Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission accepts fence viewer report, orders neighbors to split $5,675 cost
Summary
After a pulled consent item, commissioners heard from a party to a neighbor dispute, reviewed a fence‑viewing report prepared by outside counsel, and unanimously adopted the recommendation that both parties pay half of a $5,675 fence reconstruction and settle the matter.
The Board accepted a fence‑viewer report and approved splitting the cost of a disputed fence between the two property owners after a public comment from one party and discussion among commissioners.
What happened: Commissioner Dorsy pulled consent agenda item 2.2 to ask questions about the century‑old statute governing fence viewings and to allow a party in the audience to speak. The county had engaged outside counsel as fence viewer; Commissioner Dorsy and other commissioners discussed whether the board or outside counsel should serve as fence viewer given the statute’s low historical fee and the complexity of handling associated liabilities and financial accounting.
Public comment: One party involved, Mr. Moore, described his version of events, saying he had asked the neighbor for a shared replacement and that the neighbor told him, "I am a man of my word. I will pay half of it," but later backed away, he said. Moore told the fence viewer "the whole history" and said the materials are included in the record.
Decision: After discussion, a commissioner moved to "accept the recommendation of the fence viewer and determine both parties are responsible for one half of the fence determined to cost $5,675." The motion passed unanimously.
Why it matters: Commissioners debated the tradeoff between saving money by acting as fence viewers themselves and the legal and logistical work required by the statute. Several commissioners said the process frequently requires legal expertise and high‑touch outreach to involved parties.
Next steps: The county will follow the fence‑viewer report’s findings, and each party is responsible for half the reported cost. The commissioners indicated they may revisit process questions if the issue arises again in the future.
