Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fencing Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs fencing and easement code changes, asks counsel to clarify utility restoration duties
Summary
Commissioners recommended approval of a fencing code text amendment that clarifies general fencing standards, utility-box clearances and HOA responsibilities but asked staff to consult legal counsel on who must restore property after utility work and to expand acceptable fence materials.
The Tremonton Planning Commission on July 14 voted to recommend that the City Council adopt amendments to the fencing provisions of the Tremonton City Code, adding a definition in chapter 1.03.0.005 and amending section 1.18.0.040 to clarify general fencing standards, sign-obscuring language and utility-box clearance requirements.
Staff explained the amendments are intended to streamline language, improve enforceability and align standards with common planning and engineering practice. Commissioners and residents asked for clarifications on multiple points: how to quantify "substantially" obscuring a sign, what distance a fence must be set inside a property boundary, and whether buried utility boxes are included in clearance requirements.
A resident who said his property contains two Tremonton water mains expressed concern that city or utility crews could remove fences and damage landscaping for access and might not restore the property. He urged postponement until responsibilities were clarified. "I am a bit concerned that Tremonton City has now got a blank check basically to come into my place, rip down my fence, and destroy my landscaping ... I don't think I wanna be annexed if Tremonton feels they want to go through and dig up my property," he told the commission.
Commissioners heard that standard practice in utility work is for utility providers to repair damage they cause, and staff pointed to easement definitions in the code that reserve rights for public-utility use. Still, the commission agreed the language in section f should be revisited with counsel to clarify replacement and restoration obligations and asked staff to specify acceptable fence materials beyond the draft's sole example of "masonry." A motion recommending approval with those corrections carried by voice vote.
The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council, and staff said it will consult legal counsel about restoration responsibilities and bring revised language back to the council packet.
