The Springfield City Council discussed an ordinance restricting fences and bushes that block driver vision at street corners and pulling out of driveways.

The current version of the ordinance prohibits fences, wall terraces, signs, shrubbery, planting or other structures or objects that could obstruct driver vision. At intersections objects between three and 10 feet would not be allowed within 25 feet of the intersection of the right of way lines.  

The ordinance also prohibits plants and objects more than two and a half feet tall on driveways within 20 feet of the right of way to the public street.

To enact this ordinance, the council would have to send it to the planning and zoning board for a public hearing, followed by that board’s recommendation and the council’s own public hearing on the matter.

Councilman Dennis Webb said he was concerned because there are structures in the older section of the city that are built directly next to the right of way.

“If I read this correctly my garage would be in violation, the fence around the back of my yard would be in violation,” Webb said.

Webb said his garage was built before there were ordinances in place requiring buildings to be built away from the right of way line.

Mayor Barton Alderman said the way he understood things that are already in existence would be grandfathered.

Councilman Kenny Usher asked if it is a matter of public safety why would it be grand fathered.

City Attorney Charles Barrow answered, “You can’t force someone to tear down a part of their house or garage.”

Springfield resident John Gladin addressed the council concerning the ordinance.

“This is obviously a dispute between me and my neighbor,” Gladin said.

He said he was unsure where the easement was. He told the council he would cut his bushes back to the easement if he knew where it was, and asked if it was the same as the property line.

Barrow told him it is the same as his property line.

“You’re saying 20 feet back from the property line onto my property,” Gladin said. “That’s impeaching on our rights because specifically it’s our property. We pay property taxes on this property. Y’all don’t pay property taxes on it. I understand there is a dispute with the bushes. I don’t have a problem cutting the bushes back to where our property marker begins, but nobody can tell me where on my property what I can do and what I can’t do. That’s discrimination.”

Usher said there was a matter of public safety involved, and that when a concern for public safety is brought to the council’s attention it creates a liability issue on the side of the city.

“That is our main concern — public safety,” he said. “It’s not about a dispute between neighbors.”

Gladin asked if it were a concern why it was never brought up before when “the bushes have been there forever.”

“A lot of people speed up and down the road,” Gladin said. “It’s not our fault that they speed up and down the road. I don’t mind cutting the bushes down to a point where he can see further. I don’t want to be in the easement. That was the whole point of me getting the survey to make sure that I wasn’t on city property.

“If this is a circumstance where an ordinance is being made because the neighbor next door wants my bushes cut down then I disagree with it,” Gladin said. “I don’t feel like it’s right.”

Gladin asked how many people have complained about the bushes in the past.

Alderman said it was the first complaint he remembered since he was on council.

“Regardless of the personalities involved, if it’s a matter of public safety, we have to take some kind of action,” Alderman said. “As councilman Usher said if we don’t take some kind of action on it, and there is an accident caused because we were negligent, the city could be liable.”

Gladin asked how far one would have to be able to see down the street for there to not be a “hazard.”

Alderman said the requirement of 20 feet was an “arbitrary number” and the planning and zoning board would determine an appropriate set back while considering the ordinance.

Gladin said he can pull out of his neighbors’ driveway in his longbed truck with no problems.

“You have to look,” he said. “If you pull out and you don’t look or if you haphazardly just take off, and you get hit that’s nobody’s fault but the person who pulled out. They took the liability in their own hands.”

Gladin said the point he was trying to make is the bushes have been there for a long time without a problem.

“Then all of a sudden because we said, no, the bushes are ours, we would appreciate it if you wouldn’t cut them they’re on our property,” Gladin said. “Guess what — we have an ordinance pop up. So what I’m trying to say is that I feel like this is a personal and discriminatory attack on us specifically because it completely and totally deals with us and our situation. It doesn’t have to do with anyone else. It has to do with him wanting our bushes cut.”

Councilman Butch Kieffer said he was sorry that Gladin felt that way, but he has noticed other areas where there are similar concerns since this has been brought to the attention of council.

Gladin said if the council wanted to prevent him from growing anything 20 feet back from his property line then the city should own the property.

“My concern is like I said it all revolves around someone not getting their way,” Gladin said. “Call it what you want to call it, but that’s what it is. I do not feel like it’s right personally. What if my car’s parked in the driveway, and he can’t see to back out his car out. What am I going to have to do then? Move my car because he can’t see? I don’t understand where it stops.”

Barrow said the ordinance would not only be directed at the Gladins, but would be enforced throughout the city, and would most likely be established as rules for new lots that are or will be created.

Chrissy Gladin asked if the taxpayers would be required to pay for enforcement.

“You wouldn’t just enforce it on us, you would go through the entire city and enforce it on every body who has shrubs,” she said. “So, who’s going to enforce that, and are the taxpayers going to have to pay for the bush police?”

The council voted unanimously to send the ordinance to the planning and zoning board. The board will meet the first Monday of December.