Though Peter Kern apparently didn’t know it at the time a portion of the privacy fence he was erecting around his backyard last July was in violation of Greensburg city code, in particular, section 26-108.4.E.2.a. The statute states any fence within city limits “shall be constructed with the finished side facing outward from the property”, meaning the “posts and support beams shall be on the inside...”
While Kern, who lives at 521 S Elm, did make sure the finished side of the east and south portions of his fence faced the street, he kept the finished side to the inside of his yard on its north segment, something with which his neighbor to the north, Marclyn Woolsey, took exception.
Shortly after seeing Kern’s project get underway Woolsey complained to Community Development Director Mike Gurnee who told her to file a written complaint, which she did within a month’s time.
Seeing for himself that Kern’s fence did violate city code, Gurnee sent Kern a letter dated August 15 informing him of his infraction and giving him 30 days to either correct the north stretch of the fence or file an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Kern filed the appeal September 16, leading to Wednesday night’s appearance of Kern and Woolsey before the Board, which doubles as the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Gurnee had provided the Board beforehand with a memo outlining the background of the Kern/Woolsey dispute and offering four alternatives to dealing with the matter, the first of which was to agree with his finding of Kern being in violation and requiring him to adjust the appearance of his fence, while a second was to find Gurnee had misapplied the code. A third choice was to give Kern opportunity to apply a finished side to the portion of the fence facing Woolsey’s house.
The Board, however, decided to go with Gurnee’s final suggestion, which was agreeing that his finding and letter to Kern had been correct while giving Kern time to pursue repeal of the relevant portion of the zoning code. The Board, in fact, agreed to allow up to 120 days for deletion of section 26-108.4.E.2.a.
While Kern cannot personally seek to have the relevant section dropped, Gurnee said he would seek to have a public hearing on the advisability of repealing the fence ordinance as soon as November 3. Assuming the absence of a public outcry to keep the fencing statute in place, Gurnee said the Board would then likely recommend deletion of that part of the code to the City Council.
Asked later if he though Woolsey had a legitimate complaint in regard to Kern’s fence, Gurnee said, “O sure, it was legit by virtue of how the code is written. The code says how a fence is to be put up and Kern did something opposite.”
Gurnee pointed out, however, that Kern’s contention that he was ignorant of the law concerning which side of the fence should face neighbors was believable.
“We don’t require fencing permits,” he said. “If we did he (Kern) would have been informed of all the requirements when he came in to apply. It’s kind of an obscure requirement, and not one that you would think most people would be aware of.”
As evidence of the general ignorance of the fencing statute Kern brought with him to his appearance before the Board photos of several residential fences around Greensburg, several of which Gurnee said “were in violation as much as his.”
Woolsey, however, said during her comments before the Board that she was “shocked” Kern claimed not to know of the provision.
Gurnee said the public hearing on the matter is important in order to “ascertain the public’s feeling on the matter. Public input does play a big role.” He went on to say that if the Board should decide to recommend to city council the statute be kept in the code, it should also ask the language be modified to require obtaining a permit for erecting a fence, “even if there’s no charge so people can be made aware of the laws related to it.”
Woolsey later said she was “very disappointed” they (Board of Appeals) did not follow the fencing code.” She also said she spoke to Kern while he was constructing the fence and offered to “put something up on” her side of the north segment so she “wouldn’t have to look out her window at the back side of that.”
“He (Kern) told me they were his posts and he paid for them and nobody was attaching anything to them,” Woolsey said.
“I guess I lost,” she said. “I’ve just given up on this and on the City of Greensburg.”
In other matters…
*The Planning and Zoning Commission continued to Monday night (October 20) a public hearing on the closing of Cherry Street between KS Avenue (US 54) and Florida. That street had formerly separated the offices of BTI Implement Dealership from its machinery lot. The BTI property has recently been purchased by the County as the site for the new Kiowa County Memorial Hospital. The County, in fact, originally asked the street be closed.
While Gurnee said there seems to be concern by some that closing Cherry would eliminate traffic’s first opportunity to turn south when entering town from the west, the hospital’s current plans call for a driveway being constructed where Cherry currently sits.
“It won’t be a public street, and it won’t be as wide, but people can still get to Florida from the highway by turning into the driveway,” he said. “Otherwise they’ll have to wait two more blocks until they get to Spruce.”
*The commission also approved an application for a conditional use permit allowing Fleener Funeral Home to build its new facility at the northeast corner of Main and Garfield. The permit was needed since the area has been residential until now.
Greensburg, KS —
