January 12, 2006

On January 3, the Birmingham City Council passed an ordinance requiring that permits be obtained before landowners construct fences and walls in their front yards. A $25 fee will also be required. As Councilor Valerie Abbott put it, “Right now [the fence ordinance] has a lot of holes in it.” Abbott, who chairs the Council’s zoning committee, cited the large number of violations regarding the heights of fences, especially those with towering decorative items placed on posts at gate entrances. “We wanted it to be a very low fee so that anyone could afford to do it,” said Abbott. “We’re expecting that, for the most part, the fence companies will be paying that fee. But every once in a while an individual will put up their own fence.”

She failed to add that the cost of a permit would simply be passed on to the consumer. The ordinance increases fence heights to a maximum of four feet, while posts can now be up to five feet tall. The councilor added that currently no permit is needed to put up a fence, and a fee is necessary to handle the legal process residents will be forced to go through, which includes a fence inspector. Landowners can currently be cited for having front yard fences too high.

We are only talking about $45,000 generated for the city from fence fees. There is nothing that we can do with $45,000 for the city.” —Councilor Roderick Royal

Councilors Joel Montgomery, Miriam Witherspoon, and William Bell all support the regulation of fence heights but did not vote for the ordinance due to their opposition to the fee. “I can’t support this ordinance. I have no problem with any part of it except the $25 fee. If someone wants to put a fence on their property, I think we have inspectors that can go out and do that without charging our citizens an additional $25,” Councilor Montgomery said.

It lets us get to the installation before the fact,” explained Planning, Engineering, and Permits Department chief Bill Gilchrist. “Once a fence has been installed that’s out of code, out of ordinance, it’s very difficult to get it back in line.” Mayor Bernard Kincaid added that the ordinance is not a revenue-generator but merely offsets, in part, expenses incurred by inspectors who have to go out and examine the fencing.

Noting that $25 was a lot of money to some, Councilor William Bell was worried that the fee could become a revenue-generating issue as opposed to an enforcement or compliance issue. “I don’t want to be perceived as the Council putting a hidden tax on people out there in the community,” said Bell. Councilor Roderick Royal disagreed, arguing that the fee should not be a problem. “I don’t know how we can manage to turn something simple into a complicated matter . . . We are only talking about $45,000 [generated for the city from fence fees]. There is nothing that we can do with $45,000 for the city.” Royal said he had a relatively small fence installed that cost $900. “If you’re going to put a fence up, chances are you’re going to have $25 . . . If the word ‘fee’ bothers you, let’s just change the word.”

Councilor Carol Reynolds expressed disgust over the unsightly fences she has observed while riding through neighborhoods. “You see everything from sheet metal to chicken wire. It’s phenomenal what is out there. I understand the need for fencing. But I also understand that we are a Council that has made a commitment to be proactive in our decisions rather than reactive.” Reynolds said it would be cheaper for residents to simply pay a $25 fee rather than having to dig up the fence later to get into compliance. &