Meeting Information
CONSENT AGENDA
(1) (a) Consider approval of Commission Orders;
REGULAR AGENDA
(2) Public Hearing to receive public comment on the 2015 Budget and consideration of approval of the 2015 Budget
(3) Consider Contract extension for Douglas County Cultural and Historic Resources Survey
(Bobbi Rahder)
(4) Consider recommendations of fence viewer with regard to Lowther/Sloan fence dispute, and take
action (Craig Weinaug)
(5) Consider a resolution amending a Planning and Zoning Classification from “IG” (General Industrial, City of Lawrence) to “A” (Agricultural) (Jim Sherman)
(6) (a) Consider approval of Accounts Payable (if necessary)
(b) Appointments
-Board of Zoning Appeal (2) eligible for reappointment 10/2014
-Building Code Board of Appeals (1) eligible for reappointment 12/2014
-Fire District No. 1 – 12/2014
Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging Board of Directors – (2) vacancies
Jayhawk Area Agency on Aging Tri-County Advisory Council – (2) vacancies
(c) Public Comment
(d) Miscellaneous
(7) Adjourn
Thellman called the regular meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, August 13, 2014, with all members present.
BUDGET 08-13-14
Thellman moved to open a Public Hearing to accept comments on the consideration of the 2014 budget. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0. No public comment was received.
Thellman moved to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Flory and carried 3-0.
Flory stated that he previously voiced his concerns regarding allocations.
Gaughan moved to adopt the 2015 budget as published. Thellman seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES 08-13-14
Bobbi Rahder, Heritage Council Program Manager, appeared before the Board to request a contract extension for Douglas County Cultural and Historic Resources Survey.
Flory asked if the amount was within the allocated funds. Rahder stated they were.
Thellman opened the item for public comment. No public comment received.
Thellman made a motion to waive the formal bidding process and approve a contract extension in the amount of $27,600 with Dale Nimz to survey 200 properties in Palmyra Township and 120 properties in Grant Township. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
PLANNING & ZONING 08-13-14
Jim Sherman, Director, Zoning & Codes Department, presented a Resolution Amending a Planning and Zoning Classification from “IG” (General Industrial, City of Lawrence) to “A” (Agricultural). This is an 87-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Noria Road and N 1400 Road which was de-annexed by the Lawrence City Commission on June 17, 2014. The associated rezoning to “A” (Agricultural District) was approved by the Douglas County Board of Commissioners on June 18, 2014. Flory made a motion to approve Resolution No. 14-24. Motion was seconded by Thellman and carried 3-0.
FENCE VIEWING 08-13-14
The Board considered recommendations from the fence viewer with regard to the Lowther/Sloan fence dispute and determined action.
Craig Weinaug, County Administrator, did a recap for the County Commission on what brought about the agenda item. Natalya Lowther requested a fence viewing as she is in dispute with a neighbor, Kenneth Sloan. The County Commission is required by state statute K.S.A. 20-201 to perform a fence viewing if there is no resolution between the neighbors on fence responsibilities. The Board handled this viewing differently as they appointed Rick Hird, Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird, to perform the viewing. The Board can consider approval of the recommendation as written, decide any changes or table the item for additional information. Kenneth Sloan, neighboring fence owner was not present at the meeting.
Thellman opened the item for public comment.
Rick Hird, Petefish, Immel, Heeb & Hird, stated he didn’t plan to make a formal presentation as the Commission has his recommendation.
Natalya Lowther, property owner, brought in sample materials of what type of fencing was put up by her neighbor, Mr. Sloan, and the type of fence she suggested to be animal proof. She discussed safety issues and stated concerns with people trespassing on her property. The amount of fence in question tonight is an improvement to 91.75 feet of fencing.
Gaughan stated the Board empowered Mr. Hird as fence viewer who has come up with a recommendation. Gaughan said he prefers this arrangement rather than having the Board perform the review. He is hoping to set a precedent of having a professional legally research and come up with a thought-through manner to determine a resolution should a dispute come to this. Gaughan stated he feels the Board has a good solution and he is ready to move forward.
It was determined that the Conclusions and Recommendations determined by Hird as the appointed fence viewer would be drafted into a document by Hird, to be recorded and filed with the Register of Deeds.
Flory moved to adopt the Conclusions and Recommendations of the fence viewing by Mr. Hird in its entirety as follows:
1. The Commission should find that the fence, as presently constructed, meets the requirements for a legal fence.
Admittedly, the use of welded wire fence fabric is not described in the statutes prescribing a legal fence, although it is described in the Douglas County Ordinance referenced below. The statute requires 4 horizontal strands of 9 gauge wire, while the welded wire fencing has 13 horizontal strands of 14 gauge wire and vertical strands every 2 inches. The statute requires posts to be placed at least every 12’, while the present construction has posts approximately every 7’. Thus, the Commission should find that the use of the welded wire fabric and “t” posts as currently constructed is the “equivalent” of the wire fence described in the statute.
More importantly, perhaps, is that the fence, as currently constructed, combines welded wire fencing and an electric fence. The only reference to fencing requirements in the Douglas County Code is in Section 3-13.5, which describes fencing required around sewage lagoons. The illustration on Figure D to that Code section specifically refers to welded wire fencing as acceptable fencing material. A copy of the illustration is attached to this letter as Exhibit B. Section 3-13.5 (e) provides further indication that welded wire combined with an electric fence is a suitable legal fence for contact with livestock is anticipated:
Chain link fence or fencing with openings no greater than 4” x 4” is acceptable. In areas where livestock will have access to the fence, the fence post shall be tall enough to install two strands of barbed wire or a single strand of electric fencing at the top of the fencepost.
In this case, the electric wire installed by Ms. Lowther is closer to the ground than at the top of the fence, but the livestock in this case is sheep, not cattle or horses, and it is appropriately located. The insulators are appropriately attached to the left “t” quote posts.
Considering all of the factors, the fence as presently constructed appears to be a legal fence and sufficient to partition the parcels.
2. Give the parties notice of their obligations for maintenance and/or replacement.
It is probable that the presently constructed fence will need periodic maintenance and eventual replacement. K. S. A. 29-301 provides that the owners of the adjoining parcel shall “keep up and maintain in good repair all partition fences between them in equal shares, so long as both parties continue to occupy or improve such lands, unless otherwise agreed.”
The ends of the existing fence are not braced with either an “H” or “N” brace, as described in the statute. The south end is attached to a substantial wood post and the north end of the welded wire is attached to a “t” post located at the survey and point. The welded wire is not stretched particularly tightly because welded wire is essentially self-supporting. However, Mr. Sloan installed the “t” posts at closer intervals (approximately 7’) that required by statute (12’). The present construction would be improved by bracing the ends and installing the welded wire on Ms. Lowther’s side of the fence so that pressure on the welded wire from grazing sheep would be transferred to the posts instead of the wire clips. These are all matters that should be addressed when the fence needs repair or replacement.
Accordingly, the commission should put the parties on notice of the following:
- Maintenance of the current fence is the responsibility of both parties, equally.
-
When the currently constructed fence eventually fails, the parties will need to equally share the cost of replacing the fence. Those costs will include:
- Bracing of the existing and post on the south end and a properly braced and post on the north end; and
- Four strands of 9 gauge wire strainers, rollers or levers for keeping the wire tight.
- If either of the parties desire to install fencing that exceeds the statutory requirements, the difference in cost will be the party’s responsibility. For example, if Ms. Lowther desires to install woven wire fencing instead of four single strands, the difference in the cost will be her responsibility.
As adopted by the Fence Viewing Board, the motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 08-13-14
Thellman moved to approve accounts payable in the amounts of $790,582.22 to be paid on 08/14/14. Motion was seconded by Gaughan and carried 3-0.
Thellman moved to adjourn the meeting; Flory seconded and the motion carried 3-0.
Nancy Thellman, Chair
Jim Flory, Vice-Chair
ATTEST:
Jamie Shew, County Clerk
Mike Gaughan, Member
Time and Date