Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning & Zoning debates landscaping ordinance, tables public hearing for legal review
Summary
The board extensively reviewed proposed landscaping rules including residential area formulas, whether grazing/pasture counts as required landscaping, developer vs. nonresidential standards (Air Park), tree and turf provisions, and agreed to table the public hearing pending attorney review.
Fairfield's Planning & Zoning board spent the April 1 meeting conducting a line-by-line review of a proposed landscaping ordinance, heard public concerns about HOA-style enforcement, debated measurable residential standards versus a simpler frontage rule, and ultimately voted to table the public hearing until legal review is completed.
The ordinance discussion covered definitions (including a new definition of "artificial turf"), a contested residential landscaping formula that would require improved landscaping equal to the ground-floor area of the primary dwelling, and whether contractor/developer-installed residential areas should be held to the more stringent nonresidential standards. The board repeatedly stressed the need for language that is understandable and enforceable.
Some residents and board members worried the ordinance could be interpreted as imposing HOA-like enforcement on existing properties. A public commenter said the draft "feels like an HOA," prompting the chair to emphasize that HOAs are not allowed in Fairfield and to direct staff to clarify language so new build requirements would not retroactively impose standards on existing yards.
The council also debated whether grazing or pasture can count as required landscaped area. Members agreed the ordinance should make clear pastures and agricultural uses do not substitute for required front-yard landscaping and discussed adding a buffer (members mentioned 50 feet as an example) between livestock areas and the required landscaped frontage.
Water-wise provisions prompted a separate discussion: board members agreed to keep many residential items as "recommendations" (labelled Waterwise Landscaping Recommendations) rather than enforceable mandates, while nonresidential developments would remain subject to stricter, enforceable water-wise standards. The council discussed limiting turf to 20'30% for walkable lots but also considered exceptions for properties with irrigation shares.
Other technical topics included tree-caliper minimums and mandatory replacement if trees die, screening and slat-chain-link fences for industrial sites, corner-vision triangles (the drawing and text define a 30-foot triangle), and the need to ensure landscape plans for developer-built subdivisions are workable and consistent with other town standards.
Before concluding, the chair moved to table the landscape public hearing and send the revised draft to the town attorney for legal review; the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The board asked staff to incorporate clarifying edits and comments for legal review and to bring the ordinance back to a future meeting for final action.
Next step: the town will have counsel review the revised ordinance language; the public hearing will be reconvened at a later meeting once staff and legal edits are complete.
