Greensburg at last has an updated fences and walls policy in place. But for Marcelyn Woolsey, it’s too little, too late.
Woolsey sat stoically Monday night while city council passed the latest revision of the policy, officially known as Ordinance 978. Once the public comment portion of the meeting arrived, however, Woolsey unloaded, noting she’d lived in Greensburg for 30 years as a taxpayer, distinguishing herself from high school shop teacher and third year resident Peter Kern, her neighbor to the south on South Elm, who built a backyard fence last July that has enraged Woolsey ever since.
Kern built the wood fence with the unfinished side facing outward on the north side. The problem lies in the fact that the front of Woolsey’s house—which features five large windows—faces south, or directly toward Kern’s property, rather than toward Elm Street. She therefore has a front-row view of the backside of Kern’s backyard fence.
“You (council members) all carry on how you’ve done so well and how everyone is so proud of you,” Woolsey told the city leaders. “But I’m not proud of you. There was an ordinance against how he (Kern) built that fence and you let him do it. Some of you on this council had family members on the planning commission that was supposed to deal with this and they just didn’t take my complaint seriously.”
Though the former ordinance to which Woolsey referred called for placing the finished side of a yard fence to the outside of the property, there was, at the time, no requirement of a permit to construct a fence not greater than six feet in height, meaning those doing so typically weren’t aware of the provision.
That’s been changed in the new ordinance, which requires a $35 permit to construct such a fence in the future. Applicants will be made aware of the ordinance’s provisions when they appear to pay for their permit. Two other features of the ordinance the council had directed the Planning Commission to include in the details last November also appear in the new paperwork, including the allowance of fences along side yards and requiring the finished side of a fence to face outward toward a bordering street. Since the north side of Kern’s fence faces the front of Woolsey’s house, rather than Elm or Grant Streets, it remains in compliance.
Other features of the ordinance stipulate that fences and walls can attain a maximum height of six feet in residential areas, with an additional six inches allowed for a base. Eight feet is the maximum height for a fence or wall in a commercial or industrial district of town.
In addition, in regard to corner lots, the ordinance reads, “A fence or wall not more than four feet in height may project into or enclose any required front or side yard along the street frontage of the lot, (an exception being) where no lots in the block face front on the side street.”
The provisions of the prior land development code called for a permit to be obtained only when the fence or wall was to be “greater than six feet in height.” Another section stated, “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 reasoning of the Planning Commission had been that since Kern’s fence hadn’t been more than six feet in height, a permit wasn’t required, meaning he was likely to be unaware of the “finished side” issue.
In other matters…
*New sheriff Kendal Lothman appeared to indicate a new, vigorous attempt would be make to open and maintain lines of communication between his office and the City.
“Either my Undersheriff or I will be attending council meetings to consult on a regular basis,” Lothman said. “I’ve been in office now three weeks establishing new policies and procedures.”
Lothman also pointed out no current law enforcement contract between the City and County is currently in place, saying he “got together with the county attorney the other day to bring you a rough draft of a new contract soon. I want to do that soon because we operated throughout January without a contract in place, though we’re honoring the terms of the old one.”
City Administrator Steve Hewitt said he’s also told Lothman the City would continue to honor the financial terms of the contract until a new one can be put in place.
Lothman also advised the City revisit its policy concerning so called ATV’s (all terrain vehicles) and golf carts for reasons of liability. “They need to be tagged and insured,” he said. “You also need to consider what to do about work site utility vehicles like Gators.”
*Jan West commented during the public comment section of the meeting that she wanted those present to know how “eloquently” Mayor Bob Dixson had spoken on behalf of Greensburg the previous Saturday at the Kansas Day event held in Topeka.
Greensburg, KS —
