Fences Act Form 3

[Gaetane Eary]

Excessivehip folding over tiny fences puts the rider in a position more suited to diving into a pool then riding a horse. And dive these riders do, right off over the shoulder, at the slightest bobble.

Yes, a zoning improvement permit (ZIP) is mandated for the installation of temporary construction fences. This measure ensures that the fence is situated within the boundaries of the designated property, preventing any encroachment into the right of way. Most temporary construction fences will be chain link falling under the ZIP category 0010, however, if the fence material deviates from chain link, a Building 01 permit will be necessary.

Yes, a permit is required to repair or replace your fence. A building permit is required for wood and concrete fences. They are also required for chain-link fences on commercial properties or chain-link fences utilized as a pool safety barrier on residential properties.

All other chain-link (residential non-pool barrier), picket, iron or other non-wind-resistant fences require a zoning improvement permit (ZIP).

Licensed contractors or owners acting as owner-builders may obtain a permit. Contractors must be licensed by Miami-Dade County or the State of Florida to perform fencing work. An owner-builder may obtain a fence permit and will be required to sign a form acknowledging their responsibilities as an owner-builder.

Submit your application along with required documents through the Portal (GoldKey). Check below for your fence/gate type and related documents to be submitted. Find forms, applications, checklists and guidelines for permitting, plan review, inspections, and more by visiting All Forms.

Before securing the services of a contractor, you are encouraged to call the Miami-Dade County Contractor Licensing Section at 786-315-2880 or ensure the contractor is licensed, insured and does not have complaints and/or violations on record. State Licensed Contractors can be verified by contacting the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) at 850-487-1395.

If you have an agreement with your neighbour about the construction, repair, maintenance, or replacement of the fence, including the costs, then it is not necessary to complete the forms below. However, it is a good idea to put your agreement in writing. An example of a fencing work agreement can be found in our publication Fences and the Law.

Once your application has been submitted a Plan Examiner will review your plan for compliance with location and height requirements. Upon approval, you may install your fence. A fence inspection is not required, except in these cases: fences greater than seven feet tall, swimming pool fences, or barbed wire fences.

Applications accepted via email include General Building Permit, Fence Permit/Plan Review, and Demolition Permits. (NOTE: When submitting permit applications and plans via email, please be sure all attachments are pdf file format only. Please, convert PNG, JPEG, etc. files to pdf before submitting your application.)

On a corner lot at two intersecting streets, fences shall be no more than two feet tall in the triangular area of the lot, 10 feet from the corner, unless the fence is more than 80% open (chain link). See figure.

A variance may be granted for fences that exceed height requirements. A nonrefundable variance application fee of $85 is required for each variance request. To apply for a fence variance, submit a completed Fence Variance Application Form along with a Fence Permit Application Form and in most cases, a Fence Variance will be approved/denied within 1-2 business days.

Before you start your fence project, visit www.gopherstateonecall.org. Minnesota state law requires that you contact Gopher State One Call before you start any project that requires digging to avoid costly underground utility damages or even deadly accidents.

PDF Forms will no longer work with older versions of Adobe Reader including Adobe Reader XI. Please update your free Adobe Reader to the latest version from the Acrobat Reader download page so that you can continue to access these forms.

Relative iconicity seems to arise from form-based semantic shifts, but evidence for this is anecdotal and selective. We therefore conducted two novel word-learning experiments to investigate whether relative iconicity, like sound symbolism, can emerge during learning, though via semantic change rather than phonological change.

An example trial in the target condition from Experiment 1 featuring the target novel word embraich, which sounds like the existing word embrace (the attractor word). The first sentence implies a word meaning (reject, as in the implied word condition), the second sentence is ambiguous, allowing that meaning to shift, and the third sentence is also ambiguous, requiring participants to apply the inferred meaning in order to answer the accompanying comprehension question. Participants completed 30 randomized trials, each comprising three sentences and a comprehension question. The implied meaning and attractor word meaning were designed to elicit ratings on the opposite ends of the 7-point scale

The experiment was implemented on Qualtrics. After giving their consent, participants began with a set of three practice trials before the main experiment. As shown in Fig. 1, in each trial, they read the first sentence, clicked an arrow to read the second sentence, and clicked again to read the third sentence together with the comprehension question. They indicated their answer by dragging a slider along a 7-point scale. Thirty trials were presented in random order. Participants also completed a post-test questionnaire regarding demographic information and the presumed purpose of the experiment.

We conducted linear mixed effects (LME) modelling on the ratings, using the alpha level of 0.2 in forward model comparison to determine the maximal random effect structure justified by the data (Matuschek et al., 2017). As expected, participants gave significantly higher ratings when the sentences contained the attractor word (e.g., embrace) compared to the implied word (reject). While ratings for the two novel words fell between the two real words, they were much closer to the implied word than to the attractor word (see Table 1 and Fig. 2), suggesting that participants inferred the meaning of the novel word from the first sentence and retained it through the third sentence. Critically, participants gave significantly higher ratings for targets (embraich) than for controls (fline), indicating that, compared to controls, targets shifted in meaning towards the attractor words. This result suggests that form-based semantic shifts can occur during word learning.

Mean ratings by condition in Experiment 1. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. Below the x-axis is an example sentence that features different keywords in different conditions. Beside the y-axis is the corresponding example comprehension question. Participants answered comprehension questions by giving ratings on a 7-point scale

This experiment had a twofold purpose. We aimed to conceptually replicate the semantic shifts in Experiment 1 and to rule out the possibility that the difference in ratings was due to participants misreading the target novel words as the similarly spelt attractor words. We did so by having participants, at the start of each trial, study the keyword (the target, control, or attractor) and type it into a text box before moving on to read the sentences. After answering the comprehension question, they retyped the keyword from memory. This allowed us to exclude trials where participants mistook the novel target word for the attractor word. In addition, to further prevent the misreading of novel words as existing words, the instructions stated that the experiment involved learning the meanings of novel words (not rare words). We also improved the materials in several ways, as detailed below.

This was the same as in Experiment 1 (three sentences presented separately, with a comprehension question and 7-point scale accompanying the final sentence) except that participants read the keyword (an attractor, target, or control) at the start of each trial, before seeing the first sentence, and typed it into a text box. Then, after reading the sentences and giving a rating in response to a question, they retyped the keyword from memory into another text box (see Table 2 for an example of these steps).

As in Experiment 1, we inverted the scale for the 15 items in which attractors were designed to elicit low ratings so that higher ratings indicated a larger inclination towards the meaning of the attractor word. (E.g., Chen was tormented. How thankful is Chen? The attractor word torment elicits low ratings, so ratings were inverted for this item, such that 7 became 1 and vice versa, etc.) As expected, the attractor words led to higher ratings than both novel word types (see Table 3 and Fig. 3). Critically, the results are consistent with Experiment 1, showing that target novel words led to higher ratings than control novel words, which suggests that the acquired meanings of the targets, compared to those of the controls, shifted towards the meanings of the attractor words.

Mean ratings by condition in Experiment 2. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. Below the x-axis is an example sentence that shows different keywords in different conditions. Beside the y-axis is the corresponding example comprehension question. Participants answered comprehension questions by giving ratings on a 7-point scale

We again provided evidence of form-based semantic shifts: Novel words shifted in meaning towards similarly spelt attractor words. Importantly, such shifts were unlikely to be due to participants mistaking these novel words for typos of existing words, for two reasons. First, participants were explicitly instructed that unfamiliar keywords were novel words rather than rare existing words; second, participants rarely mistook these novel words as typos, as indicated by their reproductions of the novel words, and we observed semantic shifts when analyzing only trials where the novel words were accurately typed.

3a8082e126