Serving Gogebic, Iron and Ontonagon Counties
Serving Gogebic, Iron and Ontonagon Counties
By P.J. GLISSON
Wakefield — To fence or not to fence, as well as where and how to fence, was a major topic at Tuesday evening’s meeting of the Wakefield Planning Commission.
City Manager Robert Brown, Jr. said the city’s current ordinance allows residents to install a fence directly on their property line.
However, he noted, that can result in problems — particularly when new neighbors settle in.
Brown added that six feet and three feet are the current height maximum and minimum, respectively, but he added that city officials can change the terms as they determine how to update the ordinance in the most appropriate manner.
Commissioners discussed various aspects of property division, with placement being a foremost concern.
James Anderson suggested that, by placing fences two feet within the property line, the city never would “have to worry about anybody (complaining) in the future.”
“So, it would be a four-foot no-man’s land between them,” added Mayor Dale White in speculating the result of two adjacent property owners both installing fences.
Members also agreed that fence gates should be required to accommodate access in emergencies such as fire control. Robert Lane added that gates would allow emergency personnel to address “any type” of problem.
Commissioners also discussed the need to allow space for mowers to reach underneath fencing, although Marsha Vestich added that she knows of residents who now have fences “right down to the ground.”
Brown said that he will consult Michigan fencing ordinances and draft possible changes to share with commissioners, who were expected to have a related special meeting on Friday evening.
He added that input via a public hearing would also be required eventually.
After an extended period of virtual meetings, commissioners agreed that they would prefer to use a “hybrid” format in which they can meet in person — with members of the public welcome with masks and social distancing — while also facilitating virtual viewing by those who feel safer attending from the safety of their own homes.
“I really appreciate being able to come in person,” said Chairperson Tara Hamilton. “It is so much easier.”
In other news, commissioners also tabled further discussion regarding a request from a Plymouth Lake property owner for the city to enter “a deed covenant to not allow motorized watercraft from accessing the lake through” city property there.
Harry Butler, one of five property owners around the body of water now filling a former mining pit, has told officials that — in exchange — he will allow nonmotorized easement through his property by Iron Belle Trail promoters who are trying to expand the route from Ramsay to Wakefield.
After hearing Paul Anderson, of Coleman Engineering Company, summarize the situation, commissioners agreed that it would be better to wait for a pending legal opinion from the state attorney general’s office.
Anderson said that office will review deeds of property owners around the pit in an effort to determine whether property rights extend to the center of the lake, which the Michigan Department of Natural Resources technically defines as “a non-navigable waterway.”
He explained that a full understanding of property rights is needed in order to know whether fishermen accessing the lake from the city’s piece of property might be trespassing.
“This is the only public access to the lake currently,” said the city manager, who warned that any related decisions by city officials will have “long-term consequences.”
As it stands now, he said that the city’s recreation plan states that the city has pledged not to develop the property for the next five years. Moreover, the city so far also has no plans to develop property there even after that point.
