Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Property Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Waunakee board weighs whether to allow private fences on lot lines that lie in utility easements
Summary
Staff outlined a code conflict: zoning allows fences on lot lines, subdivision rules prohibit fences in utility easements. Staff presented an acknowledgement approach used by some Dane County municipalities and Waunakee Utilities signaled conditional acceptance if owners pay costs. Trustees asked staff to revise the ordinance language (cost/recordation) and return for consideration.
The board considered whether to disallow fences on lot lines and within utility easements after staff noted a conflict between the zoning code (which allows fences on rear and side lot lines) and the subdivision ordinance (which prohibits fences in utility easements).
Staff explained the village—s current practice: allow a fence on a lot line that lies in a utility easement only if the property owner signs an acknowledgement agreeing to pay for fence removal and replacement should utilities require access. Packet images showed that typical utility easement footprints in new neighborhoods often run along much of a lot—s perimeter, which would limit where fences could be placed if the board strictly enforced the subdivision ordinance.
Staff also surveyed neighboring Dane County municipalities and found varied approaches: about a dozen allow fences on lot lines even if in easements (often with owner acknowledgements), five allow them but not over underground installations, five allow them with setbacks, and two disallow them entirely. A Waunakee Utilities representative provided a statement saying utilities would accept ordinance modifications that allow fences if property owners pay costs; staff estimated fences are removed to access facilities about a dozen times per year.
Trustees debated trade-offs. Supporters of allowing fences noted homeowner expectations and the ability to require owners to pay removal costs; opponents raised long-term system-maintenance concerns, the risk to utilities during large outages, and that future owners may not be aware of easement limitations. Trustees asked staff to add clearer cost and recordation language to the draft and return the ordinance for final consideration; planning commission involvement and the need for additional public hearing(s) will be determined at staff level.
Next steps: staff to revise the draft ordinance to clarify cost allocation and recording/notice to future owners, determine whether another public hearing or planning commission review is required, and return to the board.
