Nostalgia: Orig post 6-30-2007 Mailbag: Karen writes Re: Proposed Fence Ordinance-- 3nd reading & VOTE on Monday night Planning Commission)

(Ed. note: Karen has pointed out re these pictures--Hi Dick,

"I just want to be clear that the fences I took pictures of may very
well
comply. It's up to the building inspector to make such
determinations. Also, ironically some fences have support ribs AS
DECORATIVE DESIGN and it's hard to tell the difference sometimes
between
real support bars and decorative support bars from the street. Which
kind
of makes my point.

I tried to capture fences that had support sides out or >8 inch post
heights. I only snapped a sample as I was too shy to photograph when
the
owners were around. Also I was mostly in the historic district. " )



I have been asked to write something to balance the proposed fence ordinance that will have it’s first reading July 2, and have a public hearing and vote on August 6. In order that I might refresh my memory on the details of this ordinance, I went to the city’s web site, but I was unable to locate it. I then remembered that it had been emailed to me as a part of a Planning Packet a few months ago. I have pulled it from the e-file and hopefully it can be put on this blog for public viewing. It is my very strong belief that such things should be readily available on the City site so we can follow along with the elected officials so that we may express our opinions to those who vote on our behalf.

To be fair, I think some slight adjustments have been made since this rendition, but I think the general overall restrictive nature and tone remains the same. As I can tell, this is really a matter of aesthetics and thus opinion. There doesn’t appear to me to be a definitively right or wrong position. But the vote will be for “yes” or “no” which is definitive, so I am taking a definitive stance and asking our elected officials for a “no” vote. And this is why…

First, I have trouble answering the question of “what benefit is the Government trying to achieve?” For swimming pool fences, the answer is easy; it’s safety, to protect the wondering child from a clear hazard. I have no issue with this, as I do believe that perhaps the first role of Government is to protect.

That said, I also agree with the portions of this ordinance that address opacity levels as they relate to driveways and sidewalks or other areas where pedestrian traffic intersect with vehicles. I spoke out against allowing the driveway onto Main St. to remain after construction, at the old Bank of Evansville location for the very reason of pedestrian safety.

What causes me concern with this proposed ordinance is the degree of restriction regarding the aesthetics of fences. I can see no reason to restrict the height of a support post to 8 inches above the pickets. I also can’t understand the logic in mandating which way the fence should face. If you construct a fence and spend the potential thousands of dollars to improve your property, you should be allowed the choice.

What I think is an undesired result with this restrictive ordinance, is transference of expenditure for neighbor disputes. What happens deep within a backyard here in town most often only affects those surrounding the property. There are currently state laws on the books, which address “spite fences” and other such un-neighborly behaviors. Currently if a resident constructs a fence above the current 6 feet height limit and outside of ‘normal’ building materials, such that it is deemed spiteful or problematic, the offended neighbor can file suit in civil court. What this ordinance would do is transfer the obligation to pursue relief to the City. The City would have to incur the expense of addressing the offensive fence up to and including lawsuit. A pursuit the offended neighbor may not feel warranted at his own expense. In this way, I believe we could unintentionally magnify and aid neighbor disputes.

In line with this I am also very much opposed to ordinances that pit neighbor against neighbor. I certainly know of people who told me they did not get a building permit for their backyard fence, in the case of this happening or someone altering an existing fence, it would likely be a neighbor who reports the offense to the city for action. If you have good relations with your neighbors, you may not experience a problem. If on the other hand you live in a neighborhood with Gladys Cravits, then you most likely will have a visit by the City. My point is that these kinds of ordinances are rarely fairly enforced.

Also, when an ordinance is so restrictive, it tends to homogenize. It is designed to create consistency, which some such ordinances out-right declare as a benefit. However for me consistency in fence design directly conflicts with another ordinance being discussed and voted on in the same time frame that’s sole purpose is to shake-up any constancies in home design.

I do realize one of the arguments in favor of this restrictive ordinance is that the community will benefit by the subjective beauty of consistent fence design. However many fences are located in backyards out of view of the general public. If the community at large cannot see it, does the community benefit. Which is to say, is what is happening in my backyard on Garfield really impacting folks on Badger Dr?

I also wonder if the people of the Planning Commission and more so the Council can really declare that this is in the best interest of our community and the constituents they serve. If you begin looking around, you will find a number of fences both new and old that will be non-conforming. I will take this opportunity to remember that Mr. Schwecke only a month or so ago, alone approved, without direction from the Planning Commission, the front fence for Romano’s which under his very ordinance would have been refused. I mention this because I think it is clear by the actions both recent and historic that the citizens of Evansville like diversity in fence architecture.

If our elected officials feel the need to provide for everyone, I can assure them that currently everyone is provided for. For those that prefer strict fence requirements, the city offers selected neighborhoods with restrictive covenants. What our elected officials will be doing in approving this ordinance is eliminating choice from the remaining sections of town that currently enjoy freedom of expression through fence architecture.

I attended a meeting where this ordinance was discussed. It was indicated that our current fence ordinance is too vague and that this proposed ordinance was fashioned after two other ordinances, one from a Wisconsin town and one from elsewhere, I think California. But in researching this topic in preparation for this article, I found the Building Inspector for Reedsburg claimed “vague ordinances” are “pretty much in line with other municipalities in the state,". http://www.wiscnews.com/rtp/news/199184

As for California, I found an article that suggests California cities are re-thinking their restrictive fence ordinances calling them “draconian”.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:SgnBPqlx2R4J:www.gordonforburbank.com/pdf_doc/DailyNews120305HedgeAssault.pdf+cities+with+fence+ordinances&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

It is my opinion that the city of Evansville does not rely on a standard “look” for it’s character, like the Swiss village of New Glarus. And thus does not need to regulate for a fence look that is constant with any image we are trying to portray. Put another way, a unique fence does not detract from the “look” of our town. As I pointed out earlier, given the number of fences that would not conform, I would go so far as to say our citizens feel unique fences enhance our neighborhoods.

If the city is trying to force fences of a certain standard and quality, then I would suggest a better approach would be to expand the BIG (Building Improvement Grant) focus to include requests for fence financial assistance. If a homeowner desires a fence but cannot afford to meet such standards, then they could apply for assistance with the understanding that the fence would need to meet these guidelines. In this way we all don’t have to be restricted in order to upgrade the few.