Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff propose fence-code rewrite to reduce variances, clarify materials and maintenance rules
Summary
City planning staff introduced a rewrite of Pataskala's fence regulations to the development committee. Proposed changes add a formal definition of "fence," require the finished side to face outward, ban electric fences, allow limited barbed wire in commercial/industrial districts, and remove a city requirement that neighbors share maintenance.
Jack, speaking for planning staff, briefed the Pataskala City Development Committee on proposed revisions to the city's fence regulations. He said the update was driven by the volume of variance requests and by a desire to codify common practices and close gaps in the code.
Key changes Jack described include adding a formal definition of "fence," clarifying which department reviews permits, requiring the finished side of a fence to face outward, and prohibiting construction of fences from unsuitable materials such as scrap metal or pallets. The proposal also aligns the fence code with an existing prohibition on electrified fences and explicitly allows up to one foot of barbed wire atop fences in commercial or industrial districts.
Jack said the rewrite removes a prior requirement that neighboring property owners share maintenance responsibility for a fence; staff found that provision hard to enforce and inappropriate to place on a neighbor. The proposed code would allow fences to cross contiguous properties under common ownership and acknowledge that fences in drainage easements or near mounding/retaining-wall screening must not impede drainage. Jack also proposed allowing six-foot fences in front yards when adjacent to a vacant public right-of-way or alley; this change responds to variance requests in older village areas where alleys or vacant rights-of-way border lots.
The draft includes exemptions for temporary construction fencing tied to valid permits, for decorative landscape fences under two feet and for fences or walls already authorized in other parts of the zoning code (for example, screening for dumpsters and utility yards in manufacturing districts). Jack said the code currently allows enforcement for fences in disrepair and that the maintenance standard requiring good repair remains.
Committee members asked clarifying questions. Mary asked whether owners would be required to flag property corners or otherwise demonstrate property lines to avoid disputes; staff replied that locating property lines is the owner's responsibility and that enforcement is primarily a civil matter between property owners, but that staff will note property-line obligations on the permit and use aerials during inspections.
Jack said the next steps are to finalize the draft and send it to the planning commission, then on to city council as an ordinance, likely early next year. No ordinance or vote was taken at the meeting.
Committee members and staff endorsed the effort to reduce variance requests and codify common-sense provisions that match current practice, while urging staff to ensure clear application language about property-line responsibility and to preserve enforcement options for poorly maintained fences.
