Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board asks staff to rewrite fence language after members find graphics don’t match definitions
Summary
Board members said the proposed UDO language replacing 'solid fence' with 'privacy fence' conflicts with the graphics and the written definition; the board unanimously asked staff to draft a distinct 'solid fence' definition and guidance on where it should apply.
Board members raised persistent concerns that deleting 'solid fence' and substituting 'privacy fence' left a confusing standard in the Unified Development Ordinance. Members said the written definition (privacy fence = obscures more than 50% of view) does not match the graphics and could lead to inconsistent enforcement.
Bill Kernick said the term 'privacy fence' is misleading when it allows up to 49.99% openness and argued the ordinance should retain or add a clear 'solid fence' definition for high‑impact separations such as industrial-to-residential boundaries. Staff acknowledged the graphics and text do not align and the board unanimously voted to ask planning staff to draft a clearer solid-vs-privacy definition and propose where each should apply in the ordinance.
