Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Changes to riding rings, business signs possible.

by Jonathan Copsey; The Milton Herald

MILTON, Ga. – The Milton mayor and city council discussed proposed changes to the city's laws regarding animal-related buildings in front yards.

Currently, the law allows uncovered riding areas in front yards of residential areas and only in commercial areas that have properties of more than 10 acres.

"That means that if you are a non-residential and have 9-and-a-half acres, you can't have one," said Kathleen Field, the city's community development director.

Covered riding areas – rings that have bleachers and lighting as well as some sort of overhead structure – are forbidden in residential areas but allowed in non-residential, again only if the property is more than 10 acres.

But why would a horse-riding ring be permissible in a residential area but restricted only to very large non-residential areas?

That's one of the reasons council asked staff to clean up the law.

Along with that, discussion involved allowing barns in front yards and whether they should be limited to just horses or all livestock. The current law also does not distinguish between housing horses and other animals.

Field said Milton's laws on barns have been tailored to force owners to locate them in their back or side yards. There are strict limits on placing them in the front of a property.

Residential fencing

Council also discussed forcing residential neighborhoods to add decorative fencing along their right-of-way.

In the past, only commercial properties were required to build a white 3-or-4 board fence along their roadway, but residential areas were exempt.

"This is to enhance the equestrian look of Milton," Field said. "We felt that every property, regardless of use, should all be mandated to have this fence."

Relaxed sign laws

Milton's sign ordinance will be relaxed, Field said.

"We looked at the entire sign ordinance," she said. "We had a lot of input and we have suggested modifications to the ordinance."
Specifically, she said the limitation on the percentage of window space that can be covered with signage has been relaxed from 5 percent to 20 percent per framed window.

Also, large balloon-type signs or spotlights used to advertise a grand opening could be allowed for a limited amount of time around the event. Right now, they are forbidden.

Field said staff will return before council at the Feb. 28 meeting with suggested changes to be approved.


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry when was it the job of the "Government" to mandate how the city and it's neighborhoods will look. Isn't it up to the "people"...Government is to provide services to the people not the other way around...

Anonymous said...

Proving once again our city "government" is nothing more than another overblown HOA!!!

Anonymous said...

I am reading and thinking, "hmmm, this is refreshing, government workers are trying to fix some of the weird ambiguities in the law. I like less government."

Then I get to, "Council also discussed forcing residential neighborhoods to add decorative fencing along their right-of-way."

What??? Hey, council. Go pound sand.

Anonymous said...

If they are going to make the people who don't live in subdivisions have fences then all subdivision properties should have fences too. If not That is discrimination. Other than aesthetics why do they think they can force people to do this? Am I misinterpreting this article?
Just because a property is labeled AG-1 there are many who just have large acreage and homes on them, maybe even a barn, but no animals. Other than keeping animals from running out on the roads, who do they think they are trying to make people put up a fence?
I was under the impression most of our Council is Republican, one would think that they would fight for individual property rights and less government instead of more control.

- Steel Horses

Anonymous said...

They arent "making" people put up fences!

Anonymous said...

6:09a - I didnt read that everyone would have to put up fences - I read that right now Commercial properties are required, and they want to force neighborhoods to put up fences on the right of way. Are you extending the term neighborhood then to mean open road residents/neighborhoods? Is the council? Also - what about neighborhoods that dont have a HOA - what is the means for funding the fence?? I would like to see more details about this one...

Anonymous said...

What is considered a commercial property, anything not labeled residential? So would AG-1 fall into that category of commercial, yes or no? If yes, than they are saying fences need to go up. They need to define "commercial" to say C-1 zoning or the like, period. What about if it's "historical" OMG! Another nightmare! Many properties will fall into the historical category as the years tick on by, 50 years right? If the property was ever used as anything other than a house or animal barn, then does that fall into the potential of a fence as well. Why in Sam Hell are they even going there with this, what in the heck is the driving force behind this brain child, who is coming up with this stuff? Have they got nothing else better to do?