|
 Lebegue said the city rule had always been that fences could be
no more than four feet tall in front yards, but there were no rules
regarding open or closed fencing. The changes in the new ordinance
would state that front yard fencing must be open, such as picket
fencing with a space between each picket. He said there are examples
in Lincoln of closed or solid fencing in front yards that take away
from the overall attractiveness of the neighborhood.
For side and back yards, the new rules will specify that a fence may
be no taller than six feet. Lebegue said this has been a rule of
thumb practice in Lincoln, but that it was not in writing.
At a meeting of the Zoning Board several months ago, Lebegue said
this had become an issue when a homeowner challenged the rule of
thumb, and Lebegue was unable to support his denial of an eight foot
fence through the written ordinances.
The new ordinance will also include provisions for corner lots.
Lebegue said corner lots were considered to have two front yards
because they have two sides facing a road. Because of this,
homeowners frequently come to the city seeking a variance so they
can put a taller fence on what they feel should be considered their
side and back yard. Lebegue said those variances were often granted.
But, it would be better to have it in writing what is acceptable.
 The new rule said that a privacy fence can be constructed in the
second front yard, as long as it is in line with the house. Lebegue
said the rule would also require that there be a setback for the
fence. The goal is to prevent homeowners from extending their fence
all the way to a city sidewalk. Lebegue said setting the fence five
feet from the sidewalk would improve visibility along that street,
and look better in the community.
Finally, there will be a new mandate for industrial and commercial
businesses that are adjacent to residential areas. Lebegue showed a
slide of a business in Lincoln that had a large graveled area,
material storage, and vehicle parking. Across the road from the
business are several residences. He noted that for the homeowners,
this is what they have to look at each day, and they shouldn’t have
to. Also, he said that the visible commercial area could have a
negative effect on homeowner property values. The Zoning Board of
Appeals is recommending privacy fencing be required in such
instances.
Lebegue was asked if that would include a requirement for a gate. He
said it did not. He noted that on the side, the unsightly portion of
the yard area is not the driveway. He said the goal was to block the
view of the materials and other items that are necessary for the
business, but not good to look at for the homeowner.
Homing in on the slide he was showing, Lebegue was asked if the
business was in an R (residential) zone or was it a C (Commercial)
or I (Industrial) District. Lebegue said the business was
appropriately zoned and that having their materials in their yard
was acceptable. It wasn’t a matter of something that needed to be
cleaned up; it was a matter of something that needed to be hidden
from plain view to the homeowners.
During his discussion, Lebegue was asked about grandfathering in
existing fences. He said homeowners would not be asked to change
their existing fences to comply with the new rules. New fences will
have to comply, and replacement fences will have to comply.
[to top of second column] |
Talking specifically about the new fence requirement for commercial
and industrial properties, Lebegue was asked if there would also be
a grandfathering clause that would exempt existing businesses from
being forced to build fences. Lebegue said, no, there will be no
exceptions. These businesses will now be required to put up a fence.
Michelle Bauer asked how soon after the ordinance was passed businesses would be
forced to comply. Lebegue said he intended to be very generous on the timeline
for compliance in those situations. He told the council that ultimately the
fencing would be to the benefit of the business owner, and would increase the
business’ property value. However, he noted that fencing is expensive, that
business owners should be given ample time to work the fence project into their
budget.
Going back to the subject of open fencing in front yards, City Administrator
Clay Johnson suggested the city put a restriction on chain link fence in front
yards because they end up being unsightly.
Jonie Tibbs said that she felt the real issue with chain link is proper
maintenance. She said she’d seen chain link that does look nice, but it becomes
an issue when the fence is not taken care of, and also when the homeowner
doesn’t keep the weeds knocked down against the fence.
Others added that chain link was best for pets, and there are times when the
only place for the pet is the front yard. Todd Mourning said what can end up
happening is that chicken fence will be placed on the inside of a picket fence
for the protection of a pet, and that ends up looking worse than a chain link
fence.
Johnson said he understood that, but the council needs to realize that chain
link fence is the cheapest form of fencing, and with no restriction, there will
be people who use it in their front yards.
Jeff Hoinacki said he understood, and that the city could always come back and
amend the ordinance if the chain linking became a problem. The other aldermen
agreed.
Lebegue also explained that the new ordinance would define fencing materials. He
showed a picture of a home where the fence was made up of a hodge-podge of items
including plywood and old window shutters. He said that putting stipulations of
acceptable fencing in the ordinance would allow him to take action on people who
are using junk to create a privacy fence.
The new fencing ordinance is expected to be on the Monday night voting agenda.
[Nila Smith] |
