Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hostetler Fence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates fence, snow-drift and zoning for Benny Hostetler property; schedules Board of Adjustment follow-up
Summary
The board heard extensive testimony about a perimeter fence at the Benny Hostetler property, clarified whether supervisors or the Board of Adjustment should set fence parameters, and agreed to ask the Board of Adjustment to consider recommended changes — including excluding Apple Avenue from a privacy fence and dropping a mandatory 'living fence' if the new fence meets consistent aesthetic and setback standards.
The board opened a lengthy public-item discussion on fencing and zoning at the Benny Hostetler property, soliciting comments from the property owner’s representatives, neighbors and county staff about compliance, aesthetics and snow-drift impacts.
A representative for the property (Speaker 5) said the process seemed to have gotten off track and asked why the supervisors were discussing fence parameters instead of the Board of Adjustment, arguing the Board of Adjustment had approved a special exception and that the fence standards should be finalized through that process rather than by supervisors: "So then I thought that was the parameters... I don't think we can ask somebody to make tens of thousands of dollars of improvement with it hanging out in the air and saying, in 2 weeks, the board of supervisors say, no." (Speaker 5).
County staff and secondary-roads officials raised operational concerns about snow drifting and sightlines. From the operational standpoint one county official said, "So the best thing to do would be build no fence at all." (Speaker 3). Secondary Roads recommended avoiding a privacy fence on the Apple Avenue side to reduce snow drifting across the road and suggested a solid fence along Highway 69 with limited east–west fencing; staff also flagged a visibility/setback constraint at a driveway and recommended minor plan adjustments.
Board members and the property owner discussed materials, consistency and enforcement. The board voiced preference for a uniform appearance — "same color, same height, same consistent" (Speaker 5) — and one property representative confirmed they could complete the work in about "60 to 90 day[s]" depending on help available (Speaker 10). The group discussed a 9-foot-from-ground height as an appropriate parameter for the screening fence.
Outcome and next steps: the board agreed to ask staff to set up a Board of Adjustment meeting to present recommended parameters and to recommend removing the Apple Avenue privacy fence while not requiring a living fence so long as the new fence is consistent in color, height and setbacks and addresses the Board of Adjustment conditions. Staff will circulate secondary-roads comments and the relevant email record to the Board of Adjustment for its formal action.
