| Author | Post |
|---|
dzrtrat67
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:57 am |
|
MrsK2009 wrote:
What have they been doing all these years that the fence has been there, and no one from the city has ever said a word?
Most all code compliance citations are done on a complaint basis. In other words, no one from the city ever said anything to you because:
A. The fence was probably considered grandfathered in.
B. It never bothered anyone enough to complain.
Just my best guess.
soooo..... it'll prolly be ok in the future as well, so long as no one complains.
Joe
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:42 am |
|
This is a joke. Well, it's not funny, but it's a joke all the same.
What was the developmental services department doing when property owners along Weekes Wash south of my parents' property were narrowing the channel of the wash, which has created a flooding problem every time the wash runs now? I think that's a lot more serious problem than the height of someone's fence.
What have they been doing all these years that the fence has been there, and no one from the city has ever said a word?
In any case, I have e-mailed someone in code compliance that I went to high school with - and who probably swam in that pool as a teenager - and I expect we will have some info tomorrow.
Edited to add: what is a "non-conforming permit application?" and why would a person need to apply for one? Are you saying that every property owner in this town has the burden of keeping up with all of the changes in code, and then filing for this non-conforming permit just because the city changed something?
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 02:48 am by MrsK2009
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:25 am |
|
| 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.
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 02:09 am |
|
Well...then who DID write this flyer?
I want to know where they got the information that a fence installed over 30 years ago will have to be removed unless the current law is changed.
I do favor a change in the law, since a 4 1/2 foot fence is really not an adequate height to keep trespassers out or dogs in. I have had dogs that could easily get over a 4 1/2 foot fence if they wanted to. Even had one dog that could climb chain link.
But that is not what I was concerned about when I started this thread. I am questioning the accuracy of the statement that the fence would have to be removed. I do not believe that is true, and I am hoping for some answers from someone who knows.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 01:54 am |
|
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
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 28th, 2009 12:47 am |
|
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
Ed, I hope you didn't mean to scare people with your letter? But, it looks like you did maybe unintentionally. Now there are people who are mad a the city and the city is not doing anything against them. your letter was written to make them think they are in violation and the city is going to do something to them, which is untrue. You need to tell them that the fence and yard of MrsK fence are grandfathered. that you or someone you know sent this letter out to gain allies in you fight against this city code. You need to let them know that the city is not after MrsK's parents and that they are ok.
Last edited on Thu May 28th, 2009 12:48 am by concerned4aj
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 11:49 pm |
|
Ed, Johnny - I totally get that, and I don't care about the Flynns' fence. My parents' fence has nothing to do with the Flynns.
My question is: why are people being told that they will have to tear down a fence that has been in place since before Apache Junction was a city, unless the law is changed? That can't be right. Otherwise, people would have to remove structures every time new ordinances were passed.
Somebody please explain this to me. Preferably someone associated with the city's code enforcement department.
Another side issue with my parents is: their chain link fence surrounds a pool that has been there since 1974. Does the law require a 6-foot fence around a pool - or are you going to tell me they have to take out their pool too?
I liked this town so much better back then.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 11:41 pm |
|
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
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
MrsK2009 wrote: There is a flyer in circulation that I believe has some misinformation in it. My parents received one because they have a fence around their front yard. It has been there since I was in high school, which was before Apache Junction was even incorporated.
I quote: Current rules do not allow any fence over this 4 1/2 foot limit and your fence is currently in violation...If this rule is not changed then you will have to remove any amount above this current limit.
Say what? How can the city require a property owner to modify a fence that has been there since before the current law was put on the books?
Do grandfather clauses no longer apply, or is the Apache Junction city government getting so heavy-handed that property owners will be required to modify their property every time a new code law is passed? If that is the case...why would anyone want to live here?
Here's the flyer
I agree people need to get involved,attend and speak at city meetings
Peace,
Christa Rizzi
Attachment: Wednesday, May 27, 2009.pdf (Downloaded 16 times) Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 11:19 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
MrsK2009 wrote: Johnnyk said:...The others would be considered in violation unless they could prove the fence was up prior to that by way of a non conforming use permit application. In 1979 there was an ordinance but it was thrown out by a court because it was illegal, that's when the ordinance was made in 1985.
How many people save their receipts for 24 years? Why should anyone have to prove their fence was installed before 1985? Should they start digging out family photos with dates on them, showing that the fence was here then?
Jeff Serdy - what do you say?
This is why the law needs to be changed. I called the city this afternoon and the flyer is right.
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 10:39 pm |
|
Johnnyk said:...The others would be considered in violation unless they could prove the fence was up prior to that by way of a non conforming use permit application. In 1979 there was an ordinance but it was thrown out by a court because it was illegal, that's when the ordinance was made in 1985.
How many people save their receipts for 24 years? Why should anyone have to prove their fence was installed before 1985? Should they start digging out family photos with dates on them, showing that the fence was here then?
Jeff Serdy - what do you say?
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 10:28 pm |
|
| Thank you for posting. I am sure others will become educated.
|
Lisa D
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 26th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 10:27 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Laughing hysterically ..
Paranoia is a big destroyer Shannon..
oopps I mean thinkingoutloud or was that voter09 lol..
I always love a good laugh thank you..
Peace
Christa Rizzi
Your crying is getting old. The fence issue is a real issue. It's going to cost people a lot of money if it is not reviewed and changed. Ms. Rizzi, please cool off and stop all the attacking on the Flynn's. It is indeed very unbecoming. We all get that you do not like them. Please use this forum for something better then crying about the Flynn's.
And about Paranoia, who cares if Shannon were to use other names. My God stand up for the Flynn's and you must be one of them??? You yourself said you were on her street. On this very forum. Paranoia??? Do you have any reason to be on her street or only to check up on them? Please do inform.
One might talk with the Flynn's about getting a camera system in the front of the address.
Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 10:35 pm by Lisa D
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
If the fence is grandfathered it would be registered with the city as being grandfathered, just like the 3 cargo containers were before the ordinance changed. All the flyer says is that the ordinance says if you have over a 4 1/2 foot fence you are in violation right now, and to help us try and change it by contacting council members and voicing your opinion. By the way the Flynn's have nothing to do with the flyers. They were passed out by myself and 2 other concerned citizens that want fences that are see thru and if a blockwall anything over the 4 1/2 foot would have to be transparent also up to 6'. You people jump the fence to fast at blaming people before you get the facts on a subject. A councilman is also in support of this and involved. Their are no threats involved here and 3 phone #'s were listed for people to call on the flyer for more info besides the Council members and the Mayor. It's not making a fuss at P&zZ or council it's the right to voice your thoughts and since it is no longer televised, which I support council on, what's wrong with advising the public on issues that affect them or how else would you ask the public to put their input on issues that would affect them. the blogs are not the only source of info in this city and other ways are being used to inform the public. Legal ways. come up with something better and we can try that also. A fuss at the meetings gezzzzzzzzzzzzzz get a life. According to the city only 1 fence above 6' is grandfathered by a CUP before March of 1985. The others would be considered in violation unless they could prove the fence was up prior to that by way of a non conforming use permit application. In 1979 there was an ordinance but it was thrown out by a court because it was illegal, that's when the ordinance was made in 1985.Check it out thru Developemental services, I did. If council up holds the ordinance until proven different all 6' fences are illegal except 1. The burden of proof is on the property owner not the city to do this also. That's why we need your input from the public as to what council should do. My nickel's worth. TY Oh by the way, I do not have a 6' fence in the front of my property, so no pictures are needed.
Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 09:26 pm by johnnyk597
|
concerned4aj
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 485 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 08:34 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Laughing hysterically ..
Paranoia is a big destroyer Shannon..
oopps I mean thinkingoutloud or was that voter09 lol..
I always love a good laugh thank you..
Peace
Christa Rizzi
you forgot historyfan, too. "he" was jumping back and forth and forgot who he was. lol. I like how "he" accuses you for being personal then attacks you. can we say "hypocrite".
|
cacomistle
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 119 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 08:23 pm |
|
Marilyn Monsoon wrote: What I meant was the council would not want a lot of people to speak on the same subject at call to the public. And also who ever put out the flyers new that the rule did not pertain to all fence .There are grandfather rights on a lot of those fences.So there for who ever put the flyers out were just trying to cause an uproar so people would flood the council chambers so the council would change the codes.More manipulating if you ask me.
More attempts at bullying and intimidation, if you ask me.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 07:57 pm |
|
Laughing hysterically ..
Paranoia is a big destroyer Shannon..
oopps I mean thinkingoutloud or was that voter09 lol..
I always love a good laugh thank you..
Peace
Christa Rizzi
|
Marilyn Monsoon
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 07:55 pm |
|
| What I meant was the council would not want a lot of people to speak on the same subject at call to the public. And also who ever put out the flyers new that the rule did not pertain to all fence .There are grandfather rights on a lot of those fences.So there for who ever put the flyers out were just trying to cause an uproar so people would flood the council chambers so the council would change the codes.More manipulating if you ask me.
|
thinkingoutLOUD
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 07:18 pm |
|
| Thank God we don't have laws against living in shacks.... Or do we???
|
thinkingoutLOUD
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 21st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 76 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 07:17 pm |
|
| You get too personal. Have you not taken your personal daily drive by the Flynns address of late?????
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 06:24 pm |
|
The fence issue is on 3 separate agendas and some want 6' fences not just for horse boarders as previously stated
The problem arouse when a complaint was filed against a specific property and rather than address the issue appropriately through proper channels this violator began with threats and public ally stated "I'm not going to comply, 200 others are in violation, I'll sue the city, a boy attempted to climb my fence"..
Our city is using selective enforcement for a specific violator who's waiting to see if they can change the ordinance..
Many properties are legitimately grandfathered
These same violators want no amnesty for illegals breaking the law but amnesty for themselves when they beak the law
Every city surrounding us is willing to work with people having violations up until a person were to publicly state they weren't going to comply. At that point citations are issued..
But then these same violators have publicly stated "the squeaky wheel gets oiled"
Many of us have had enough of the threats, intimidation and bullying tactics being used on our elected officials and city staff
These same violators have on four separate occasions created serious public disturbances at city council meetings
If you keep giving the bullies ammunition, we are in for more bullying
Christa Rizzi
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 05:45 pm |
|
The matter is also complicated by the fact that, on the other side of this fence, there is a swimming pool. It has been there since 1974.
I am in the insurance business. Homeowners insurance applications ask many questions. Among them, "Is there a pool?" "If yes, is it fenced?" and "If yes, height of fence?" If you have less than a six foot fence around your pool and your insurance company finds out about it, you then have an insurance problem.
So, what is the requirement where there is a pool, and where can I get a copy of this ordinance?
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 05:38 pm |
|
The flyer's are being put out in support of higher fences. If a fence was put up before 1985, it should be grandfathered in. Remember some codes were in place from Pinal County before the city was incorporated, which may include limits to fence heights, which could possibly be included in current enforcement. Enforcement, the joke of Apache Junction. Have a voice, go to city meetings.
Ed Dison
|
ajbizowner
Member
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 05:21 pm |
|
MrsK,
**IF** there was a code compliance issue with the fence, your parents would have gotten a letter from the city specifying exactly what was wrong and how to correct the problem, with a date specific for resolution of the matter. They would NOT get a flyer telling them to watch the papers and show up and make a fuss at P&Z and council meetings.
Because of the issue regarding one specific non-complying fence, Code Compliance *SHOULD* be looking at *ALL* non-complying fences, but they also should be handled on a case by case basis. In the case of your parents' fence being there before there was a city, I'm thinking it could be resolved without too much hassle.
Personally, I'd call Code Compliance and maybe the City Clerk's office to see what they have to say.
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 05:14 pm |
|
And why would the council not want to hear from citizens?
My point being, how can the city require people to remove a fence that has been there since before the ordinance was enacted? I am wondering if this is going to be a trend. Are people going to start being hassled about structures that have been on their property for decades?
What's up with this? I may end up being really happy that I moved outside the city limits.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 05:01 pm |
|
| Why would they be a dishonest citizen or citizens? Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 05:02 pm by johnnyk597
|
Marilyn Monsoon
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 20 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 04:35 pm |
|
| The flyers could not of come from the city because they would not of stated come to the council meeting and voice your opinion.So I wonder who the dishonest citizen is that distributed the flyer.Hum let me guess!! Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 04:37 pm by Marilyn Monsoon
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 03:54 pm |
|
| Sure - I'll get it to you.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 03:40 pm |
|
I didn't think it came from the city.
I plan to attend and speak at these meetings
Would it be possible for me to get a copy of this flyer?
Christa Rizzi
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 03:18 pm |
|
Doesn't look like it, but it does say that the property owner should watch the local papers and attend P&Z and council meetings to let their voice be heard.
That part of it makes sense. The part that I just don't get is this statement that the fence would have to be removed. It's been there for a good thirty years. Why should someone have to remove something that has been there for that long? It's not like they just had it put in.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 03:00 pm |
|
Did they verify that the note came from the city of Apache Junction?
Christa Rizzi
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 07:06 am |
|
There is a flyer in circulation that I believe has some misinformation in it. My parents received one because they have a fence around their front yard. It has been there since I was in high school, which was before Apache Junction was even incorporated.
I quote: Current rules do not allow any fence over this 4 1/2 foot limit and your fence is currently in violation...If this rule is not changed then you will have to remove any amount above this current limit.
Say what? How can the city require a property owner to modify a fence that has been there since before the current law was put on the books?
Do grandfather clauses no longer apply, or is the Apache Junction city government getting so heavy-handed that property owners will be required to modify their property every time a new code law is passed? If that is the case...why would anyone want to live here?
|
Current time is 08:36 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|