| Author | Post |
|---|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 04:54 pm |
|
flyrep wrote: You left someone off your list CR. A certain council member has a front
fence that is well over 4 and a half feet high. Fact. He or she should
not lower it either as the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious.
separate issue on it's own now, especially since an individual in violation wants to tie in with it.
Christa Rizzi
Interesting, I never mentioned the individual..
The 6' fence issue must be segregated from everything being reviewed and decided on it's own now to be fair avoid favoritism.
The ordinance is reasonable
Christa Rizzi
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
You left someone off your list CR. A certain council member has a front
fence that is well over 4 and a half feet high. Fact. He or she should
not lower it either as the ordinance is arbitrary and capricious.
seperate issue on it's own now, especially since an individual in viloation wants to tie in with it.
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Sat Apr 25th, 2009 10:38 pm by flyrep
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Apr 25th, 2009 06:58 am |
|
| P & Z can explain why the fence issue is under review on different agendas. Anyone with questions or comments should attend their next meeting which is Tuesday, April 28th at 7:00 P.M. and get it from the "horses mouth." At this meeting, they will be reviewing Case AM-6-08 Equine Regulations of the zoning ordinance rules on Horse Boarding facilities, including definitions and other issues related thereto. The "Front yard" issues will be on the agenda for a later meeting. Anyone who feels the "fence issue" should stand on its own should make their feelings known at this Tuesdays meeting. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it isn't. I don't know. We won't know until someone throws it out there for them to think about.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 09:11 pm |
|
I'd like to know why the 6' fence issue is on 3 seperate agendas for review.
I think P and Z should have the 6' fence item taken out of the group of items under review or shoot down the entire thing until it is.
The 6' fence issue needs to be decided as an entirely seperate issue on it's own now, especially since an individual in viloation wants to tie in with it.
Christa Rizzi
|
cacomistle
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 08:14 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: For those who might not know, the front yard issue (including fences) is still in the process of being reviewed by the City Council. Watch the video of the April 21st City Council Meeting - you can jump to item #12 on the agenda or attend the next City Council Meeting to get up to speed on what's going on. This is a separate issue from the Horse Boarding regulations and the resulting outcome will affect every property owner in our city.
Correction, at a council meeting after another of the neverending CTTP diatribes of Flynn about said fence, Councilman Wilson specifically told Flynn the 6' fence in the front yard issue would be resolved with the horse boarding issue. It will affect every property owner in the city, most of whom actually abide by the existing code.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 24th, 2009 07:46 pm |
|
For those who might not know, the front yard issue (including fences) is still in the process of being reviewed by the City Council. Watch the video of the April 21st City Council Meeting - you can jump to item #12 on the agenda or attend the next City Council Meeting to get up to speed on what's going on. This is a separate issue from the Horse Boarding regulations and the resulting outcome will affect every property owner in our city.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 29th, 2009 07:39 am |
|
Who said the fence (wall) in front of my home can not be 6-feet tall??? Why did they make up this rule??? Why do we accept this rule???
check out this song (video) from an artist named Jem...
http://www.mtv.com/videos/jem/33852/they.jhtml#artist=1239361
the lyrics are very relative...
Who made up all the rules
We follow them like fools
Believe them to be true
Don't care to think them through
...
And it's ironic too
'Coz what we tend to do
Is act on what they say
And then it is that way
...
Do you see what I see?
Why do we live like this?
Is it because it's true
That ignorance is bliss?
...
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 08:28 pm |
|
| I suppose I should add here that the dimensions I have been speaking of are those for 1 1/4 acre single family residential lots in the General Rural Zoning area. I have no knowledge of the setback requirements for what I would call the smaller, city sized lots.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 07:23 pm |
|
cacomistle wrote: katy8520 wrote: cacomistle wrote: 40' setback for Shannon's house would put the fence in her living room.
Come on now, let's be fair. This would probably apply to many other property owners as well. hahaha
You are right Katy. I had a house that I couldn't put an awning/porch on because it was too close to the road in front and too close to the property line in back.
I seem to remember before Joe Severs left the council, there was a big to-do about where the *front* of a property was.
I seem to remember something about the big "front" to-do also. Don't know what became of it. All I can attest to is my own property. On all of my legally recorded paperwork, my "front yard" is shown as that part of my yard that faces the street. This might not hold true for other properties, depends on the way they are laid out probably.
|
cacomistle
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: cacomistle wrote: 40' setback for Shannon's house would put the fence in her living room.
Come on now, let's be fair. This would probably apply to many other property owners as well. hahaha
You are right Katy. I had a house that I couldn't put an awning/porch on because it was too close to the road in front and too close to the property line in back. Edited to add: A 6' fence with a 40' easement would have wound up in my neighbor's back yard because that lot wasn't 40' deep!
I seem to remember before Joe Severs left the council, there was a big to-do about where the *front* of a property was.
Last edited on Sat Mar 28th, 2009 07:29 pm by cacomistle
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 06:44 pm |
|
cacomistle wrote: 40' setback for Shannon's house would put the fence in her living room.
Come on now, let's be fair. This would probably apply to many other property owners as well. hahaha
|
cacomistle
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
| 40' setback for Shannon's house would put the fence in her living room.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 06:06 pm |
|
| I would like to throw out some terminology that might help folks better understand the fence issue. For 1 1/4 acre, single family residential properties -there are "Minimum Setbacks" for the front, side, and back yards as established by the City of Apache Junction. The "40' " that I keep referring to in my postings represents the "Minimum Front Setback" requirement. This setback requirement not only applies to fences, but to buildings as well. So, we have an automatic 33' easement that runs from the center of the roadway in towards a property. If a person wants to put a fence at the end of this easement, it can only be 4 1/2 feet tall. Then, we have the 40' setback which runs from the end of the easement further in towards a property. A person can put a 6' fence at the end of the 40' setback. At least, this is the way it reads from all my legal paperwork that was filed in 2004. Don't know if it has changed since then or not. Hope this helps.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 09:57 pm |
|
| Christa, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disagreeable but you can't make a blanket statement that "Apache Junction does not allow it." I have a 6' fence in what is considered my "front yard" or that part of my yard that faces the street and it is perfectly legal. If you will read my earlier posts in this thread, the technicality lies in where that fence is placed.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
| Exactly my point, Christa. If people would check city code before they start a project, they would know if a permit was required or not and they would know if their project falls within what is legally allowed.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
Ok, like I stated I've never seen a city that allowed a 6' fence
Apache Junction does not allow it ..
fair enough...
When was the ordinance changed in Apache Junction??? Has anyone been around long enough to know why the ordinance was changed??? What was the particular reason at that time??? Or was this particular ordinance simply effective with incorporation???
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:29 pm |
|
Ok, like I stated I've never seen a city that allowed a 6' fence
Apache Junction does not allow it ..
Christa Rizzi
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:24 pm |
|
Just wanted to be sure everyone was still referring to the height of walls (fences) along the "front" yard of single family residential properties...
This ordinance is standard in every city I've seen.
Actually... there is a neighborhood in Scottsdale near my office in which the homes have 6-foot walls around their "front" yards...
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:19 pm |
|
ajBookchin wrote: This ordinance is standard in every city I've seen.
Which ordinance in particular???
The ordinance being discussed on this thread..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:19 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:16 pm |
|
This ordinance is standard in every city I've seen.
Which ordinance in particular???
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
historyfan wrote: MikeW wrote: Fact: Flynn has a 6' illegal fence
Fact: Councilman Chip Wilson stated last night that the fence code was under review.
Fact: The code is under review for commercial horse boarding operations. P&Z has not made any decisions as of yet.
Fact: Flynn does not board horses, therefore their fence is still illegal!!
So are you saying if she had horses which she has. I live near her..... would it be okay then LORD MIKE W????
N0 because first she'd have to be a licensed horse boarder. Shannon said she no longer has horses..
The ordinance regarding fences being looked at by P&Z pertain only to commercial horse boarders they aren't considering it for residential properties...(yet)
This forum is for debating is it not? Why is Mike being attacked?
Christa Rizzi
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Voter09 - I disagree with you when you say "The City makes you a criminal." If a property owner doesn't have the foresight to check city code before they construct something, it isn't the City's fault if that property owner ends up having something that is considered illegal.
To my knowledge in order to "construct" something don't you need a permit? If so then the city would have told them it couldn't be that high. This ordinance is standard in every city I've seen.
Christa Rizzi
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 06:30 pm |
|
historyfan wrote: MikeW wrote: Fact: Flynn has a 6' illegal fence
Fact: Councilman Chip Wilson stated last night that the fence code was under review.
Fact: The code is under review for commercial horse boarding operations. P&Z has not made any decisions as of yet.
Fact: Flynn does not board horses, therefore their fence is still illegal!!
So are you saying if she had horses which she has. I live near her..... would it be okay then LORD MIKE W???
"HAVING" horses - 'BOARDING" horses - - - these are two entirely different sets of circumstances and are covered by different ordinances.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 05:57 pm |
|
| historyfan - I don't understand your comment. If I am reading you right, it looks like you are saying the same thing I did which means we agree. Also, I think people are missing the objective of the fence issue. The fence ordinance is, in fact, under review - but only where it pertains to COMMERCIAL HORSE BOARDING OPERATIONS. It is not currently under review for every private citizen who happens to own horses. That would be a whole different ordinance that probably needs to be challenged.
|
historyfan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 12:17 pm |
|
| Then ask for it to be changed! Crazy. This issue has nothing to do with safty and is WAY OUT DATED! Stand up and FIGHT or you will lose all.
|
historyfan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 12:15 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: Fact: Flynn has a 6' illegal fence
Fact: Councilman Chip Wilson stated last night that the fence code was under review.
Fact: The code is under review for commercial horse boarding operations. P&Z has not made any decisions as of yet.
Fact: Flynn does not board horses, therefore their fence is still illegal!!
So are you saying if she had horses which she has. I live near her..... would it be okay then LORD MIKE W????
|
historyfan
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 18th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 17 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 27th, 2009 12:14 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Voter09 - I disagree with you when you say "The City makes you a criminal." If a property owner doesn't have the foresight to check city code before they construct something, it isn't the City's fault if that property owner ends up having something that is considered illegal.
Disaree all you want. Ask what happens if you do not follow the "city Law".
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
| Voter09 - I disagree with you when you say "The City makes you a criminal." If a property owner doesn't have the foresight to check city code before they construct something, it isn't the City's fault if that property owner ends up having something that is considered illegal.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 09:37 pm |
|
| Voter09 - I hope you are right on a change coming to the fence issue. When I put my fence in May, 2004 - I asked the City why many people on my street already had 6' fences at the end of the 33' easement and the City was telling me I couldn't put one there - the response was that those existing fences were illegal and if the City chose to do so - they could make the property owners lower them to the allowed 4 1/2'.
|
voter09
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Sorry, Lovinglife, but there is a city ordinance regarding fencing. Until that ordinance is changed, we are all obliged to comply with it or suffer the possible consequences (being fined and having to tear it down.)
Fined? Just just a fine. The city make you a criminal. You do not have to tear it down. Many of us will be there to fight this one. Change on this is in the air.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 09:20 pm |
|
| Sorry, Lovinglife, but there is a city ordinance regarding fencing. Until that ordinance is changed, we are all obliged to comply with it or suffer the possible consequences (being fined and having to tear it down.)
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 100 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 09:15 pm |
|
| This city has no right to tell me how high to put up a chain link fence. If I remember a council member also has the same problem.
|
Newcomer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 04:48 pm |
|
Katy8520,
Thank You so much for the clarification. That does make sense. Well I still hope all works out for them.
Thanks
Jenny
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 04:40 pm |
|
| Newcomer and Lisa D - I will try to help you understand the fence issue as I know it from my own personal experience. Having horses has nothing to do with the fence ordinance. The fence ordinance applies to everyone - those with horses and those without. Joe was right - the side and back fences can be 6' but the front fence can only be 4 1/2'. The tecnicality lies in where that front fence is placed. The city has an easement that runs 33' from the center of the roadway in towards a property. If a person wants to place a fence at the end of this easement then yes, it can only be 4 1/2' tall. I was allowed to put a 6' fence across my front but it had to be placed 40' in from the end of the easement. In other words, my fence is 73' in from the center of the roadway. Hope this helps you.
|
Newcomer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 04:09 pm |
|
Hi Joe
I'm new to this area,so I don't really know much about the codes. I have spent days trying to read all these post to familiarize myself with the community. I thought I read somewhere that six foot was ok for front fence. If I have mis-understood this,please excuse the post.
Jenny
|
dzrtrat67
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
It's a fairly standard ordinance in many communities... 6' for side and back fences, 4' for front.
Joe
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 03:17 pm |
|
Newcomer wrote: Question? If your property is permitted to have a six foot fence if you have a horse, then do you have to remove that fence if you get rid of the horse? Mrs Flynn stated that they have had three horses on her property. If she gets another horse, would all this go away?
Good question! One wonders! How sad though if it were the case. I will be attending the next few meetings myself. This "law" affects my land as well. We all may pull together, horse owners or not and demand this ordinance be changed. You do not have to agree with the Flynn's about the recall to understand that this ordinance is out dated and not land owner friendly. I have friends that have fences up much like the Flynns that were here before AJ incorporated.
If Shannon needs a horse to tend to this problem then we have a few for her. We have taken in 2 this month because the owners have not been able to feed them.
I wonder if there is an ordinance on that too!
|
Newcomer
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 01:25 pm |
|
| Question? If your property is permitted to have a six foot fence if you have a horse, then do you have to remove that fence if you get rid of the horse? Mrs Flynn stated that they have had three horses on her property. If she gets another horse, would all this go away?
|
lovinglife
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 100 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 07:56 am |
|
| Anyone know that one of our very own council members has a 6 foot fence? Hmmmm
|
cacomistle
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 02:22 am |
|
| I'm wondering why voter09 is answering for Shannon?
|
voter09
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 73 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 02:00 am |
|
ajBookchin wrote: makes sense?
To you or the rest of society?
Shannon... MikeW has a point... some citizens might argue that it would make sense to have no walls (fence) for transparency to ensure that others are not violating other municipal codes behind those walls...
**************************
Whether individual property rights pertaining to the height of walls or something like keeping chickens, our objective should always be to maximize individual property rights...
Some might it doesnt make it right.
|
ajBookchin
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 579 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 26th, 2009 12:11 am |
|
makes sense?
To you or the rest of society?
Shannon... MikeW has a point... some citizens might argue that it would make sense to have no walls (fence) for transparency to ensure that others are not violating other municipal codes behind those walls...
**************************
Whether individual property rights pertaining to the height of walls or something like keeping chickens, our objective should always be to maximize individual property rights...
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: makes sense?
To you or the rest of society? Codes are meant for everyone.
Know really? I had no clue Mike.
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:26 pm |
|
makes sense?
To you or the rest of society? Codes are meant for everyone.
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:24 pm |
|
MikeW wrote: Shannon
Have you ever read a code that you like?
Yes, Mike I have. Any code having to do with safey and makes sense has my vote.
|
MikeW
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Apache Junction |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:22 pm |
|
Shannon
Have you ever read a code that you like?
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 09:13 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: flyrep wrote: That is the point Rizzi. The code must die for being arbitrary and capricious.
They use the emergency responders as an excuse to shorten our fence, but
could care less if the EMTs and the like face the challenge of seeing through or over
an eight footer.
Good grief Steve if we"killed" every code we didnt agree with the city would be chaos... (and honestly I don't care about you're fence it's your problem)
Good luck with your new crusade 
Christa Rizzi
Not agreeing with a code is one thing. A code that does not sense and is limiting to the land owner is another. Must we spell it out for you Christa?
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 04:58 pm |
|
flyrep wrote: That is the point Rizzi. The code must die for being arbitrary and capricious.
They use the emergency responders as an excuse to shorten our fence, but
could care less if the EMTs and the like face the challenge of seeing through or over
an eight footer.
Good grief Steve if we"killed" every code we didnt agree with the city would be chaos... (and honestly I don't care about you're fence it's your problem)
Good luck with your new crusade
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Wed Mar 25th, 2009 04:59 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
ShannonFlynn
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 05:42 am |
|
ShannonFlynn wrote: MikeW wrote: Shannon
please check the council videos, you stated the fence was because of rocks being thrown at you vehicles. You tell so many lies, so you can't remember them all and they come back to bite you.
Please give me the website address to my cttp on when I said I put up my fence due to rocks. I must of miss looked something. My fence was up way before the recall and was in the photo's taken of my trailer 18 months back. The fence was put up to have a hand in protecting my family and land. If you would like to get personal on the issues at hand please do give me a call. I would more then happy to give you full details.
March 17 - 09 time 29:01 cctp is the only time I spoke about my fence. Have I missed something?
|
flyrep
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2404 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 25th, 2009 03:45 am |
|
That is the point Rizzi. The code must die for being arbitrary and capricious.
They use the emergency responders as an excuse to shorten our fence, but
could care less if the EMTs and the like face the challenge of seeing through or over
an eight footer.
|
Current time is 11:48 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|