Ordinance 66-12RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Dayton Legal Blank, Inc.
66-12 (Amended)
Ordinance No.
Passed 20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 153 OF THE
DUBLIN CODE OF ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE) TO
MODIFY SECTIONS 153.078 THROUGH 153.083 FENCE
CODE, RELOCATE HEDGE DEFINITION TO SECTION
153.002 DEFINITIONS. (CASE 12- 058ADM)
WHEREAS, it is necessary from time to time to amend the Code in order to protect the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Dublin; and
WHEREAS, Sections 153.078 through 153.083 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances
regulates fences; and
WHEREAS, Section 153.002 of the Dublin Codified Ordinances contains definitions of
terms referenced in the Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Code amendment is to modify hedges as fences; and
WHEREAS, Sections 153.078 through 153.083 and Section 153.002 require amending to
update certain Zoning Code sections to align with direction from City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin,
of its elected members concurring, that:
Section 1. Chapter 153 of the City of Dublin Zoning Code is hereby amended and shall
provide as follows:
§ 153.078 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
The purpose of these provisions is to establish regulations controlling the use and
type of fences or walls. This is for the conservation and protection of property, the
assurance of safety and security, the enhancement of privacy, and the improvement of the
visual environment. This includes the provision of a neat and orderly appearance
consistent with the neighborhood and community character.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.079 DEFINITIONS.
FENCE - GENERAL. The word FENCE shall in general terminology mean any structure
composed of wood, metal, stone, plastic, cellular vinyl, or other natural and permanent
material erected and positioned as to enclose or partially enclose any premises or any part
of any premises. Trellises, or other structures supporting, or for the purpose of supporting
vines, flowers and other vegetation when erected in such position as to enclose or partially
enclose or separate any premises shall be included within the definition of the word
FENCE. Live vegetation, hedges, retaining walls, or radio controlled fences, shall not be
included within the definition of the word FENCE.
Relocate (A) HEDGE to §153.002 — Definitions.
§ 153.080 REGULATIONS ON USE.
(A) Regulations - general. Except as otherwise specifically permitted herein, no
fence or wall shall exceed four feet in height. Supporting members for wall and fences
shall be located so as to not be visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is
designed such that the supporting members are identical in appearance on both sides of the
fence or wall. No fence or wall shall be constructed in any platted no -build zone,
conservation/no disturb zone, floodway, floodplain or drainage easement for any parcel or
subdivision which would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.
66- 12(Amended)
Page 2 of 3
Passed 20_
portions of the property shall remain accessible from outside the fence area by means of a
gate or other opening.
(1) The fence or wall shall not be permitted to encroach upon public rights-
. of -way or easements or no build zones, conservation/no disturb zones. The fence
or wall shall not be located so as to adversely affect the vision of drivers on the
public streets or from driveways intersecting public streets.
(2) The height of a fence shall be measured from the established grade line
to the highest point of the fence including posts and finials. The height of the fence
may not be artificially increased by the use of mounding unless otherwise required
by the zoning district regulations.
(B) Permitted fencing. Fences shall be permitted as follows, except as otherwise
specifically permitted herein.
(1) Open fences.
(a) Open or partially open, (ornamental or decorative) fences shall
be permitted in all zoning districts and shall be no greater than four feet in
height above the established grade, unless otherwise permitted herein. The
partially open or open fence may be located only within the buildable area
of the lot. These fences may be used to enclose the entire perimeter of the
rear yard if the total lot area is greater than 30,000 square feet.
(b) Partially open or open accent fences shall be located within the
buildable area forward of the primary structure if limited to four feet in
height and designed to only partially enclose an area. These fences are
permitted forward of the building line along scenic roadways but cannot
exceed three feet in height and serve only an ornamental purpose. Fences
within the front yard shall be safely placed so as not to obstruct visibility at
driveway or roadway intersections.
(2) Solid fences. Solid fences shall be permitted in all zoning districts only
in rear yards. Solid fences shall be no greater than four feet in height, unless
otherwise permitted herein, and shall not be used to enclose the entire perimeter of
the property. Such fences shall be located within the buildable area of the lot and
only be used to enclose a deck or patio. Solid fences shall not be located within a
required side and rear yard and shall be of an approved type. Brick, stone or
masonry walls are permitted forward of the building line along scenic roadways
but cannot exceed three feet in height. Fences within the front yard shall be safely
placed so as not to obstruct visibility at driveway or roadway intersections.
(3) Chain link fences. Chain link fences shall only be permitted in
commercial zoning districts. Such fences may not be placed forward of the
primary structure and are restricted to side and rear yards. Such fences may be
erected parallel to and on, or approximately on, the common property line to a
height not exceeding six feet above the established grade. Permitted chain link
fences shall be painted black or shall have a black plastic or vinyl coating.
(4) Arbors, trellises. Arbors or trellises shall be permitted in all zoning
districts. Arbors or trellises, which are detached from the building, may encroach
on a required side yard, side yard which abuts a street and forward of the structure
provided that:
(a) The maximum height is eight feet;
(b) The maximum width is five feet;
(c) The maximum depth is three feet and;
RECORD OF ORDINANCES
Blank, Inc.
66- 12(Amended) Page 3 of 3
Ordinance No. Passed 20_
(d) The surface of the arbor or trellis shall be at least 50% open.
(C) Prohibited fencing.
(1) Electrified, barbed wire, razor wire, and stockade fences are hereby
prohibited in all zoning districts. This prohibition shall not be construed to prohibit
electrified and/or barbed wire fences when used in conjunction with a purely
agricultural use as defined by the Ohio Revised Code.
(2) Vinyl clad, plastic or pvc (polyvinylchloride) fences are hereby
prohibited in all residential districts.
(D) Other fencing. The Zoning Administrator or designee may permit other fences
similar in character and design to one or more of the permitted fences herein, upon
application.
('80 Code, § 1309.04) (Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am.
Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.082 MAINTENANCE.
(A) Permitted fences, walls or structures shall be maintained in good condition, be
structurally sound and completely finished at all times. Any grounds between such fences,
walls or structures and property lines shall be well maintained at all times by the
appropriate property owner. Supporting members for walls and fences shall be located so
as to not be visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is designed such that the
supporting members are identical in appearance on both sides of the fence or wall.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed thi day of /&,0 t)-g -a� -e,`, 2012.
Mayor - P sid ng Officer
ATTEST:
Clerk of Council
I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinal
Resolution were posted in the City of Du
in accordance with Section 4.12(a) of
Revised Charter of the City of Dublin.
Office of the City Manager
City of Dublin Pho 614 - 410.4400- Fax: - 4490 43017-1090 mp-mn
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager,
Date: November 1, 2012
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Re: Ordinance 66 -12 (Amended) - Modifications to Chapter 153 of the Dublin Code
of Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Modify Sections 153.002 and 153.078 through
153.083 Fence Code. (Cases 12- 058ADM)
Summary
On October 22, 2012, Council introduced Ordinance 66 -12 regarding amendments to portions
of the Zoning Code to modify the regulations regarding the use of hedges as fences. Council
discussed the proposed amendment at length with several members expressing concern about
the proposed modification altering the intent to preserve open views along property lines and
the creation of walls of plant material between yards.
Planning has consulted with the Law Department about potential other avenues for addressing
the issues raised in this amendment and discussed at the last Council meeting. After
considering all options, the Law Department recommends adopting the approach proposed in
the current amendment.
Council requested the list of permitted fence materials be altered to include the use of cellular
vinyl. Planning has amended the ordinance to reflect this request.
Recommendation
Planning recommends approval of Ordinance 66- 12(Amended) at the November 5, 2012 Council
meeting.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION CC 11/05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Re located Language: Green
§ 153.002 DEFINITIONS.
HEDGE. A row of dense, closely spaced living plant material composed of vines, trees, shrubs, bushes or
combination thereof.
§ 153.078 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
The purpose of these provisions is to establish regulations controlling the use and type of fences
hedges, or walls. This is for the conservation and protection of property, the assurance of safety and
security, the enhancement of privacy, and the improvement of the visual environment. This includes the
provision of a neat and orderly appearance consistent with the neighborhood and community character.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.079 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this subchapter, the following definitions shall apply, unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
FENCE- GENERAL. The word FENCEshall in general terminology mean any structure composed of
wood, metal, stone, plastic, cellular vinyl or other natural and permanent material erected n; beh a
maHHeF and positioned as to enclose or partially enclose any premises or any part of any premises.
Trellises, or other structures supporting, or for the purpose of supporting vines, flowers and other
vegetation when erected in such position as to enclose or partially enclose or separate any premises shall
be included within the definition of the word FENCE. Stru Lures ereeted other than an 'a 'ones or within
.................I ...... -, ......- I....
, Hedges,
retaining walls, or radio controlled fences, shall not be included within the definition of the word FENCE.
...... .................., r ._..1 ... .....
(8A) SOLID FENCE. A fence designed to inhibit public view and provide seclusion and, when
viewed at right angles, having more than 50% of its vertical surface area closed to light and air.
(1) BOARD ON BOARD or ALTERNATINGBOARD ONBOARD. A fence constructed
of vertical wood boards or other natural and permanent material with one -inch nominal size
boards between, or upon, a frame of 2 -inch nominal members and 4x4 nominal posts.
(2) LOUVER or VENTILATING FENCE. A fence made of a series of wood slats or other
natural and permanent placed at an angle or positioned so as to provide air but to deflect light
perpendicular to its vertical plane.
(3) SOLIDPICKETFENCE.Afence made up of upright one -inch by two -inch nominal
wooden boards or other natural and permanent material, that abut one another, side by side
with no openings. The top of the fence may be pointed or blunt.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION CC 11/05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Relocat Lan Green
(4) STOCKADEor PALISADEFENCE. A fence constructed with a row of large pointed
stakes of wood or other natural and permanent material placed upright against each other having
more than 50 percent of the area of its vertical plane closed to light or air.
(5) WALL, STONEor BRICK. A solid fence constructed of stone or brick.
(6B) PARTIALLYOPENFENCE. A fence designed to offer a vertical, but not totally blocked,
visual separation. This fence is used where a low level of screening is adequate to soften the impact of
the use or where partial visibility between areas is more important than a total visual screen. Partially
open fences include:
(1) PICKETFENCE. A partially open fence made of upright wooden poles or slats. This
fence may be an open fence if the space between the vertical boards is greater than the width of
the boards.
(2) ARBOR or TRELLIS. A fence of latticework used as a screen or as a support for
climbing plants.
(SC) OPENFENCE. A fence constructed for its functional, ornamental or decorative effect and,
when viewed at right angles, having not less than 50 percent of its vertical surface area open to light and
air. Permitted open ornamental fences are:
(1) SECURITYor INDUSTRIAL FENCE. A fence made with metal wire having sharp
points, barbs, edges or other attached devices designed to discourage physical contact along its
length.
(2) CHAINLINKFENCE. A fence usually made of metal, loops of wire interconnected in
a series of joined links and including vinyl, plastic- coated or painted varieties.
(3) ELECTRIFIED FENCE. All fences or structures, with a device or object that emits or
produces an electric charge, impulse or shock when the same comes into contact with any other
object or any person, animal or thing, or which causes or may cause burns to any person or
animal. So- called wireless or radio controlled fences that utilize radio signals and control collars
are excluded from this definition.
(4) SMOOTH RAIL, SPLITRAIL, MILLED RAIL or CONTEMPORARY RAIL FENCE.
A fence constructed of narrow, whole or split, wooden timbers or boards placed horizontally
between upright supporting posts. Smooth rail, split rail, milled rail or contemporary rail fences
may have supplemental wire fencing or mesh attached to the interior of the fence. Such wire
shall be painted or coated black. For the purpose of improved containment, the opening size shall
be not less than 3" X 3" and designed in a horizontal grid.
(5) WROUGHTIRON FENCE. A fence constructed of metal, including aluminum, iron or
steel, pipe, tubes or bar stock and having some type of decorative features or design. Wrought
iron fences shall not have pointed ends exposed but may have finials with blunt ends.
(6) RADIO CONTROLLED FENCE. The use of insulated wire (typically low voltage and
located underground) to transmit a radio signal to a receiving device. Radio controlled fences are
exempt from these regulations.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION cc 11/05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Relocated Language: Green
(7) RETAINING WALL. A wall composed of wood, stone, brick or other masonry
material designed to hold back a portion of higher ground from a lower one. A retaining wall
permits two elevation levels to be placed adjacent to each other with an abrupt vertical change
between them.
(8) ACCENTFENCE. A fence that is used solely for ornamental purpose and does not
enclose or partially enclose an area.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.080 REGULATIONS ON USE.
(A) Regulations - general. Except as otherwise specifically permitted herein, no fence or wall shall
exceed four feet in height. Supporting members for wall and fences shall be located so as to not be
visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is designed such that the supporting members are
identical in appearance on both sides of the fence or wall. No fence or wall shall be constructed in any
platted no -build zone, conservation /no disturb zone, floodway, floodplain or drainage easement for any
parcel or subdivision which would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All portions of
the property shall remain accessible from outside the fence area by means of a gate or other opening.
(1) The fence or wall, eF hedge shall not be permitted to encroach upon public rights -of-
way or easements or no build zones, conservation /no disturb zones. The fence or wall, eF hedge
shall not be located so as to adversely affect the vision of drivers on the public streets or from
driveways intersecting public streets.
(2) The height of a fence shall be measured from the established grade line to the
highest point of the fence including posts and finials. The height of the fence may not be
artificially increased by the use of mounding unless otherwise required by the zoning district
regulations.
(B) Permitted fencing. Fences shall be permitted as follows, except as otherwise specifically
permitted herein.
(1) Open fences.
(a) Open or partially open, (ornamental or decorative) fences shall be permitted
in all zoning districts and shall be no greater than four feet in height above the
established grade, unless otherwise permitted herein. The partially open or open fence
may be located only within the buildable area of the lot. These fences may be used to
enclose the entire perimeter of the rear yard if the total lot area is greater than 30,000
square feet.
(b) Partially open or open accent fences shall be located within the buildable
area forward of the primary structure if limited to four feet in height and designed to only
partially enclose an area. These fences are permitted forward of the building line along
scenic roadways but cannot exceed three feet in height and serve only an ornamental
purpose. Fences within the front yard shall be safely placed so as not to obstruct visibility
at driveway or roadway intersections.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION cc 11 /05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Relocated Language: Green
(2) Solid fences. Solid fences shall be permitted in all zoning districts only in rear yards.
Solid fences shall be no greater than four feet in height, unless otherwise permitted herein, and
shall not be used to enclose the entire perimeter of the property. Such fences shall be located
within the buildable area of the lot and only be used to enclose a deck or patio. Solid fences shall
not be located within a required side and rear yard and shall be of an approved type. Brick, stone
or masonry walls are permitted forward of the building line along scenic roadways but cannot
exceed three feet in height. Fences within the front yard shall be safely placed so as not to
obstruct visibility at driveway or roadway intersections.
(3) Chain /ink fences. Chain link fences shall only be permitted in commercial zoning
districts. Such fences may not be placed forward of the primary structure and are restricted to
side and rear yards. Such fences may be erected parallel to and on, or approximately on, the
common property line to a height not exceeding six feet above the established grade. Permitted
chain link fences shall be painted black or shall have a black plastic or vinyl coating.
(1) �keaVesn I ledges shall be peFmiaed OH all FeHiHg distFiets. I ledges shall siet be ieeated
(34) Arbors; trellises. Arbors or trellises shall be permitted in all zoning districts. Arbors
or trellises, which are detached from the building, may encroach on a required side yard, side
yard which abuts a street and forward of the structure provided that:
(a) The maximum height is eight feet;
(b) The maximum width is five feet;
(c) The maximum depth is three feet and;
(d) The surface of the arbor or trellis shall be at least 50% open.
(C) Prohibited fencing.
(1) Electrified, barbed wire, razor wire, and stockade fences are hereby prohibited in all
zoning districts. This prohibition shall not be construed to prohibit electrified and /or barbed wire
fences when used in conjunction with a purely agricultural use as defined by the Ohio Revised
Code.
(2) Vinyl clad, plastic or pvc (polyvinylchloride) fences are hereby prohibited in all
residential districts.
(D) Otherfencing. The Zoning Administrator or designee may permit other fences similar in
character and design to one or more of the permitted fences herein, upon application.
('80 Code, § 1309.04) (Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am. Ord. 28 -09,
passed 6- 15 -09)
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION cc 11/05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Relocated Language: Green
§153.081 PERMIT AND INSPECTION.
Any fences which may be permitted shall require the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Plan
Approval after the same has been approved.
(A) Upon permit application, each property owner shall provide the following:
(1) Name and address of the owner of the lot for which the permit is requested.
(2) Name and address of the person, firm or corporation that will carry out the actual
installation.
(3) An overall plot plan including the shape and dimensions of the lot together with the
location, material, height and location of all proposed and existing fences, potential visibility
conflicts and the drainage flow across the lot. Section and elevation views of the proposed fence
detailing its construction and method of fixture to the ground should also be submitted.
(B) The Zoning Administrator or designee may waive this requirement when the fence location is
such that encroachment is not in question. Upon obtaining a building permit and constructing the fence,
the property owner shall ascertain that the fence thus constructed does not deviate from the plans as
approved by the Zoning Administrator or designee issuing permits and does not encroach upon another
lot or parcel of land. The municipality shall furnish such inspection, as is deemed necessary, to determine
that the fence is constructed in accordance with plans submitted for permit, provided however, that such
determination by the municipality shall not be construed to mean the municipality has verified the fence
is not encroaching upon another lot, nor shall it relieve the property owner of the duty imposed upon him
or her herein.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.082 MAINTENANCE.
(A) Permitted fences, walls, or structures shall be maintained in good
condition, be structurally sound and completely finished at all times. Any grounds between such fences,
walls, shrubbery, hedge or structures and property lines shall be well maintained at all times by the
appropriate property owner. Supporting members for walls and fences shall be located so as to not be
visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is designed such that the supporting members are
identical in appearance on both sides of the fence or wall.
(B) Normal repairs and maintenance. None of the provisions of this Code shall be interpreted to
prevent normal repairs and maintenance or to strengthen or correct any unsafe condition of any fence.
(C) Nonconforming materials. Except that any maintenance that replaces more than 10% of the
surface area of an existing fence, which has nonconforming materials, within a 12 month period shall
require reconstruction of the entire fence with a material permitted by this subchapter.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION cc 11/05/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
Relocated Language: Green
§ 153.083 COMPLIANCE REQUIRED; CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
(A) Fences shall be designed, erected, altered, reconstructed, moved, anchored, positioned and
maintained, in whole or in part, strictly in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and building
code provisions applicable to fences.
(B) If these standards conflict in any way with the standards in any planned development zoning
text, then the most restrictive standards shall prevail. Standards in this section applicable to matters not
covered in the planned development zoning text shall also apply.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Code, in all residential districts fences erected
prior to the effective date of Ord. 75 -98 shall not be considered non - conforming structures and shall be
permitted to be replaced in the same location and at the same or lesser height as existed on the effective
date of Ord. 75 -98. In addition, the replacement fence shall be of a material as provided in § 153.080(C).
A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be required.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
Office of the City Manager
Emerald Parkway - City of Dublin Pho 614-410-4400 • Fax: - 4490 43017-1090 Memo
To: Members of Dublin City Council
From: Marsha I. Grigsby, City Manager 'L
Date: October 18, 2012
Initiated By: Steve Langworthy, Director of Land Use and Long Range Planning
Re: Ordinance 66 -12 - Modifications to Chapter 153 of the Dublin Code of
Ordinances (Zoning Code) to Modify Sections 153.002 and 153.078 through
153.083 Fence Code. (Cases 12- 058ADM)
Summary
Ordinance 66 -12 amends portions of the Zoning Code, as requested by City Council, to modify
the regulations regarding the use of hedges as fences.
Background
An extensive revision of the fencing provisions of the Zoning Code in 2000 resulted in
restricting fences to the buildable area of each lot. A subsequent companion amendment to the
accessory structure provisions limited the placement of sheds, gazebos and similar structures to
the same buildable area. The intent of these changes was to prohibit the placement of fencing
and accessory structures along common property lines and to create open views in residential
developments.
At the July 2, 2012 City Council meeting, after discussion of an enforcement situation regarding
landscaping on a residential property, Council directed Planning to prepare appropriate
legislation to amend the Zoning Code to address landscaping and hedges used as fences in the
Code.
Hedges in Zoning Code
Planning conducted an extensive review of the Zoning Code for any regulations related to
fences and how landscaping could be used as fencing. From that review the least disruptive
approach found was to remove references to hedges, as defined in the Zoning Code, as they
were associated with fences or walls. This amendment affects Sections 153.078 through
153.083 (fence provisions of the Code). The proposed amendment addresses comments from
City Council and its Community Development Committee, noting that hedges are used in many
parts of the city as fences as well as screening and that it should be an acceptable feature of
the community.
The proposed amendment includes the relocation of the definition of hedges from Section
153.079, Fence Code Definitions, to Section 153.002, General Definitions, of the Zoning Code.
Completely removing the definition of hedges is not practicable as it is used in the landscape
provisions of the Zoning Code for screening for service structures, vehicular use areas, land use
Ord. 66 -12 - Fence Code Modifications
October 18, 2012
Page 2 of 2
buffers, and as a way to soften the appearance of a fence or evergreen screen. These sections
of the Zoning Code have their own regulations on the use and location of hedges and are not
modified under this amendment.
Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission
On September 20, 2012, the Commission recommended disapproval to City Council of the
proposed modifications to the Zoning Code related to modifying hedges as fences in the fence
code section of the Zoning Code.
The Commission commented that the fence code, as written, has been effective in preserving
the original intent of keeping open views along shared property lines. Several members stated
they did not believe the proposed amendment best addresses Council's direction to Planning
and expressed concern the proposed modification would encourage walls of plant material
between yards. The Commission suggested a more in depth modification, which would protect
the original intent of the 2000 fence code amendment through a better definition, which clearly
defines when a hedge would be interpreted as a fence as well as potential regulations for
opacity, percentage of property lines covered, variety of plant material, and height of plant
material.
Recommendation
Planning recommends approval of Ordinance 66 -12 at the second reading /public hearing on
November 5, 2012, provided that City Council finds that the amendment properly addresses
their concerns.
7 ci of Dublin
Land Use and Long
Range Planning
5800 Shier Rings Road PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Dublin, Ohio 43016 -1236
phone 614.410.4600 RECORD OF ACTION
fait 614.410.4747
SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
The Planning and Zon ng Commission took the following action at this meeting:
4. Fence Code Amendment
12- 058ADM
Administrative Request
Proposal: To amend the Zoning Code requirements regarding hedges.
Request: Review and recommendation to City Council regarding amendments to
the Zoning Code under the provisions of Zoning Code Sections 153.232
and 153.234.
Applicant: City of Dublin, Marsha Grigsby, City Manager
Planning Contact: Eugenia M. Martin, ASLA, Landscape Architect.
Contact Information: (614) 410 -4650 1 emartin @dublin.oh.us
MOTION: To recommend disapproval to City Council of this administrative request so the
Commission could receive additional guidance from City Council.
VOTE: 7-0.
RESULT: Disapproval of this administrative request was recommended to City Council.
RECORDED VOTES:
Chris Amorose Groomes Yes
Richard Taylor
Yes
Warren Fishman
Yes
Amy Kramb
Yes
John Hardt
Yes
Joseph Budde
Yes
Victoria Newell
Yes
STAFF CERTIFICATION
Eugeni M. Martin, ASLA
Land pe Architect
4. Fence Code Amendment
12- 058ADM Administrative Request
Chris Amorose Groomes introduced this Administrative Request to amend the Zoning Code requirements
regarding the Fence Code. She said the Commission will make recommendation regarding this proposed
Code Amendment to City Council.
Eugenia Martin presented this request for a recommendation to City Council to amend portions of the
Zoning Code, as requested by Council to modify hedges as fences in the Fence Code. She said an
amendment to the Zoning Code in 2000 restricted fences to the buildable area of each lot with the intent
to prohibit the placement of fencing and accessory structures along rear lot lines in order to keep open
views along the common property lines. Ms. Martin explained the topic of landscaping as a fence was
brought up in 2008 by the Community Development Committee of Council (CDC) when they discussed
no -build zones, no- disturb zones, and conservation easements. She said at that time, members of the
CDC felt landscaping was an amenity that was commonly seen throughout the City. She said they
decided at that time, they would maintain status quo in regards to enforcement. She said City Council, on
July 2, 2012, gave Planning direction to prepare legislation to amend the Zoning Code in order to address
landscaping and hedges used as fences. Ms. Martin said at the Council meeting, it was brought up that
this was an amenity throughout the City that we want to maintain as well as preserve the ability to have
privacy in backyards.
Ms. Martin said Planning extensively reviewed the Zoning Code, finding every reference to hedge,
hedges, shrub, shrubbery, bush, and bushes, throughout the Code and the manner it was referenced.
She said Planning's analysis of the least disruptive way of addressing City Council's direction would be to
remove any reference of hedges within the Fence Code section of the Zoning Code and relocating the
definition of hedges from the Fence Code section to the General Definitions. She explained that hedges
are defined in the Zoning Code as a combination of shrubs, trees, and vines. She said hedges are
identified for use as vehicular use screening, property perimeter requirements, as well as in other parts of
the Zoning Code for Standard Districts, where hedges are encouraged to screen fences. She said if a
hedge was a fence, under that scenario it would be a fence screening a fence. Ms. Martin said what
previously would not have been allowed, such as evergreens planted along the property line by a resident
which grew together and would be identified as a fence, would be permitted with this amendment. She
presented photographs of examples where that has happened.
Ms. Martin said Planning's recommendation is approval to City Council of the proposed Code Amendments
as far as removing hedges and fences, as requested by Council.
Ms. Amorose Groomes invited public comments with respect to this application.
Mary Ziegler, 6294 Wismer Circle, said when they built their home in 1993, the builder explained there
were very specific deed restrictions with regard to fences. She said the deed restrictions indicated only
split rail fences were permitted and they could only be in the buildable area. She said the neighborhood
was to have a very open feel. Ms. Ziegler said the original owners of the property behind her had planted
three white pines on each corner of the backyard. She said when the current neighbors moved in about
seven years ago, they said they were going to plant trees and they had talked to the City Forester to see
if that was okay. She said when the trees were planted, they were shocked because they had envisioned
only a few more of the same kind of tree. Ms. Ziegler said eight or nine Norway Spruce were planted on
each side of the neighbors' yard, so there was a total of about 30 trees including the existing ones. She
said they were planted in a straight line with no landscape bed. She said Norway Spruce grow 30 to 50
feet tall and 30 feet wide. Ms. Ziegler said while they can respect their neighbors would like privacy
screening in their backyard, this was too much. She said the yard will be encircled like a fortress. She
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 7
said it was not attractive, and they feel it is not in keeping with feel of the neighborhood. She said they
did not want their yard to have a 30 to 50 -foot wall on any perimeter.
Ms. Ziegler said the City Forester was shocked when she learned how many trees were planted because
she had no idea that many trees would be planted. She said she was not aware of any written plan
submitted that specified the number of trees and how they would be planted. Ms. Ziegler said she also
had spoken to Former City Council member Tom McCash, a member of City Council at the time the Fence
Code was amended. She said Mr. McCash explained the intent of the Code was to provide clear, open
green space and view space in the neighborhoods and landscaping was to be done in islands of
landscaping with open space between them.
Ms. Ziegler said they had offered to work with the neighbors and put landscaping in their yard so there
could be screening without a big wall, but they were not interested. She said they had contacted a zoning
attorney who advised them they could proceed by either going to Civil Court for the violation of deed
restrictions or expecting the City to enforce the Code, and if action was not taken, take the City to court.
She said they had contacted the City and the response was there was a violation and every fifth tree
needed to be moved back five feet so they were not planted in a straight line. Ms. Ziegler said that would
still be a wall. She said the City's next response was to say when the trees reached 50 percent opacity,
there would be a violation. She said now the trees are about at 100 percent opacity, which is much
different than what the photograph presented earlier showed.
Ms. Ziegler said now, the City's response is to change the Code to allow the trees. She said the proposed
amendment indicates City Council wants to allow trees as fences. She said they think this is not the right
thing for Dublin. She said Dublin is about aesthetics. She said the City has beautiful landscaping,
especially along the roadways, so landscaping is obviously very important in Dublin. She said Dublin is
also about community and a 30 to 50 -foot fence around a backyard is not about community. She said
they feel that Dublin is about building community, not about building fences. She said they believed there
could be a reasonable interpretation that allows screening without a blanket statement that says anything
goes. Ms. Ziegler said the screening seen in a neighborhood should be noticeably different from the
screening the City requires around a dumpster.
Ms. Ziegler said these trees also have secondary effects. She said birds love the trees, which is great, but
they generate a lot of bird droppings on their deck and swing set. She said additionally, rabbits live under
them to avoid the neighbors' dogs and always poop in the same spot in their yard which they have to
avoid. Ms. Ziegler said they communicated these issues to their neighbors whose responses were to add
more bird feeders and mock them at the City Council meeting.
Ms. Ziegler said as the trees grow, they will overtake the entire back perimeter of their yard and easily
cross the property lines. She said branches can be trimmed on a deciduous tree, but not at the bottom of
these larger trees without having it look really bad.
Ms. Ziegler asked the Commission to come see the trees from their backyard before voting. She said they
would also like to show the Commission nearby examples where trees have been used as screening in an
attractive way without building a large wall. She pointed out the photograph shown of their house with
the trees behind them was taken when the trees were much smaller. She said another photograph was
shown two houses down from them as an example of a hedge as a fence but it was a mix of evergreens
and deciduous trees. She said eight to ten evergreens of the same species in a row becomes one solid
unnatural looking wall, but when there are a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees, even if it
surrounds the property, there is a little opacity to see through it so it is not a solid wall. She suggested
the Fence Code be revised to allow a good variety of screening, but not allow a solid wall. Ms. Ziegler
said what they were asking was very reasonable where a solid fence was not a neighborhood thing and it
was aesthetically, very ugly. She said there were other solutions that could be applied to allow screening
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
but still provide an open and neighborhood feel. She said they did not understand why you cannot have a
six -foot high wooden fence, but yet you can have a 40 -foot living fence.
Richard Taylor asked if the existing 6 to 8 -foot high trees constituted a fence, and if so, why has there
not been a Code Violation issued. Steve Langworthy explained that a violation notice had been sent to
the property owners and the result of that was included in the City Council minutes distributed in the
packet.
Ms. Ziegler reiterated the Commissioners needed to come see the situation from their perspective before
any vote was taken. She said after they see it, she hoped they would consider writing an amendment
that can be the best of both worlds for Dublin; that provides screening for backyards, yet makes it
noticeably different than something that surrounds a dumpster. She said Dublin is not about building
walls, it is about building community.
Jane Krukowski, 6291 Wismer Circle, said she could see the line of trees behind the Ziegler house from
her front window. She said from the Ziegler's backyard, the row of trees look like a fence. She said she
had trees and privacy, but her trees were distributed throughout her yard, as were other neighbors. She
said she understood when the houses were built, the developer stated there were to be no fences and no
straight lines of trees to act like a fence. She said she supported Ms. Ziegler and the neighborhood. She
said she read in the minutes that City Council wanted the words shrubs' and shrubbery removed from
the Code. She said there was a difference between a shrub or shrubbery and a pine tree. She said shrubs
do not get as high and will not create a wall. She said it was amazing when actually seeing the trees in
the yard, because it is as if the house is closed inside a wall. She said the solid wall of trees seen from
the Ziegler's backyard will affect the value of her home.
Joe Budde asked if the proposed amendment met the intent of what City Council wanted to have happen.
Mr. Langworthy said Planning believed that it did meet the direction given at the time. Mr. Budde said it
appeared Council's direction was that they wanted change, but he could not tell in what direction. He said
the minutes reflected Council wanted Planning to modify hedges and fences in the Fence Code.' He
asked if Council wanted to eliminate them. Mr. Langworthy said the recommendation of Council was to
allow living material to in essence, act as a fence, but not be called a fence. He said that the Council
meeting minutes needed to be read and the recording listened to in order to get the full impact of what
Council wanted. Mr. Budde asked if this proposed amendment would allow the existing tree arrangement
mentioned to exist without a violation. Mr. Langworthy pointed out that when the trees were planted,
they were okay. He said the homeowners were told at some point, the trees would grow to the point
where the tree row would be considered a fence and code enforcement would be necessary when that
time came.
Warren Fishman asked if an original 25 -foot farm fencerow of trees was left by a developer, and
residents planted pines to augment it, would it be a considered a fence under the current code. Mr.
Langworthy said that would be considered a fence because the result would be the same. Mr. Fishman
pointed out that a 25 -foot fencerow was pretty opaque. Mr. Langworthy said Planning had discussed that
someone would be penalized for removing an existing fencerow. Ms. Martin said a homeowner could be
penalized under the current code if they augmented an existing tree row because as written, it was a
combination thereof; of trees, shrubs, vines, and so forth.
Victoria Newell said she was surprised to see the elimination from the text because she had always felt
there was no desire in Dublin to have people completely fence in yards with trees to the point that they
really do become a fence which is what this resident is facing. She suggested there could be a
compromise in the way the text was written that might provide a more sensitive amenity when people
are augmenting their yards with landscaping around the border, if they are not putting something that is
a straight row of trees.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
Amy Kramb said she agreed this was the simplest approach, but she thought it would cause many
problems because there is an expectation when people move into these housing developments whether it
is written in the development code specifically as far as landscaping versus a fence. She said she thought
leaving the Code at hedges of a certain height as it says fences of four feet tall are okay. She suggested
'hedges to four feet tall are okay.' She said the proposed amendment was the least disruptive as far as
interacting with all the other Code pieces, but she did not know if it was the right way.
Ms. Martin said it was the least disruptive. She said however, there are lots in Tartan West where hedges
are forward of the primary structure, and at that point, they violate Code because fences are not
permitted to be forward of a primary structure. She said as Planning started to evaluate how a change
would affect everywhere else, the least disruptive change is to remove hedges from the Fence Code and
not identify a hedge as a fence because it is a living thing. She said parts of the hedge may die and it
those plants may or may not be replaced which impacts the opacity where as a fence is a solid structure.
Ms. Kramb agreed that would be hard to enforce, but said to open it up to allow neighbors to plant
upright arborvitaes as a solid wall would be ugly. Ms. Martin said currently, as the Code is written, that
could be done if the plants were located in the buildable area. Ms. Kramb asked if there were height or
opacity restrictions within the buildable area. Ms. Martin said it would depend upon each development
text and property. Ms. Kramb asked if the current Code restricted the height of hedges. Ms. Martin
explained the Zoning Code did not currently restrict the height of hedges, but if it were an open or solid
fence, there were height restrictions.
John Hardt clarified what the Commission was reviewing tonight was an amendment to the City Zoning
Code which applies to all properties within the City, and deed restrictions were unique to the subdivision.
He said this Commission has no ability to effect deed restrictions, no matter what happens tonight. He
said deed restrictions trump the Code. Ms. Ziegler said that she did not know that.
Jennifer Readier explained they were discussing a couple of different documents. She said a planned
development would have a development text which the City would enforce. She said if there was a deed
restriction, enforcement of them requires private action. She said there could be a much more stringent
deed restriction than the Code, and where the Code may allow it, the deed restriction may not. Mr. Hardt
reiterated the City had no authority to change deed restrictions.
Mr. Hardt said he understood City Council's pleasure was to allow hedges. He said there was language in
the current Code that specifically says hedges shall be permitted, and if the intention is to permit hedges,
he did not know why they were talking about striking that language. He said he was not sure what the
Commission had in front of them meet Council's intention and he was not sure he agreed with Council's
intentions. He said it had always been his understanding that one of the primary planning principles of
residential subdivisions in Dublin was to encourage open space and its use which is why they make
fences so difficult to have. Mr. Hardt said he thought that turning around and allowing hedges in
whatever configuration is kind of the antithesis of the intent behind many of our neighborhoods. He said
he grew up in a house with a hedge on two sides of the backyard, and it did not act like a fence; it acted
like a wall and they never talked to that neighbor. He said the fence on the other side of his yard had a
completely different look, feel, and culture. He said having that perspective, he could not get his mind
around why we would do a 180 - degree turn and let this be something they may want to encourage.
Richard Taylor said he thought Planning had done exactly what City Council asked them to do, however
he also disagreed with what Council had asked them to do. He said this does not solve the problem. He
said it was like 'using a sledgehammer when a thumbtack would do.' He said it was clear from the
photographs shown that most of the neighbors get it. He said done right, landscaping is supposed to look
like it is done in the whole subdivision, not one house at a time. He said regardless of what the tree row
is, it acts as fence or as a lawyer would say, 'It is acting as a fence whether it meets the definition of that
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
or not.' Mr. Taylor asked if the trees were currently in violation. Ms. Martin confirmed they were planted
outside of the buildable area.
Mr. Taylor suggested if they wanted to restrict their usable area of the yard to half of their backyard, that
would be fine, but he did not think they should be infringing upon the view corridor at the price of the
neighbors. Mr. Taylor said it seemed straightforward they were in violation of the Code and the Code
should not be changed to resolve a squabble between two neighbors.
Ms. Amorose Groomes recalled a Dublin property where approximately 400 trees were clustered in
various areas and that was a good example of what the Commission was looking for in situations such as
this. She said she could not imagine this is really what we want to do in all of Dublin's neighborhoods
because we go so far in making sure what materials are used, all the houses are complementary to one
another, and driveways are just so, and then write a carte blanche that whatever plant material you
wanted could be picked and planted in any fashion. She said she thought it would be really destructive to
neighborhoods if the City encouraged this kind of behavior. She reiterated she could not imagine this is
what they would want to encourage without some control measure in place, at least by area, species, or
height.
Ms. Amorose Groomes suggested when the neighbor's trees mature to 50 feet tall, they will cast shadows
into the other yards which could preclude what they can do in their yards, such as having a garden. She
said she thought it was a shame to preclude that. She also recalled on a recently approved development
there was the importance of preserving trees in the backyards because they did not want to look at the
neighbors behind them. Ms. Kramb pointed out the difference was the people buying those lots already
knew that. Mr. Hardt said the difference is those were natural and not walls of 52 identical trees.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said those were very different situations, in the lot depths are very different, and
there is a different representation of what the shadows will be and how that will affect the individual
home. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she could not see that this was what City Council wanted to do or
what they wanted to accomplish.
Mr. Budde said if this situation would happen on every lot in the subdivision, it would remind him of the
California suburbs where there were 8 -foot high fences everywhere, and no one ever met their neighbors
or knew what they looked like. He said they were not a part of the community.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she did not hear support for this proposed amendment, but she thought they
should try to provide some solution. She said they probably needed to look for opacity, percentage of
property lines that are covered, a variety of plant materials and evergreen and deciduous trees, and
shrub height versus tree height.
Ms. Kramb said she thought the blanket; Everything is okay' is not the right approach.
Mr. Taylor said he agreed that possibly some kind of specificity of what might be acceptable might work.
He asked if this was a prevalent problem that many neighbors throughout Dublin were having, or was
this a very isolated incident, and the Code is good 99 percent of the time.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said by the Commission's standards, the Code is good; it just was that this
resident did not like it.
Mr. Hardt said whenever an aspect of a Code is changed, there are tentacles that go out, and he
understood the intent here was to avoid that. He said he would be okay with this proposed Code
amendment in terms of saying live plants do not constitute fences any more, but in concert with that,
there should be some other Code amendment, probably the Landscape Code that then talks about if you
are going to do it, this is what needs to be done.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
Ms. Martin said currently, landscaping is not regulated in backyards. She said regarding the prevalence of
this happening, it is not just in this neighborhood; it has been done throughout the City. Mr. Langworthy
said it was not prevalent, but it existed elsewhere.
Mr. Taylor said they could define when landscaping is and is not a fence in the Code, or since there is a
definition of fencing that was subjective, it was a situation where when someone plants something in the
no -build zone and it gets fence -like, enforcement needs to tell them that it needs to be corrected. He said
otherwise, to meet Code, they will have to submit a landscape plan every time they want to plant
something in their yard.
Mr. Fishman suggested a simpler solution would be not to have to submit a landscape plan for the
backyard. He thought the deed restriction said that this subdivision had a forced and funded home
owners association. Ms. Krukowski said the Association had not been enforced or funded for the 15 years
she had lived there.
Mr. Fishman said if the association had a board and money, if this was a deed violation, this would be an
association problem. He said the association could hire an attorney and have the deed restriction
enforced and that was an easy way to handle the problem.
Mr. Langworthy suggested there were enough comments on the record and the Commission should go
ahead, if they like, and make a recommendation to City Council to not recommend this and include
something in the motion asking Council to reconsider giving Planning and the Commission more direction
about what else they may want to accomplish. He said he suspected this would have a debate once again
when it went to Council and given the comments that the Commission made, the result may be different.
Ms. Krukowski said their problem could be solved by going to court against the neighbor, but the reason
she came to speak to the Commission was she felt it was a bigger Dublin issue. She said she cared about
the City and the feel of the City and the comment throughout was that a sense of community is
hampered if you have a 50 -foot wall between every yard. She said she thought the Commission, who
seems to be the guiding force for aesthetic issues in the City on how things are done and how they make
them look good, was the right group to address the issue by having specific standards as listed by Ms.
Amorose Groomes. She said the City needed something to use that they can easily enforce.
Mr. Taylor said in the meantime, the trees were getting larger and he did not understand why the City
did not pursue resolving the issue with a chainsaw.
Ms. Amorose Groomes said she believed this should be forwarded to City Council with the Commissioners
recommendations. She said maybe the Commission could get some more guidance from Council as to
how they would like to see this applied City wide and what might translate into the built environment.
She said what the end result, or built environment, is what the Commission considers. She said further
Council feedback is needed if their intent is for Dublin's built environment and neighborhoods to have
natural walls or is it to have open vistas and what we have always been about in the past. She said she
did not agree with changing the Code at all for this kind of purpose without thinking it through and
illustrating all of the other pitfalls that might be opened.
Ms. Krukowski said her fear was this situation would grandfathered because the trees were already there.
She said she hoped the concern that the neighborhood had with these trees was seen. She did not want
the situation to continue another year. Ms. Amorose Groomes said Mr. Taylor had asked that Code
Enforcement get back on the job.
Mr. Hardt said he would like to see a broader evaluation of how problems like this one might be resolved
in the future through complimentary Code changes or other policies. Ms. Amorose Groomes said she liked
the idea of handling it through the Fence Code if they precluded any material that constitutes fencing and
that it might be the avenue to address rear and side yard opacities in the Landscape Code.
Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
September 20, 2012 — Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Ms. Newell suggested a definition that would more clearly define when a hedge would be interpreted as
being a fence as in when it is built in a linear fashion of same species of material, it does not have any
variation in elevation or change in form. She said a better definition might be that if you construct a
hedge on your site in that fashion, it is going to be interpreted as a fence for the purpose of providing
continual opaque screening.
Ms. Amorose Groomes commented that like all Code changes, they are never easy or as clean cut as
hoped to be. She said the minutes of this meeting would be provided to City Council to review.
Motion and Vote
Mr. Taylor moved to recommend disapproval to City Council of this administrative request. Ms. Kramb
seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows: Ms. Newell, yes; Mr. Budde, yes; Mr. Hardt, yes; Mr. Fishman, yes; Ms.
Amorose Groomes, yes; Mr. Taylor, yes; and Ms. Kramb, yes. (Disapproved 7 — 0.)
Mr. Langworthy said the recommendation will be sent to City Council for their meeting on October 22,
2012.
City of Dublin Sher Rings Road
Land Use and Long
Range Planning City of Dublin Planning and Zoning Commission
Long 61 Planning Report
h. 614 410 4747
,..,,,. dub edge „sw Thursday, September 20, 2012
Zoning Code Pmmdment
Case Summary
Agenda Item 4
Case Number 12-05ZDM
Proposal To amend the Zoning Code requirement regarding fences and hedges.
Request Remew and resmmendatlon to CYry Conndl regarding amendment to be Zoning
Code under be prod9ms of Zoning Code Sectlont 153232 and 153234.
Applicant Cry of Dublin, Marsha I Grigsby, CYry Manager.
Case Manager Eugenia M. Mahn, ASIA, Landscape Architect (614) 4104650
emart uadublln.on us
Resmmendatlon FecommeotleN OfAp rove/ roe5tptzuixi/
In Planning's opinion, be proposed modlAatloos to remove hedges from be fens
prod9oos of be Zoning Code meets be Intent of not considering trees, shmL
and IINng materials as fences, as directed by City Conndl.
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 12- 05SADM I Fence Code Amendment
Thursday, September 20, 2012 1 Page 2 of 3
Facts Zoning Code Amendment
Case Summary This is a request for review and recommendation of approval to City
Council to amend portions of the Zoning Code as requested by City
Coun to modify hedges as fences in the fence code.
Details
Process
Background
Sections 153.078 to
153.083
Code Section 153.232(B)(9) provides the Planning and Zoning
Commission with "other powers and duties" which includes making
recommendations to City Council for amendments to the Zoning Code.
The Commission should review the modifications, provide input, and vote
on the changes. The proposed amendment for modifying the use of
hedges as fences will be forwarded to C ity Coun for its c onsideration.
An extensive revision of the fencing provisions of the Code in 2000
resulted in restricting fences to the buildable area' of each lot. A
subsequent companion amendment to the accessory structure provisions
limited the placement of sheds, gazebos and similar structures to the
same buildable area. The intent of the changes was to prohibit the
placement of fencing and accessory structures along common property
lines and to create open views in residential developments.
The topic of landscaping as a fence was raised initially in 2008, when
Planning presented a number of issues to the Community Development
Committee of Council regarding landscape screening and the application
and enforcement of No Build /No Disturb Zones. Members of the
Community Development Committee commented at the time that they
did not object to the planting of trees, hedges or living' fences. However,
no specific direction was given to amend the Code.
At the July 2, 2012 City Council meeting, after discussion of an
enforcement situation regarding landscaping on a residential property,
Council directed Planning to prepare appropriate legislation to amend the
Zoning Code to address landscaping and hedges used as fences in the
Code.
Planning conducted an extensive review of the Zoning Code for language
related to fences and landscaping in general. From that review the least
disruptive approach found was to remove references to hedges
associated with fences or walls from Sections 153.078 through 153.083
(fence provisions of the Code). This addresses comments from City
Council and its Community Development Committee noting that hedges
are used in many parts of the city as fences as well as screening and that
it should be an acceptable feature of the community.
The most efficient way to achieve this is to relocate the definition of
hedges to Section 153.002, Definitions, of the Zoning Code. Completely
removing the definition of hedges is not practicable as it is used in regard
City of Dublin I Planning and Zoning Commission
Case 12- 05SADM I Fence Code Amendment
Thursday, September 20, 2012 1 Page 3 of 3
Facts Zoning Code Amendment
to screening for service structures, vehicular use areas, land use buffers,
and as a way to soften the appearance of a fence or evergreen screen.
These sections of the Zoning Code have their own regulations on the use
F L�
and location of hedges and are not modified under this amendment.
Recommendation Adoption of this Zoning Code Amendment
Approval The proposed modifications to the Zoning Code removes hedges as
fences as requested by City Council. Planning recommends approval to
i City Council of this proposed Code amendme
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION PzC 9/20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
§153.078 PURPOSE AND SCOPE.
The purpose of these provisions is to establish regulations controlling the use and type of fences
hedges, or walls. This is for the conservation and protection of property, the assurance of safety and
security, the enhancement of privacy, and the improvement of the visual environment. This includes the
provision of a neat and orderly appearance consistent with the neighborhood and community character.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.079 DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this subchapter, the following definitions shall apply, unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
FENCE- GENERAL. The word FENCEshall in general terminology mean any structure composed of
wood, metal, stone, plastic, or other natural and permanent material erected '- 5bleh a MaHHe and
positioned as to enclose or partially enclose any premises or any part of any premises. Trellises, or other
structures supporting, or for the purpose of supporting vines, flowers and other vegetation when erected
in such position as to enclose or partially enclose or separate any premises shall be included within the
definition of the word FENCE. Rmetwes _- ed etheF thaH eH let "Hes °- %yoth'- flye feet °"et "Hes
, Hedges, retaining walls, or
radio controlled fences, shall not be included within the definition of the word FENCE.
!CI'ICCJ"RrC
(8A) SOLID FENCE. A fence designed to inhibit public view and provide seclusion and, when
viewed at right angles, having more than 50% of its vertical surface area closed to light and air.
(1) BOARD ON BOARD or ALTERNA TING BOARD ONBOARD. A fence constructed
of vertical wood boards or other natural and permanent material with one -inch nominal size
boards between, or upon, a frame of 2 -inch nominal members and 4x4 nominal posts.
(2) LOUVER or VENTILATING FENCE. A fence made of a series of wood slats or other
natural and permanent placed at an angle or positioned so as to provide air but to deflect light
perpendicular to its vertical plane.
(3) SOLID PICKET FENCE. A fence made up of upright one -inch by two -inch nominal
wooden boards or other natural and permanent material, that abut one another, side by side
with no openings. The top of the fence may be pointed or blunt.
(4) STOCKADEor PALISADEFENCE. A fence constructed with a row of large pointed
stakes of wood or other natural and permanent material placed upright against each other having
more than 50 percent of the area of its vertical plane closed to light or air.
(5) WALL, STONEor BRICK. A solid fence constructed of stone or brick.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION PzC 9/20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
(EB) PARTIALLY OPEN FENCE. A fence designed to offer a vertical, but not totally blocked,
visual separation. This fence is used where a low level of screening is adequate to soften the impact of
the use or where partial visibility between areas is more important than a total visual screen. Partially
open fences include:
(1) PICKETFENCE. A partially open fence made of upright wooden poles or slats. This
fence may be an open fence if the space between the vertical boards is greater than the width of
the boards.
(2) ARBOR or TRELLIS. A fence of latticework used as a screen or as a support for
climbing plants.
(SC) OPENFENCE. A fence constructed for its functional, ornamental or decorative effect and,
when viewed at right angles, having not less than 50 percent of its vertical surface area open to light and
air. Permitted open ornamental fences are:
(1) SECURITYor INDUSTRIAL FENCE. A fence made with metal wire having sharp
points, barbs, edges or other attached devices designed to discourage physical contact along its
length.
(2) CHAINLINKFENCE. A fence usually made of metal, loops of wire interconnected in
a series of joined links and including vinyl, plastic- coated or painted varieties.
(3) ELECTRIFIED FENCE. All fences or structures, with a device or object that emits or
produces an electric charge, impulse or shock when the same comes into contact with any other
object or any person, animal or thing, or which causes or may cause burns to any person or
animal. So- called wireless or radio controlled fences that utilize radio signals and control collars
are excluded from this definition.
(4) SMOOTH RAIL, SPLIT RAIL, MILLED RAIL or CONTEMPORAR Y RAIL FENCE.
A fence constructed of narrow, whole or split, wooden timbers or boards placed horizontally
between upright supporting posts. Smooth rail, split rail, milled rail or contemporary rail fences
may have supplemental wire fencing or mesh attached to the interior of the fence. Such wire
shall be painted or coated black. For the purpose of improved containment, the opening size shall
be not less than 3" X 3" and designed in a horizontal grid.
(5) WROUGHTIRON FENCE. A fence constructed of metal, including aluminum, iron or
steel, pipe, tubes or bar stock and having some type of decorative features or design. Wrought
iron fences shall not have pointed ends exposed but may have finials with blunt ends.
(6) RADIO CONTROLLED FENCE. The use of insulated wire (typically low voltage and
located underground) to transmit a radio signal to a receiving device. Radio controlled fences are
exempt from these regulations.
(7) RETAINING WALL. A wall composed of wood, stone, brick or other masonry
material designed to hold back a portion of higher ground from a lower one. A retaining wall
permits two elevation levels to be placed adjacent to each other with an abrupt vertical change
between them.
(8) ACCENTFENCE. A fence that is used solely for ornamental purpose and does not
enclose or partially enclose an area.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION Pzc 9/20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.080 REGULATIONS ON USE.
(A) Regulations - genera /. Except as otherwise specifically permitted herein, no fence or wall shall
exceed four feet in height. Supporting members for wall and fences shall be located so as to not be
visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is designed such that the supporting members are
identical in appearance on both sides of the fence or wall. No fence or wall shall be constructed in any
platted no -build zone, conservation /no disturb zone, floodway, floodplain or drainage easement for any
parcel or subdivision which would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. All portions of
the property shall remain accessible from outside the fence area by means of a gate or other opening.
(1) The fence or wallyy hedge shall not be permitted to encroach upon public rights -of-
way or easements or no build zones, conservation /no disturb zones. The fence; or wall, eF hedge
shall not be located so as to adversely affect the vision of drivers on the public streets or from
driveways intersecting public streets.
(2) The height of a fence shall be measured from the established grade line to the
highest point of the fence including posts and finials. The height of the fence may not be
artificially increased by the use of mounding unless otherwise required by the zoning district
regulations.
(B) Permitted fencing. Fences shall be permitted as follows, except as otherwise specifically
permitted herein.
(1) Open fences.
(a) Open or partially open, (ornamental or decorative) fences shall be permitted
in all zoning districts and shall be no greater than four feet in height above the
established grade, unless otherwise permitted herein. The partially open or open fence
may be located only within the buildable area of the lot. These fences may be used to
enclose the entire perimeter of the rear yard if the total lot area is greater than 30,000
square feet.
(b) Partially open or open accent fences shall be located within the buildable
area forward of the primary structure if limited to four feet in height and designed to only
partially enclose an area. These fences are permitted forward of the building line along
scenic roadways but cannot exceed three feet in height and serve only an ornamental
purpose. Fences within the front yard shall be safely placed so as not to obstruct visibility
at driveway or roadway intersections.
(2) Solid fences. Solid fences shall be permitted in all zoning districts only in rear yards.
Solid fences shall be no greater than four feet in height, unless otherwise permitted herein, and
shall not be used to enclose the entire perimeter of the property. Such fences shall be located
within the buildable area of the lot and only be used to enclose a deck or patio. Solid fences shall
not be located within a required side and rear yard and shall be of an approved type. Brick, stone
or masonry walls are permitted forward of the building line along scenic roadways but cannot
exceed three feet in height. Fences within the front yard shall be safely placed so as not to
obstruct visibility at driveway or roadway intersections.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION PzC 9/20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
(3) Chain /ink fences. Chain link fences shall only be permitted in commercial zoning
districts. Such fences may not be placed forward of the primary structure and are restricted to
side and rear yards. Such fences may be erected parallel to and on, or approximately on, the
common property line to a height not exceeding six feet above the established grade. Permitted
chain linkfences shall be painted black or shall have a black plastic or vinyl coating.
(34) Arbors; trellises. Arbors or trellises shall be permitted in all zoning districts. Arbors
or trellises, which are detached from the building, may encroach on a required side yard, side
yard which abuts a street and forward of the structure provided that:
(a) The maximum height is eight feet;
(b) The maximum width is five feet;
(c) The maximum depth is three feet and;
(d) The surface of the arbor or trellis shall be at least 50% open.
(C) Prohibited fencing.
(1) Electrified, barbed wire, razor wire, and stockade fences are hereby prohibited in all
zoning districts. This prohibition shall not be construed to prohibit electrified and /or barbed wire
fences when used in conjunction with a purely agricultural use as defined by the Ohio Revised
Code.
(2) Vinyl clad, plastic or pvc (polyvinylchloride) fences are hereby prohibited in all
residential districts.
(D) Other fencing. The Zoning Administrator or designee may permit other fences similar in
character and design to one or more of the permitted fences herein, upon application.
('80 Code, § 1309.04) (Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 18 -07, passed 4 -9 -07; Am. Ord. 28 -09,
passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.081 PERMIT AND INSPECTION.
Any fences which may be permitted shall require the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Plan
Approval after the same has been approved.
(A) Upon permit application, each property owner shall provide the following:
(1) Name and address of the owner of the lot for which the permit is requested.
(2) Name and address of the person, firm or corporation that will carry out the actual
installation.
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION PZC 9/20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
(3) An overall plot plan including the shape and dimensions of the lot together with the
location, material, height and location of all proposed and existing fences, potential visibility
conflicts and the drainage flow across the lot. Section and elevation views of the proposed fence
detailing its construction and method of fixture to the ground should also be submitted.
(B) The Zoning Administrator or designee may waive this requirement when the fence location is
such that encroachment is not in question. Upon obtaining a building permit and constructing the fence,
the property owner shall ascertain that the fence thus constructed does not deviate from the plans as
approved by the Zoning Administrator or designee issuing permits and does not encroach upon another
lot or parcel of land. The municipality shall furnish such inspection, as is deemed necessary, to determine
that the fence is constructed in accordance with plans submitted for permit, provided however, that such
determination by the municipality shall not be construed to mean the municipality has verified the fence
is not encroaching upon another lot, nor shall it relieve the property owner of the duty imposed upon him
or her herein.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.082 MAINTENANCE.
(A) Permitted fences, walls, or structures shall be maintained in good
condition, be structurally sound and completely finished at all times. Any grounds between such fences,
walls, shmbbeFy, hedge or structures and property lines shall be well maintained at all times by the
appropriate property owner. Supporting members for walls and fences shall be located so as to not be
visible from the adjoining property unless the fence is designed such that the supporting members are
identical in appearance on both sides of the fence or wall.
(B) Normal repairs and maintenance. None of the provisions of this Code shall be interpreted to
prevent normal repairs and maintenance or to strengthen or correct any unsafe condition of any fence.
(C) Nonconforming materials. Except that any maintenance that replaces more than 10% of the
surface area of an existing fence, which has nonconforming materials, within a 12 month period shall
require reconstruction of the entire fence with a material permitted by this subchapter.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
§ 153.083 COMPLIANCE REQUIRED; CONFLICTING PROVISIONS.
(A) Fences shall be designed, erected, altered, reconstructed, moved, anchored, positioned and
maintained, in whole or in part, strictly in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter and building
code provisions applicable to fences.
(B) If these standards conflict in any way with the standards in any planned development zoning
text, then the most restrictive standards shall prevail. Standards in this section applicable to matters not
covered in the planned development zoning text shall also apply.
(C) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Code, in all residential districts fences erected
prior to the effective date of Ord. 75 -98 shall not be considered non - conforming structures and shall be
permitted to be replaced in the same location and at the same or lesser height as existed on the effective
PROPOSED ZONING CODE MODIFICATION PZC9 /20/2012
HEDGES IN FENCE CODE
Proposed Changes: Blue
date of Ord. 75 -98. In addition, the replacement fence shall be of a material as provided in § 153.080(C).
A Certificate of Zoning Plan Approval shall be required.
(Ord. 75 -98, passed 3- 20 -00; Am. Ord. 28 -09, passed 6- 15 -09)
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minutes of Dublin City Council eetin-
(14Y UGl G4 iK f.S: LQgI'. t:0 !C!a6
July 2, 2012
Hele 20
Yhinni,ci-Zuercher, Lecklider called Monday, July 2, 2 2 Regular Meetin f Dublin Gty Coun to
at 6:30 p.m. at t Dublin Municipal wilding.
l Members pr nt were Mayor Le lider, Vice Mayor S ay, Mrs. Boring, M
. Gerber, Mr. Kee n and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members pr ent were Ms. Grig y, Mr. Smith, Mr. Daniel, Ms. Mumm , and Chief
von Eckartsberq
AD30URNM NT TO J TCUTIV SESSION
Mayor Leck' er moved t0 adjo to executive Bess' n to discuss empio ent- related
issues, s fically matters inv ving performance aluations of variou City employees;
and to d' cuss matters requi d to be kept confi ntial under state la , including
confid tial law enforceme information and tters involving sec ity
arran ements /protocols.
Vic ayor Sal' sernn d the motion.
V eon he motion: Reiner, yes; Mr. ran, yes; Ms. Chi ici- Zuercher, yes; r.
rber, yes; Mrs. Bo g, yes; Mayor Lec ider, yes; Vice May Salay, yes.
The meeting was econvened at 7:00 .m.
PLEDGE OF LEGIANCE
Ms. Chinnici- ercher led the Pie a of Allegiance.
ROLL CA
Present ere Mayor Lecklide , Vice May/niel, s. Boring, / Ms. ci- Zuercher, Mr.
Gerber Mr. Keenan and Mr Reiner
Sta present were Ms. igsby, Mr. Smi Ms. hief von
E rtsberg, Ms. Cran II, Mr. Hammersngworthng, Mr Ha , Mr.
rman, Mr. Thurm , Mr. Gunderman, Ashford wette.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Laurie Gvurko, 6301 Wvnford Drive, Dublin stated that she is present to speak regarding
trees on their property. Her husband addressed Council about the same topic five years
ago. They moved to Dublin in 2004. In 2005, they planted Norwegian spruce trees along
their back property line after receiving approval by City Forester Paula Chope. Her
husband secured all necessary approvals from the City before planting the trees. They
also checked with all of their neighbors about the planting, including the neighbors to the
rear. Once the plantings of the 1.5 -foot trees were completed, the neighbor at their back
property line filed a formal complaint with the CiWs Zoning department based on the fad
that the trees constituted a fence. Her husband spoke to Council about this matter and
Council did not require them to cut down the trees. Now, five years later, another
complaint has been filed by the same neighbor. They are now complaining that the
landscaping constitutes a hedge and their major complaint is that It attracts too many
birds and bunnies — describing the situation as "living behind an aviary." Ms. Gyurko
noted that she gave the Zoning department permission to inspect the trees on their
property. Some of the trees have not survived since the planting. They were informed by
a letter from the City that they need to rectify the situation by August 1. The Code is very
vague, and does not provide specific guidelines about the spacing of the trees. They have
sent a reply to the City with some additional information. She is present tonight because
she was told by the Zoning department that there is no enforcement done unless a
complaint is filed. However, there are hundreds of properties in Dublin with trees that
may constitute a hedge in the no build zone. To her, this seems to be selective
enforcement in that they have been asked to rectify the situation, whatever that means.
They were told five years ago that the matter would be referred to a Council Committee
and that the Committee would discuss it and make a decision, but apparently, a decision
was not made. She is asking tonight that Council discuss this matter and stated that the
fence Code adopted in 2000 may need to be revisited. She does not want to cut down the
trees, which are now 10 -14 feet in height. This will be an economic hardship. The major
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
i`9inute< of Dublin City Council meetii,"
o. ov ra : MAW rF ro ,+o x:.e JU1Y 2 - 2Ot2 Pag 2
Held
issue noted in the letter sent by the neighbor was not about the trees, but with the birds
they attract. If the City requires them to remove the trees, she plans to replant trees in
her yard, and therefore, the number of trees on her property will not decrease. In
addition, they live behind a neighbor who frequently complains and she is uncomfortable
with these neighbors closely watching them. The trees have provided some security and
safety for them. After hearing nothing from these neighbors for five years, she is not
certain why they now want an open space to their yard.
Mayor Lecklider stated that he has had some contact with Mr. Gyurko in the last week.
Did she or her husband contact the City today?
Ms. Gyurko Indicated that they had a call from Brian Martin today and her husband
returned the call. They were told that they could file an appeal, and they are now
pursuing that process. Next week, they will meet with staff to learn about the process and
then fill out the paperwork for the filing of an appeal.
Mayor Lecklider asked if the Gyurkos were provided with assurance that nothing needs to
be done with the trees in the near term until this meeting occurs.
Ms. Gyurko responded that they were given until August 1 to rectify the situation. They
have asked for an extension so that they can determine what the appeal process will
involve. They were not granted any formal extension by the City staff.
Mayor Lecklider stated that Mr. Gyurko lives a block away from his residence and recently
came to his home and shared an e-mail exchange that had taken place with the
neighbors. Mr. Gyurko then came to his home on Sunday morning with the letter from the
Planning Department regarding the fact that the landscaping has been determined to
constitute a hedge and that there needs to be some remedy by August 1. Mayor Leckllder
noted that he sent an e-mail last night to Mr. Langworthy and Mr. Martin and asked the
Clerk to research some records on this topic. He had believed that the issue raised In
2007 was resolved. Once he received the minutes, it did refresh his memory with respect
to what had occurred and how the matter was to be addressed. However, he remains
somewhat confused with the status today with respect to the Code, what constitutes a
hedge, and what is being enforced and not enforced.
Mr. Langworthy responded that this issue goes back several years. It involved a "no
build" zone and fences are not permitted in such a zone. At the time, there was
discussion from the complaining property owner that the plantings were done in such a
manner as to enclose the property, which met the definition of a fence In the Code. At the
time, staff reviewed the landscaping and believed it did not constitute a fence, as it was
not solid and had not grown together. Staff did alert the property owner at the time that
at a future date when the plantings grew dose together, there could be an issue if they
were not trimmed. The landscaping is now at that point as the trees have begun to grow
together. Mr. Martin reviewed the Code and determined that the trees are more closely
aligned to a hedge than a fence because they are a continuous row of vegetation. He
indicated that the best way to address the Issue was to have the trees not be continuous.
The previous issue raised was related to the 50 percent opacity limitation for fences. But
if it is determined to be a hedge, there is not an opacity issue — rather, it cannot be a
continuous row of vegetation. Staffs intent was to work with the Gyurkos to have them
break up the continuity of the plantings to create more of a landscape feature versus a
hedge or fence. That Is how the situation stands. Mr. Martin is out of the office today
and tomorrow, so he has not been consulted regarding the latest contact from the
Gyurkos.
Ms. Gyurko asked for clarification of "breaking up" the continuity, as one tree has died
leaving a large open space and some of the plantings are not touching. What is the
guideline for a hedge and Its length? Can some of the trees be trimmed to leave space in
between them?
Mr. Langworthy stated that there is no numerical computation established. For this
reason, Mr. Martin offered to work with the property owner.
Ms. Gyurko responded that she was told he could come and evaluate, but then received a
letter in the mail that the situation needed to be rectified by August 1.
Mr. Langworthy noted that is the standard letter sent out. He had asked that Mr. Martin
contact the property owner and work with them to resolve the issue.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
RECORD OF PROC'7EDINGS
Nlinutes.of Dublin City g C p o EL u � nci p,
;yr,� };;ESI•'SA:iC L:_. F3R++t:K`. :b:.e daly 26 12 Page ge 3
Held -- — �-- - - .,
Ms. Gyurko responded that is why she is concerned. Will this be an every year situation
going forward, given the growth and change In the plantings? She would like some
closure. Unless a neighbor complains, the other property owners in Dublin with similar
plantings do not have to take these measures.
Ms. Grigsby stated that she was not aware of the recent activity regarding this Issue. Staff
will obtain all of the information and will work with the resident to resolve it. Staff will
also consider granting an extension of time for the property owner to remedy the
situation.
Ms. Chinnici- Zuercher recalls visiting the Gyurko property at the time the original
complaint was filed five years ago. She, too, believed the issue was resolved, but will be
interested in reading the minutes. Her recollection was that the City was not going to
require anything to be done then or in the future for this property. In addition, it is
Inappropriate to respond to an individual complaint about a matter. Five years ago, the
Dublin staff approved installation of these trees so it is not reasonable for the City staff to
Indicate at this time that they do not agree with the previous interpretation. All of this
needs to be considered. However, she believes the Gyurkos should not have to make any
modifications to the landscaping.
Mrs. Boring noted that she, too, believed that the issue was resolved. Her recollection
was that the landscaping benefitted both property owners. Pine trees are used for
screening and buffering throughout the City. In her opinion, if the City approved this
installation five years ago, this landscaping should be grandfathered.
Ms. Grigsby responded that because she does not have all of the details, she recommends
that Mr. McDaniel and Planning staff work to resolve the issues related to this. She will
keep Council apprised of the progress in the resolution.
Mr. Gerber stated that this is a fair approach, but he does recall that this matter was
discussed and resolved several years ago. There are trees throughout the City that have
grown substantially and could constitute hedges. It concerns him that the Gyurkos will
have to wait until sometime prior to August 1 to hear from the City on the decision
regarding this matter. He would recommend at this point that the City rescind the letter.
Mayor Lecklider asked the Clerk to forward the records from the various meetings on this
matter.
Mr. Langworthy stated that the Committee meeting occurred at the point that discussion
was taking place about a general Zoning Code update. Staff believed at the time that a
change to that portion of the regulations could be included in the Code update. However,
the Zoning Code update did not go forward for a variety of reasons.
Mr. Reiner noted that his recollection of the discussion was that the landscaping added
value for both property owners in terms of privacy. Since the City approved the
Installation of trees at the outset, his understanding from the previous discussion was that
there would not be further steps taken. If a property owner had not secured City approval
and had installed plantings with the intent to violate the Code, that would be a different
matter altogether.
Mr. Langworthy stated that this direction is fine. Staff did not recall the end result of the
last discussion. Staff can certainly call off any enforcement, if that is Council's desire.
Ms. Grigsby stated that, after consulting with Mr. Smith, if Council's direction tonight is as
several Council Members have articulated, that is the direction staff will follow.
Vice Mayor Salay added that Council did discuss the fact that trees are used throughout
the city as fences, hedges, and privacy screening and that was an accepted feature of the
community. She recalls having that discussion with the Law Director.
Mrs. Boring pointed out that it is Interesting that the City has long desired a high level of
opacity for landscaping, screening, and mounding, yet now seems to be implying that the
City does not desire such opacity for a property owner's landscaping. She is in agreement
12- 058ADN/I
Fence Code Amendment
Minuie _of
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Dublin City Council
July 2 -2012
vleeting
Page 4
2n
that this situation was reviewed five years ago and was determined to be acceptable. She
would request a follow -up on this general policy matter to understand how this is being
interpreted and enforced citywide.
Mayor Lecklider asked that the Clerk circulate the minutes to all interested staff as well.
Staff can follow up if there is need for a Code amendment going forward so that this Issue
does not occur in the future.
Mr. Langworthy clarified that a Code amendment would be necessary so that the
provisions could be enforced.
Pedro Weisleder. 7934 Caraway Avenue stated that he is present tonight to address
Council regarding a situation with a neighboring property at 7926 Caraway Avenue. The
owners have four dogs and the dogs have not been trained. Whenever the dogs are
outside, they bark Incessantly. This is tolerable during the day, but not when they let the
animals out at various hours throughout the night. He has spoke to the Code
Enforcement officer regarding the noise problems. The officer has visited the property on
several occasions and left notices about this. Unfortunately, the problem continues to
occur on a regular basis. In addition to the City of Dublin, he has contacted animal control
and the park ranger for the Metro Park area behind their property. He has brought the
Issue to the homeowners association and the Association sent a letter to the property
owner. The situation improves for a few days, but then reoccurs. He was told at some
point that his only recourse is to contact Dublin Police, and he has done so on some
occasions. Is there something that can be done or some additional assistance available to
resolve this problem?
Mayor Lecklider asked what advice the Police Department has given to him.
Mr. Weisleder noted that the Police responded and went to the door of the property owner
who then brought the animals inside.
Chief von Eckartsberg asked for clarification — did he contact the Police or Code
Enforcement?
Mr. Weisleder responded that he has contacted both. Initially, he contacted Code
Enforcement.
Chief von Eckartsberg offered to meet with Mr. Weisleder after the meeting. If dogs are
barking excessively and generating excessive noise, that can be addressed by the Police.
He is not familiar with the specifics of this case. If the animals are running at large, that Is
a separate issue, but that does not seem to be the case. He would be happy to discuss
this further with Mr. Weisleder.
Mayor Lecklider asked what advice is given to a resident about this general situation.
Chief von Eckartsberg responded that it is best to contact the Police Department in such a
situation. Code Enforcement Is not staffed 24/7, as is the Police Department. They take
calls such as this frequently. Typically, a warning is given and if the Police are called back
in a short period of time, a citation is issued. Animal Control would only be involved if an
animal is running at large.
Mr. Gerber asked Mr. Smith whether a citizen can also pursue private remedies for such a
situation.
Mr. Smith responded affirmatively, noting that a property owner has the right to live
undisturbed on their property and can retain an attorney to resolve this. Civil remedies
are available to the property owner if the situation cannot be resolved by the government.
Mr. Weisleder thanked Council and staff for their suggestions.
CONSENT AGE Zoted A
Mayor Lecklider th/a. re proposed fora n on the consent enda. He
asked whether ny Counequests removal o an item for further onsideration
undey lar agenda
HearMayor Lecd approval of a ons requested for a ten items as
prope consent Mr. onded the Vote otio Vice lay, yes; Ma r Lecklider, yes; M . Reiner, yes; Mr. Keen , yes; Mr. Gerber, hinnici -Zu cher, yes; Mrs. Bor' g, yes.
12 -058A DNI
Fence Code Amendment
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL
Monday, June 23, 2008 - 7:30 p.m.
Minutes of Meetiniz
Ms. Salay, Chair, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Committee Members present were Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider and Mr. Reiner.
Staff members present were: Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Readler, Brian Martin and Jeannie Martin.
Ms. Salay stated that the purpose of this meeting is the continued discussion of no build and no
disturb zones.
Mr. Langworthy stated that this subject was identified over a year ago as a topic that needed to
be revisited. Originally, the no build and no disturb zones effectively achieved their purpose,
but today, many issues are being created by them. Although the purpose for these zones may be
valid, a better way of addressing that purpose is needed. Consequently, staff is seeking direction
from Council regarding a revision of the Code language for no build and no disturb zones to
better meet today's needs. The presentation will be provided by staff members whose work
involves this Code requirement: Brian Martin, zoning and landscape inspector, and Jeannie
Martin, landscape architect.
There is also an interpretation issue regarding landscaping in side yards as they relate to the No
Build and No Disturb zones, specifically if the screening effect of the landscape is interpreted to
act as a fence.
Planning is requesting discussion on the following points and others as Council members wish.
• Have the No Build and /or No Disturb Zones fulfilled their original purposes?
• No Build Zone: With the exception of open and uncovered porches being allowed to
encroach a minimum rear yard, has the combined effect of the Code revisions to fence
and accessory structures requirements negated the need for designating No Build Zones?
If so, could an established, consistent rear yard setback with appropriate accessory
structure restrictions be utilized in its place?
No Disturb Zone: Could the No Disturb Zone provide a greater level of protection for
existing natural features by implementing it on an as-need basis to allow more effective
enforcement? Should the definition be revised to create the ability to impose a
conservation easement as a more standardized method to protect natural features? Should
a more permanent and visible method of marking be used to identify the boundaries of a
No- Disturb Zone?
• Landscape Fences: Should additional restrictions be added on the type, quantity and
location of plant material along property lines to prevent a "fencing" effect?
If the Committee gives direction to do so, staff will prepare Code language that will address the
issues and bring that back for additional discussion.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 2 of 15
Mr. Lecklider indicated that the Ziegler family is present regarding a situation related to
interpretation of the fence code. It is his understanding that the Committee will not be making a
recommendation regarding that specific matter.
Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is the expectation. The Committee is asked to provide policy
direction only, not a recommendation on a specific property matter.
Ms. Martin presented a PowerPoint. She stated that there is a long history associated with the no
build /no disturb zones. In addition, several issues have arisen regarding privacy landscaping as it
relates to those zones:
1. There tends to be a dual designation — no build and no disturb zones often overlap.
2. Improper conditions - an attempt is sometimes made to preserve things that should not be
preserved.
3. Lack of owner awareness of where these zones exist.
4. Indistinct boundaries that vary from property to property and street to street. As a result,
encroachments occur.
Mr. Langworthy noted that encroachments are occurring along the reserve areas behind the
homes.
Inconsistent applications. Varying depths and boundaries are applied, and tend to vary
lot by lot.
The original intent of no build zones was to protect the view sheds of the environmental corridor
from accessory structures, such as sheds or fences. Changes in the Code regarding permitted
locations for these accessory structures or fences have helped to achieve the original intent of the
no build zone.
To discuss the issues, it is important to identify the difference between setbacks and yards. This
can have a significant impact on the desired effect. A setback is an imaginary line that defines
an area on a plate. A yard is a space that is defined once the building is constructed. There is a
great difference between the yard, rear yard and the rear setback. Setback lines can be
established to create the effect of a no build zone. Early establishment of no build zones were
arbitrary lines on plats that varied in depth and location. Property owners had no way to locate
these zones on their property, nor an easy way to locate their property lines. In many cases, the
property line is established through boundaries of mowing and landscaping. As a result, the
perceived property line and no build zone often do not match the actual. Through the years, the
establishment of no build zones became commonplace on plats with little regard to the existing
conditions of the development. In areas where the developer wanted to provide additional
buffering to adjoining properties, landscape buffers were created. These landscape buffer zones
were identified as being "improved with landscaping while preserving existing vegetation." The
homeowner association is acknowledged as the party responsible for maintaining the buffers.
The inclusion of an additional zone such as this only adds to the confusion of the homeowners
regarding what can or cannot be done in these areas. In some cases, a power line has been
placed within the landscape buffer zone.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 3 of 15
Mr. Martin stated that there are examples of these zones in Ballantrae. Typically, when a
developer creates a new development, new development is adjacent to existing development.
The buffer is installed between the two by the builder. The cost of maintenance of the buffer is
the responsibility of the HOA, not the individual homeowner.
Mr. Reiner stated that the intent was to provide screening to protect homeowners' property
values in the event a commercial development was to abut a residential zoning. For example,
trash cans behind a shopping center would not be visible from the residential property if proper
buffering is installed.
Mr. Langworthy responded that separation landscaping is not one of the issues that needs to be
addressed.
Ms. Martin stated that this landscape buffer zone is different from the property perimeter
requirements. It is unique to the development.
Mr. Reiner responded that if the function of the landscape row across the back of the properties
is not to preserve an existing hedge row of trees or to protect the perimeter, what is the need for
it?
Mr. Langworthy responded that this has been the issue. There are many situations in which there
has been an indiscriminate placement of these zones without defining what they were attempting
to protect.
Mr. Reiner noted that it may have been an attempt to screen the power line to make the
properties more saleable.
Mr. Martin stated that in the instance of Ballantrae, it was provided as a buffer between
Ballantrae and the existing residential development, Shier Lane Estates, which is not in Dublin.
At the request of the Shier Lane Estates, the developer supplemented the existing trees to provide
a more effective buffer.
Mr. Reiner stated that makes sense. This would eliminate some of the objections of the residents
so that the developer could have his zoning approved. It does eliminate that type of conflict.
Ms. Martin showed additional examples of varying buffer zones within the Tartan development.
Although the intent of early no build zones was to preserve natural features, the definition did
not prohibit over -lot grading, drainage facilities, utility lines and utility structures from being
located within the zones. That is evident within the Amberleigh North area. As a result, natural
features that were preserved during development stages could be impacted during construction.
While the intent of the zones is commendable, the location and identification of these zones is
challenging. The varying depths and locations can be used in conjunction with setback lines.
One resident's restrictions may be different from their neighbor's, which results in
encroachments and violations. In newer developments, no build zones were established adjacent
12- 058ADNI
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 4 of 15
to existing developments. In some developments, the no build zone and no disturb zones
overlap one another creating dual designations. Identification and designation within these zones
is very difficult, confusing what is permitted and what needs to be enforced.
No Disturb Zone
Mr. Martin addressed the field issues encountered. No disturb zones help designers and
contractors preserve trees during construction. In one incident, a 30 -foot zone was placed at the
rear of a lot to preserve existing trees — but it is a foot from the owner's home. On the first day
of construction, the no build zone was violated because it was necessary to bring in equipment to
dig the foundation and erect scaffolding to construct the house. The property owner also desires
to build a patio at the rear of his house, so he has requested a change in the no build zone. Over
the years, Planning staff has heard from many residents, builders, and real estate agents who are
dissatisfied with the restrictions of the no disturb zones. The standards require that the area is
not to be disturbed, but the intent of the zone was not to preserve noxious weeds or prohibit
responsible horticultural practices like removing dead branches. Every year, staff is contacted
with numerous requests for permission for encroachment into a no disturb zone. A common
practice known as "state parking" involves removing weeds without disturbing the trees. Some
residents request permission to do this; others do not. It is difficult for staff to either enforce no
disturb zones that were cleared out without City permission or grant permission to some to do so
and not others.
Mr. Reiner inquired the reason that zone was plotted on the property.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the reasons can vary. The clearest and best use of the no disturb
zone is in an area where there were areas of significant natural growth that should be preserved.
Even when there were small and separated groups of such growth, the zone was placed across
the rear of all the lots. In some situations, however, it must have been the perception that a no
disturb zone was required and it was placed in a bare area with nothing to preserve.
Mr. Reiner inquired if that was a City requirement.
Ms. Salay responded that when she served on the Planning and Zoning Commission, in nearly all
cases a no build or no disturb zone was placed at the back of every lot. In some cases, it didn't
make sense. It was her understanding that the purpose was a tree protection fence during
construction work. That does not consider the long -term practical effect for the property owners.
In Ballantrae, some of the properties back up to Eiterman Road. Those property owners want to
plant trees and other landscaping to buffer their yards from Eiterman Road, but there is a no
disturb zone, which may contain poison ivy or left -over barbed wire.
Mr. Martin stated that the no disturb zone has provided an easier way to preserve the root zone of
existing trees, which can extend 15 -25 feet. In the long term, when the construction fence is
removed, it creates a problem for the homeowners. They have built an expensive home and
expect to have noxious weeds or undesirable vegetation along their property removed.
12- 0.58ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 5 of 15
No Build Zones
Staff has received inquiries about the trend to install plants along the property lines. He
displayed a photo of a property where the homeowners have installed evergreen trees along the
property line to provide a buffer to enhance the privacy of the lots. The preservation of existing
tree rows between lots is encouraged to provide a buffer. However, the installation of plants in a
no build zone, which constitutes a hedge and serves the purpose of a buffer, is a violation. Per
the fence code, hedges are prohibited in no build zones and in other areas, such as drainage
easements. As indicated, these no build zones have been placed indiscriminately in the rear of
every lot. There is a need for the City to provide clearer direction to the residents and
landscapers regarding City spacing requirement for installation of plants. This will assist the
code enforcement officers in enforcing the fence code.
Ms. Salay stated that installation of plants along property lines is a common practice.
Mr. Martin responded that a contradiction exists. The Code requires the preservation of existing
trees along property lines as they serve as a buffer, yet the Code prohibits the installation of trees
along property lines to serve as a buffer. The latter limits many property owners opportunity to
have privacy and to increase their property value. There is, of course, still the need to avoid 6-
foot high green walls along property lines. The City needs to more effectively communicate
landscape installation requirements regarding plant size and spacing requirements and where no
disturb, no build zones or drainage easements are located on their properties. The City does not
review residential landscape plans that either the builder or property owner may install.
Mr. Lecklider stated that the contradiction is that property owners are installing landscape that in
other areas naturally exists.
Mr. Reiner stated that one way to mitigate this problem is in the planning process and how the
lots are platted. When a developer submits a plan where he has squeezed too many lots onto a
plan, resulting in a square grid of homes, the City should reject the plan at submission. If a
cartwheel effect is utilized, less screening is needed. If a thorough inspection occurs during the
platting stage, less screening would be necessary. When houses are turned on the lots, less
screening is needed. Sometimes no side or rear buffers are needed. Addressing the problem
early in the process would be much easier for the property owners. Good landscape architecture
and urban planning would do much to address the problem. By allowing the current platting
practices to continue, the City is incurring additional expense for each homeowner who must
later attempt to address their privacy or buffer needs. There is also a time factor involved with
landscape life. If a more aggressive platting process occurred with the developers, many of these
issues would be resolved.
Mr. Langworthy responded that would be difficult for staff as they are restrained by certain legal
limitations as to denial of a plat. Earlier, during the design stage, many of the properties become
either rectangular or long and rectangular, and then it is difficult to achieve a creative layout.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 6 of 15
Mr. Reiner stated that is their excuse. The real problem is their efforts to squeeze an additional
house or two into the plan, and to do so, they reduce the plan to small boxes on grids. If the City
were to require residential developers to put in a cul de sac, orient the houses in different
directions, and address the quality of life issues for the neighborhood during the lot platting
stage, this situation would be greatly improved and many of these later problems eliminated. It
is something Council should strive for. Dublin would be a nicer looking community and it
would not be necessary for the homeowners to later fund their need for buffers.
Ms. Salay stated that the Planning staff could look into the opportunity to improve that part of
the process. At this point, the question is how to address the existing problems with residents
creating privacy buffers after development.
Mr. Martin stated that staff has dealt with two cases in which the homeowner had installed a row
of evergreens along the property line to separate the two premises. Staff asked the property
owner to move every fifth plant further into the property to break up the row, eliminating the
solid hedge along the property line. One of the challenges of enforcing the fence code is the
interpretation of the separation of premises.
Ms. Salay inquired if the City's involvement was complaint driven or the result of staff's
observations.
Mr. Martin responded that a complaint was made.
Ms. Salay inquired about other similar cases that are occurring, where the neighbors do not
object.
Mr. Langworthy responded that is part of the problem with complaint -driven enforcement. One
complaint typically leads to others.
Mr. Reiner stated that a high percentage of the homeowners are probably violating the Code due
to efforts to establish privacy along their side or rear yards.
Mr. Langworthy agreed.
Ms. Salay stated that quite often the City requires the developer to plant trees in the no disturb no
build zone to buffer a property.
Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a real difference in how a natural group of vegetation or
a created group of vegetation is considered. The City would penalize an individual removing
natural vegetation but will not allow it to be installed. Although a tree row is not found on every
lot, tree rows down the ends of the lots are common. Yet, all lots are treated the same. This has
created the dilemma.
Mr. Martin stated that the calculation of opacity is also challenging. This often involves an
annual inspection. Compliance with Code involves removing some of the trees or pruning others
to open views. Staff plans to provide better education through graphics to help guide installation
of plants.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 7 of 15
Mr. Martin displayed a photo of a hedge installation along a property line that is adjacent to
Emerald Parkway, a four -lane thoroughfare. There should be special consideration given when a
residential lot is adjacent to a City right -of -way or a bikepath is located along a resident's side
yard. This will be addressed in the Code revision.
Discussion:
• Have the No Build and /or No Disturb Zones fulfilled their original purposes
successfully?
Mr. Langworthy inquired if the some of the previous Code revisions, particularly outlying fences
along property lines and locations of accessory structures in rear yards eliminated the need for
the no build zone designation. Could the no disturb zone be implemented instead on an as-
needed basis for more effective enforcement? It probably would not be called a "no disturb
zone." Staff will present some alternative methods to protect natural features that are more
effective than this type of "blanket" treatment.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if the no build zones with respect to fences and accessory structures have
addressed the building of sheds in rear yards.
Mr. Langworthy responded that the regulations regarding fencing and accessory structures
effectively address the issue. Consequently, the no build zones are no longer needed. The
setbacks have already been established. When the regulations are written they can specify what
may occur in a rear yard or a rear yard setback This accomplishes the same as a no build zone
and applies to every lot equally. When the developer comes in to plat the lot, they already know
what the setbacks are. They can describe the building outlook through the setbacks on the plat.
The property owner will be aware of what can/cannot be done within the yard.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if that would be an effective way to address some of the view shed issues
that have arisen in recent years.
Mr. Langworthy responded that they would accommodate that issue. That has less to do with a
no build zone than a setback.
Public Comment
Steve Ziegler, 6294 Wismer Circle stated that he believes the fence code is very important. One
of the reasons they selected their neighborhood was the no build zones, which would preserve
the open space feel of the neighborhood. No fences are permitted there, but a wall or fence of
trees can have the same effect as an eight -foot privacy fence. Mr. Martin stated the intent to
preserve naturally occurring breaks. However, many of the trees that have been planted around
perimeters do not have naturally occurring breaks. It is now their understanding that the Code
prohibits such a wall of trees. That does not mean the homeowner cannot install vegetation to
provide screening, but the screening cannot be so dense as to comprise a fence. They believe
that is correct. The 50 0 opacity factor allows a reasonable amount of vegetation to be installed.
12- 058ADNI
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 8 of 15
Mr. Lecklider requested clarification of his understanding regarding permitted fences.
Mr. Ziegler responded that his understanding is that fences are not permitted in the no build
zones, but can be installed within the yard. In his neighborhood, there are also deed restrictions
on the type of fencing permitted — split rail, not privacy fencing.
Mr. Reiner stated that Mr. Ziegler's objection appears to be to a linear type of barrier, not to a
subtlety in the design.
Mr. Ziegler responded that simply moving every fifth plant, though, is not sufficient subtlety. It
is still a wall or fence effect. What would work are islands of plantings with greenspace
preserved between.
Mr. Reiner stated that would be a pod type of design.
Mr. Ziegler concurred.
Mr. Reiner noted that would be achieved by the design of the landscape architect.
George Gyurko, 6301 Wynford Drive stated that it was his property which prompted the issues
cited by Mr. Ziegler. He went through the permit process, which was daunting, and believed he
had placed installations correctly. It appears that was not the case. The way he planted his trees,
he actually "lost" yard. If the City had told him he was limited to so many feet or a row, he
would have done that. What is the definition of a row - how many hedges constitute a row?
Ms. Salay inquired what instructions he was given. He is permitted to fence the buildable area of
his lot, so was he allowed to plant trees around the perimeter of the buildable area on his lot, and
essentially fence it with green material?
Mr. Martin stated that the fence code prohibits hedges within no build zones, and a large portion
of Mr. Gyurko's back yard is a no build zone. It was indiscriminately placed with no specific
parameters, and it was difficult to determine the lines of the no build zone. Outside of the no
build zone, in the buildable area, hedges are permitted.
Ms. Salay inquired the definition of a hedge.
Mr. Martin responded that it s a row of closely spaced plants -- either vines, shrubs, or trees.
Mr. Lecklider stated if the homeowner planted arbor vitae within the buildable area, it could be
three- sided.
Ms. Salay inquired what instructions he received.
Mr. Gyurko stated that he submitted the design to Ms. Chope. The design provided for a tree
every 8 -10 feet around the perimeter with trees along the side and flat across the back. He
indicated to her he would come at least 10 feet inside the property line to permit growth that
would not interfere with the neighbors' property. Ms. Chope contacted him within a couple of
days and indicated that she has discussed his plan with someone in Planning. She told him this
12- 058ADM
I ence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 9 of 15
plan was OK, and he took that on good faith. If he received different instructions, he would have
followed them.
Mr. Reiner stated that it is difficult for the homeowner to learn where those lines are. It could
cost them $1,200 $1,400 for a quick survey.
Ms. Martin stated that in many cases, it was an arbitrary lane with no way to define those lines
while in the field.
Mr. Reiner stated that it should be defined on the plat.
Ms. Martin stated that she is not certain if that occurred with earlier subdivisions. They tended
to define these zones with random lines with no purpose. Recent plats are more definitive,
specifying the number of feet from the property line. She does not believe that information is
included with a mortgage survey.
Mr. Reiner responded that it should be provided; it is important information about the property.
Ms. Salay noted that many people are aware of the City's fence code and would not consider
building a fence or deck without City approval. They would probably assume, however, that
they could install trees as they wish on their property. Prior to her service with the City, it would
never have occurred to her to seek permission to plant trees on her property.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he has observed trees along rear property lines that are being set as far
back as possible to preserve a larger play area. The homeowners are not aware of a need to
consider a no build, no disturb zone.
Ms. Salay stated that residents want to have the maximum usable area of their lot.
Mary Ziegler, 6294 Wismer Circle stated that she called the Forester regarding the issue
occurring behind their property. Their neighbors indicated they were planting a line of trees and
that they had obtained City approval. They anticipated 3 -4 trees. When installed, there were
approximately 30 trees on each side along the property line. Ms. Ziegler requested an
explanation, stating that this appeared to be a violation of City Code. The Forester was stunned
at the number of trees that were installed. There appears to a miscommunication occurring.
Perhaps some incorrect information was provided. They contacted Mr. Martin to determine if
the City could remedy the situation. They also offered to invest in some screening at the rear of
their property to assist in providing appropriate screening that would create a wall. She
suggested that the Committee members visit a property which contains a wall of spruce trees and
then picture that wall on three sides of the property. A straight wall of spruce trees grown
together will change the character of that yard completely. They are not at all opposed to
screening, but object to the idea of a 50 -foot enclosure around the back of their yard. They
would be happy to work with anyone regarding screening.
Mr. Lecklider stated that staff provided examples of two views an obstructed view and an open
view. During his previous service on the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Fence Code was
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 10 of 15
adopted. There was a significant focus on fencing issues at that time. He recalls that the effort
was more on preserving the view shed than privacy screening. However, if he were asked to
choose between the open view and the obstructed view, he would choose the obstructed view.
Ms. Salay stated that she would as well. When a beautiful, $400,000 home is built on a
property, that owner wants to have a usable back yard with some screening from their neighbor.
Ms. Salay inquired if Mr. Reiner remembered the intent of Council when the Fence Code was
passed.
Mr. Reiner responded that the purpose focused more on preserving common greenspace and also
landscape privacy. The problem with the current issue is the homeowner may have inadvertently
violated the no build zone. He also apparently sought and received permission for that plan.
Finally, there is a problem with the plan, which is lacking in design. It is a solid line of one
species. There may have been some poor design with no variation in materials.
Ms. Salay stated that she does not know how the local government can regulate that issue or
require property owners to "mix up" their species. This could create a problem for Planning
staff.
Mr. Langworthy stated that Planning does not review individual, single family home landscape
plans. Even if that did occur early in the Planning process, there is no guarantee something
would not alter it.
Mr. Reiner responded that he does not believe the City wants to go that direction. In America,
the individual's property is their domain. He believes the City acted in good faith in creating no
build zones to preserve trees, etc. There is a need to be more careful in the platting process.
Ms. Salay stated that could certainly be done. She will now be more careful in her review of the
plats when they come in, and the Planning and Zoning Commission will be instructed regarding
this need as well. Regarding the discussion question, her response is that she does believe they
fulfilled their original purpose.
Mr. Reiner inquired what improvements staff believes should occur. Although the zones may
not have been enacted perfectly, that would be the result of poor planning, which could be
addressed going forward.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff believes the no build zone is no longer necessary. The
greater issue is with the no disturb zone. If Council could devise a better enforcement plan that
would be applied where it really should be applied, that would be helpful.
Ms. Salay inquired where staff would recommend portions of the Code be amended?
Mr. Langworthy stated that staff recommends the following be provided:
• Site preservation requirements. Currently, there are no provisions in the Code prohibiting
someone from clear cutting their property. The Code needs to address this.
Mr. Reiner inquired if this could also be designed to protect the view shed. For example, Avery-
Muirfield Drive was attractive when it was young and lined with pine, spruce and deciduous
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 11 of 15
shrubs. The original concept for Dublin was to create a community that was always green and
beautiful. Now, the trees have aged, they've been "limbed up" and the view is not attractive.
Most homeowners have not taken the responsibility to maintain that green screen.
Ms. Salay inquired if he is suggesting that the homeowner or the homeowner association be
required to maintain the original buffers.
Mr. Reiner responded that the question is how can site preservation requirements be improved to
include the maintenance of the buffers so they are not "limbed up," and whose responsibility
would it be — the City's or the homeowner's.
Mr. Langworthy stated that the requirement to maintain buffers is already in the Code, although
the quality thereof is not really addressed. Staff could work on language to address that in the
Code.
Mr. Reiner stated that these issues are effectively addressed only in the planning stage. Trying to
achieve the buffer with vegetation with a limited lifespan is a problem. When the vegetation
dies, the view is altered. There is a need to advance the City's planning to a point where this
problem is mitigated. The only permanent resolution is to push the houses back. This would
necessitate reducing the number of houses, then constructing earth berms and planting them.
Mr. Langworthy stated that staff would give this consideration as well. The site preservation
refers to an undeveloped site for which no application has been submitted — that is the one they
want to protect.
Improve plan submittal requirements to better identify natural features. A more precise
description and plan should be submitted for what actually exists on a property.
Presently, the only detail provided is a tree inventory for the tree waivers.
Have a natural feature setback for those features identified as valuable. That would be
more than a protection for the tree root zones. It would also be protection of water bodies
and features they don't normally provide protection for.
• A vegetation strip requirement for natural bodies of water that aren't in a stream corridor
protection zone, rather than permitting mowing to the stream edge. This would improve
the water quality and reduce run -off.
Mr. Reiner stated that is a riparian corridor zoning. Previous attempts have been made to provide
this for Dublin with a concept from the state of Virginia. The language is already written. They
made an attempt to implement it a few years ago, and received a negative response from the
development community. This would probably be a good method of protecting the water shed.
Mr. Langworthy stated that due to the popular "green" programs today, it might be a good time
to resurrect this effort.
Mr. Reiner agreed. Today, there is more advanced awareness of water quality issues. There is a
need for a green shed between the water and the edge.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 12 of 15
Mr. Langworthy responded that he has written a number of watershed protection measures, and
this one is basic to any watershed protection measure.
Mr. Reiner stated that he concurs. It is time for this to happen.
Ms. Salay expressed concurrence.
• Conservation easements. Staff believes that is a more effective method than a no disturb
zone to preserve areas with natural features large enough to warrant it.
Ms. Salay inquired if this would apply strictly to new development
Mr. Langworthy responded that for the most part it would apply to new development. In some
existing neighborhoods, it might be possible to retroactively add a natural feature setback and a
vegetation strip requirement, perhaps with an amended final development plan in the vicinity of
those features.
Mr. Langworthy stated that he has not yet prepared the language for the recommended Code
changes. They first are seeking general policy direction regarding staff's proposal, which is
essentially a question of whether it is possible to effectively protect what is now a no build zone
through other means that are more enforceable and easy to administer.
Ms. Salay responded that she would support that idea. As a Council member, she has
experienced frustration with no build and no disturb zones issues. Ballantrae, in particular,
comes to mind. There is a forest with poison ivy, their yards back up to Eiterman Road, and
there is barbed wire at the rear of their properties.
Ms. Salay asked how staff would revise the language if directed to do so by Council.
Mr. Langworthy responded that he agrees with Mr. Reiner in that this subject should be
addressed in the initial stage. Had these provisions been in place, it would have given staff a
much better idea of where these things need to be addressed. In addition, there should be
something better in terms of tree preservation than what exists today. However, writing better
regulations may not make the enforcement work easier for staff. Some regulations may become
more difficult to administer, but they would be easier for the homeowner to deal with.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he agrees with the need to be consistent with homeowner expectations.
He referred to question #4 -- should privacy landscape fencing be permitted in a no build no
disturb zone. If Council members as a whole concur that: (1) adequate Code sections are in
place; (2) there is no longer a need to rely on a no build zone; and (3) the no disturb zone would
be used when warranted, then he would support some allowance be made for some amount of
privacy landscape fencing in the no disturb zone. It is a homeowner expectation. If some plant
materials are defined as fencing, yet are not allowed beyond the building setback, he does not
believe that meets homeowner expectation.
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 13 of 15
Mr. Reiner summarized that if Mr. Lecklider is stating that it should be possible for homeowners
to augment existing areas of vegetation or create them, he considers that fair. Homeowners
would expect that.
Ms. Salay stated that she agrees. Typically, homeowners want to do additional landscaping and
enhance their privacy. Although some homeowners want to keep their yard open and their view
unobstructed, the majority of homeowners prefer privacy in their back yard and they want to
maximize the ability to use their yard as they desire.
Mr. Lecklider clarified that his suggestion does not, however, include a hedge.
Mr. Langworthy noted that the opacity requirement is still in place.
Ms. Salay inquired if a hedge is not permitted, what plants would be permitted.
Mr. Langworthy responded that staff would develop this information and provide it for the next
discussion. As Mr. Reiner indicated, although staff cannot specify a design, it is possible to
require that some things do NOT occur.
Mr. Reiner noted that would include the use of one single element to define the space.
Ms. Salay stated that, in effect, Dublin will not have privet hedges.
Mr. Reiner responded that at one time, those hedges once defined many lovely Victorian houses.
They were popular.
Ms. Salay concurred.
Mr. Langworthy noted that they were only recently required in the Tartan Ridge development.
Ms. Salay stated that, personally, she does not object to a homeowner planting any tree, privet
hedge or arbor vitae on their property to protect their view shed. In her opinion, if someone
wants to plant trees on their property, they should be permitted to do so. She does not have a
problem with any green, living fence.
Mr. Lecklider concurred. There may be developments where the City would still want the
opportunity to utilize a privet hedge. It wouldn't be desirable to disallow that element.
Mr. Reiner stated that discussion about design is a subject similar to art -- hard to define. He
does not believe the City can regulate the elements used, unless the City is doing review of
individual plans. That review would create a significant burden on homeowners. Government
becomes onerous when it attempts to regulate residents' lives to that extent.
Ms. Salay responded that the City's fence code was designed to regulate the type of fence, where
it could be located, and to maintain a view shed in the neighborhood. That has been
accomplished with those regulations. She is less concerned about the appearance and view shed
of a green, living fence.
Mr. Lecklider stated that Mr. Reiner has pointed out that unless the City requires professionally
designed landscape and a review and approval process, it is not possible for the City to control
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 14 of 15
the plant elements. How, then, would staff's proposed plan be implemented? How will residents
be aware of what is permitted and what is not?
Mr. Langworthy responded that no specifics have been drafted, but a big component of the plan
will be education. Staff has done a good job communicating the regulations to the community,
but if a change in direction is made, a more in depth educational effort will be needed, including
use of the City's website and working with civic associations.
Mr. Reiner stated that he agrees with everything else discussed, but will withhold judgment on
this portion. Attempting to regulate what constitutes good screening and good landscaping for
others is difficult. Homeowners do not have professionals to help them decide their view shed.
Mr. Langworthy stated that it may simply be a case of "less is better."
Ms. Salay that the situation for one resident can differ in many ways from that of another. It is
preferable for the City not to attempt to regulate so many individual situations. She agrees with
the wisdom of less is more. For future development, some direction could be provided with deed
restrictions. People can choose to buy in neighborhoods where privet fences or iron fences are
the expectation, or they can select another environment in which they might feel more
comfortable.
Mr. Lecklider stated that deed restrictions tend to ally some homeowners against other
homeowners, an unpleasant situation.
Mr. Langworthy noted that a deed restriction is, however, a means of notification. It is education
more than it is enforcement.
Ms. Salay noted that the full Council and the general public will be interested in the development
of this plan.
Mr. Langworthy inquired the Committee's direction in proceeding.
Mr. Reiner stated that the green initiatives discussed tonight are valid and should be included.
Also, the new focus should move from the marketing aspect of the land to an emphasis on the
preservation of that which is good and viable for the community.
Mr. Lecklider suggested that Planning staff develop a draft plan for review by the Community
Development Committee.
Ms. Salay concurred. Council will have the benefit of these minutes in the interim, and when a
draft is ready for Committee review, other Council members can attend the meeting, if they
desire. A study session would be an excellent forum, but there are only two more study sessions
remaining this year. August and November are reserved for budget review. What is staff's
anticipated timeframe?
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Community Development Committee Minutes
June 23, 2008
Page 15 of 15
Mr. Langworthy stated that this will take some time to develop. It will involve a great deal of
detail. Staff will inform the Committee when it is ready. It is of great interest to staff, and they
will keep it moving forward.
Mr. Lecklider summarized that the other Council Members should review the minutes of this
meeting, but it may be some period of time before the topic comes back to the Committee.
When the next meeting is scheduled, all Council members will be welcome to attend that
discussion.
The committee thanked staff for the time and effort devoted to this preparation.
Mr. Reiner inquired if the landscape architecture staff is involved with the day to day review of
the plans submitted. Although he understands the desire of the developers to maximize their
profit, the City would do better to deny approval of some of these bad layouts of tract homes at
the onset -- with the goal of improving and protecting the quality of life of its citizens. The
developers will object, but it is necessary if any upgrade of the process is to be made.
Ms. Martin responded that is the task of the design development team, which includes Mr.
Gunderman, Mr. Phillabaum and herself. They try to meet with the developers prior to
submission of an application. They work with them to develop a layout that meets the City's
requirements.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
Deputy Clerk of Council
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Dublin City Council
October 1, 2007 Page 2
Dublin City C ncil and from the tel /motel tax end ent. He applau d Council
/ann n the arts, both dire y and indirectly.
RESENTATION
ed Public Art ogram - David G ion, Executive Dir tor, Dubli n Arts
cil
hanked Cou it and City staff f their support of "T' ration" — an outdo
1pture exhi tion He offered a ersonal tour of th culptures in Co n
se not a e to participate in a tour on Septe er 17. He noted hat
time a on budget with T ration, thanks tot DAC Board, DA staff,
and City staff At a end of 2007, th DAC will be giftin work from Titrati to the
City of Dublin. a then introduce each of the work ich are on disp y in the
park, showing ides and describi them in detail.
He noted th the exhibition is r ceiving good publi ty, with coverage ' Columbus
Alive maga ine, Dublin Life m azine and as a fe ure story in Sund 's Columbus
Dispatch. n order to decide hich sculpture will emain in Dublin a the end of the
exhibit, allots are availabl to the public at th DAC, at the DCR , at City Hall, at
the D B, at the Dublin ibrary, in the ne papers, and onli Ballots will be
colle ed from October through October He encouraged veryone to visit th
par and view the scul ures prior to votin
H noted that DAC as received a ve positive respons o the exhibit to te.
ey are already in a process for pla ing for Titration II i 2008. The Worthi gton
Arts Council and a City of Gahann have contacted t m about modeling imilar
art projects.
Once the vote are tallied, reco endations will be made to the DAC oard on
November 1 and the DAC ill bring a recom endation to City ouncil on
November
Mayor C innici - Zuercher co mented that it wo be desirable to ve sponsors for
the wo s, in order to keep If of them in the munity.
Mr. ion responded th is correct, as it w uld enable keepin all five versus tw
scu tures in the comm ity permanently.
M or Chinnici -Zuer er asked if the s Iptures, once de ' ted to the City, 11
main in their curve location.
r. Guion respon d that is somethin hat staff and Cou it must decide.
Mayor Chinnici- ercher thanked Mr GWon for the pres tation, adding tha his is a
wonderful oppo unity for the com nity to be engage n the public art pr ss
CITIZEN C MENTS
Wallace M urer. 7451 Dublin oad noted:
1 As Council is aw , he is trying to " t at" Sophie Ryde , the sculptor of
the Dancing Har s at Ballantrae. H hanked staff for t information sent
to him about t sculptor. She is person of tremend s artistic ambition
and unremitti g in her art. She s worked so ha ith the materials '
her sculptu s that she has d troyed her finger ints. He is tryin to
verify all o the things Ms. Ry r was aware of, a he is not certain i she
was aw of the setting of t e sculpture.
2 In to of "marketing on s soul," a few day ago he received phone
requ t for permission f r a political yard gn on his prope . He is
ge rally opposed to rd signs because hey are not info ative and
th a is no dialogical rgument or debat He did respond the inquiry
d told the party t y could install a y rd sign. He will ow any other
candidate to put signs as well. H believes the City hould strive to
have all candida s at several forum to be present whe all citizens can
hear them and ey can hear each her.
George Gvurko, 6301 Wvnford Drive noted that what brings him to Council tonight is
the issue discussed at a previous meeting in regard to landscaping and zoning
matters. He wants to ensure that the timeline of events and facts are known to
Council. He stated the following:
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Dublin City Council
October 1, 2007 Page 3
1 He and his wife installed landscaping early this summer after reviewing
landscaping two doors down which appealed to them. He went to the
City's website, under Zoning and Forestry, and the guidelines were vague.
He then called the City' forestry staff to discuss his plans for landscaping
They did not return the call for eight days He had the opportunity to visit
the DCRC for an Arbor Day event, where the City had a table. He
introduced himself to a staff member, who introduced him to Paula Chope,
the supervisor. She apologized for not returning his call He explained
that his plan was to plant a series of Norway spruce trees around the
perimeter of the property line, approximately 8 -10 feet apart, at least six
feet inside of his property to ensure they would not grow into a neighbor's
property. He indicated that the Code was vague about the guidelines for
such perimeter plantings. She was unsure about whether such plantings
would constitute a fence, but indicated that the spruce trees were fine
She volunteered to contact the Planning Department for him, and would
then contact him. Three days later she called back and indicated the
plantings as he had described, around the perimeter of the property line,
approximately 8 -10 feet apart, were not problematic. At that point, he
marked the places in the yard for the tree plantings and went to each
neighbor, including the one who has complained to the City, asked if they
had concerns about the four -foot trees which would grow larger in the
future, and whether they were too close to the property line. None of the
neighbors indicated any concerns about the plantings.
2 Two weeks later, after working with the landscaper and the utilities, he
planted the trees. One month later, he was notified by the City's zoning
department that someone had filed a complaint. He spoke with Mr. Martin
of the zoning department. He advised him that he had received a
message from Ms. Chope that the plantings in the proposed locations
were approved by the zoning department. Mr. Martin contacted him and
indicated that because the trees had not grown together, they would not
constitute a fence. He asked Mr. Martin if there was anything further he
should do, and Mr. Martin advised that there was nothing to be done at
this point, as it was not considered a violation. He then went in person to
Ms. Chope and asked her if she recalled his case, which she did. He told
her that she was unaware of any violation, due to the fact the zoning
department indicated it was permissible. He asked Ms. Chope to contact
the Zoning department to determine the person in Zoning she had spoken
with.
3 Another month later he received a card in the door, indicating that the
plantings were now considered a fence and not a hedge. He spoke with
Mr. Martin again, noting that he received approval from the City via Ms.
Chope and that he relied upon that information.
4 When he received a mail notification, he contacted Vice Mayor Lecklider,
his ward representative. They met and discussed the matter.
5 Following his mail notification that he was in violation, he contacted Mr.
Martin who indicated it was in error and should not have been sent. He
assumed the issue was over, until he viewed Council discussing the
matter at the last meeting.
6. He emphasized that if he had been told that he would be in violation of
Code, he would not have planted the trees. He works in the law
enforcement profession, and it disturbs him to think that he is considered
to be breaking the law.
He offered to respond to any questions.
Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher thanked Mr. Gyurko for coming to Council and sharing his
assessment of the situation. The larger issue of the need for Code clarification has
been referred to the Community Development Committee of Council. He can
provide input at that meeting if desired
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
Dublin City Council
October 1, 2007 Page 4
Vice Mayor Lecklider clarified for all present that his understanding of what was
referred to Committee was the overarching issue of the Code as it presently exists,
and whether revision is warranted. His understanding is that Mr. Gyurko's specific
situation will be addressed separate from that.
Mr. Langworthy noted that there are a wide range of issues associated with this,
including no disturb and no build zones. These matters will be considered in the
report to be provided by staff for the Committee review. He thanked Mr. Gyurko for
his patience and willingness to work with staff.
Mr. Smith stated that with respect to Mr. Gyurko's property and the situation as it
exists today, the Law Department has made a determination that there is no violation
of the Code. Council will address the larger issue of clarifying the code in the future
through the Committee system.
Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher summarized that Mr. Gyurko's situation is therefore
completed as far as the City is concerned and he is not in violation of Code.
Mrs Boring thanked Mr. Gyurko for explaining his efforts to seek input and approval
prior to planting.
STAFF COM NTS
• Was ' gton Elementary date
Mr. Ham rsmith provided b kground infl
and the fforts to create a safest envi
motoris Since the open' g of the school
staff s received neigh rhood and parer
mar ngs, speeds an traffic control alo
Ei rman Road, adja t to the school. H n
1. The City as been working ige
Schools nd residents to a sure
walkin to and from schoo
rmar regarding the s ool planning
on nt possible for destrians and
o August 22 by Hilli d City Schools,
concems regard signs, pavement
g the recently pleted section o
sported the follc p g:
ntly over the st few weeks with e
the safety of II students and p ents
2 At th time of the initial ncerns expressed the parents and r sidents
sta teamed that ther ere no crossing ards at either the allantrae
P ce or the Dalmo Lane intersectio with Eiterman his was a
nsistent concern ised by parents. taff was not awar hat crossing
guards would not a present on ope ' g day of school a would not be
provided.
3 Tonight's repo is in follow -up to a August 30 upd a to City Council.
Since that t' e, Engineering a Police divisions ave been workin
proactively 'th the Washingto elementary staff t ease the transitio f
the scho I opening, with cus of the effo s on education nd
enforce ent campaigns. a credited Princip Jennifer Wash f her
coope tive efforts.
4. Duri the school plan ' g, careful consid ation was given t the site
lay ut and driveway a ss points in orde to create a safe a vironment
f pedestrians and otorists. Buses w e intentionally se gated from
e vehicles enteri and leaving the Ichool, and were a bus loop
running around th outside of the sch I.
5. The single ve cular access poi t with Dalmore ane was done
intentionally s that pedestrians d with were Ilected all at one
point, in ord to minimize confl' s. The bus traffi as segregated,
the school sired, to remove t se potential confli s.
6 The med' n design and Ian taping were don to ensure it woul not
interfer th visibility and Ii of sight.
7. The has provided s ool crossing sign at both crosswalk across
Eite an Road
8 He hared slides depi ng the students a parents accessin he school
s' e, and the vehicle ffic patterns
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
din_u�of Dub City Council Mee?
_CYlYf$L14 M'�I{YaA lm IOIM
September 17, 2007 Page 10
Held 20
1
1
Ms. Salay uggested that perk s the Schools Fam' Night could coinci with the tree
/irit fu4ure years, and a ryone could attend a tree lighting and are family
r added that °Sp of the Seas " was a nice opport ity to honor those ho do such tanding communi service and who d erve to be dged for it. a is sorry that it not continue. gam agr d. However, the a ndance and interes �n that portion of the
activities had de ased in recent the
Mrs. Boring re inded staff that Co cil had discussion I t year about the de gnation of
the tree ligh ' g. She referred to r. Reiner regarding is item.
Mr. Reiner ecalled that Counci ad directed staff to fer to it as a "Chris as tree" in
the prom ions for 2007 and t a "holiday tree."
Mayor innici- Zuercher no d that the Dublin co mu is more div a than ever
befor , and it is important be cognizant of th a issues as well.
Mr. einer agreed, but ieves a Christmas t e should be called ctly what it is.
Mr McCash indicated pport for calling it hristmas tree.
1) Asked if Coun ' plans to "get into th game" of the inclus a dates of the holid s?
National mercy le pressure would 1 d itself to Labor Da plus one and the la day of
the Super Bo
Ms. Brautig c/has ted that s discussed intema moving the tree lig 'ng to the
S"inte Th daember ,but it was felt to b oo soon before Th ksgiving.
The desir is to e lighti on November 29.
Mrs. B ng com that is important not to eriook the true me ing of
Than iving, wl b lebrated this year n Thursday, Novem er 22.
2) ked if Thahas a politically co ect name. Brautigam rd that Thanksgivin is not a religious h day. It is a nationa
oliday. Mr. Maurer noteistorically, Tha sgiving has tremen us connotations. Ms. Brautigam cthat it is found by the U.S. gove ent, and the religio s
connotations a not legislative.
1
Mr. Maurj inued.
3) Whaistoric Dublin u:
of "Bri- "?
Ms. S nded it is a ortei
Mr. eind to ap ove the
" liday ting" identified
rs. Borinde the motion. Vote on ton• Ms. Salay, ye Keenan, r Chinnici -Zueri
/ Aa tio ' meaning of its holi y celebration
ridge and High Stre is. dation, with the p vision that the
s tree lighting.' Lecklider, ye ; Mr. Reiner, yes; M . McCash, y ; Mrs. Boring, yes.
an e-mail was rece ed regarding lands ping
should these be ought up during Co cil
Ms. Brautiga oted that late
issues. Stafyis prepared to rE
Oft Hospital tour.
or its progressive
ie entire country.
already meet t
and is already
facilities in
COUN L COMMITTEE RE RTS /COUNCIL R NDTABLE
Mr. R ner noted that he w very impressed wi the Dublin Mel
The acility is fantastic, a is already receivin national recognit
pl s for patient care. I is probably one oft premier hospitals
I reference to meetin green requirement , this hospital would
EED standards. It ' a wonderful additi to the Dublin com i
being described in ew York as one of a most progressive os
country. He beli es citizens will be v ry pleased with the ciliti
Mr. McCash:
12- 058ADM
Fence Code Amendment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Min Dublin City Council eeti
b/!.V IEWLItl uw[ MG F NO. 1 Q(.
September 17, 2007 Page 11
Held 20
I
1. Noted that the Infiniti dealer continues to park vehicles along the Tuller Road
mound. He has raised this zoning code issue previously. He believes a progressive fine
' system is needed for repeat offenses. Between Byers, Infiniti and Hummer dealerships,
such zoning violations are a continual problem on the weekend.
2. Reported he received an e-mail, copied to Council, on August 6. 2007 from a
resident regarding a neighbor's yard plantings. The resident believes the plantings
constitute a fence, but acknowledges there are different interpretations of the Code. At
the time the fence code was modified several years, ago, the intent was to prohibit the
full enclosure of property because of safety concerns and to keep open vistas and views
throughout the community. Hedges or living material consisting of trees, shrubs, etc.
being closely spaced together were addressed. Apparently, a situation exists where
trees have been installed which at mature height will enclose the yard, similar to a fence.
A neighbor who had concerns with this asked the City to investigate this.
Mr. McCash asked if there is Council support for modifying or adjusting the fence code
to clarify the intent at the time. In talking to the resident who installed the trees, they
took photos of other properties in Dublin with similar landscaping. Whether they were
pre or post fence code changes is unknown. The other issue is with regular
enforcement of zoning code ordinances and whether that is occurring. He is seeking
Council's input on this.
Ms. Brautigam responded that both Mr. Langworthy and Stephen Smith, Jr. are present
and both have been involved in this issue. They have pictures available as well, in case
Council wants to discuss this tonight.
Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher stated that, based on Mr. McCash's comments, there may be a
' larger policy issue of the intent of Council at the time of the fence code change and
whether something needs to be done to clarify the policy so that the intent of the
ordinance can be achieved.
Mrs. Boring noted she is not certain that the issue can be addressed tonight, given the
community wide nature of it. There are trees planted in her yard which are now grown
and may not be in keeping with the intent of the fence code change.
Mr. Keenan agreed, noting that the issue would need to be clarified — whether it is
screening comprised of four trees, or completely surrounding the perimeter of a property.
The language of the ordinance and its interpretation are clearly the issues.
Mr. McCash stated that is where the issue arises. It was intended for areas where it was
the property owner's intent to enclose, not necessarily to screen.
Mr. Keenan stated that he would support revisiting the issue, but cautioned there is a
need for very careful review.
Mr. McCash stated that perhaps a committee of Council or Planning Commission would
be the appropriate body to review this.
Mr. Keenan asked about existing situations — is there a grandfathering issue?
Mr. Smith responded there are several issues involved. His suggestion is that the issues
be reviewed at the committee level, and that staff provide information regarding the
various matters — legal, zoning code, grandfathering, code dates. One of the issues is
' the size at planting versus the size when full grown. The Code at this time may not allow
staff to enforce the provisions because of the way it is written. Council may choose to
adopt a different policy. But in view of the many potential issues across the City, he
would advise a careful review.
Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that he believes there are hundreds of potential violations
under the current code, depending upon the interpretation. All of this review is separate
from the individual situation.
Mr. McCash responded that the Code as written does address this particular situation of
perimeter fencing. Obviously, there is a different interpretation out there. For all the
other locations, whether pre or post zoning code changes, the ones that are post zoning
code changes become an enforcement issue.
12- 058ADNl
Fence Code Amendment
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Minu -tes of Dublin City Coun Mee
R!!Y&.4tl1[WY �. +G!a9
September 17, 2007 Page 12
Held 20
Vice Mayor Lecklider pointed out that the issue becomes determining the date of
installation of plantings in relation to the ordinance change.
' Mr. Reiner commented in regard to the specific case, relating to a specified row of trees,
when does it become actual perimeter screening? There are many subjective issues
involved for each site. The ordinance when written was intended to keep common areas
open and to provide open space in neighborhoods. In this case, however, a person
simply installed a row of spruce trees. This is the first complaint he recalls regarding
evergreen being viewed as an unfriendly screening.
Mr. Keenan stated that it is important to keep in perspective that this is not a regular
problem.
Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher suggested referring the matter to the Community Development
Committee.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the fencing matters and related policy matters to
the Community Development Committee.
Mr. Reiner commented that the issue may be when a barrier or buffer of spruce trees
constitutes a fence.
Vice Mayor Lecklider noted another question relating to no build zones and whether
there is a necessity, going forward, to define no build zones in the Dublin Code.
Mr. Langworthy responded that it has some impact, but the no build zone impacts only
one portion of the lot and not as much on the sides, closer to the main structure.
' Ms. Salay asked about a no disturb zone — does this mean no planting in the zone or not
removing anything? This needs to be clarified as well.
Mr. Langworthy responded that both no build and no disturb zones will be clarified.
Mr. Smith added that some newer developments such as Ballantrae have patios
extending to the lot line in the back, and the patio screening is on the lot line for these
cluster homes. These did not exist years ago and should be considered.
Mr. McCash stated that Ballantrae is in a planned district, however, which can be
modified as opposed to this example.
Vice Mayor Lecklider noted that all of this leads to people being unsure. They know
what they observe in the community and do not necessarily distinguish what they see in
one neighborhood versus another.
Ms. Salay responded that people would know they need a fence permit, but she does
not believe it would occur to anyone to obtain a permit to plant trees.
Vice Mayor Lecklider stated his concern would be writing the code such that it eliminates
to the extent possible any potential arbitrariness. That is the real challenge.
Ms. Salay asked how much lead time is needed by staff prior to scheduling of a meeting.
Ms. Brautigam responded that a month would be advisable in order to gather information
and some photographs.
Ms. Salay stated that a meeting date will be set for the Committee to review the
information.
Mrs. Boring asked if staff would prefer to update Council on the specific complaint at a
later time.
Mr. Smith responded that he would prefer not to discuss an individual case at this time.
The issue has been referred to the Community Development Committee and a meeting
date will be set for the review.
Mr. Mc sh continued:
3. cted At the Shoppes /Utpand River Ridge, ther re stone sidewalk eps from Riverside I !
Drive which around the all. He has obsery d that a handrail is 12- 058ADM
not indu n the stairs, and thi is a Code require nt.
7 /
Fence Code Amendment