Levan planning commission recommends wording change to fence visibility ordinance

LEAVAN, Utah — The Levan Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing Feb. 5 to collect comment on a recommended wording change to a town ordinance that governs fences, planting and other construction near streets and driveways.

The commission is proposing to change the wording in section f from a construction of two separate sentences into a single sentence. As read at the hearing, the ordinance currently states: “Any fence, grading, planting, or construction interferes with traffic. Visibility of those using streets, sidewalks, driveways, etcetera, is prohibited.” The commission’s recommendation would make the sentence read: “Any fence, grading, planting, or construction that interferes with the traffic or visibility of those using streets, sidewalks, driveways, etcetera is prohibited.” Planning and zoning staff said the change replaces the period with “or” and lowercases “visibility” so the provision is inclusive of either condition rather than requiring both.

The commission’s presenter described the edit as a grammatical correction intended to match how the ordinance has been enforced. “We are recommending…Any fence, grading, planting, or construction that interferes with the traffic or visibility of those using streets, sidewalks, driveways, etcetera is prohibited,” the Planning and Zoning representative read aloud. The presenter added, “All that happens today is I collect public comment,” and said the commission would forward its recommendation to the town council; if the council moves forward it will send the draft to the town attorney for review before final action.

Residents at the hearing asked whether the change would be applied retroactively and whether the town would require existing fences to be moved. The presenter answered multiple times that the change is not retroactive: it is intended to make the ordinance text “correct” going forward and would not result in immediate enforcement actions that force residents to remove existing fences. One resident asked, “If it was already interfered with traffic, they would have to move it, right?” The presenter replied that the ordinance had been enforced in that manner in the past and that the correction simply aligns the written text with enforcement practice.

Several residents described past enforcement experience. Jenna, who identified herself as a member of the original planning and zoning effort, said the rule had been applied historically: “This was how it was set up originally when we did set it up…there were people who had to move their fences,” she said. Amelia Jeffs, who said she lives on a corner lot, commented about trees on adjacent city property and the visibility impacts they pose; the presenter noted tree trimming and other site-specific issues are addressed separately and encouraged residents to submit those concerns to staff.

Speakers also urged the commission to have any final ordinance language reviewed by legal counsel. One resident said, “Pacify your attorney for our sakes…Make sure you pass it by your attorney and let us know as a town.” Commissioners and staff responded that the planning commission issues recommendations and that the town attorney will review any ordinance language before the town council votes.

The commission did not vote on the substance of the ordinance at the hearing; it took public comment and then voted to close the hearing. A commissioner moved to close the public hearing; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote. The commission will include its recommendation in materials sent to the town council at the next council meeting, and the council — after attorney review — will decide whether to adopt the correction.

Commissioners also reminded residents of upcoming public hearings on other ordinance matters, including flag-lot rules and powder (gunpowder) storage limits, and encouraged attendance.

The public hearing record shows the commission’s intent is to align the ordinance text with the current enforcement interpretation (either interference with traffic OR interference with visibility suffices to prohibit a fence, planting or construction). The change, if adopted by the town council after attorney review, would clarify that either condition alone can trigger a violation going forward.