This text was obtained via automated optical character recognition.
It has not been edited and may therefore contain several errors.

---

Pete Fountain's fence stirs research of Bay's ordinance
EDITH BIERHORST BACK The Bay Bureau The recent erection of a hurricane fence around six lots on the Bay St. Louis beach owned by New Orleans musician Pete Fountain opened a Pandora's Box. Out spilled recriminations among city officials and revelations that the laws prohibiting structures on the beach are invalid.
Maybe. At Tuesday?s City Council meeting an 1886 law, possibly . still in effect, surfaced. That law prohibits all structures between the street and the sea without a special permit from the city government.
To add to the consternation, Margaret M. Gibbens of the Hancock County Historical Society reminded the council that since all homes on Beach Boulevard are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, ?the environment is supposed to be protected, not just buildings.?
Further, Mrs. Gibbens said, the only official zoning map of the city, made in 1928, designates the beach as open space. But the map, published in 1977, disappeared, so there is no zoning map.	,
Even if the laws permitted construction of a fence on the beach-Fountain's fence was erected without benefit of a building permit and ?setbacks were not followed,? said District Two Councilman James Thriffiley.
While workmen constructed the fence which encloses the Fountain property which adjoins the Bay of St. Louis bridge, city attorney Joseph W. Gex said he was ?reviewing the situation? as to the validity of two 1972 ordinances.
Since then, Gex has said that the first, prohibiting structures on the ?
beach, was improperly filed. The second, which offered an amendment exempting Fountain?s six lots, listed incorrect numbers for two of them in the center of the property. ?If both of them are void, we have no ordinance and anyone can build anything,? Gex said.
Gerald Gex, attorney for Fountain, told the council that in his opinion both ordinances are valid, and also that a building permit was not necessary for the fence. Thriffiley told Gex that any fence costing more than $500 requires a building permit.
Prior to 1972, Gerald Gex continued, there were no ordinances restricting structures on the beach. At this point, Thriffiley read from the 1886 ordinance, and Mrs. Gibbens reminded the council of historic district regulations and the old zoning map.
?We need a comprehensive plan to go forward with the right zoning and the right map and the right regulations,? Mrs. Gibbens said.
Thriffiley attempted to fill the gap created by the knowledge that the ordinances were void by introducing an ordinance at the Aug. 8 council meeting.
If the entire council had been present and adopted it unanimous^ ly, it could have become law without the 30-day delay incurred by advertising. One member was absent, however, and others preferred to delay action until they had a chance to study it.
District Four Councilman Sheldon Seuzeneau said he objected to ?being railroaded" into accepting something he had not studied. The proposed ordinance was tabled.
It was not included on the agenda of Tuesday?s meeting, but Thrif-filley introduced it again, asking action. "Now we have no or-
dinance. I ask that we get one on : the books.? Joseph W. Gex agreed when Thriffiley said, "We need to > eliminate the gap,? but Gex said,
?I only read it tonight.?
?I won?t vote on this tonight,? i said council president Wilnjer Seymour. "That?s why it?s not on the agenda.?
Thriffiley told Joseph W. Gex he had prepared the ordinance | himself ?because for two weeks I j couldn't get a response from you. 1 I think the people have been violated because the construction I went on without an OK from you.
It put everyone in a bad position. ! I?m not mad with Mr. Fountain, but from where I sit, the fence was incorrectly built on two lots. No way can anyone construe that a fence should be there.?
?I took it upon myself to put together an ordinance to protect	I
the people and then I?m accused of	I
trying to railroad things. I?m concerned that if acts like this can go on without legal sanction, what?s next for this community?? Thriffiley said. "If the [1972 amended ordinance] was written to give Pete the exception, all you needed to do was correct the error. You could have asked him to hold up until it was corrected to give him back his privilege."
Thriffiley's proposed ordinance does not offer an exception for the Fountain property. ?This would make Pete Fountain?s property in the same category as everybody else's? Does it also prevent the [Bay-Waveland] Yacht Club from putting anything up?? asked Seuzeneau. When Thriffiley said "yes,? Seuzeneau asked, "Do we want that??	.	I
?It?s like the previous or- f dinance," Thriffiley said. "I?m asking if you have any-deletions or ; additions." Instead of further dis- I cussion, the issue was tabled.