Not too sure a ditch would be cheaper; unless aesthetics were an issie all a fence needs to be is posts, metal or wood, drive into the groung and the metal fabric hung on them. A ditch would have to be measured to be sure of a minimum grade the whole length so water didn't stand still in it or collect in it or even, depending on what's at either end, run backwards during a heavy rain. Ditches can be a little tricky.
HTH,
Twayne`
-
Yes, they had something like that at the entrance to Czechoslovakia, when I was there in 1975, but I think the pieces were longer and mounted in concrete. Anti-tank barricades he could have.
The setback rules apply to fences parallel to the street, right? He's talking about a fence perpendicular to the street, I would think, though he gave few details.
Uh, I thought they were talking about the SIDE property line, and not the public right-of-way? Unless the kid pulls the dump truck up the driveway at 50 mph, unlikely to be any injuries involved.
Either way, obstacles designed to cause damage or injury *will* bring out the ambulance chasers by the bus load.
Setbacks can be side setbacks, as well. They usually apply to structures but there is no reason they couldn't apply to fences, too.
An expensive fence so they get to replace it every time they so much as scratch it.
Yup, couple of 1000 lbs armour rock would do. To move them you ned a big Bobcat. No one would want mosquito pond around the yard.
Me too because the Reahard case in Lee County Florida established that if a property was not a wetland when you bought it, if it is declared a wetland later it is a "taking" and you deserve just compensation. $22 million in that case (40 acres)
It was years ago and a couple or three administrations back. I recall another story about some guy in California who planned to drain and develop some land he bought. Some Fed shows up and informs him that his property is the habitat of some snail and he is prohibited from destroying the habitat. And I do remember watching some TV show some years ago where a group of Negro men wanted all black males declared an endangered species by The Interior Department and have their own habitat and laws against molesting them. Darn, who wouldn't be jealous of animals that seem to have more rights and protections provided by The Federal Government than human beings have. Imagine not being able to clear out a group of homeless men under a bridge because The Federal Government has declared it to be their habitat. GEEEZ!
TDD
Not your last line. This poor guy has big truck chomping at his yard and you're touting your 5 rural acres.
You have to write for your audience (although people already in the country or considering moving really qualify here.)
The Reahard case is from the late 80s and pretty much covers any change in the zoning or environmental status of a property that will affect your ability to develop it. If you bought a property without a restriction and the government applies a restriction later it is a taking. They have to pay. It went all the way up to the 11th US District court that ruled for the landowner. It was appealed to the SCOTUS who let the district court ruling stand.
I thought of Klamath Falls which isn't quite the same scenario. Farmers were denied irrigation water they normally got because the water had to be saved for some sort of varmint. I don't know the outcome of that one.
For some strange reason water rights are not the same as property rights and the government usually owns the water ultimately, only granting permits for the land owner to use it. I really believe we will run out of water long before we run out of oil.
In news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, mm typed:
...
No idea what "Not your last line" could mean.
I did, if you look at it, and I added a sort of side-bar at the end. You're talking to one who owned their homes in SanDiego for 8 years and Chicago's Northwest side for 15 years before retiring here in God's country, so I'm pretty well versed in the concept of neighbors et al. Although we always had good neighbors whether we rented or owned, the OP has some valid concerns and hopefully will get something worked out. I didn't open the can of worms, but I can only really see the described situation happening on a home on a corner lot of two usable roads meeting at an intersection, T or possibly just a sharp curve, so possibly something is missing from the detail. But since this sounds, to me at least, like a yard that borders another, the other of which has been turned into a byway for trucks owned by whomever, like it goes into code requirements. Thinking more about that, and assuming both are private property or a private/commercially zoned property, why would a residential zone butt to a commercial zone? Where's the buffer/berm/whatever that is supposed to separate them? With the given information so far it doesn't line up well for only one specific situation, creating one specific answer. I didn't bring any of that up because I don't know the answers to them or whether any locality would allow such zones to butt each other without having rights-of-way declared or other separation requirments. Or is this some kind of "Appalachian" area where no zones exist? I doubt it because very few such areas exist anywhere in the US any longer, the country in question being another detail not mentioned. Canada, Mexico and the US all work it out differently. I think the best advice for the OP would be to look into local zoning and enforcment offices for, if nothing else, at least a referral to the proper office and at best the availability of a statement of the requirements. Should the OP not be a thinking person, he could end up in legal woes by taking the wrong advice here.
HTH,
Twayne`
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.