Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fences topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates fence‑column exception for new multifamily projects adjacent to existing homes
Summary
Tooele City planners presented a proposed amendment to allow developers to omit vertical columns on perimeter fencing where a new multifamily development abuts existing single‑family fences. Developers argued columns create 'dead space' that traps debris; council directed staff to rewrite the draft for clarity and return it for further consideration.
Tooele City Council on June 3 considered a proposed text amendment (Tula/Tooele City Code 7‑11‑17) to change perimeter fence design rules for new multifamily or planned developments that abut existing single‑family fencing.
City planner Anna England explained the amendment was applicant‑driven and would permit an exception to the ordinance’s requirement for vertical sections (columns or piers) where a new perimeter fence directly adjoins an existing adjacent fence installed by a private property owner. Planning commission recommended the draft with additional conditions including administrative staff review, neighbor notice, written affidavits of affected owners, and an ability for affected owners to request a planning commission hearing if they dispute staff’s decision.
The applicant’s representative and developer explained the practical rationale: placing columned posts next to an existing vinyl fence often creates a narrow gap — a maintenance issue that collects weeds and trash and, in some cases noted by councilmembers, allows wildlife to become trapped. “Our goal wasn’t to use somebody else’s fence,” the applicant said, “it was just to get rid of the columns in this scenario…to avoid the gap.” He said the developer plans to build a cohesive, matching fence on its property and is not seeking to rely on neighbor fences.
Councilmembers raised several concerns: whether the city should require developers to negotiate directly with affected homeowners, whether written consent from every adjacent owner is practical when dozens of properties might be affected, and whether the city would inadvertently create a civil dispute best resolved between private parties. City attorney Matthew Johnson said the city’s authority is to relax the standard for new development but cannot force private property owners to remove or alter their fences; unresolved disputes between neighbors would remain a private civil matter.
Council direction: members generally supported preserving staff discretion and clarified intent — allow staff to approve a discretionary deviation removing columns in narrowly defined cases, keep columns where appropriate and maintain the planning commission appeal process if neighbors object. Because of several ambiguities in the current draft, council asked staff to rewrite the ordinance language to make the exception and approval path clear, and to return the item for further consideration at a future meeting (staff suggested the business meeting on June 17 as a possible return date). No final ordinance or vote occurred on June 3.
