Mutual Aid Request

First, Some Background

Recently, our family adopted a 2-year old dog, Siku, from some people who were no longer able to keep her. Wanting to make sure we were responsible neighbors and good pet owners, we decided to fence in our backyard, providing a place for her to go out, and a place for her to safely run.

We hired a contracting company to build a fence that was of sufficient height so that Siku, a Husky mix, would not be able to jump the fence and risk hurting herself or any neighbors pets, etc. This means the fence maintains approximately 6' height.

The Incident

Sunday, before church, we opened Saturday's mail to find an extortion letter from Unigov, requesting our "cooperation" in "correcting" an issue with our fence. According to the letter, we cannot have a fence of our height in a front yard lawn. We had 11 days to "abate" the problem, at which point they may issue a citation, start extorting $125 per visit to our property until abatement, and/or bring a lawsuit seeking up to $2500 plus legal fees.

Naturally, we were upset and confused. Upset to to be threatened in such a way, and confused that the letter was referencing municipal code that has to do with front lawns, when the fence in question is in our back lawn.

Trying to Understand



After church, I went home and viewed the municipal code, wondering if they had accidentally made a mistake due to the fact that we are on a corner, and thus made an assumption about what was our back and front. But, it looked like we are in compliance with the letter of the law. As the most obvious point, our address/mailbox is on the opposite side of the house as our backyard (and, therefore, the fence). Compliance with the code also seems to be reinforced by the fact that in our neighborhood area, the other corner houses along our horizontal street also have their addresses on the vertical streets and have treated the same interior sections as backyards, with at least 7 of them having backyard fencing (in similar placement) that would be higher than the requirement that is in contention. Then I began to wonder, "even if we are in violation of the letter of the law, (which it appears we are not), could we be in violation of the spirit of the law?"

So I started thinking about the point of such a requirement. It could be some of the following three things:

1) To allow Law Enforcement Officers/Firefighters/Emergency Medical/etc. visual sight and a path to front of the home and to an entrance
2) To make sure that fences are not an eyesore to the neighbor across the street, by not being in front of their front yard
3) To make sure that the fences do not obscure turns/corners/etc and endanger traffic

For case #1, there should be no issue, as only the back side of the house is fenced, leaving the other three sides unfenced. There is view of the house and a door is unobstructed.

For case #2, we already shared a fenceline with two south and west adjoining neighbors, who also treated similar areas as their backyard, but were re-doing that section of the fence (with their permission). In addition, for the new part, the neighbors north across the street also have their front yard facing the vertical street, and thus do not face the new part of our fence, which is across the street. In addition, all of those neighbors (and the one to the NE, as well) have already commented positively about the new fencing. So, it not an eyesore to any of the affected neighbors.

For case #3, this is not an issue, as the fencing is at the back of the house, it is away from the intersection, and blocks no visibility.

So, it looks like we are obeying the letter and spirit of the law. However, after calling the number listed on the extortion letter this morning, I found out there is more to it than that.

Apparently, Unigov considers corner lots to have two front lawns, whether they do or not. Thus, their demands persist. One option that is presented is to pursue a variance to the rule. This appears to be a multi-month process that may include petitioning, gathering evidence, providing notice, and having hearings.

What We Need

We are looking for anyone who has experience in successfully alleviating these kinds of threats. Specifically, if you have experience with or knowledge of navigating the variance process, your assistance may be very helpful.

We are not in a fiscal situation where we can afford to lose our home, so while I know some of you would advocate civil disobedience via non-compliance and non-payment against such extortion threats, that is not an option for us. As is, there is a potential that the legal fees could be crippling.

Conclusion

While we set out trying to be responsible neighbors and pet owners, we are being hindered in that. While we wait on the variance result, Siku will still not have a local place to run safely, and if the variance fails, it is possible the resultant space contained in the back yard may not sufficient for her. As for our neighbors, if we get the variance, we will have inconvenienced our neighbors through the petitioning and information gathering process, and if we do not get the variance, our back yard will have to get torn up again as a large part of the fencing is demolished and rebuilt, making a big mess.

If you know anything about how to navigate these issues, we would welcome your help.

Note: I have enabled comment moderation so that you may leave contact information in comments, if you wish. I will delete any comments with such information, but post any others.