Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission flags contradiction in fence-permit rules, asks building commissioner to draft amendments
Summary
Commissioners identified conflicting language in the town code that appears to both require permits for fences and to exempt fences from violations; staff were asked to prepare draft amendments, including reconsidering a $1,000 threshold for permits.
The Lynchburg Town Commission on Oct. 6 examined apparent contradictions in the town zoning code over when a permit is required for fences and how violations are enforced. Commissioners said one section requires permits "for a fence" while another section appears to exempt fences from violation provisions, a conflict that could prevent enforcement.
An unnamed commission member read the code language aloud and said the code "shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation ... to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, improve, remove, convert, demolish, equip, use, occupy, or maintain any building or structure other than fences in the town of Lynchburg," noting that the same chapter elsewhere states a permit is required for fences.
Commission discussion focused on two problems: whether repair and restoration should trigger the same permit requirement as new construction, and a second clause that says permits are required "regardless of cost" for certain structures. Several commissioners said that a $1,000 threshold that once distinguished routine repairs from new construction no longer reflects current costs and that the code language is ambiguous about when a permit is enforceable.
Building commissioner Clay, who was asked to review the sections, told the commission he would examine the specific subsections and the dollar-threshold approach. Commissioners asked staff to prepare draft amendments that would reconcile 4-1-16 (violations) with 4-1-7 and related subsections, and to consider adding a monetary threshold or other clarifying language so minor repairs are not treated as permit violations while preserving the town’s ability to require permits for new construction.
No formal motion to amend the code was made at the meeting; commissioners agreed to bring proposed ordinance language back for discussion at a future meeting.
The commission’s action: staff review and draft amendment language. The building commissioner will report back to the commission for further consideration.
