| Author | Post |
|---|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 03:25 am |
|
concerned4aj wrote: johnnyk597 wrote: Get off the Chicago idea Councilman, this is Apache Junction and of a situation that exists We used a way and means that is available, not on tv owned by the city, not as a paper article written by a newspaper editor but by concerned citizens. Next time maybe we should stand by the focal point and hold up signs or shout loudly at the passing motorists to get information out. This was thought thru and checked out before the flyers went out. Again if you read the post you would have seen taht I was not the author of the flyer just a citizen that put input after it was written and agreed to pass it out. Just more of the council bulls**t with your rhetoric. As far as making an opposite effect, people have called the 3 phone #'s listed pro and con on the issue. You as a councilman should have stayed neutral in this since you will ultimately be one of 7 who will decide on this. Hopefully this comment or your actions will not preclude you to recluse yourself on the issue. Time will tell.
Notice how this was only to people with fences over the height limit not all 37k, grandstanding was not our objective, just to be informative and it looks like the intent and goal was met. Thanks for your input.
Bold add by me. JohnnyK, did you forget what started this thread? You guys scared the crap out of these people! And scaring people is how it was in Chicago. Great job. feel free to say I'm wrong again. He addressed a question that was directed to him. He can't win with some poeple, "they don't listen" was thrown about, now it's how dare he respond. The ol saying "you just can't make some people happy".
Well, I guess if the truth being told is "scaring the crap" out people, so be it! Maybe more people will get involved and be heard in the city they call home. It's better to find out what's going on while it's happening and have a say in what the result may be, than to find out after the fact, correct? So how is this issue related to Chicago? None of the others involved in this letter are from Chicago. Oh I get it! Johnnyk is from Chicago! So this must also be related to Los Angeles, Boston, Buffalo, Monroe, Rhode Island, Norco, Whittier, Lake Havasu City, Shreveport, Austin, El Paso, San Antonio, Portland, Tulsa, San Diego, Denver, Albuquerque, Aurora, Port Smith, Scottsdale, Mesa, Omaha, Pinal County, San Bernardino, ect, need I go on? There are MANY people behind this letter. So what was your point?
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sat May 30th, 2009 03:26 am by Ed Dison
|
CouncilmemberSerdy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 02:47 am |
|
| had lunch with him today John. I did'nt take it as you being against me.
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 02:46 am |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Get off the Chicago idea Councilman, this is Apache Junction and of a situation that exists We used a way and means that is available, not on tv owned by the city, not as a paper article written by a newspaper editor but by concerned citizens. Next time maybe we should stand by the focal point and hold up signs or shout loudly at the passing motorists to get information out. This was thought thru and checked out before the flyers went out. Again if you read the post you would have seen taht I was not the author of the flyer just a citizen that put input after it was written and agreed to pass it out. Just more of the council bulls**t with your rhetoric. As far as making an opposite effect, people have called the 3 phone #'s listed pro and con on the issue. You as a councilman should have stayed neutral in this since you will ultimately be one of 7 who will decide on this. Hopefully this comment or your actions will not preclude you to recluse yourself on the issue. Time will tell.
Notice how this was only to people with fences over the height limit not all 37k, grandstanding was not our objective, just to be informative and it looks like the intent and goal was met. Thanks for your input.
Bold add by me. JohnnyK, did you forget what started this thread? You guys scared the crap out of these people! And scaring people is how it was in Chicago. Great job. feel free to say I'm wrong again. He addressed a question that was directed to him. He can't win with some poeple, "they don't listen" was thrown about, now it's how dare he respond. The ol saying "you just can't make some people happy".
Last edited on Sat May 30th, 2009 02:56 am by concerned4aj
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 02:18 am |
|
| Ask your city Attorney, he gave me those silly ideas when I was on P&z Jeff. We are supposed to be neutral and not discuss an issue before it comes up to you. Check it out, I interested what you find out from him. By the way jeff I'm not against you just cautioning the fact.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 12:44 am |
|
| . Last edited on Sat May 30th, 2009 12:50 am by Lisa D
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 12:36 am |
|
| Spoke with a few people on the issue today. More flyers are being handed out this weekend. From what I hear people are copying them and giving them out to people who have this issue. Cool beans!
|
CouncilmemberSerdy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat May 30th, 2009 12:18 am |
|
"remember as a Councilman you are bound just like P&Z and other boards to keep yourself neutral before the item is discussed at a council meeting by law. Not my decision but by law"
John, where do come up with these silly ideas? That's quite a ridiculous statement. Of course I can speak about any subject I want to. It's not like I'm a sequestered juror or anything. And, your darn right I can try to influence people's opinions and other councilmembers votes.
Look at the A-frame sign issue...I gave interviews to newspapers and spoke to my collegues on the council about it. Perhaps you should speak to a city attorney about it.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 07:52 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Lisa D wrote: Christa_Rizzi wrote: You're not off topic AZPUBLIUS,
I believe (not positive) citizens here can apply for the variance in certain circumstances and it is then decided on the specific case.
That would be one appropriate channel for the specific individual in violation rather than the intimidation tactics that have been thus far used.
Other surrounding cities I contacted said citizens can apply for a variance in such cases.
The situation my husband and I had with a "nuisance" neighbor (not a gas station lol) :
We built a six foot wooden fence across the back of our property to keep the peace with a horrible neighbor. He complained because we painted "love peace and joy" on "his" side of our fence. The city sent a compliance officer out and we had to remove the fence or face fines. (removing the fence was not an option)
We requested an extension that bought us enough time to purchase our current property here in beloved AJ. We could have requested a variance but decided living with that neighbor was not an option either.
Been there, done that, the appropriate way..
Have a good night folks 
The Appropriate way? By making someone else deal with your mess? No no no. You leave something that you did knew it was wrong and then moved NOT TO DEAL WITH IT??? You and a problem with the Flynn's??? They have TAKEN THE FENCE DOWN! Give me a break. Am I the only one that sees this???? This issue is REAL. Its going to cost time and money to all that have higher then 4 1/2 foot fences and can not prove when it was put up. You are not the woman you seemed to be at your meet and greet. That's a shame.
Shannon,
You're getting as bad as Fisher with all the aliases, too funny..
But.. thank you for the laughs  humor is good
Peace,
Christa Rizzi
Get over your Christa. Im not Shannon. Foolish.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 01:34 am |
|
What started all of this was code enforcement could not figure out what a front yard was. They thought it began at the front of the house to the street. Two counsel members researched this and found that this was not true. The code reads that a front yard is first 40 feet from the property line on the address side. This covers the full width of the property, and only allows a maximum 4.5 foot transparent fence. This was brought up before the Flynn's ever came to their first city meeting. I'm sure the anonymous complaint came from someone that was following this issue, as code compliance had to drive past many fences that are not in compliance to get to theirs's. Now move forward to the stable issues, 2.5 acres, horses allowed in the 40 foot area, but only allowed a 4.5 foot fence? If the city keeps the code at maximum 4.5 feet, and a horse gets over that fence, and heaven forbid causes an injury or fatal accident on the street, the city may share in the liability (according to the 2 attorneys I talked with they would be in part). But....if the city was to allow, at the discretion of the property owner, a maximum of 6 foot, transparent fence, they would have no liability at all ( according to the 2 attorneys I talked with). With this in mind, why would any council member vote to keep 4.5 mandatory in rural areas? Are there some that would like to see the horse community gone? Keep an eye out, your horse may only end up with a small area to stand in, as prescribed by the city! Do some want subdivisions? They act like it! 330 feet x 40 feet is a lot of wasted space, if not usable on a 2.5 acre parcel! Who owns YOUR property? Stand up and be heard.
Ed Dison
"The code reads that a front yard is first 40 feet from the property line on the address side"
Is this the case for the entire city?
"2.5 acres, horses allowed in the 40 foot area, but only allowed a 4.5 foot fence? If the city keeps the code at maximum 4.5 feet, and a horse gets over that fence, and heaven forbid causes an injury or fatal accident on the street, the city may share in the liability (according to the 2 attorneys I talked with they would be in part). But....if the city was to allow, at the discretion of the property owner, a maximum of 6 foot, transparent fence, they would have no liability at all ( according to the 2 attorneys I talked with"
Would the city be partially liable if a horse went through a 6' fence and caused harm?
Has a horse cleared a fence and caused harm in AJ's history?
Does anyone know how our surrounding cities have managed to avoid a lawsuit in such case?
Are there some that would like to see the horse community gone?
Perhaps, but I don't believe because someone has an oposing opinion they become "anti-horse" or a "bad person" either. I believe there are vailid point on boths sides of the fence.
Let's here from everyone even those we disagree with..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Fri May 29th, 2009 01:37 am by Christa_Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri May 29th, 2009 12:06 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: Joe - as a private citizen of Apache Junction, here is my understanding of the fence issues being discussed. Someone please jump in and correct me if I am wrong.
Issue #1: Someone started a thread about Shannon Flynn's illegal 6' fence. There was much discussion on it, both good and bad. I feel this was purely politically motivated. Shannon's fence has now been taken down (according to the most recent posts) so this should no longer be an issue.
So that leaves us with 2 fence issues that are being discussed:
Issue #1: Horse Boarding Regulations for legally licensed horse boarding facilities - among other items, the fencing is being discussed. This only affects the boarding facilities.
Issue #2: Front yard regulations - this affects all private property owners in the city and among other things, includes fencing.
These are the two things you should look for on the City Council agendas. Hope this helps you. Again, if I am wrong, someone please correct me.
What started all of this was code enforcement could not figure out what a front yard was. They thought it began at the front of the house to the street. Two counsel members researched this and found that this was not true. The code reads that a front yard is first 40 feet from the property line on the address side. This covers the full width of the property, and only allows a maximum 4.5 foot transparent fence. This was brought up before the Flynn's ever came to their first city meeting. I'm sure the anonymous complaint came from someone that was following this issue, as code compliance had to drive past many fences that are not in compliance to get to theirs's. Now move forward to the stable issues, 2.5 acres, horses allowed in the 40 foot area, but only allowed a 4.5 foot fence? If the city keeps the code at maximum 4.5 feet, and a horse gets over that fence, and heaven forbid causes an injury or fatal accident on the street, the city may share in the liability (according to the 2 attorneys I talked with they would be in part). But....if the city was to allow, at the discretion of the property owner, a maximum of 6 foot, transparent fence, they would have no liability at all ( according to the 2 attorneys I talked with). With this in mind, why would any council member vote to keep 4.5 mandatory in rural areas? Are there some that would like to see the horse community gone? Keep an eye out, your horse may only end up with a small area to stand in, as prescribed by the city! Do some want subdivisions? They act like it! 330 feet x 40 feet is a lot of wasted space, if not usable on a 2.5 acre parcel! Who owns YOUR property? Stand up and be heard.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Fri May 29th, 2009 12:18 am by Ed Dison
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 09:14 pm |
|
Your opinion is greatly appreciated on the suject, sir. As a citizen, remember as a Councilman you are bound just like P&Z and other boards to keep yourself neutral before the item is discussed at a council meeting by law. Not my decision but by law. Check it out with the city attorney. Your opinion before an item reaches council could, I said could sway public sentiment that's why as councilman serdy you have to keep it to yourself. As Mr. Serdy you can have an opinion just like everyone else but that will not be for 2 more years or even longer if the citizens elect to give you a 2nd term. Good try though.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:47 pm |
|
Joe - as a private citizen of Apache Junction, here is my understanding of the fence issues being discussed. Someone please jump in and correct me if I am wrong.
Issue #1: Someone started a thread about Shannon Flynn's illegal 6' fence. There was much discussion on it, both good and bad. I feel this was purely politically motivated. Shannon's fence has now been taken down (according to the most recent posts) so this should no longer be an issue.
So that leaves us with 2 fence issues that are being discussed:
Issue #1: Horse Boarding Regulations for legally licensed horse boarding facilities - among other items, the fencing is being discussed. This only affects the boarding facilities.
Issue #2: Front yard regulations - this affects all private property owners in the city and among other things, includes fencing.
These are the two things you should look for on the City Council agendas. Hope this helps you. Again, if I am wrong, someone please correct me.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:15 pm |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Christa, you really need to step back and analize what you say. Lisa called Eric about this issue and she is not Shannon. Your constant trying to connect her here is really a show of your not wiiling to accept the fact of the thread. Some people do agree with the way and intent of how the info was delivered.
Peace, love, high five, knuckles whatever, but have a good day.
Ok John 
Christa Rizzi
|
dzrtrat67
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
Johnny,
Can you, or anyone else, briefly explain the 3 different fence related issues?
It seems as though that's part of the reason for some confusion here.....it is for me anyway.
If you don't want to type out some bullet points about the 3 separate issues, can you point me towards them?
I'll see if I can find an upcoming agenda and try to make sense of it.
Thanks!
Joe
|
CouncilmemberSerdy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:05 pm |
|
Mr Kantowski, what an odd response from you? From your response we can deduce that...
You are from Chicago?...You approve of Mr. Obama and the dirty Chicago politics that he has brought to our country? and that you are part of the group that circulated those flyers?
As for my opinion, I belong to Sup. Horse Assoc. so will generally vote on matters that help the horse community and private property rights. I don't see any reason to recuse myself because I have an opinion on something. Let's not "Miss California" someone just because they have an opinion on something
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 08:04 pm |
|
Christa, you really need to step back and analize what you say. Lisa called Eric about this issue and she is not Shannon. Your constant trying to connect her here is really a show of your not wiiling to accept the fact of the thread. Some people do agree with the way and intent of how the info was delivered.
Peace, love, high five, knuckles whatever, but have a good day.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 07:49 pm |
|
Lisa D wrote: Christa_Rizzi wrote: You're not off topic AZPUBLIUS,
I believe (not positive) citizens here can apply for the variance in certain circumstances and it is then decided on the specific case.
That would be one appropriate channel for the specific individual in violation rather than the intimidation tactics that have been thus far used.
Other surrounding cities I contacted said citizens can apply for a variance in such cases.
The situation my husband and I had with a "nuisance" neighbor (not a gas station lol) :
We built a six foot wooden fence across the back of our property to keep the peace with a horrible neighbor. He complained because we painted "love peace and joy" on "his" side of our fence. The city sent a compliance officer out and we had to remove the fence or face fines. (removing the fence was not an option)
We requested an extension that bought us enough time to purchase our current property here in beloved AJ. We could have requested a variance but decided living with that neighbor was not an option either.
Been there, done that, the appropriate way..
Have a good night folks
The Appropriate way? By making someone else deal with your mess? No no no. You leave something that you did knew it was wrong and then moved NOT TO DEAL WITH IT??? You and a problem with the Flynn's??? They have TAKEN THE FENCE DOWN! Give me a break. Am I the only one that sees this???? This issue is REAL. Its going to cost time and money to all that have higher then 4 1/2 foot fences and can not prove when it was put up. You are not the woman you seemed to be at your meet and greet. That's a shame.
Shannon,
You're getting as bad as Fisher with all the aliases, too funny..
But.. thank you for the laughs humor is good
Peace,
Christa Rizzi
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 07:35 pm |
|
| Good for you Christa. Thanks for your reply.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 07:28 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Christa - just curious - what happened with your fence after you moved? Did the new buyers of your property end up having to remove it?
Katy,
We took the brand new wooden fence down (last thing to be moved) and sold it to a person who loved the design painted on it.
Christa Rizzi
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 07:02 pm |
|
| Ok :-)
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:59 pm |
|
Get off the Chicago idea Councilman, this is Apache Junction and of a situation that exists We used a way and means that is available, not on tv owned by the city, not as a paper article written by a newspaper editor but by concerned citizens. Next time maybe we should stand by the focal point and hold up signs or shout loudly at the passing motorists to get information out. This was thought thru and checked out before the flyers went out. Again if you read the post you would have seen taht I was not the author of the flyer just a citizen that put input after it was written and agreed to pass it out. Just more of the council bulls**t with your rhetoric. As far as making an opposite effect, people have called the 3 phone #'s listed pro and con on the issue. You as a councilman should have stayed neutral in this since you will ultimately be one of 7 who will decide on this. Hopefully this comment or your actions will not preclude you to recluse yourself on the issue. Time will tell.
Notice how this was only to people with fences over the height limit not all 37k, grandstanding was not our objective, just to be informative and it looks like the intent and goal was met. Thanks for your input.
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 07:03 pm by johnnyk597
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:41 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Lisa D - I did not mean anything offensive against Crista when asking the question that I did. I was simply curious as to how the City she lived in handled the disposition with the neighbor complaint against the fence after she moved. No reason for you to be offensive towards her, either.
Offensive? Yes. I have taken months of reading " Crista's" rant's on the Flynn's. Yes, I am standing up for them.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:34 pm |
|
| Lisa D - I did not mean anything offensive against Crista when asking the question that I did. I was simply curious as to how the City she lived in handled the disposition with the neighbor complaint against the fence after she moved. No reason for you to be offensive towards her, either.
|
CouncilmemberSerdy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 284 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:31 pm |
|
I've been asked to comment on this subject. Obviously this is not going to be an easy one and I'm afraid it will drag on and on much like the cargo container issue.
I can't speak for the other Councilmembers and will withhold my final vote until all of the details and facts are submitted. My initial reaction is...I don't have a problem with 6' if the top part is see through and it is on larger lots in more rural areas.
Yes, I've been getting calls on the flyers that went up all over town. It is my opinion that these are going to have the opposite effect than they where intended to have whatever that intent was. Scaring homeowners and pissing off officials is not a good way to win friends and influence people. Seems like some of the same Chicago strong arm tactics coming from the nasty insiders of the Obama administration these days.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:16 pm |
|
Ed Dison wrote: Let me make this perfectly clear to everyone here, this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FLYNN"S, nor are THEY involved. I'm sure they support the issue considering their problems. This is to get a message to the public about an issue that is going to be decided on, by the people the voter's elected to represent them. From what I've seen and heard, the majority vote of the city counsel, the one's YOU voted into office, are favoring four and a half foot high fences at the very most front of a residential property. This means that on a two and half acre lot, 330 feet of frontage could only be four and a half foot high! Most of the properties here are rural areas, not subdivisions, so why? Read the flyer, and you notice that my phone number (480) 233-3965 is on there also.
Ed Dison
I called Shannon this morning. She in fact has NOTHING to do with the flyers as Ed as stated. They Flynn's are not involved with this at all. Shannon said that she is in support of educating the tax payers that may have to deal with this issue. She stated that she has never spoken to Ed and does not know him personally. Her fence has been taken down. I spoke with her about getting a security system for the " traffic" on her street and it has been done. Good for them. These people have had to deal with more then need be just because they do not share the same views as others. That is a shame. Anyone with rocks will be recorded. I think it's a smart move.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
| A lot of fences Mrs. k that's why this informative letter went out because there are 3 issues coming up before council that are related to fencing. Hoe people take a proactive stand on this with the thoughts( not threats or snide remarks) not a reactive one. It is not a joke, can happen if they do start enforcement, and will cost a lot of time and money to rectify if the council does not amend change, or rectify it. Pure fact not fiction. have a good day again. Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 06:19 pm by johnnyk597
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:53 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Christa - just curious - what happened with your fence after you moved? Did the new buyers of your property end up having to remove it?
Yes, what happened to it?? Hmmm.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:50 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: You're not off topic AZPUBLIUS,
I believe (not positive) citizens here can apply for the variance in certain circumstances and it is then decided on the specific case.
That would be one appropriate channel for the specific individual in violation rather than the intimidation tactics that have been thus far used.
Other surrounding cities I contacted said citizens can apply for a variance in such cases.
The situation my husband and I had with a "nuisance" neighbor (not a gas station lol) :
We built a six foot wooden fence across the back of our property to keep the peace with a horrible neighbor. He complained because we painted "love peace and joy" on "his" side of our fence. The city sent a compliance officer out and we had to remove the fence or face fines. (removing the fence was not an option)
We requested an extension that bought us enough time to purchase our current property here in beloved AJ. We could have requested a variance but decided living with that neighbor was not an option either.
Been there, done that, the appropriate way..
Have a good night folks
The Appropriate way? By making someone else deal with your mess? No no no. You leave something that you did knew it was wrong and then moved NOT TO DEAL WITH IT??? You and a problem with the Flynn's??? They have TAKEN THE FENCE DOWN! Give me a break. Am I the only one that sees this???? This issue is REAL. Its going to cost time and money to all that have higher then 4 1/2 foot fences and can not prove when it was put up. You are not the woman you seemed to be at your meet and greet. That's a shame.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
Mrs.K, we have said that all the time that you could be grandfathered in but there is a procedure to do it and that is you the property owner must prove it was installed before march 7, 1985 and you must apply for the non conforming use permit(pay the fee also) turn in the application with your proof to developmental services dept. and then when and if they decide to issue the permit you will be grandfathered . Until then a fence above 4 1/2' is not allowed you are not grandfathered until the process is done and if the city decides to enforce the issue, if cited you will have to conform with the ordinance, which means you will have to bring any fence above 4 1/2' down to the legal height. i.e. (take it down). Make sure your info is correct and you can do that by calling that dept. sometimes friends can get info and sometimes it gets jumbled in the passing on. Food for thought only. Have a good day and stay safe. Again my info was from developmental services and 2 different people who would know what's going on. How far from the front buildable set back is the pool if I may ask, the reason I ask is because the one flyer that went to a property with a pool the fence surrounded the pool ok but towards the front of the house there was approximately 50 from the fence to the pool. Again I am not trying to be a lawyer or code compliance just asking a simple question like you do. Thanks and have a good day again.
One more thing and please check on it if you want, they are saying that only 1 fence is grandfathered right now with a CUP all others are illegal according to the ordinance. That's why the informative letter went out, maybe it could have been worded differently in ways but there were a few people the reviewed the letter and added or subtracted input as private citizens and the final draft was made. Again I was not the author but was one that was asked to look at it for input and to pass them out. More were passed out yesterday and more will be passed out again, 300 in all( figure came up because that's what was said to be the amout of illegal cargo container out there when the city statred to enforce the code after 18 yrs of not doin it). It seems that it has made the point that it was intended so far.
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 05:50 pm by johnnyk597
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:22 pm |
|
I have been informed that a pool fence must be a MINIMUM of 5 feet.
I have also been informed that any property use that existed prior to March 7, 1985 can be grandfathered.
So the statement that "any height over 4 & 1/2 feet must be removed" is not accurate. It would only be accurate for those fences constructed after March 7, 1985. EDITED TO ADD: or those that are not surrounding pools.
It will be interesting to see if we have a flurry of complaints about fence height. I know a few people who will not be very happy if they have to go to the trouble and expense of proving that their fence was there before the current code was in effect.
Rhetorical question: How many fences in this city do you suppose were installed after March 7, 1985 that do not comply with code?
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 05:30 pm by MrsK2009
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:34 pm |
|
Christa, you are right anyone who wishes to apply for the variance thru a non conforming application permit can do so. The flyer to my understanding was not an intimidation tactic but an informative one, some took it as that some did not. The system seems to be working still even with the conditions in this country today.
Mrs.K they can if the so choose because of the ordinance force, require, whatever adverb or adjective you use a property owner lower a 6' fence to the legal limit. Will they do that to your mothers? Your guess is as good as mine and as Christa said, it is determined on a case base when you apply for the variance.
As stated before this info is coming out of the developmental services dept.,their are no links to city codes or ordinances on-line, I also asked that when I was a P&z commissioner and was told that you have to put a public info request into the city clerks office and it was .25 cents per page. The ordinance number is in city code vol.2 chapter 1 and is number 350.
On March 6 2007 Council adopted ordinance 1290. The board of adjustment & appeals heard a case which was brought to them by staff on Nov. 13. and P&Z heard this case on Nov. 28. Staff had recommended amending ordinance 350 because a sentence fragment was inadvertently left out of the ordinance on March 7,1985 because it was more restrictive than intended. This is a synopsis of 1290, get a copy for yourself or I will let you read mine. So it can , might , who knows affect everyone with a fence above 4 1/2' tall not within the required setbacks. Again we have 3 issues coming before council, the letter was an informative one not anything else. This was to let the people know what, when, how, why, so that you were informed to voice your thoughts before they acted, not after the fact.
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:29 pm |
|
Crime and Punishment wrote: Maybe it would be good to build a 20 foot fence around the whole city with 1 gate in and out - that way maybe we can keep the nuts out and the wackos in.
OK, I'll bite. What's the difference between a nut and a wacko?
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 12:59 pm |
|
Ed Dison wrote: I was not the one that wrote the letter. I agreed to put my phone number on the letter because I feel 6 foot fences should be allowed in rural areas at the discretion of the property owner. The letter was intended to inform the citizens of Apache Junction of what is taking place in THEIR city government, by those THEY elected to represent them, encourage them to have a voice and be heard, awareness, not scare tactics. I apologize for the author if taken as such. As far as pool fencing, that is required/ controlled usually by the county. I build a lot pool fencing for commercial properties in both Maricopa and Pinal counties, and today's codes do not allow chain link, as it can be climbed easily. Last year I updated/ built new pool fencing for 7 commercial properties to bring them to code.
Ed Dison
ok, i accept you explanation and I apologize for my assumptions. and by the note you wrote above, I can tell now if you had written the said flyer it would, more then likely, have been a little more clear. thank you for responding and setting me straight on your standing.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 07:05 am |
|
| Christa - just curious - what happened with your fence after you moved? Did the new buyers of your property end up having to remove it?
|
Crime and Punishment
Member
| Joined: | Tue May 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 14 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:56 am |
|
| Maybe it would be good to build a 20 foot fence around the whole city with 1 gate in and out - that way maybe we can keep the nuts out and the wackos in.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:34 am |
|
You're not off topic AZPUBLIUS,
I believe (not positive) citizens here can apply for the variance in certain circumstances and it is then decided on the specific case.
That would be one appropriate channel for the specific individual in violation rather than the intimidation tactics that have been thus far used.
Other surrounding cities I contacted said citizens can apply for a variance in such cases.
The situation my husband and I had with a "nuisance" neighbor (not a gas station lol) :
We built a six foot wooden fence across the back of our property to keep the peace with a horrible neighbor. He complained because we painted "love peace and joy" on "his" side of our fence. The city sent a compliance officer out and we had to remove the fence or face fines. (removing the fence was not an option)
We requested an extension that bought us enough time to purchase our current property here in beloved AJ. We could have requested a variance but decided living with that neighbor was not an option either.
Been there, done that, the appropriate way..
Have a good night folks
Christa Rizzi
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 06:28 am |
|
A variance is only relevant when you want to/need to build something that does not comply with current city codes. In the case of my parents' fence, that fence was there before the current city codes were in effect. The fence was there before Apache Junction was a city. We are not talking about a fence that was built any time in recent history.
No reasonable city government can expect people to demolish structures that existed before the ordinance was enacted; that is nonsense.
I have tried to find AJ city ordinances on the web and have been unable to do so; if they are somewhere online and someone knows the link, please share.
Ed, you said you didn't write the flyer but then you accused me of saying that you look stupid and are stirring the pot. What I said was, I think it is quite relevant who wrote this flyer. Right now, my opinion is that someone wants to stir the pot, get a group of people up in arms to start going off half-cocked at city council meetings, ranting and raving over something that may or may not be an issue at all, and then looking very stupid. If you didn't write the flyer, that would not be you.
And on the subject of insurance company requirements for pool fences, they can and often do have stricter requirements than code. They are very picky about attractive nuisances. Some insurance companies will not insure a home that has a trampoline on the property. Some will not insure homes where certain breeds of dogs are kept as pets. Some will not insure a home where the owners have even one horse, let alone one per family member. Some will not insure a home where there is a pool with a diving board.
|
azpublius
Member
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:33 am |
|
I'm not trying to redirect the path this topic has been trending towards, so for those who want to respond to what I ask, please do so in a PM or email me at azpublius@gmail.com.
Not knowing much about fence ordinances, I headed over the Google to do some research, where one of the search results peaked my interest. The search result led me to a book, called Neighbor Law, by Emily Doskow and Cora Jordan. The following is what I found interesting:
Fences Built With Permits for Variance Someone who needs to build a fence that violates a fence law -- for instance, to screen a house from a noisy or unsightly neighboring use, such as a busy highway or a gas station -- can apply to the city for a one-time exception to the fence law. The exception is called variance. The ordinances explain how to apply for a variance, what kind of notice must be given to neighbors, when a hearing will be held, and who makes the final determination. Once you make a variance application, the city usually posts a sign on the property to alert the neighbors that a variance has been requested. In some times, the request is also published in the local newspaper. After a certain period of time, the city holds a hearing on the request. A neighbor who wishes to object can do so at the hearing. If the city decides the variance is justified, it will grant it. Unless the variance is limited to a specific time period, it's permanent. So someone who moves in later can't complain about a fence that was already built with a variance.
Again, because I know nothing about fence ordinances, I ask you to bear with me. After the reading the above, I have a few questions. Foremost, can the citizens of Apache Junction apply for a variance in regards to fences? If so, certainly those who have justification for their variance will have theirs' granted, such as in the case of MrsK2009's parents' fence and other similar cases. Next question, are city's required to put variance applications foremost in priority? If so, those who wish to get their point across about changing the ordinance can fetter the city's ability to work on anything else due to the onslaught of variance applications and the amount of time required to post a sign on all the properties about the variance requests and hold hearings on all the requests. Y'know?
Any comments or questions about the above, as I said before, can be directed to me through PM or email. However, if you so choose to do so, you may respond in this topic. I just didn't want to be accused of any hijacking.
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 05:34 am by azpublius
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:20 am |
|
watchingYou wrote: Good idea Lisa. It would prove that most of what Shannon says isn't true.
This has nothing to do with Shannon, and she is not involved in this. This was an issue long before Shannon ever came to her first city council meeting. And believe me, I am very informed.
Ed Dison
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:18 am |
|
christa you heard what the Mayor said about the new book called "No Angels" after the meeting last time. An FBI agent who infiltrated a MC here in the valley, and what he said about AJ. The part that stuck in my mind was when he read, AJ will always be a dirty little trailer trash town or someting to that effect except when he read" until they start enforcing their codes. Still remember the page number in the book page 76. We can't rely on selective or reactive enforcement anymore we need to enforce what we have before we continue to make new ordinances Right or wrong? Awaitng your reply.
And I also agree with you, calmer tempers should start prevailing if put on the back burner for ahwile on both side of the fence as you put it.
|
watchingYou
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 05:04 am |
|
| Good idea Lisa. It would prove that most of what Shannon says isn't true.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 04:42 am |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Mrs. K if your mothers house is the pool with the fence that goes to the front yard 50 foot or so, in my guess it could be shortened up to still surround the pool and meet the cities requirements. You asked for the opinion. It's not me that is doing all this quoting it's what I am being told by the developmental services dept. read my post it's self explanatory, burden of proof is on the property owner once you file for a non conforming use permit to submit that proof and then they decided if you can keep it. Not my rules it's the city. And by the way we do not intend in anyway to scare up support, like I said I do not even have a six foot fence in my yard. I also am not the author of the flyer but was asked for input and to pass it out. CONCERNED you are wrong again, there is only 1 (ONE) per developmental services dept for the city that is grandfathered unless proven like it was said by the owner of the property in conjunction with a non conforming permit application and then decided by them in that department YOUR FENCE IS ILLEGAL. CHECK IT OUT CALL THEM 480 982-8002 push 1 for that dept and then push 2 to get someone on the phone. Can't make it more simpler than that except to dial the phone for you. So it is not untrue, but true. All this is true in the flyer if the city does nothing and the law stands if they enforce it which could be now or 18 years from now but it is illegal and if someone calls that fence in it will be enforced because that is what the ordinance is now.
That's yet to be seen ..no enforcement if you throw a big enough tantrum or threaten to sue
Why should these fences only be permitted for larger or rual properties?
What if someone on a 1/2 acre wants a 6' fence and threatens to sue if the city enforces?
Lets say I don't like the property maintenance standards. I was here 10 yrs before they went into effect so shouldn't I get grandfathered in?
My point is this has everything to do with the people in violation. There's an appropriate way to work with the city and your neighbors and it does not entail threats, intimidation and shouting matches..(or tattling on each other)
I think it should be put on the back burner for a while. Once a complaint was filed (which I think is petty) it becomes a whole new ball game.
Joe is right cities don't go out and issue citations for every violation, they unfortunatley work off complaints (reactive). Does that mean cities should have no ordinances simply because they can't go scouting for violations?
There must be a common sense approach to this issue as there are valid points on both sides of the fence.
These statements are part of the flyer:
"A council member has attempted to make a change to the current rules that would allow a fence like yours legal but is receiving a lot of resistance to his idea. He is asking for your support and show of force to demonstrate the numbers of residents this is going to effec. If this rule is not changed then you will have to remove any amount above this current limit.
Again the current height of your fence that is located in the build set back area of your front yard is in violation of current city code"
IMO this can be interpreted in a way that would scare some people. My parents and grandparents would be upset if they got this on their fence...
Then again people behave in a civilized manner where they live, discussing disagreements not shouting people down over them..
Peace (someday I hope)
Christa Rizzi
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 04:28 am |
|
| You people do not get it! Call! Get informed! Become educated.
|
dzrtrat67
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 04:11 am |
|
(post deleted 'cause Johnny and I worked it out!)
Joe
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 05:43 am by dzrtrat67
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:40 am |
|
MrsK2009 wrote: I disagree with you, Ed. I think it is quite relevant who wrote this flyer. Right now, my opinion is that someone wants to stir the pot, get a group of people up in arms to start going off half-cocked at city council meetings, ranting and raving over something that may or may not be an issue at all, and then looking very stupid. Why should people who have had their fence since before the city was even incorporated have to worry about "proving" that they have had their fence since before the ordinance was enacted? And when there is a pool involved, 6 feet is a no-brainer. I challenge you to find an insurance company that will insure a house with a pool surrounded by less than a 6-foot fence.
We'll see what I hear back from the city on this. I have referred the matter to a couple of people and I welcome their response.
Are you saying I look stupid, stirring the pot, ect. I think you have a problem with someone else that has had a fence issue. This issue was prior to someone calling in a complaint on said fence, and I assure you has nothing to do with them. Get your info from your "friends at city hall" and let us know. And as far as pool fencing, have you looked up the codes for Pinal County? As I stated, "commercial properties" had to be brought to current codes, I will be checking the codes/ compliance for residential tomorrow. Pinal, Marcopa county, 5 foot measured from ground, Scottsdale city, 6 foot, measured from ground. I BUILD POOL FENCING for commercial properties, I have some knowledge of those codes and what the insurance companies require. Insurance companies can only require what the code requires.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 03:50 am by Ed Dison
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:32 am |
|
| Mrs.K call the city developemental service department they will tell you what why and who about the ordinance, the permit and who is and is not. Glad to be of service and the city code is the one telling you you might have to do it if you can not prove it and they do enfoce the issue. Hell they did not have time to address the issue of a frames when it was before them for 20 month's. in staff's hands. Look around the city you see anyone worried about taking them down. maybe they won't have time for this. YEH RIGHT, don't bet the farm on it. If the fence is outside the requied setback pool or not I bet you they tell you it has to be moved or prove when it was installed and get the permit. Stranger things have been done. Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 03:36 am by johnnyk597
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:29 am |
|
This was brought up at the last P&Z work session with front yard definitions. It is in the hands of P&Z..............should get interesting, imagine all the color pictures. LOL
Ed Dison
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:27 am |
|
I disagree with you, Ed. I think it is quite relevant who wrote this flyer. Right now, my opinion is that someone wants to stir the pot, get a group of people up in arms to start going off half-cocked at city council meetings, ranting and raving over something that may or may not be an issue at all, and then looking very stupid. Why should people who have had their fence since before the city was even incorporated have to worry about "proving" that they have had their fence since before the ordinance was enacted? And when there is a pool involved, 6 feet is a no-brainer. I challenge you to find an insurance company that will insure a house with a pool surrounded by less than a 6-foot fence.
We'll see what I hear back from the city on this. I have referred the matter to a couple of people and I welcome their response.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 03:26 am |
|
| Joe read the post below, only 1 fence is grandfathered according to Developmental services. The rest are illegal, just like no one bothered the container issue for 18 years then WAP, code compliance started to cite people. Again no one is saying the the city is or going to take action, but if they do enforce, well I said it before and I hope you get the picture. also what if you piss off your neighbors, one call does it all. IT IS AN INFORMATIVE FLYER. LIKE CHRISTA SAID THERE ARE 3 (three) FENCE ISSUES UP IN FRONT OF COUNCIL FOR ACTION. This 6' fence issue is one of them, along with the horse boarding fences and one other. Be prepared is the scouts motto, works for them. Works for me, hope it works for you. And you are right Mrs. K this is not funny but it is not a joke, check it out. Call the department I mentioned and hear for yourself. Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 06:29 am by johnnyk597
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:58 am |
|
Who the author of this informative letter is, is irrelevant. The information contained in the letter is real. It is up to the citizens of Apache Junction to get off their a**, get to the city meetings and be heard whether it be for or against this issue. Even if the author signed their name to the letter, what could be done? NOTHING. FYI, could it be that a group of say, 2, 10, 29, 87, 121, 267 people had a "hand" in writing this "letter". No joke here.
Ed Dison
|
Current time is 09:18 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|