City of Lincoln proposed fence ordinance to be modified

Send a link to a friend  Share

[September 11, 2015]  LINCOLN - On Tuesday evening, the Lincoln City Council held its first voting meeting for the month of September. The meeting had been delayed by one day due to the Labor Day Holiday. There was only one action item on the agenda, a motion to approve or deny a new fence ordinance for the city.

The item had been on the Agenda at the August 17th voting session but was tabled.

This week when the item came up on the agenda, Jonie Tibbs motioned to remove it from the table for voting, with Todd Mourning offering the second. With Steve Parrott absent for the evening, the remaining six members voted unanimously to remove the item from the table.

Tibbs then made a motion to approve the ordinance as it had been presented. When Mayor Pro-Tem called for a second, none was offered. The motion died on the floor.

When this occurred, Tibbs, looking in the direction of Building and Safety Officer John Lebegue said she was curious to know, what part of the ordinance was unclear, leading to it not passing. Lebegue said he didn’t know the answer.

He went on to say that in the time since the ordinance was first introduced, he has had calls to his office, but the majority of the conversations resulted in the caller finding out that the new ordinance had no real impact on them personally.

Lebegue explained that for some time, there has been "rule of thumb" decisions made about fences with nothing specific in writing. He felt that the ordinance was now putting into writing much of what has been practiced by his office in the past.

He added that there had been comments on the five-foot setback for side and back yards that are technically front yards. This occurs when a home is located on a corner lot, which technically means there are two front yards to the property. Lebegue said prior to the fence ordinance, the only rule written about this pertained to accessory structures, which a fence would be considered. That rule he said calls for a 25-foot setback. Therefore, he said what the planning and zoning committee had offered was a better situation.

He said the issue of building fences directly at the edge of a sidewalk was a safety concern. He noted as an example, someone riding a bike on the sidewalk could fall, and fall into the fence.

Lebegue also spoke about the industrial fence rule in the new ordinance. He said the rule only applied to industrial businesses with storage in the front yard area, and a residential district within 300 feet of the business. He said there was only one area in town that this was an issue – North Logan Street. He also pointed out that if there were no outside storage at the business, in the front yard, then the rule would not apply.

Tibbs said that some of the comments she had heard was that people believed that if their fence were not in compliance now, it would have to be torn down. She and Lebegue both reiterated that is not the case. Existing fences can stay just the way they are, with the exception of those that are built with non-conventional building materials.

The non-conventional materials referred to are items such as old roofing or siding, window shutters, and other items that were never intended to be used as fencing. Lebegue had illustrated this when he introduced the ordinance to the council, showing a slide of a house where the “fence” was a collection of discarded materials. He noted, though not in the slide, that there had been one location where an old bed mattress had been used to block a hole in the fence. The new ordinance will permit Lebegue to order that those materials be removed.

Tibbs offered another comment on the use of fences in industrial areas. She said it was a good thing for the community. She talked about the people living in such an area who want a nice home and a nice setting when using their yards, but they don’t have it. She commented, “Those residents deserve a break.”

Jeff Hoinacki spoke up saying that he was in favor of the ordinance but felt there had been some confusion about the action to be taken on Tuesday night. He believed the ordinance was to be tabled again for further discussion at the next workshop session.

[to top of second column]

Mourning said he had thought the same thing. He also asked if the fencing for the industrial zones would be mandatory. Lebegue said it would if they use their front yard areas for material storage.

Lebegue also said that he intended to give these business owners a good amount of time to get their fences built. He understood that fences are costly and will have to be planned for, so he’s not going to rush to enforce the rule with those businesses.

Tibbs spoke again saying she realized that now that the motion has died, this particular ordinance cannot be brought back before the council. She wondered if there was some way that it could be modified and re-introduced to the council.

Michelle Bauer spoke up saying that she had constituents who were concerned about the setback rule. She noted a home on Union Street specifically, on a corner lot with a very small back yard. She said if those homeowners had to comply with the five-foot setback, they would have no yard left. She wondered if they could petition for a variance or exemption.

Bauer said she had done some looking around in her Ward and had come to realize that there are several homeowners that would be in the same situation as the Union Street residents.

Lebegue confirmed that residents in those situations could apply for a variance or exemption to the rule. Bauer asked if that would involve a fee paid to the city, and Lebegue confirmed that it would.

Lebegue said he understood that there were some properties where the five-foot setback would cause a problem, but he countered that no ordinance is ever a perfect fit for everyone. He noted that there will almost always be five to 10 percent of the population for which an ordinance does not work out to be beneficial. He noted that statistic applied for all ordinances, not just this one.

City Administrator Clay Johnson offered a suggestion on how to bring the ordinance back before the council. Now that it had died on the floor, the ordinance in this format cannot be brought back. However, Johnson suggested that language could be added to specify how long businesses had to comply with the fence rules. He said they could add a final deadline for compliance for those businesses only. He suggested one year, or more or less according to the council’s wishes.



Mourning said he did want to bring the ordinance back for another vote, and he was in favor of putting a specific date on the ordinance for businesses. Around the room, others agreed by the nod of the head.

The specific deadline for compliance will be put into effect only for commercial and industrial businesses that store product in their front yards and have their business within 300 feet of a Residential District.

It is expected that the ordinance in its current form will return to the council for voting in the near future.

[Nila Smith]

Past related

Back to top