Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables second reading of fence ordinance amid enforcement, affordability concerns
Summary
Council deferred second reading of Ordinance O-23-25—which would require fences between adjacent residences and where properties abut public rights-of-way and easements—so staff can return with enforcement details, grandfathering guidance and affordability options. The mayor moved to table and the motion passed.
At second reading the council considered Ordinance O-23-25, which would amend the city's development regulations to require fencing between adjacent residential properties and where properties abut public rights-of-way or public easements. A councilmember framed the measure as a safety response after describing an incident involving an aggressive dog running from a property without a fence.
City staff summarized the two textual changes: removing the word "not" where the code previously exempted some residential properties and adding "public easement" to the sections that require a masonry or solid structure along rights-of-way. Staff and a judge consulted about enforcement suggested a multilayer approach that could include warnings, citations and court involvement; staff also noted possibilities for nonprofit partnerships to assist homeowners. Councilmembers repeatedly asked whether existing properties would be grandfathered, how many homes would be affected and who would pay for fences.
Mayor Sonya A. Brown moved to table the ordinance until staff returned with clear enforcement protocols, potential fees or alternatives for low-income homeowners, and guidance from the city attorney and magistrate. The mayor announced that the motion to table passed (tally read in the record as 5–1).
