Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Disability Accommodation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Erlanger council weighs easing front‑yard fence rules as disability accommodation to prevent wandering
Summary
Councilmembers discussed an ordinance pathway and administrative review to allow front‑yard fences as reasonable accommodations for residents with disabilities (examples cited: autism and wandering risk). Administration will research current administrative-review practices and report back.
Councilmember Recker told the caucus she wants an easier pathway for families of children with autism to request front‑yard fencing as a reasonable accommodation, saying parents often lack time and resources to pursue Board of Adjustment appeals and that simple, documented accommodations could reduce search‑and‑rescue incidents. Recker cited national statistics and local tragedies to emphasize safety stakes.
City Administrator Mark Collier described three options he researched: do nothing (applicants use the existing administrative review and/or appeal to the Board of Adjustment), create a legal framework allowing the Board of Adjustment to consider medical documentation explicitly in variance decisions (several Northern Kentucky cities have such ordinances), or enact a blanket zoning change to permit front‑yard fencing citywide (Collier said he would not recommend a blanket change).
Collier noted that Erlanger’s zoning ordinance currently does not allow front‑yard fences and that an administrative review process can, in some cases, preempt the zoning code when required as a reasonable accommodation under federal fair housing/ADA law. The city attorney advised the council that attorneys would tell a Board of Adjustment to apply ADA reasonable‑accommodation standards and that applicants would generally need to show a medical or individualized need — for example documented safety plans or Individualized Education Program (IEP) references — to succeed.
Councilmembers raised concerns about costs, possible burdens on homeowners (for example removing a fence before sale) and enforcement (including conflicts with HOAs). Several members favored creating a simple application checklist and fee structure and instructed administration to investigate the existing administrative‑review paperwork and fees.
What’s next: Mark Collier will research the administrative review process, existing forms and fees, and bring recommended next steps to a future council meeting (to be placed on the regular meeting agenda under old business).
