Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aiken City Design Review Board denies retroactive fence application at 618 Magnolia St. SE
Summary
The Aiken City Design Review Board denied a retroactive certificate of appropriateness for a wire fence topped with barbed wire at 618 Magnolia St. SE (CER H26-049), finding it inconsistent with design guidelines and likely exceeding the six-foot height limit. The board told the owner to seek a substantially different, conforming design.
The Aiken City Design Review Board voted to deny a retroactive application for a residential fence at 618 Magnolia Street Southeast, ruling the wire fence with barbed-wire topping is not "in harmony with the district" and likely exceeds the city's six-foot height restriction.
The motion to deny application CER H26-049, which names Jacqueline Orstrom as the applicant, cited the city's zoning ordinance provision that "no fence or wall or any portion thereof may exceed six feet in height" and page 38 of the board's design review manual, which discourages uncoded chain-link or wire fencing, especially with barbed wire, in Aiken's historic register areas.
Board members and staff examined photographic evidence and tape-measure photos presented during the meeting. Staff and members said one photo showed the upper barbed wire at roughly 74 inches in one view and posts in another photo measuring as high as 81 inches; dog/welded wire sections were read at about 60'to'64 inches in other images. Members noted variations likely caused by topography and fabrication but said photographs could support a finding that some portions of the installation exceed the six-foot limit.
Several board members emphasized process concerns about retroactive approvals. "We consistently get these that we have to muddle through because they weren't presented in a timely way," a committee member said, noting the board is a quasi-judicial body that must apply guidelines to the facts before it. Members encouraged the property owner to submit a new, substantially different application that conforms to the guidelines rather than seeking retroactive approval.
Neighbors who spoke opposed the new fence. Judith Ko of 622 Magnolia Street SE said the existing four-foot fence on the property had been grandfathered for decades and described the new installation as offensive and unnecessary, saying it "looks like a concentration camp." Faith Hawk of 725 Grace Avenue said the stanchions appeared temporary and the barbed wire was "offensive." The board took those public comments into account during discussion.
After debate the board moved and seconded a motion finding the fence not in harmony with the district and denying the application. The chair called for the vote and the denial carried; the board recorded that written notification of the denial and the reasons will be sent to the zoning official and building official within 15 days. Board members said enforcement, including whether the existing fence must be removed, is the responsibility of the zoning and building officials; staff indicated Mike Dennis will work with the property owner on compliance.
The board's chair and members noted that repairs to an existing nonconforming fence generally are permitted, but a substantially different replacement would need to be presented and meet the guidelines before the board. The board adjourned after taking up a separate zoning-text item.
Next steps: the applicant may submit a new, substantially revised application or appeal the denial through the city's appeal process; the zoning and building officials will determine any enforcement timeline or requirement for removal.
