Seeking to modify Greensburg’s City Code provisions meant to regulate fence construction within city limits, Development Director Mike Gurnee was told Monday night by city council he and the Planning and Zoning Commission have more work to do.
The heart of the matter is paragraph a of section two of the current Fences and Walls Regulations of the Land Development Code, which reads, “All fences and walls shall be constructed with a finished side facing outward from the property. The posts and support beams shall be on the inside or shall be designed as an integral part of the finished surface.” The commission’s recommendation was to strike the entire sentence, as well as several others from the code, in response to resident Peter Kern having been found to be in violation of the provision last summer when constructing a wooden fence around his back yard on South Elm next to the residence of Marcelyn Woolsey at 515 South Elm.
Woolsey, who’s yet to move back into her residence from her FEMA trailer south of town, objected last summer when Kern put the finished side of his fence to the interior of his yard on the side facing Woolsey’s house. Woolsey complained to Gurnee at the time, her protest later being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Though Woolsey contended Kern, as the industrial arts instructor at the high school, should have known about the provision, Kern maintained he didn’t knowingly violate the code. Gurnee said at the time that since residents aren’t required to obtain a permit to construct a fence, there’s little opportunity to inform the public as to what the code entails.
Rather than seeking to enforce the code in regard to Kern’s fence, Gurnee and the commission sought to eliminate the conflicting section. The council, however, voted unanimously for Councilman Matt Christenson’s motion the commission revisit the issue, addressing two primary concerns, which Christenson phrased as, “First of all, do we want fences permitted (requiring a permit to erect a fence)? And we need a clarification of 2a.”
Councilwoman Erica Goodman, who asked, “Do we want a city where all the fences are facing out, so the backside is facing the street”, questioned completely eliminating 2a’s regulation of placement of the finished side of a fence. Christenson then joined Goodman in suggesting the unfinished side of a fence shouldn’t be facing the street.
Not satisfied that the Planning Commission had been directed to more or less consider revising the provision in regard to which side of the fence faces the street, rather than neighbors such as herself, Woolsey read a written statement during the public comment section of the meeting. Part of what she said, referenced her living in “the old Greensburg where it matters who you are,” as well as the council having “never mentioned the fence facing a neighbor’s property. If I had the money I’d build another fence (next to Kern’s portion facing her house) to face me. I think it’s more important to be cleaning up lots than changing the building code for one person.”
Woolsey also said at one point she’d been told last July Kern would “get to keep it (his fence the way it was erected) since he’s a teacher and a young person. The football coach south of town got his fence put up correctly so I don’t know why he (Kern) can’t.”
In other matters…
*Following council’s decision to pledge $50,000 to the Main Street business project being promoted by local realtor Scott Brown, High school student and green initiative enthusiast Taylor Schmidt addressed the council during the public comment section, saying that while he and other sustainable advocates are “excited” realtor Brown has exhibited the “loyalty” to Greensburg to spearhead the project, he was “bothered” over Brown’s comment that he and others plan to “build it as green as they can.”
Schmidt went on to say he and others with his interest in sustainability were “disturbed and discomforted” over a lack of firm commitment to the building achieving a definitive level of sustainability that would warrant LEED certification. He went on to say Rick Fedrizzi, chair of the US Green Building Council, had committed to waiving the certification fee if a level of LEED certification were achieved, a fee he described as “incredibly expensive” for either Gold or Platinum certification.
Joined by fellow green advocate Levi Smith, Schmidt called for organizers of the project to “take a breath” and consider how a definite level of sustainability might be achieved in the building.
Councilman Brandon Hosheit told Schmidt that while he supported his desire for green design, he pointed out the council’s influence over the project’s level of sustainability was questionable since “We’re (the City) not even one of the bigger donors, so we can’t exactly call the shots.” Pointing out that Brown was having at least a couple more meetings with potential investors in the project, Goodman suggested Schmidt attend to stress his concern in that venue.
*In order to facilitate the process by which public hearings can be held at the January 20 council meeting in regard to four properties still in violation of city code regarding safety and cleanliness, the council passed four resolutions related to each. The owners of the properties may appear at the hearing to explain why the respective properties “should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished.”
Those properties are; 113 North Pine, James Jackson owner (dangerous and unfit structure, general uncleanliness, dangerous conditions, weeds, etc.); 507 East Florida (rear garage), John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, dangerous condition, general uncleanliness, weeds); 522 W Grant, John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, exterior conditions, weeds, minimum housing code/maintenance); 413 E Wisconsin, John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, dangerous conditions, weeds).
|
|
|
Seeking to modify Greensburg’s City Code provisions meant to regulate fence construction within city limits, Development Director Mike Gurnee was told Monday night by city council he and the Planning and Zoning Commission have more work to do.
The heart of the matter is paragraph a of section two of the current Fences and Walls Regulations of the Land Development Code, which reads, “All fences and walls shall be constructed with a finished side facing outward from the property. The posts and support beams shall be on the inside or shall be designed as an integral part of the finished surface.” The commission’s recommendation was to strike the entire sentence, as well as several others from the code, in response to resident Peter Kern having been found to be in violation of the provision last summer when constructing a wooden fence around his back yard on South Elm next to the residence of Marcelyn Woolsey at 515 South Elm.
Woolsey, who’s yet to move back into her residence from her FEMA trailer south of town, objected last summer when Kern put the finished side of his fence to the interior of his yard on the side facing Woolsey’s house. Woolsey complained to Gurnee at the time, her protest later being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Though Woolsey contended Kern, as the industrial arts instructor at the high school, should have known about the provision, Kern maintained he didn’t knowingly violate the code. Gurnee said at the time that since residents aren’t required to obtain a permit to construct a fence, there’s little opportunity to inform the public as to what the code entails.
Rather than seeking to enforce the code in regard to Kern’s fence, Gurnee and the commission sought to eliminate the conflicting section. The council, however, voted unanimously for Councilman Matt Christenson’s motion the commission revisit the issue, addressing two primary concerns, which Christenson phrased as, “First of all, do we want fences permitted (requiring a permit to erect a fence)? And we need a clarification of 2a.”
Councilwoman Erica Goodman, who asked, “Do we want a city where all the fences are facing out, so the backside is facing the street”, questioned completely eliminating 2a’s regulation of placement of the finished side of a fence. Christenson then joined Goodman in suggesting the unfinished side of a fence shouldn’t be facing the street.
Not satisfied that the Planning Commission had been directed to more or less consider revising the provision in regard to which side of the fence faces the street, rather than neighbors such as herself, Woolsey read a written statement during the public comment section of the meeting. Part of what she said, referenced her living in “the old Greensburg where it matters who you are,” as well as the council having “never mentioned the fence facing a neighbor’s property. If I had the money I’d build another fence (next to Kern’s portion facing her house) to face me. I think it’s more important to be cleaning up lots than changing the building code for one person.”
Woolsey also said at one point she’d been told last July Kern would “get to keep it (his fence the way it was erected) since he’s a teacher and a young person. The football coach south of town got his fence put up correctly so I don’t know why he (Kern) can’t.”
In other matters…
*Following council’s decision to pledge $50,000 to the Main Street business project being promoted by local realtor Scott Brown, High school student and green initiative enthusiast Taylor Schmidt addressed the council during the public comment section, saying that while he and other sustainable advocates are “excited” realtor Brown has exhibited the “loyalty” to Greensburg to spearhead the project, he was “bothered” over Brown’s comment that he and others plan to “build it as green as they can.”
Schmidt went on to say he and others with his interest in sustainability were “disturbed and discomforted” over a lack of firm commitment to the building achieving a definitive level of sustainability that would warrant LEED certification. He went on to say Rick Fedrizzi, chair of the US Green Building Council, had committed to waiving the certification fee if a level of LEED certification were achieved, a fee he described as “incredibly expensive” for either Gold or Platinum certification.
Joined by fellow green advocate Levi Smith, Schmidt called for organizers of the project to “take a breath” and consider how a definite level of sustainability might be achieved in the building.
Councilman Brandon Hosheit told Schmidt that while he supported his desire for green design, he pointed out the council’s influence over the project’s level of sustainability was questionable since “We’re (the City) not even one of the bigger donors, so we can’t exactly call the shots.” Pointing out that Brown was having at least a couple more meetings with potential investors in the project, Goodman suggested Schmidt attend to stress his concern in that venue.
*In order to facilitate the process by which public hearings can be held at the January 20 council meeting in regard to four properties still in violation of city code regarding safety and cleanliness, the council passed four resolutions related to each. The owners of the properties may appear at the hearing to explain why the respective properties “should not be condemned and ordered repaired or demolished.”
Those properties are; 113 North Pine, James Jackson owner (dangerous and unfit structure, general uncleanliness, dangerous conditions, weeds, etc.); 507 East Florida (rear garage), John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, dangerous condition, general uncleanliness, weeds); 522 W Grant, John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, exterior conditions, weeds, minimum housing code/maintenance); 413 E Wisconsin, John Colclazier owner (dangerous and unfit structure, dangerous conditions, weeds).
