Tim Willert
CITY HALL -- The City Council has decided to enforce Glendale's ban on
fences, but will give violators some breathing room at first. That is, of
course, unless the offending fences aren't pretty.
A week after failing to reach a consensus, the council voted 4-0 to
wait five years before enforcing the decades-long ban.
Mayor Gus Gomez abstained because his home has a fence.
"It gives those who have fences some notice," Councilman Rafi
Manoukian said. "By putting this behind us, our staff is clear on the
policy."
Under the new ordinance, which the council is expected to adopt
sometime next month, an estimated 1,500 homeowners who have illegal
fences or walls must remove them within five years or when they sell
their property, whichever comes first, the council voted.
"This is the best we can do at this point," Councilman Frank Quintero
said. "I think people who are opposed to fences overall should feel
comfortable with this compromise."
Homeowners who fail to remove their fence would be prevented from
closing escrow under the proposed ordinance.
Randy Carter, a Northwest Glendale Homeowners Assn. board member,
called the decision fair.
"Glendale has such a unique and cherished history of having open space
in our front residential setbacks that it would have been inconceivable
to give that up," said Carter, whose organization repeatedly urged the
council to enforce the fence ban. "We can live with the council's
decision."
Fences built after 1999, when the city adopted a moratorium on
enforcement, are not covered by the five-year extension.
But homeowners with chain-link, fiberglass and barbed-wire fences or
those in dilapidated condition will be asked to remove them immediately,
regardless of when they were erected.
"I think it's a good compromise because it would take that much time
anyway to enforce some of the illegal fences," Councilman Bob Yousefian
said.
Yousefian and Councilman Frank Quintero voted last week to start
enforcing the ban immediately.
Joanne Hedge, president of the Glendale Rancho Homeowners Assn.,
called the ordinance undemocratic, and said she would like to see it
taken off the books.
"It is a compromise, but it is still kind of Draconian," Hedge said.
"I still think that they need to address the issue altogether, so that we
are in line with 99% of other communities in Southern California."
