On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 02:24:00 +0000 (UTC), DerbyDad03
wrote:

" wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:31:59 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Oct 19, 1:16 pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:34:29 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:17:57 -0600, "WW"
wrote:

"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?
(2) Is this the same etiquette in the UK?

Don.www.donwiss.com(e-mail link at home page bottom).

To avoid any problems with code or neighbor, make both sides pretty. that is
what I would do. WW
Putting the pretty side to the neighour's side requires working
access on the neighbour's side. And if the neighbour also puts up a
fence, pretty side to pretty side, everyone has an ugly fence., and
the second fence is going to be a real hassle to build in place.

...

Two fences, face to face, is kinda silly, no?

Not really. My backyard is offset from the 2 yards behind me,
approximately 2/3, 1/3. The 1/3 neighbor had some nice board-on-board
fencing, the 2/3 neighbor had chain link.

I bought the same style board-on-board fence and installed it face to
face with the chain link fence to hide it, to match the other 1/3 and
to provide more privacy.

Good grief. There is no "good side" of chain link fencing.

Of course there is. By code the posts must go inside the yard. That makes
one side "good" and the other side not.

No, neither are "good". They're all uglier than sin and banned in my
neighborhoods. Come to think of it, they've been banned every place I've
lived.

You could say that there is no good side of board-on-board fence, but for
the same reason, there is. The posts must go on the owner's side.

Utter nonsense. One side has visible horizontal supports as well as posts,
neither of which can be seen from the "good" side.

...

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:13:38 -0400, Norminn wrote:

On 10/19/2012 6:12 AM, Don Wiss wrote:
When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

I saw it in building code (Florida or doing a Google?) as you state.

I did some searching. No mention of such in NYC according to:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/download...kit_fences.pdf

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On Oct 19, 3:53*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. * *Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

My brother's neighbor put up a stockade fence with the horizontals on
my brother's side. * He asked his neighbor if he minded if he minded
if he used those horizontals to hang some plants on the nice
south-facing vertical surface. * * The neighbor was happy with his
smooth side-- my brother was happy with the easy to use horizontal
slats- and then the building inspector stopped by. * *He made the guy
take the fence down and switch it around! * *Luckily it was along a
level spot so the fence was salvageable as-is.

Jim

An actual "law"? I doubt that, part of HOA agreements, city ordinance
and the like I can see but to have such nit-ppicking written as an
actual law seems to be stretching the "The Law is an ass" concept.

Harry K

On Oct 19, 10:17*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:24*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. * *Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

There are actual LAWS governing the orientation of fences?

Must suck to live in such places.

In my city, the only fence law of which I'm aware is that concertina wire
topping must be at least six feet above the ground. I'm not sure about the
rules on mines...

There are not only laws governing the orientation, but also the
height. In my town the fence can be 6' high from the rear property
line to the back line of the house, 4' from the back line of the house
to the front line of the house with no fence past the front line of
the house to the street.

For those with corner lots or other odd sized lots (or houses) this
can be a real problem and often requires a long drawn out exception
process. We have a friend that lives on a corner lot which has been
fenced in since before the ordinance was put into place. When a drunk
driver destroyed a large portion of the fence, he went to the town to
get permission to replace the entire fence since the remaining
sections were pretty old and wouldn't match the new sections.

The town pushed back and said that the only reason that they were
going to allow him to replace the destroyed sections was because he
was grandfathered in, but replacing the remainder was considered a new
installation and would have to meet existing codes - meaning no fence
at all. They reluctantly relented when most of the neighborhood showed
up at the board meeting and convinced them that we did not want to
look at half an old fence and half a new one. *One neighbor actually
put together a photo-shopped poster of the 2 versions - making the old/
new combination look really bad - which probably helped sway the
board.

I think the meaning of "law" is being sstretched. That sounds like
building code
violations. A real "law" will have an RCW (in the state of
Washington) (Revised Code of Washington) which spells out what is a
violation, penalties, etc.)

Harry K

" wrote:



Good grief. There is no "good side" of chain link fencing.

Of course there is. By code the posts must go inside the yard. That makes
one side "good" and the other side not.

No, neither are "good". They're all uglier than sin and banned in my
neighborhoods. Come to think of it, they've been banned every place I've
lived.

Ugly or not, allowed or not, for the purposes of this discussion, the good
side has no poles.

Chain link fence is still used around schools, ball fields, etc. Poles are
always installed on the interior, which is what this thread is about.


You could say that there is no good side of board-on-board fence, but for
the same reason, there is. The posts must go on the owner's side.

Utter nonsense. One side has visible horizontal supports as well as posts,
neither of which can be seen from the "good" side.


Utter what? Your conception of board-on-board fence must be different than
everybody else's.

http://www.butlerfence.com/images/products/Board.jpg
http://www.gmfence.com/board.html
http://www.alleghenyfence.com/images/wres5B.jpg

Perhaps you are thinking of solid board or solid board-on-board fencing?

http://whitmorefence.com/ALBUM_Privacy/IMG_0620.jpg

Just as aside, the posts in the solid board picture above might actually be
seen from the good side, but I don't think anyone would complain. It might
even look nicer than just one long solid fence on the "good side"

One last note...

I forgot that there is a way to install board-on-board with 2 good sides.
If you double up the number of horizontal supports, you can sandwich the
posts between the interior and exterior panels. The horizontals and posts
would be visible from both sides but it is an approved method in my town.
Typically you need to overlap the vertical boards more since they are
farther apart and therefore more open when viewed at an angle. In that
manner you can have two good sides without doubling the cost of the fence,
but it is still more expensive than the one good side method.

Ed Pawlowski wrote the following on 10/19/2012 11:10 PM (ET):

"HeyBub" wrote in message

There are actual LAWS governing the orientation of fences?

Must suck to live in such places.


Sucks even more to need a fence. Nearest to me is four properties up.
Never had a problem with dogs or kids.

A fence is required by local code in some places when an in-ground pool
is installed. The only fencing I have is around my pool with a 6 foot
high wooden privacy fence at the property line setback and 4 foot high
plastic picket type fencing around the other sides of the pool area.
The fencing is to keep little kids from wandering into the pool area.
The 4" picket type doesn't keep the deer out if they want to get in there.
Just for keeping on the original topic, the 6 foot high fence I had
along the property line was a double sided fence (no bad side).
I had the pool and fence installed 20 years ago per setback code at 6
inches from the property line. The pool was setback at least 10 feet per
code. 20 years later, I had to replace the wooden 'fabric' between the
4"x4" PT posts due to it starting to fall apart. This new wooden fabric
was one-sided with the bad side facing my side.
At that time, the setback had been increased to 3 feet from the property
line. Since I had not removed the original posts and had left them
where they were installed 20 years before, I was 'grandfathered' at the
6 foot setback.


--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeros after @

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:26:33 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Oct 19, 10:17Â*am, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Oct 19, 9:24Â*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. Â* Â*Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

There are actual LAWS governing the orientation of fences?

Must suck to live in such places.

In my city, the only fence law of which I'm aware is that concertina wire
topping must be at least six feet above the ground. I'm not sure about the
rules on mines...

There are not only laws governing the orientation, but also the
height. In my town the fence can be 6' high from the rear property
line to the back line of the house, 4' from the back line of the house
to the front line of the house with no fence past the front line of
the house to the street.

For those with corner lots or other odd sized lots (or houses) this
can be a real problem and often requires a long drawn out exception
process. We have a friend that lives on a corner lot which has been
fenced in since before the ordinance was put into place. When a drunk
driver destroyed a large portion of the fence, he went to the town to
get permission to replace the entire fence since the remaining
sections were pretty old and wouldn't match the new sections.

The town pushed back and said that the only reason that they were
going to allow him to replace the destroyed sections was because he
was grandfathered in, but replacing the remainder was considered a new
installation and would have to meet existing codes - meaning no fence
at all. They reluctantly relented when most of the neighborhood showed
up at the board meeting and convinced them that we did not want to
look at half an old fence and half a new one. Â*One neighbor actually
put together a photo-shopped poster of the 2 versions - making the old/
new combination look really bad - which probably helped sway the
board.

I think the meaning of "law" is being sstretched. That sounds like
building code
violations. A real "law" will have an RCW (in the state of
Washington) (Revised Code of Washington) which spells out what is a
violation, penalties, etc.)

Harry K


It will be a Bylaw

By-law (sometimes also spelled bylaw, by law or byelaw) can refer to a
law of local or limited application passed under the authority of a
higher law specifying what things may be regulated by the by-law. It
can also refer to the internal rules of a company or organization.

In the context of local laws, "by-law" is more frequently used in this
context in Canada, the United Kingdom and some Commonwealth countries,
whereas in the United States, the words code, ordinance or regulation
are more frequent. Accordingly, a bylaw enforcement officer is the
Canadian equivalent of the American Code Enforcement Officer or
Municipal Regulations Enforcement Officer.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

There are actual LAWS governing the orientation of fences?

Must suck to live in such places.


Sucks even more to need a fence. Nearest to me is four properties up.
Never had a problem with dogs or kids.

Your point is well taken.

A wooden fence can, however, act as a modest deterrent to the goblins that
prowl in the night as well as blocking the sight of unplesantness taking
place on either side.

Don Wiss wrote:
When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?
(2) Is this the same etiquette in the UK?

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Don't know the answer to either of your questions, but I will share
something that will cause you to drop your donuts.

Assume you have a naughty neighbor - unsightly yard, dog on the loose,
droopy-boobed, over-weight, common-law wife that sunbathes in the nude,
whatever, and, as a result of this continued affront to the sensibilities of
you, your family, and all right-thinking people, you decide to erect a
fence.

After the sturdy, opaque fence is in place, here's how you twist the knife:
You present your neighbor with a bill for half the cost!

And he must (eventually) pay.

What! Am I nuts!

Nope. Follow along.

A contract is a meeting of the minds. When you began constructing the fence,
the neighbor agreed to its construction by not objecting. In law, this is
called "Assent by Silence," and a contract latches in place. When the fence
is completed, he is liable for half its value under the rubric of "unjust
enrichment." That is, he is benefiting from a project to which he agreed in
advance.

There are deviations from this basic rule: You build a fence out of marble
and your neighbor had in mind something less grand or you build the fence
before the neighbor was made aware of your intentions (he was out of town,
etc.), but, in the main, the foregoing evaluation is bullet-proof and your
small claims court will back you up.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

As I said, pretty on both sides can be accomplished fairly easily
with some fence styles, but not with all.

You can come close. A close-picket fence can be mixed pretty
transparently with a alternating pickets. A neighbor on one side
replaced the fence (it was probably "mine" but did it before I moved
in) with alternating pickets. It doesn't look that bad.

Not only, but an alternating-picket fence is much less likely to get blown
down in a hurricane (much of the wind can actually go THROUGH the fence).

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Don Wiss wrote:
When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?
(2) Is this the same etiquette in the UK?

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Don't know the answer to either of your questions, but I will share
something that will cause you to drop your donuts.

Assume you have a naughty neighbor - unsightly yard, dog on the loose,
droopy-boobed, over-weight, common-law wife that sunbathes in the
nude, whatever, and, as a result of this continued affront to the
sensibilities of you, your family, and all right-thinking people, you
decide to erect a fence.

After the sturdy, opaque fence is in place, here's how you twist the
knife: You present your neighbor with a bill for half the cost!

And he must (eventually) pay.

What! Am I nuts!

Nope. Follow along.

A contract is a meeting of the minds. When you began constructing the
fence, the neighbor agreed to its construction by not objecting. In
law, this is called "Assent by Silence," and a contract latches in
place. When the fence is completed, he is liable for half its value
under the rubric of "unjust enrichment." That is, he is benefiting
from a project to which he agreed in advance.

There are deviations from this basic rule: You build a fence out of
marble and your neighbor had in mind something less grand or you build
the fence before the neighbor was made aware of your intentions (he
was out of town, etc.), but, in the main, the foregoing evaluation is
bullet-proof and your small claims court will back you up.

This must be locality-dependent. Around here (NJ), a fence must face
good side out, and be 1 foot or more inside the property line. Of
course, if 2 property owners agree to put up a single fence right on the
property line, you most likely can do that, but I am not sure what
happens when one of the properties changes hands.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote
This must be locality-dependent. Around here (NJ), a fence must face
good side out, and be 1 foot or more inside the property line. Of
course, if 2 property owners agree to put up a single fence right on the
property line, you most likely can do that, but I am not sure what
happens when one of the properties changes hands.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

When I lived in Philly, fences were on the property line and cost was often
shared. Ownership was transferred with property. Many row houses had
fences in the back yard on the line if shared, inches inside if not. Since
some houses were only 16' wide, it was not practical to put them a foot
inside.

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 22:47:36 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

When I lived in Philly, fences were on the property line and cost was often
shared. Ownership was transferred with property. Many row houses had
fences in the back yard on the line if shared, inches inside if not. Since
some houses were only 16' wide, it was not practical to put them a foot
inside.

Many fences in nearby back yards are shared fences. At least the side
fences are. This new back door neighbor is doing a gut renovation of his
rowhouse. At least a million dollar renovation. He is putting up all the
fences himself, so that he can have a consistent look around his property.
I'm happy to not have to share the cost, and happy to get the extra couple
of inches of having it all on his property.

Plus the side lines don't line up. His back line abuts two neighbors. So he
would have four neighbors to convince to share.

I went out of my way to hire the same surveyor that he hired. This gets me
his survey on my survey. Though after his survey he added an extension
which isn't shown. See:

http://donwiss.com/housemanual/492-1...out-Survey.jpg

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

On 10/20/2012 8:03 PM, Don Wiss wrote:

Plus the side lines don't line up. His back line abuts two neighbors. So he
would have four neighbors to convince to share.

If the old fence needed replacing would it have been hard to convince
the neighbors?

I have four "fence neighbors" and they did not need convincing when we
had to replace the fences. None objected to sharing the cost. One
neighbor asked to eliminate the cost of a tremendous amount of ivy
removal on the old fence saying that her adult sons would help me remove
it. That was the dumbest $300 I ever saved. Three of the four neighbors
had very limited income, but they knew that it was an expense that was
necessary. I even got one of them to agree to an extra high fence to
shield their illegal shed, though they initially objected.

What I found odd about California was that every house in the suburbs
had a fenced yard. Where I grew up in Florida you did not put up a fence
unless you either had a pool or a dog. You could go from house to house
through the back yards.

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:09:31 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 10/20/2012 8:03 PM, Don Wiss wrote:

Plus the side lines don't line up. His back line abuts two neighbors. So he
would have four neighbors to convince to share.

If the old fence needed replacing would it have been hard to convince
the neighbors?

The old fence was chain link. Two of the four have wood fences on their
property blocking the chain link. I had a stockade fence leaning on it.

I have four "fence neighbors" and they did not need convincing when we
had to replace the fences. None objected to sharing the cost.

But is he going to get all four to agree to his design? So that he can
achieve his desired consistency? Plus his fence is a rather expensive cedar
one. See: http://donwiss.com/pictures/misc/535-2nd-Side-Fence.jpg

This is a shared fence that several neighbors have put up:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/misc/Alt...cket-Fence.jpg

Note dramatic cost difference. I noted earlier that this new back yard
neighbor is spending over $1 million on his renovation. This is on top of
paying $2.4 million to buy the house. I doubt that saving a few dollars is
a big concern.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote
This must be locality-dependent. Around here (NJ), a fence must face
good side out, and be 1 foot or more inside the property line. Of
course, if 2 property owners agree to put up a single fence right on
the property line, you most likely can do that, but I am not sure
what happens when one of the properties changes hands.

Han

When I lived in Philly, fences were on the property line and cost was
often shared. Ownership was transferred with property. Many row
houses had fences in the back yard on the line if shared, inches
inside if not. Since some houses were only 16' wide, it was not
practical to put them a foot inside.

We've lived here now for 14 years (how time flies) http://radburn.org.
Our home is just to the left outside the picture on that home page. As
shown there, we have "park" at the rear of my property, where we removed
the ugly chain link fence. On one side we have 2 neighboring properties,
on the other one. The one neighbor has a fence on the property line,
which is theirs and which they maintain. On the other side, one of the
neighbors owns a path between my and the second neighbor's property, and
my fence there is 1 foot inside my property, away from that path. When
the second neighbor (who lived there before us) started to plant bushes
and other plants on the 1 foot strip between the path and my fence, we
made clear that that was on our property, but that it was OK as long as
the bushes were trimmed, and that we reserved the right to trim them as
we pleased. The bushes provide some figment of privacy. We all are
friendly, respectful of each other, and helpful to each other - which is
nice in this physically close neighborhood.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Don Wiss wrote in
:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:09:31 -0700, SMS
wrote:

On 10/20/2012 8:03 PM, Don Wiss wrote:

Plus the side lines don't line up. His back line abuts two
neighbors. So he would have four neighbors to convince to share.

If the old fence needed replacing would it have been hard to convince
the neighbors?

The old fence was chain link. Two of the four have wood fences on
their property blocking the chain link. I had a stockade fence leaning
on it.

I have four "fence neighbors" and they did not need convincing when we
had to replace the fences. None objected to sharing the cost.

But is he going to get all four to agree to his design? So that he can
achieve his desired consistency? Plus his fence is a rather expensive
cedar one. See:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/misc/535-2nd-Side-Fence.jpg

This is a shared fence that several neighbors have put up:
http://donwiss.com/pictures/misc/Alt...cket-Fence.jpg

Note dramatic cost difference. I noted earlier that this new back yard
neighbor is spending over $1 million on his renovation. This is on top
of paying $2.4 million to buy the house. I doubt that saving a few
dollars is a big concern.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

Seems like Park Slope gentrification and (perhaps) housing bubble.
Sometimes I don't like the architectural restrictions we have around
here, but sometimes I do like them. Keeps most people from doing
horrible things to their properties.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:50:27 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

wrote:

As I said, pretty on both sides can be accomplished fairly easily
with some fence styles, but not with all.

You can come close. A close-picket fence can be mixed pretty
transparently with a alternating pickets. A neighbor on one side
replaced the fence (it was probably "mine" but did it before I moved
in) with alternating pickets. It doesn't look that bad.

Not only, but an alternating-picket fence is much less likely to get blown
down in a hurricane (much of the wind can actually go THROUGH the fence).

You are correct. It's really a good fence, though I'd probably spend a little
more and move the pickets a little closer than 50%; more privacy.

Harry K wrote:

On Oct 19, 3:53*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. * *Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

-snip-

An actual "law"? I doubt that, part of HOA agreements, city ordinance
and the like I can see but to have such nit-ppicking written as an
actual law seems to be stretching the "The Law is an ass" concept.

I confess to using the term 'law' to include local ordinances in this
case.

It is *the law* in this house that you clear your plate--- but no
legislature has ever deliberated upon it as far as I know.

Jim

On Oct 22, 7:39*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:53*am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. * *Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

-snip-



An actual "law"? *I doubt that, part of HOA agreements, city ordinance
and the like I can see but to have such nit-ppicking written as an
actual law seems to be stretching the "The Law is an ass" concept.

I confess to using the term 'law' to include local ordinances in this
case.

It is *the law* in this house that you clear your plate--- but no
legislature has ever deliberated upon it as far as I know.

Jim

I don't see the objection to using the term law. Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. Just because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.

Now if a fence rule is adopted by a HOA, then I would
agree that it is not an actual law.

On 10/22/2012 12:42 PM, wrote:
On Oct 22, 7:39 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:53 am, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:12:09 -0400, Don Wiss
wrote:

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette is to have the
pretty side of the fence facing outward towards your neighbors. My
questions:

(1) Is this a law in places?

Yes. Even if the neighbor *prefers* the other side.

-snip-



An actual "law"? I doubt that, part of HOA agreements, city ordinance
and the like I can see but to have such nit-ppicking written as an
actual law seems to be stretching the "The Law is an ass" concept.

I confess to using the term 'law' to include local ordinances in this
case.

It is *the law* in this house that you clear your plate--- but no
legislature has ever deliberated upon it as far as I know.

Jim

I don't see the objection to using the term law. Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. Just because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.

Now if a fence rule is adopted by a HOA, then I would
agree that it is not an actual law.


You might be wrong there....HOA and condo assns' bylaws have the
standing of law in Florida, after state, county, city, etc., and as long
as they don't conflict with the higher statutes.

On 10/21/2012 4:25 AM, Don Wiss wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:09:31 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 10/20/2012 8:03 PM, Don Wiss wrote:

Plus the side lines don't line up. His back line abuts two neighbors. So he
would have four neighbors to convince to share.

If the old fence needed replacing would it have been hard to convince
the neighbors?

The old fence was chain link. Two of the four have wood fences on their
property blocking the chain link. I had a stockade fence leaning on it.

I have four "fence neighbors" and they did not need convincing when we
had to replace the fences. None objected to sharing the cost.

But is he going to get all four to agree to his design? So that he can
achieve his desired consistency? Plus his fence is a rather expensive cedar
one. See: http://donwiss.com/pictures/misc/535-2nd-Side-Fence.jpg

Yeah, I see what you mean. All the fences here are redwood, which isn't
cheap, but there's usually no disagreement over the design.

My sister-in-law had a neighbor that wanted to replace their shared
fence and she offered to pay half, and he said to forget it, he'd put
the fence in himself. He proceeded to put in the world's most expensive
fence, then came back and asked her for half the cost. She would only
pay half of what a normal fence would cost. Besides being expensive, he
left too much of a gap at the bottom so small dogs could get underneath.

wrote:

I don't see the objection to using the term law. Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. Just because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.


It must suck to live in a city with zoning.

SMS wrote:

My sister-in-law had a neighbor that wanted to replace their shared
fence and she offered to pay half, and he said to forget it, he'd put
the fence in himself. He proceeded to put in the world's most
expensive fence, then came back and asked her for half the cost. She
would only pay half of what a normal fence would cost. Besides being
expensive, he left too much of a gap at the bottom so small dogs
could get underneath.

Ah, one of the exceptions I discussed earlier. Ordinarily, when the neighbor
starts putting up an expensive fence - say one made out of marble blocks
topped with gargoyles, you SIL is obligated to voice her objection else she
would assent by silence to the grandiose plan.

Here, since the neighbor said he'd foot the bill for the whole thing,
including battlements and watchtowers, she should be completely off the
hook. In the worst case, she'd be liable for half the cost of a fence
normally found in the neighborhood. Plus court costs, lawyer fees, and
various notary charges.

On Oct 23, 8:42*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

I don't see the objection to using the term law. *Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. *Just *because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.

It must suck to live in a city with zoning.

As hard as it may be to believe, there are actually folks
out there that don't want a junk yard or fat rendering
plant going in the lot next to their house.

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:51:14 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ah, one of the exceptions I discussed earlier. Ordinarily, when the neighbor
starts putting up an expensive fence - say one made out of marble blocks
topped with gargoyles,

On the topic of grandiose fences. There is a trend in some neighborhoods
around here to make fences and window bars out of stainless steel instead
of wrought iron. And then leave it unpainted. Ostentatious.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).

When I was young I learned that fence facing etiquette
is to have the pretty side of the fence facing outward
towards your neighbors.

Why not build a fence that looks good from both sides?

I only have one small fence, and live out in the country where none of the
neighbors can see it anyway. Since I can see both sides of the fence, I
built it so it looks the same from either side.

Anthony Watson
Mountain Software
www.mountain-software.com

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 10:18:50 -0400, Don Wiss wrote:

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:51:14 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ah, one of the exceptions I discussed earlier. Ordinarily, when the neighbor
starts putting up an expensive fence - say one made out of marble blocks
topped with gargoyles,

On the topic of grandiose fences. There is a trend in some neighborhoods
around here to make fences and window bars out of stainless steel instead
of wrought iron. And then leave it unpainted. Ostentatious.

My gate hinges and strikers are unpainted stainless (at least all the ones I
installed). Is that ostentatious?

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:45:12 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

I don't see the objection to using the term law. Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. Just because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.


It must suck to live in a city with zoning.


Not nearly as bad as living where there is NO zoning and someone
decides to build a biker bar on one side of you and a 24 hour truck
repair shop on the other.

wrote:
On Oct 23, 8:42 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

I don't see the objection to using the term law. Requirements
for fences are typically part of zoning ordinances that are passed
by the governing body, eg town council, township committee,
etc, and have every bit as much enforceability as those that
set the speed limits on various roads do. Just because it's one
small part of all the zoning doesn't mean it's not a law.

It must suck to live in a city with zoning.

As hard as it may be to believe, there are actually folks
out there that don't want a junk yard or fat rendering
plant going in the lot next to their house.

Then deal with the fat rendering place directly.

We had a situation similar some years ago. On the ritziest street in the
ritziest part of town, Shell Oil bought a corner lot and announced plans to
build a gas station.

The neighbors objected. They cut up their credit cards and mailed the pieces
to Shell. The residents vowed all-out war!

Shell decided they didn't want to ****-off John Connally or the sitting
Secretary of Commerce (Robert Mossbacher). The company donated the lot to
the city for a pocket-park.

On 10/23/12 10:18 AM, Don Wiss wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:51:14 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Ah, one of the exceptions I discussed earlier. Ordinarily, when the neighbor
starts putting up an expensive fence - say one made out of marble blocks
topped with gargoyles,

On the topic of grandiose fences. There is a trend in some neighborhoods
around here to make fences and window bars out of stainless steel instead
of wrought iron. And then leave it unpainted. Ostentatious.

Don. www.donwiss.com (e-mail link at home page bottom).


Some have replied that living where there are fence zoning rules must
suck. I don't mind the zoning rules, but for me, it sure would suck to
live where I would need window bars.

I moved away from such a place over 30 years ago and never regretted it.

Don: I lived in a row house in Queens.

As a matter of fact, if I Street View the house I grew up in I can see
the bars on the first floor windows. Rotate the Street View around and I
can see the new view from my old living room window. The woods I played
in have been replaced with a public school. The street is narrow enough
to see right into the windows.

The view from my current (un-barred) living room window is of woods that
will never be developed - town owned property consisting of a extremely
steep hill overlooking a bay.

Zoning laws I can live with. Window bars (or more precisely, the reason
for needing them)...not so much.

To each his own.