A fencing ordinance was passed by Tomball City Council on February 4th and comes into effect on March 1st.
The city of Tomball has had an ordinance regulating the construction of fences in residential and non-residential areas since 2008.
In December, the city council presented the change to update the fence ordinance.
Rebecca Guerra, Tomball’s city planner, said the change requests came because a number of Tomball residents wanted to install fences and security gates for their vehicles to their homes at the front of their property.
The regulation did not provide for this type of fence, especially because it often comes too close to the public right of way.
Guerra recommended that the council allow fencing to be built for this type of access, which she hopes will provide security to Tomball residents.
“This is actually more user-friendly than the current regulation,” said Guerra.
“I have read the existing zoning ordinance for fencing and found that it is not only difficult to understand, but also difficult to enforce and use.”
Changes to fencing
Type of fence: No barbed wire, pig fence, or chicken wire in residential areas. No chain link fence in the front gardens, only in the back
Fence Height: In residential areas, no more than 4 feet in front of the structure. No more than 6 feet in front of the structure in non-residential areas larger than 5 acres.
Many of the changes include allowing residents to fence off all of their front yards and having a security gate for vehicle access.
The ordinance also prohibits chain link fences for front yards, while it is allowed for back yards.
The ordinance also includes stricter maintenance requirements and specifies a bottom-up height of 4 feet for front yard fences.
For many five acres or more, the height of the fence for the fenced front is increased to 6 feet, with the sides and back remaining at 8 feet.
Violations of this regulation will result in a maximum fine of $ 2,000 per day of violation.
“We will not have a more restrictive regulation than currently,” said Mayor Gretchen Fagan.
“The intent of the staff was to make it less restrictive (and) there was a lot of misinformation about what we were trying to do.”
Comments are closed.