Council debates fence rules for trail corridors, weighs permit enforcement vs. grandfathering
Loading...
Summary
Councilmembers and planning staff discussed whether to require removal or grandfathering of recently installed privacy fencing in a reserved trail corridor; staff will return with clarifying standards distinguishing narrow open-space corridors from active trails.
Council members on July 15 debated how strictly to apply Highland’s existing fence rules for narrow corridors the city has reserved for trails or open space.
Rob Patterson, city planner, described a property where a developer/owner installed a solid privacy wall in a corridor the city listed on maps as a potential trail corridor. The wall was built without a fence permit; Patterson said the council has historically required fences along trail corridors to be open (for visibility) — typically four feet solid with two feet of openness above — but acknowledged the corridor in question has no active trail and may never be built.
Councilmembers expressed two competing priorities: fairness and code consistency (no exceptions for a developer who did not pull a permit) versus pragmatic compromise because there is no current trail and removing an expensive retaining wall would be punitive. Some councilmembers said they would allow staff to issue a permit with a recorded caveat requiring future modification if a trail were ever built; others wanted the property owner to be required to obtain a permit and bring the fence into compliance now.
Patterson said staff will return with proposed language to distinguish between narrow open-space corridors and mapped trails and to clarify when a fence may be permitted and when structures must be altered if the city later develops a trail. No formal council action was taken; staff will follow up.
