Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Huntington Woods council adopts revised fence rules after debate over neighbor notice and invisible pet fences
Summary
The Huntington Woods City Commission approved revisions to Chapter 40, Article 10, requiring applicants to notify affected neighbors before installing fences, removing a prior neighbor sign-off requirement for privacy fences, and adding provisions to address invisible (electronic) fences; commissioners asked for FAQs and minor wording changes to clarify dispute scenarios.
The Huntington Woods City Commission voted Sept. 17 to adopt changes to the citys fence ordinance that remove a prior requirement for neighbors to sign off on privacy fences while adding a mandatory notice step for nearby property owners.
Staff member Hank told the commission the updated permit application "adds the applicant agrees to notify the affected neighbors by mail, posting or certified mail of the intent to install new fencing prior to the date of install," a change intended so neighbors are not surprised when a new fence appears. Hank also said the code now includes standards drawn from the American Zoo and Aquariums for animal containment where relevant.
Commissioners and staff debated whether eliminating the neighbor sign-off could create a long-term problem of two fences on a lot line if an adjacent owner keeps an existing chain-link fence. "So there becomes a 2 fence per lot line situation because 1, neighbor doesn't wanna give up his or her fence," a commissioner said, noting maintenance and vegetation could become a problem in the narrow space between fences.
Under the amendment, an owner who petitions to install a new fence may be required to remove an existing fence at the applicants expense if the adjacent property owner approves; if the adjacent owner declines, both fences may remain but property-maintenance rules still apply. Commissioners asked planning staff to include an FAQ with the application to spell out common scenarios (who is responsible for weeds in the gap, how to pursue a resolution) and possible voluntary steps the city can take to encourage neighbor cooperation.
The ordinance also addresses invisible electronic pet fences. Commissioners agreed to add three clarifications: explicitly reference invisible fences in the ordinance heading and section text; add a nonconforming "end location" clause so the boundary of existing invisible fences is recorded; and retitle a section on a single fence per lot line to express a "preference for one fence per lot line." City staff said invisible fences installed before the ordinance will be treated as lawful nonconforming uses and cannot be retroactively required to change, but the city will provide educational materials and voluntary signage.
Commissioner comments emphasized safety and clarity: one commissioner asked whether the city could require signs for invisible fences, and legal staff and others noted the law generally does not allow imposing new requirements on lawful nonconforming installations. Planning staff said it is feasible to supply voluntary signs and add explanatory language to the FAQ and the ordinance heading.
The commission accepted three edits proposed at the meeting (add invisible fences to the headings and section text; include end-location language in the nonconforming section; and retitle the lot-line language to indicate a preference) and adopted the ordinance by voice vote. The approved changes take effect as provided in the ordinance; the record did not include a formal roll-call tally in the minutes.
Next steps: staff will publish an FAQ and the updated application, and the commission asked staff to prepare public information about invisible-fence safety and voluntary signage.
