Good fences can sometimes cause bad headaches

PATEROS – Someone once said: “Good fences make good neighbors.” But nowadays, putting up a good fence is not as simple as it used to be.

Case in point: A fence at 106 Ives Street that, at six feet in height, is 2.5 feet taller than the Pateros Municipal Code allows per Section 17.04.090: For front yards, the maximum height of fences shall be three and one-half feet. Side yard and rear yard fences may be erected to a height of six feet. 

When owner Gary Gogal, dba Chelan Valley Construction LLC, built the house, the submitted site plan showed the front door on the side of the house and not facing Ives Street even though that is the address it is given. The way the owner viewed it, the front yard was therefore on the north side of the house, and the retaining wall and six-foot fence located on a side yard. However, city policy says the front yard is whatever street the address is based on regardless of where the front door is located.

Pateros city planner Kurt Danison said the reason for fence height restrictions in front yards is a public safety issue so that the front yard is visible from the street to determine what might be going on there. 

“Every community property in the country has some limitation on how high fences can be in the front yard,” Danison explained.

City staff advised Gogal that he needed to secure a variance from the 3.5-foot fence height requirement. Copies of the application and related materials were sent to the relevant agencies involved and a SEPA DNS (Determination of Non-Significance) evaluating any environmental impacts was issued on March 26. A notice of application was published in the Quad City Herald on March 27, and April 3, and sent to adjoining landowners on March 27. A notice of the city council public hearing was published on March 27, and April 3.

The city planning committee met on March 25, and April 1, to review the proposed variance and prepare a recommendation to the city council for a public hearing on April 15. The council must conduct a public hearing to secure testimony on variance requests, reviewing any written comments received during the review process, and making a final decision as to whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested variance.

After reviewing the proposed variance, the committee recommended that the council approve the variance to allow the existing fence to remain subject to the following conditions:

1. That any failure of the retaining wall that requires repair will require the fence to be reduced to a height of 3.5 feet.

That any failure or significant maintenance or replacement of the fence is required, the fence shall be reduced to 3.5 feet in height.

The public hearing held during the April 15 council meeting drew no comment. Council members are not required to follow committee recommendations and could have denied the variance but voted to approve it together with the conditions stated.

Gogal was not available for comment as this story went to press.

Mike Maltais: 360-333-8483 or michael@ward.media