"GOOD FENCES MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS?"

There was a little "fencing" going on at the October Board meeting, as in parrying and thrusting and feinting. The Planning Commission had recommended that the new language for the Fence Ordinance be adopted and that the Ordinance NOT be repealed. (There were two separate public hearings on these topics and in that order.)

There were four Supervisors in attendance at this meeting as Supervisor Barfknecht was out of town and, according to MAT attorney, could partake in the meeting only by means of "interactive TV.”




Mark Ceminsky moved that the Ordinance be repealed. He suggested that the Board vote on that motion first and then there could be another motion to adopt the new language.

EXCEPT it was clear to me and others in the audience, I'm sure, that with a 2-2 vote in the offing on the adoption--Hansen and Ceminsky have been bucking this ordinance since the start--this was a little disingenuous. At least I could clearly see that coming and thought so.

Over the next few minutes, Ceminsky put forth that the motions had to be in the order of the hearings. When it was established that the hearings were actually in the reverse order as the motions Ceminsky was  proposing, then it was argued that it just didn't make sense to adopt new language when the old language was still there. However, the adoption of the new language would supplant the old. Ceminsky objected to this notion. This had been raised and discussed at the public hearings, which I attended along with a few others. At that time, it was argued by Butch Hansen that the current Ordinance "has a hole in it." He also alleged that the current Ordinance was in conflict with State Building Code. When, at the October meeting, Attorney Chad Lemmons helpfully suggested that this could all be done in one resolution by stating the stricken language go away and the underscored language be adopted in its place, that was met with a non-reaction. (Just ignore it and it will go away?) All this was in the name of "We have to do things right." RIGHT. And it went around and around...

Eventually, the motion to repeal died 2-2 and the motion to adopt failed 2-2. (Thus bearing out the thought that Ceminsky and Hansen had no intention of adopting the new language anyway.) If they had snowed the other two Board members into the repeal since it was "just doing things right," that would have been the end of it, I believe, in their minds.



But Chair Murphy stated, "OK, we'll bring back again." As in when there is a full Board. Ceminsky and Hansen and Novacek have been against this very reasonable Ordinance from the beginning. It has been characterized it as "manipulative" and "over regulation." The argument that the Township couldn't regulate fences seven feet or less because of the Building Code has been made repeatedly. It has been repeatedly shot down, too, as the Building Code doesn't affect ANY fences until they reach more than seven feet. At that point a building permit must be procured. For fences up to six feet, an administrative approval from the Township must be sought first.

That was another thing: The Commission worked on the language with the idea that residential fences not requiring building permits be limited to six feet. However, Hansen argued that this wasn't to his liking. When it was pointed out that the Commission had put that limit on fences as it aids law enforcement to see over the fence, Hansen said he was at the hearings and that wasn't brought up. A Planning Commissioner in the audience corrected him saying, "Butch, I was the one who said that!"


It was discussed if not including fences between 6 and 7 feet actually meant that those fences were not allowed. The attorney said that was exactly what that meant. In support of his comment, I pointed out that Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, E. Prohibited Uses and Structures states that "All other uses and structures which are not specifically permitted as a right or by Conditional Use Permit or Interim Use Permit, including public stables and boarding of dogs, shall be prohibited in the Agricultural District. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007)

Unfortunately, this isn't the first time I found it necessary to mention this provision to a Supervisor in office. One such Supervisor from the past made the statement during a meeting that "If it isn't in the Ordinance Book, that means it's okay." When I pointed out that portion of the Ordinances to him at a break, he said, "Well, I didn't know that." Obviously. I don't know about you, but I expect our public officials to read the Ordinances and to become familiar with them. Hasn't always happened, folks. That's a little scary.

As I have stated before, "Anyone who wants to get along with his neighbor would have no problem with this Ordinance." This sort of ordinance is common and the Township has the right to enact such language.