| Author | Post |
|---|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28th, 2009 10:38 pm |
|
Do you have the names of those at animal control making that recommendation?
I can't find any officers there who commit to this recommendation..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Tue Jul 28th, 2009 10:39 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
35_Yr_Resident
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28th, 2009 03:43 am |
|
I don’t see where the city has any right to tell anyone what kind of fences they can have. 6-foot chainlink fences have been a norm for years. As long as a resident requires a fence and has enough responsibility to put one up for whatever the reason they should be applauded for their efforts!
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:59 am |
|
MrsK2009 wrote: Ed, is your mouse clicker stuck?
I am in favor of 6-foot fences, because 4 1/2 feet is not enough to keep my animals in and other peoples' animals out.
MrsK2009, just trying to get the topic at hand on top, yours made more sense. The six foot fence issue is in the hands of P&Z now, Incorporated with the front yard definitions. Because of vacations of those whom sit on this board I don't expect we'll see anything from them until August. Hopefully it won't be an experience like the stable issue.
In talking with animal control, they are recommending fences higher than what the city allows at this time on the front property line for at home kennel permits.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sun Jun 28th, 2009 04:10 am by Ed Dison
|
MrsK2009
Member
| Joined: | Thu Mar 19th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 403 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 03:54 am |
|
Ed, is your mouse clicker stuck?
I am in favor of 6-foot fences, because 4 1/2 feet is not enough to keep my animals in and other peoples' animals out.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:02 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:02 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:01 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:00 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 02:00 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
Well, let me think about this for a moment.......... YES I would be in favor! FYI, I received a call from AJ Animal Control today regarding some horses that may be in need of our assistance, while I had the officer on the line, I asked if a 4.5 foot fence would be suitable for animals, dogs horses, ect. The answer, NO! Someone would be out of their mind to think a fence that high would be suitable. Then I explained the present codes for front fences in the "front yard area", the officer was appalled to say the least. I don't think we will be getting ANY answers from anyone here associated with "the circle", just song and dance. As far as council, there are 4 members that are dead set against anything over 4.5 feet, this was voiced without any hesitation or research. This is the reason for "our flyer". There are 2 that said they will listen to all sides, and then make a decision, and 1 that is totally for it. As for P&Z, I guess we'll have to ask Madam Chairperson what she wants, and go with that, but this process will more than likely take at least 4 months or so. And remember the Vice Chairperson must travel every street in Apache Junction seeking out all existing fences and taking at least 12 or so pictures of each and every one for show and tell. And let's not forget the studies he must preform in material composition, what type of fasteners must be used, what type of coating must be applied, what PSI rating the concrete must be, if engineering should be required, landscaping requirements that will allow a clear sight line for picture taking of the front of the house in case it "may be a rental" some day, ect.
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28th, 2009 01:59 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:05 pm |
|
Posted: Fri Jun 19th, 2009 09:22 amEd Dison
Has anyone read the rules for this forum? NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! Dalley007, Mr Messina, Peanutshims, if you CONTINUE I WILL PERSONALLY CONTACT THE WEBMASTER AND HAVE YOU REMOVED FROM THIS BOARD. Peanutshims, you state Mr Messina has or is in the process of cleaning up his place, LEAVE IT ALONE! If you have a concern about it go here, ajcity.net, voice all your concerns and be happy your contributing to your community. Let's hope you have a violation free, happy homestead. As soon as I sort all these pictures out by address, I'll let you know. Dalley007, you should, and will be removed from this forum, you brought the personal attacks to this forum, complete with someone's location, that's a big NO, NO HERE! The webmaster keeps track of your ip address, well, he will tell you the rest. Mr Messina, clean and organize your place, be happy, and don't let the few people here get to you. Returning personal attacks lowers yourself to their level, and you would have to apply for a city permit, and go through P&Z, to dig a hole that deep. You and I both know how long that would take! EVERYONE, if you have something PERSONAL, take it to the person, or to the proper city department. Ya'all have a nice evening.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Sat Jun 27th, 2009 05:05 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 27th, 2009 04:58 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Shannon,
You can change your names but your writing style and content never change, nor do the tiny little footprints your computer leaves every time you post. See I have a friend who has studied hand writing, sentence structuring etc..lol 
Be very careful what you acuse people of, it will come back to bite..
I'd like to see the documented days and times I'm supposedly on the street you mention...please do share with us..
I suggest you fine tune the camera you speak of before wrongly accusing me one more time
Now let's see who was that stating at CTTP they had pictures of 200 violations in the city..
Now waiting for a response from oh let me guess ..voter09 lol
No integrity, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada..
Christa Rizzi
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 11:43 pm |
|
| No one told me those that are grandfathered had to pay a fee. I was told only one person was grandfathered at the time of the post and anyone else would have to prove the fence was up prior to 3/7/1985 and they could be grandfathered then all others would have to get a CUP and pay the fee. Who told you that they would not? Last edited on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 11:46 pm by johnnyk597
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 26th, 2009 06:39 pm |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Oh and to answer the rumor as to a councilman wrote the flyer. Why should it matter who wrote it. I had some input to the flyer and ageed to pass it out. The info was true on it, and you must get a CUP or a non conforming use permit if the fence was installed before March 7, 1985 to be grandfathered. Pay the fee prove it was and it can be legal if they decide to give the permit. Also stated that if they did cite it would have to come down to 4 1/2'. No force, no scare tactic's just come to the meetings and see for yourself. Private citizens with concerns. You take it from here as to where the city took it and told people when they called in.
Who in the city told you those grandfathered must pay a fee and apply for a CUP or Letter of non conformity?
Christa Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 8th, 2009 03:49 am |
|
Checked with 2 council members this afternoon, they knew nothing about any enforcement taking place. Comments from them were, maybe there was a complaint, also stated they understood that no enforcement was to take place until the issue was decided. The city should use extreme caution regarding "selective enforcement". I wonder about the one's on here that have made comments about "have digital camera, we'll take my car".
Ed Dison
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 09:33 pm |
|
| Ok, Ed - will do. Thanks
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 09:10 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: Ok, back to the subject of fence ordinances. Just today, I learned of another property owner who has received an official letter from the City (not the flyer that was left on people's doorsteps - he didn't get one) but an official letter, from the City, sent to him through the mail informing him that his 6' fence was illegal. He was totally unaware of all the recent discussions going on about the fences and was unaware that his was illegal until he got this letter. Said he hired a fence company to put the fence in (within past 7 yrs) and assumed the fence company took care of any permits that may or may not have been needed. When I told him that current ordinances mandated only 4 1/2' across the front, he laughed and said his mustangs could clear that height fence in nothing flat, thus his decision to have the 6' put in. I know a lot of you may say that it was ultimately his responsibility to know what the fence laws were and maybe you're right. I'm just throwing this out as part of the discussion. Does anyone know of other property owners who may have received a letter informing them of their illegal 6' fences? I was just wondering if this might be another isolated incident stemming from a neighbor complaint or if the City was starting to go after the illegal 6' fences as a whole.
katy8520, have him contact us.
Ed Dison
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 7th, 2009 06:06 am |
|
Ok, back to the subject of fence ordinances. Just today, I learned of another property owner who has received an official letter from the City (not the flyer that was left on people's doorsteps - he didn't get one) but an official letter, from the City, sent to him through the mail informing him that his 6' fence was illegal. He was totally unaware of all the recent discussions going on about the fences and was unaware that his was illegal until he got this letter. Said he hired a fence company to put the fence in (within past 7 yrs) and assumed the fence company took care of any permits that may or may not have been needed. When I told him that current ordinances mandated only 4 1/2' across the front, he laughed and said his mustangs could clear that height fence in nothing flat, thus his decision to have the 6' put in. I know a lot of you may say that it was ultimately his responsibility to know what the fence laws were and maybe you're right. I'm just throwing this out as part of the discussion. Does anyone know of other property owners who may have received a letter informing them of their illegal 6' fences? I was just wondering if this might be another isolated incident stemming from a neighbor complaint or if the City was starting to go after the illegal 6' fences as a whole.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
| dd - maybe she's out of town for the weekend. It appears you are new to this forum unless you're an old member posting under a new name. Please don't stir up the pot any more than it has been already.
|
ddhawkins1
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 5th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 07:36 pm |
|
 Last edited on Mon Jun 8th, 2009 12:55 am by ddhawkins1
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 6th, 2009 08:24 am |
|
Before Apache Junction was incorporated, the fence on a front property line, address side, could not be over 4.5 feet high, and could be solid or transparent, this was in their(Pinal County) codes. When Apache Junction was incorporated, Pinal County codes were immediately adopted by the then "new city council". This was done without any public input and was challenged in court in 1985, and deemed illegal. After public input in 1985 in accordance with the laws of 1985, the codes were formally adopted, and most are still in effect today, including the 4.5 fence height. This is the reason for the needed code changes for commercial stables, fences, and the list goes on.
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 02:19 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Shannon,
You can change your names but your writing style and content never change, nor do the tiny little footprints your computer leaves every time you post. See I have a friend who has studied hand writing, sentence structuring etc..lol
Be very careful what you acuse people of, it will come back to bite..
I'd like to see the documented days and times I'm supposedly on the street you mention...please do share with us..
I suggest you fine tune the camera you speak of before wrongly accusing me one more time
Now let's see who was that stating at CTTP they had pictures of 200 violations in the city..
Now waiting for a response from oh let me guess ..voter09 lol
No integrity, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada..
Christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, you are obsessed with Shannon, and should seek professional help, and that is coming from someone with a degree. You lurk around these blogs and attack when you think you've got her. Now you can't provide us with any views or opinions, and this is about fences, but if you think its her, watch out. Everyone here sees your purpose on these blogs, both of them. I think you need to leave the horse community alone, we don't need people like yourself, we have enough in our city government already. I'm going to suggest to everyone to ignore your requests for anything to do with horses, stables, ect. And if you don't want to do it, I can do it for you, start a tread just for you and Shannon. Thanks for keeping us busy, good luck in your quest.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 06:57 pm by Ed Dison
|
SayItIsntTrue
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:54 am |
|
| Here we go again...
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:50 am |
|
Shannon,
You can change your names but your writing style and content never change, nor do the tiny little footprints your computer leaves every time you post. See I have a friend who has studied hand writing, sentence structuring etc..lol
Be very careful what you acuse people of, it will come back to bite..
I'd like to see the documented days and times I'm supposedly on the street you mention...please do share with us..
I suggest you fine tune the camera you speak of before wrongly accusing me one more time
Now let's see who was that stating at CTTP they had pictures of 200 violations in the city..
Now waiting for a response from oh let me guess ..voter09 lol
No integrity, none, zip, zilch, zero, nada..
Christa Rizzi
|
SayItIsntTrue
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:21 am |
|
Oh yes... I have a 6 foot fence. I will also be speaking on the subject at coming meetings.
Ms. Rizzi get your camera out and gas up your truck as you'll have my address. I can play mean too.
|
SayItIsntTrue
Member
| Joined: | Sat Apr 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 152 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:15 am |
|
I have been reading this since it got started. Ms. Rizzi what's your point here? What are you really up to? You must be kidding yourself if you really think people are buying what you are selling.
It's almost like you think your God. At least that how I'm reading your post.
After reading what you have to say I am glad you did not make it into office. You are obessive. I had a good laugh reading your post about who was and was not.
Oh and may I ask WHY you where on Acacia Rd many times the past month? One wonders.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 03:58 pm |
|
Ms Rizzi, you obviously must recognize the questions you ask here show your inability to read what is put on these blogs. Your unwillingness to commit to any personal views or opinions shows your not here with an open mind like the rest of us. Everything you ask has facts attached to it somewhere, but you insist that everyone here do your research for you. All I have asked you to do is what most here do, research the issues, form your own views and opinions, and share this with those of us here. You continue to give political based, non committal answers. Remember politics are like boxing, you walk to the ring with a friend, enter the ring and do the best you can to win the round, then walk away together friends and go out for a cup of coffee. To form an opinion on the prospect of having a fence up to 6 feet in height does not require a rocket scientist. These are not politcal questions, so please save those for the political arena.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 04:26 pm by Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 08:55 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Ed Dison wrote: Ms Rizzi, the past issue of "property maintenance standards" that you refer to must have been in another city, as I remember the meetings for Apache Junction's "property maintenance standards" being held in the high school auditorium, and to a "packed house". I guess this is where everyone was at.
Ed Dison
The PAC holds several hundred people, it wasn't even half full and they were held at other school locations to accomadate citizens throughout the community.
Amy ( can't remember her last name) who left the city soon after did most of the speaking and frequently cut people off as they spoke.
I can introduce you to the local business owner my husband and I attended with along with a book of codes if you like..we never thought you'd resort to this Mr Dison
Christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, you seem to have a real problem with opinions and views when coming from someone besides yourself. You prod until you feel you have something to lash out against, and then proceed with your attack, do you realize how foolish you make yourself look? I'm sure no one here really cares whether you were at the meetings or not. Remember, you brought the subject up on a thread that has nothing to do with the past issue your referring to. I've noticed you do this in almost every thread on these blogs. "We never thought you'd resort to this"? Resort to what Ms Rizzi? Your the one on THIS thread asking all the questions when you have the same access to the same information everyone else has. Have you forgotten what I spent 27 years doing, and doing well? Were you instructed to keep the horsey people busy? To cause the horsey people to get mad and report the findings? To attempt to discredit me? One would have to wonder what your true intentions here really are. Your wanting to visit boarding stables? In what capacity? A truly concerned citizen? Or did you suddenly become a deputized P&Z commissioner? And yes I do have my own conclusions, but you already know what my conclusions are, something I never thought you'd resort to. I honestly thought much higher of you than I guess I should of, good luck in your future ventures.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 09:06 am by Ed Dison
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 07:38 am |
|
Ed Dison wrote: Ms Rizzi, the past issue of "property maintenance standards" that you refer to must have been in another city, as I remember the meetings for Apache Junction's "property maintenance standards" being held in the high school auditorium, and to a "packed house". I guess this is where everyone was at.
Ed Dison
The PAC holds several hundred people, it wasn't even half full and they were held at other school locations to accomadate citizens throughout the community.
Amy ( can't remember her last name) who left the city soon after did most of the speaking and frequently cut people off as they spoke.
I can introduce you to the local business owner my husband and I attended with along with a book of codes if you like..we never thought you'd resort to this Mr Dison
Christa Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 07:04 am |
|
Ms Rizzi, the past issue of "property maintenance standards" that you refer to must have been in another city, as I remember the meetings for Apache Junction's "property maintenance standards" being held in the high school auditorium, and to a "packed house". I guess this is where everyone was at.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 07:05 am by Ed Dison
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 365 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 4th, 2009 06:30 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: J&JFarms wrote: The fence issue should be up to each individual property owner. 4.5 foot, 6 foot, their choice. The only restrictions the city should impose should be some type of sight requirement. That is, above 4.5 feet must be steel panel, bars, or posts, or similar. A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal.
With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. I am a true limited Government type that abhors government intrusion into private property rights. That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain.
"A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal. "
I'm not buying the "we'll sue if you don't change it"..why not stay with presenting facts and information on the need instead of intimidation tactics which is what I considering threatening to sue. One could find an attorney to sue a ham sandwhich for heavens sakes.
So again I ask how many times has this already happened and why the city not been sued ?
If the city allows 6' and a dog clears it and injures someone is the city liable?
What if a horse goes through a 6' fence and causes harm, city still on the hook?
Present facts that give credability to 6' being the only viable option for horses..(I'm trying to help you make your case here)
Why 6' and not 7' 8' 9' 10'? ..or should we not have a height limit?
"With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. "
I'm not sure in regard to what?
"That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain. "
I would never do this ..and I don't understand how a person could gain anything politically by doing this..?
I have another question for citizens here. Where was everyone when the city held public hearings before implementing our "property maintenance standards"?
I fought it back then and very very few people bothered to show up. I went into the neighborhoods and passed out flyers. Where was everyone?
Just curious..
Christa Rizzi
Christa,
Thanks for your help, but the case for a 6' fence has been made. Repeatedly. If there were a large volume of data that suggested that a 6' fence was insufficient to contain the average dog, then yes. The support of 6' fences for horse properties has been directly addressed so many times that to do it again would be an insult to the vast majority of folks that read here. But, if you wish to gain more information on the subject, I'd suggest google. I'm sorry if you didn't understand what I wrote, I can tend to be a bit cryptic. So, here it is in plain (American) English.
Horse owner gets a rescue horse. Horse owner keeps the horse in the proper sized stall, per recommendations. The same recommendations state that a 6' fence is best. The city regulations prevent a 6' fence and only allow for a 4.5' fence. The horse breaks out and causes an accident, or worse. The injured party, not the horse owner, persues damages against the owner of the horse. The owner of said horse obtains an attorney and presents the previously noted recommendations of fence height and then presents the city regulations that prevent a 6' fence. Upon the presentation of said documentation the City then becomes culpable in the civil matter. If the owner of said horse did all things within the bounds of the law to contain the animal, but the law itself was overly restrictive, the civil liability of said horse owner is diminished greatly, if not in total.
Now, if the City were to say that on any lot, zoned for horses, the property owner, at their discretion, may erect up to a 6' transparent fence around their property for the purpose to contain equine, the City has now removed themselves from the equation. Why limit the height to 6'? Because Elk and Deer aren't generally kept as pets in town.
When I was nearly hit by a run-away horse on Tomahawk, I didn't sue, freak out, or go down to Phillies and raise hell, I was just thankful that the horse wasn't killed, no-one was hurt, and that I was alert. Sometimes I wonder if anyone else is awake?
I don't believe you when you claim that you a) don't have an agenda, b) don't participate in selective targeting, c) believe in live and let live.
Way to bring up the Prop Maint standards from years ago... The issue at hand is fences on horse properties.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 11:25 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: J&JFarms wrote: The fence issue should be up to each individual property owner. 4.5 foot, 6 foot, their choice. The only restrictions the city should impose should be some type of sight requirement. That is, above 4.5 feet must be steel panel, bars, or posts, or similar. A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal.
With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. I am a true limited Government type that abhors government intrusion into private property rights. That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain.
"A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal. "
I'm not buying the "we'll sue if you don't change it"..why not stay with presenting facts and information on the need instead of intimidation tactics which is what I considering threatening to sue. One could find an attorney to sue a ham sandwhich for heavens sakes.
So again I ask how many times has this already happened and why the city not been sued ?
If the city allows 6' and a dog clears it and injures someone is the city liable?
What if a horse goes through a 6' fence and causes harm, city still on the hook?
Present facts that give credability to 6' being the only viable option for horses..(I'm trying to help you make your case here)
Why 6' and not 7' 8' 9' 10'? ..or should we not have a height limit?
"With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. "
I'm not sure in regard to what?
"That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain. "
I would never do this ..and I don't understand how a person could gain anything politically by doing this..?
I have another question for citizens here. Where was everyone when the city held public hearings before implementing our "property maintenance standards"?
I fought it back then and very very few people bothered to show up. I went into the neighborhoods and passed out flyers. Where was everyone?
Just curious..
Christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, I was in the middle of the "property maintenance standards". I'm proud that you were genuinely concerned enough to get involved in that issue, but we are past the "high five stage" on that issue, so let's move on. If you would like to research the fence issue, be my guest. Just do us a favor and come back with good, solid facts instead of the dance routine you keep preforming for us. See you then!
Ed Dison
|
dzrtrat67
Member
| Joined: | Thu Aug 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 212 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 07:54 pm |
|
katy8520 wrote: The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
Absolutely in favor! All this quibbling over 18" is ridiculous IMO. The "safety" angle on the 4 1/2' height is a bogus argument too. Heck....what's to keep someone from planting an impenetrable 12' tall "fence" of poisonous Oleanders right behind that 4 1/2' fence. Or jumping cholla? First responders will have a far easier time getting over or going thru a 6' fence than either of those.
I'd like to know why this council has this pseudo-obsession with micro-regulating personal property rights.... fences, sheds, native plants.... why do they feel the need to "protect" us from... evil recycled containers, 18" of extra wood or cinder blocks, etc.
I think it'd be kick *ss if they actually went the OTHER direction. Let AJ have a reputation for being the town that PROTECTS your personal property freedoms, rather than a town that just wants to be like everyone else in the valley.
eh...my two cents. Bring on the hits! ;-)
Joe
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 06:14 pm |
|
J&JFarms wrote: The fence issue should be up to each individual property owner. 4.5 foot, 6 foot, their choice. The only restrictions the city should impose should be some type of sight requirement. That is, above 4.5 feet must be steel panel, bars, or posts, or similar. A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal.
With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. I am a true limited Government type that abhors government intrusion into private property rights. That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain.
"A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal. "
I'm not buying the "we'll sue if you don't change it"..why not stay with presenting facts and information on the need instead of intimidation tactics which is what I considering threatening to sue. One could find an attorney to sue a ham sandwhich for heavens sakes.
So again I ask how many times has this already happened and why the city not been sued ?
If the city allows 6' and a dog clears it and injures someone is the city liable?
What if a horse goes through a 6' fence and causes harm, city still on the hook?
Present facts that give credability to 6' being the only viable option for horses..(I'm trying to help you make your case here)
Why 6' and not 7' 8' 9' 10'? ..or should we not have a height limit?
"With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. "
I'm not sure in regard to what?
"That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain. "
I would never do this ..and I don't understand how a person could gain anything politically by doing this..?
I have another question for citizens here. Where was everyone when the city held public hearings before implementing our "property maintenance standards"?
I fought it back then and very very few people bothered to show up. I went into the neighborhoods and passed out flyers. Where was everyone?
Just curious..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 06:37 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
J&JFarms
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 1st, 2009 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 365 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 07:09 am |
|
The fence issue should be up to each individual property owner. 4.5 foot, 6 foot, their choice. The only restrictions the city should impose should be some type of sight requirement. That is, above 4.5 feet must be steel panel, bars, or posts, or similar. A very wise person advised that if left to the individual property owner the city is no longer liable should a mandated 4.5 foot fence fail to contain an animal.
With all due respect Christa, I don't believe you. I am a true limited Government type that abhors government intrusion into private property rights. That includes citizen driven selective targeting for political gain.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 07:08 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Katy,
Fair meaning to hear from all parties pro and con with no personal prejudice or bias in the mix.
Reasonable meaning after using fairness as described above coming to a common ground both pro and con can live with, entailing each to give and each to take equally.
Digging in heels, and concluding "all or none", "my way or the highway" would be excluded from the fair process of determining reasonable common ground..
Hope that clarifies what I meant..
Christa Rizzi
Christa - this hasn't clarified anything for me. I still don't get it. This is a theory that should work. But human nature being what it is, theories don't always work out the way they should in the real world. Please take this theory and show me how you think it should be applied to the fencing ordinance. Then maybe I'll "get it." If you don't want to make a public statement as to where you stand on the fence issue that is your privilege. All you have to do is say so. Thanks bunches.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 06:50 am |
|
katy8520 wrote: Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
Well, let me think about this for a moment.......... YES I would be in favor! FYI, I received a call from AJ Animal Control today regarding some horses that may be in need of our assistance, while I had the officer on the line, I asked if a 4.5 foot fence would be suitable for animals, dogs horses, ect. The answer, NO! Someone would be out of their mind to think a fence that high would be suitable. Then I explained the present codes for front fences in the "front yard area", the officer was appalled to say the least. I don't think we will be getting ANY answers from anyone here associated with "the circle", just song and dance. As far as council, there are 4 members that are dead set against anything over 4.5 feet, this was voiced without any hesitation or research. This is the reason for "our flyer". There are 2 that said they will listen to all sides, and then make a decision, and 1 that is totally for it. As for P&Z, I guess we'll have to ask Madam Chairperson what she wants, and go with that, but this process will more than likely take at least 4 months or so. And remember the Vice Chairperson must travel every street in Apache Junction seeking out all existing fences and taking at least 12 or so pictures of each and every one for show and tell. And let's not forget the studies he must preform in material composition, what type of fasteners must be used, what type of coating must be applied, what PSI rating the concrete must be, if engineering should be required, landscaping requirements that will allow a clear sight line for picture taking of the front of the house in case it "may be a rental" some day, ect.
Ed Dison
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 01:25 am by Ed Dison
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 06:14 am |
|
| Oh and to answer the rumor as to a councilman wrote the flyer. Why should it matter who wrote it. I had some input to the flyer and ageed to pass it out. The info was true on it, and you must get a CUP or a non conforming use permit if the fence was installed before March 7, 1985 to be grandfathered. Pay the fee prove it was and it can be legal if they decide to give the permit. Also stated that if they did cite it would have to come down to 4 1/2'. No force, no scare tactic's just come to the meetings and see for yourself. Private citizens with concerns. You take it from here as to where the city took it and told people when they called in.
|
johnnyk597
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 576 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 06:04 am |
|
| Looks good to the person that pays for the fence to be put up, heck if someone wants to pay for a fence to be put up on my property then they can tell me what looks good, That's the jist of that one, Ed. What looks good to me may not look good to you or P&Z or Take a pick from a list of others. It's my decision to put it there should be my decision as to what it looks like and my money. As long as it does not infringe on my neighbors property, is safe and sound, and like I said looks good.
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 05:39 am |
|
Ok, let's word this a little differently and see what kind of responses we get. I would like to hear from everyone who has been posting here and even from people who may be reading but have not posted yet. Before you answer, let's assume (hypothetically) that the City Council Members and the P & Z Commissioners have gone out into the community and received feedback from many people both pro and con on the fence issues. The question for you is simply in black and white: If the Council were to vote tomorrow on changing the fence ordinance to allow fences up to 6' for people who want them, would you be in favor of this change or would you be opposed to it and please state your reasons why.
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 3rd, 2009 12:44 am |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: johnnyk597 wrote: Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 11:59 pm
"Katy you hit the nail right on the head about someone feeling slighted by a fair and reasonable situation. And at the same time you now know what it is like making a decision as a P&z Commissioner. What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander is also correct. So in my opinion I vote to let the home owner decide as long as it looks good can provide safety for you and the entities saying they need a 4 1/2' fence for police and fire to see thru. OOPs I kind of forgot, I'm not on P&Z anymore so just make that my opinion please."
"Looks good" to whom John? How would "looks good" be determined?
Ed Dison wrote:Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 03:12 pm
"Ms Rizzi, well it looks like you went to the "institute. Now, I will be direct and to the point here, do you want a 6 foot fence along your front property line? You have only two answers to choose from, which I will provide for you here. You only get to pick one, sorry. (a) YES, or (b) NO."
Ed Dison
Mr Dison the question is irrelevant because current city ordinance does not allow a 6' fence along our front property line..
However, I do want the winning lottery ticket..
Christa
Ms Rizzi, the question was not about ordinances, or what exists today, so therefore one's view of what could be is relevant. Codes can and will be changed, this is what happens in life.
Ed Dison
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 11:38 pm |
|
johnnyk597 wrote: Posted: Mon Jun 1st, 2009 11:59 pm
"Katy you hit the nail right on the head about someone feeling slighted by a fair and reasonable situation. And at the same time you now know what it is like making a decision as a P&z Commissioner. What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander is also correct. So in my opinion I vote to let the home owner decide as long as it looks good can provide safety for you and the entities saying they need a 4 1/2' fence for police and fire to see thru. OOPs I kind of forgot, I'm not on P&Z anymore so just make that my opinion please."
"Looks good" to whom John? How would "looks good" be determined?
Ed Dison wrote:Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 03:12 pm
"Ms Rizzi, well it looks like you went to the "institute. Now, I will be direct and to the point here, do you want a 6 foot fence along your front property line? You have only two answers to choose from, which I will provide for you here. You only get to pick one, sorry. (a) YES, or (b) NO."
Ed Dison
Mr Dison the question is irrelevant because current city ordinance does not allow a 6' fence along our front property line..
However, I do want the winning lottery ticket..
Christa
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 11:39 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
Christa_Rizzi wrote: Katy,
Fair meaning to hear from all parties pro and con with no personal prejudice or bias in the mix.
Reasonable meaning after using fairness as described above coming to a common ground both pro and con can live with, entailing each to give and each to take equally.
Digging in heels, and concluding "all or none", "my way or the highway" would be excluded from the fair process of determining reasonable common ground..
Hope that clarifies what I meant..
Christa Rizzi
Ms Rizzi, well it looks like you went to the "institute. Now, I will be direct and to the point here, do you want a 6 foot fence along your front property line? You have only two answers to choose from, which I will provide for you here. You only get to pick one, sorry. (a) YES, or (b) NO.
Ed Dison
|
Ed Dison
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 16th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 231 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 10:35 pm |
|
watchingYou wrote: a sidewinder told me by the way of a cactus wren that a councilman wrote the flyer which was passed out. And if this is the case, he is into special groups and is trying to get something passes that he promised lots of people........and openly said that in council meeting. He is supposed to be representing more people than a much smaller group.
As I have stated here before, I had a hand in this, and if you call the phone numbers, tell me who answers each phone. As far as a councilman "into special groups", good luck! That is not the case here! Supporting an issue that is brought forward by the citizens is the job of our elected officials, is it not? Support of an issue brought forward by the citizens to a member of council is what I thought they were on the bench for, our voice. FYI, if your looking for those who are into "special groups", I suggest you look in to our P&Z Commission.
Ed Dison
|
Christa_Rizzi
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 30th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 786 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 06:36 pm |
|
Katy,
Fair meaning to hear from all parties pro and con with no personal prejudice or bias in the mix.
Reasonable meaning after using fairness as described above coming to a common ground both pro and con can live with, entailing each to give and each to take equally.
Digging in heels, and concluding "all or none", "my way or the highway" would be excluded from the fair process of determining reasonable common ground..
Hope that clarifies what I meant..
Christa Rizzi
Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 06:51 pm by Christa_Rizzi
|
watchingYou
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:36 pm |
|
| What, and have him commit political suicide?
|
katy8520
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:34 pm |
|
| At this point, that is gossip. I would like to hear it from the "horse's mouth."
|
watchingYou
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 242 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:24 pm |
|
| a sidewinder told me by the way of a cactus wren that a councilman wrote the flyer which was passed out. And if this is the case, he is into special groups and is trying to get something passes that he promised lots of people........and openly said that in council meeting. He is supposed to be representing more people than a much smaller group. Last edited on Tue Jun 2nd, 2009 05:27 pm by watchingYou
|
Current time is 05:32 am | Page: 1 2 3 4   |
|