Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fence Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates moving fence rules to zoning code and handling easements, grandfathering
Summary
Staff proposed moving fence regulations into the zoning code to create a variance and appeal path; councilors debated grandfathering for existing unpermitted fences, whether to use a 10-year rule or a fixed introduction/passage date, and a recorded-covenant approach for fences over town right-of-way.
Planning staff explained that moving fence rules from the building code into the zoning code would allow a formal variance and appeals path and would resolve longstanding inconsistencies in enforcement.
Sarah described proposed changes: raise allowable front-yard fence height to 4 feet (from 3.5), align where fences may begin to the building line rather than the property line, require clearance under fences for stormwater flow, and prohibit hazardous materials such as barbed wire. The draft includes a method for permitting fences that cross or encroach into town rights-of-way through a recorded declaration of covenants in the county land records that preserves the town’s right to remove fences for maintenance.
A lengthy council debate followed about grandfathering unpermitted existing fences. Some councilors worried that a 10-year grandfathering clause could be hard to enforce and recommended grandfathering as of the ordinance introduction date or the date of passage, to avoid incentivizing a rush of unpermitted construction prior to adoption. Jay and staff explained that historical aerial imagery and Street View often provide evidence for when a fence was in place, but noted edge cases in alleys or dead-end streets where imagery is unavailable. Council members raised concerns about encroachments on neighbors’ property, liability if public works must remove a fence, and how replacement work triggers compliance (the draft proposes a 50% linear replacement threshold that would require a fence line to be brought into full compliance).
Councilors asked the town attorney to refine legal language, including conditions that would prevent the ordinance from creating rights in another person’s property, and requested that staff produce administrative options to reduce the covenant-recording burden where feasible. The council did not vote on the ordinance at the work session but signaled interest in amendments to the grandfathering language and easement procedures before a final vote.
Ending: Staff will refine the language with the town attorney to address grandfathering, property-encroachment safeguards and streamlined options for rights-of-way covenants; the council expects the ordinances to return for action at a future meeting.
