Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews proposed change to fence and screening wall rules
Summary
City commissioners reviewed a draft amendment to zoning ordinance section 9.3 that narrows the area requiring reduced fence height near driveway–sidewalk intersections and raises the allowable drop height modestly, while noting the item must go to the planning commission for public hearing and recommendation.
City commissioners spent the work session discussing a proposed amendment to zoning ordinance section 9.3, which governs fences and screening walls, reaffirming a goal to preserve sightlines for safety while easing requirements for homeowners.
Speaker 3, presenting the redlined draft language, said the primary change targets subsection 5: "the primary change is to subsection 5" and explained that instead of the current rule measuring 15 feet back from the driveway–sidewalk point, the new language measures from where the sidewalk and driveway meet, requires a drop to 3.5 feet within 3 feet back and keeps the overall concept of improved visibility for safety. Speaker 3 added that other edits in red are intended for clarification and do not change substantive regulations.
The presenter also outlined the required process: "this is a zoning ordinance, this does need to go to the planning commission. The planning commission needs to review it, they need to conduct a public hearing, give a recommendation, and then it would come to the city commission for approval," Speaker 3 said. Commissioners discussed finding a compromise that reduces homeowner burden while preserving safety for drivers and pedestrians; Speaker 4 noted there will be "odd situations that may not exactly fit," and staff will have discretion in enforcement.
When asked how that discretion would be applied, Speaker 4 cited the local court standard: according to the speaker, Macomb Circuit Court precedent means a court "can't force a municipality to apply something that it has discretion to" enforce in a particular way, and that staff are "trusted with overseeing common-sense application of things." Commissioners raised examples such as abandoned sidewalks, garage orientations or lots that would make strict application impractical.
Speaker 4 and others confirmed the procedural next steps: the planning commission will publish notice (discussants named the Macomb Daily and online updates via Unico), hold a public hearing to solicit feedback and return a recommendation to the city commission, which could further amend the ordinance before any final vote.
No formal action on the ordinance was taken during the work session. The commission directed staff to proceed with the planning-commission process and public notice as described.
The commission adjourned at the close of the session.
