04-18-1996 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

• With respect to cross -fences, the ordinance simply states the specific location where a cross fence is prohibited The only reference in Section 10-502 as to cross fences states as follows: "However, said fences shall not be permitted on the front lot line directly adjacent to Galveston Bay..." The above-cited portion of Section 10-502 cleazly prohibits a cross fence on the lot line that is duectly adjacent to the bay. This provision does not preclude fences parallel to the lot line duectly adjacent to the bay. It is important to note that the ordinance when referring to acceptable side lot fence locations provides for fences on the lot line and "parallel" to the lot line. Such pazallel fences, however, aze not precluded by the ordinance in the case of cross-fences. If the ordinance intended to preclude all cross-fences it would have simply stated so or would have included a provision that cross-fences aze not allowed on the lot line and parallel to the lot line. However, such is not the case. There is simply no language whatsoever in Section 10-502 that precludes across-fence in a location other than on the bay front property line. A fence appro~mately 50 feet from the lot line is not a fence that is "on the lot line directly adjacent to the bay". In any event (and for sake of azgument), should there be any confusion.as to the meaning of Section 10-502 as to cross-fences we should fall back on Section 1-200 for guidance in the interpretation of Section 10-502. In this regazd, we should make every effort to construe section 10-502 in a manner that is consistent with promoting the health, safety and welfaze of the citizens of I.a Porte and protects said citizens from dangers. This stated purpose and goal of the City Zoning Ordinances supports the proposed interpretation of Section 10-502 which we are asking the City of T a Porte to adopt. We are asking the City to allow us to construct a fence to allow our daughter and other small children a safe and secure place to play outdoors without the immediate danger of drowning in the bay. Allowing a cross fence is consistent with and supported by the express purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (1- 200). To allow across-fence approximately 50 feet away from the property line will provide a safe area for children to play and will not violate any express language of the ordinance. Reasonable Interpretation Section 1-200 states that the zoning ordinances have been made to reasonable consideration for encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the city. Section 1-200 states in pertinent part: "They(the ordinances) have been made to reasonable consideration, among other things, for ...encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the City". This section seeks to impose the requirement of reasonability into all ordinances. I contend that what we are asking the City to allow is reasonable. Asking the City to allow us to construct a small enclosure on our property to allow small children to play outdoors safely is not only reasonable but responsible as well. On the other hand, we aze at a loss as to reasonable justification for the City not allowing across-fence. What possible purpose is served by the City in disallowing a cross fence? More precisely, what reasonable purpose is served by the City disallowing a cross fence in the location that we have proposed? And if such a purpose exists, does it promote the City's stated purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the City? Furthermore, what language does the City reasonably rely upon in Section 10-502 to support the disallowance of a cross-fence?