be completed. One board member summarized: the board could remove the requirement and leave the fence as it is rather than forcing a standoff that could lead to further disputes.
A motion to remove the October condition was made and seconded; the board voted in favor and the change was approved by voice vote. The transcript records the motion carried by voice vote; individual roll‑call counts were not provided in the record.
The board's action leaves the existing fence arrangement in place; board members encouraged neighbors to resolve outstanding issues between themselves where possible.
