Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates requiring finished side of new fences to face outward, defers decision
Summary
The planning commission discussed a proposed amendment (Ordinance 15‑56) to require the finished side of new fences face outward; commissioners raised definitional, access and cost concerns and asked staff to return with the city's 'Building a Fence' guideline for further review at the next meeting.
The East Lansing Planning Commission opened a public hearing Jan. 14 on Ordinance 15 56, a proposed amendment to require the finished side of a new fence to face outward toward abutting lots and rights‑of‑way.
Staff said the language originated with the Historic District Commission, which requested that finished sides — for example, the side of a privacy fence without posts showing — face outward. Planner Landon Bartley said staff added a clarification allowing both sides to be finished if an owner prefers.
Commissioners raised practical questions: the ordinance does not define "finished side," some fences (chain link, split‑rail) have no finished side, and in dense yards or where brush or hostile neighbors block exterior access a property owner might have no practical way to orient the finished side. "If there's a fence already existing, there wouldn't be an issue because this would only apply to new fences," Bartley said, adding nonconforming fences would be grandfathered.
A public commenter, Matt Hagen (927 E. Spring River), said he opposed the ordinance as an overreach by the Historic District Commission and said property owners should be able to choose how to build their fences. "I'm a believer in property rights," Hagen said during public comment.
Commissioners noted potential cost implications described by local fence contractors and asked staff to include the city's two‑page "Building a Fence" guideline in the next packet. The commission elected to review that guidance and revisit the proposed ordinance at a subsequent meeting rather than vote on it Jan. 14.
