Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

It’s time to go back and try again. After hearing from a number of residents, the Farmville town council decided not to approve or reject the proposed fence ordinance. Instead, the majority, with council member Carol Amos opposed, voted 6-1 to send it back to the planning commission to be reworked. 

Amos had made her opposition to the fence ordinance clear, both at Wednesday’s meeting and the work session a week prior, saying the council was doing too much. 

“I think we’re overstepping on things, telling folks about what they can do on their own property,” Amos said. “I just think we’re getting too involved.” 

The proposed ordinance comes from a situation earlier this year on Longwood Avenue, where a resident built a privacy fence that stretched all the way from the rear of the yard to within the town’s right of way. That made it harder for one of the person’s neighbors, who could no longer see traffic from that direction as they pulled in or out of their driveway. When it was brought up to town officials, the staff found there really was no ordinance in place right now regarding fences. Amos acknowledged the concern over safety, but that’s where the ordinance needs to end, she argued. It shouldn’t have any type of height restriction. 

Speaking out over fence ordinance

A number of residents agreed with her. Speaking during the public hearing, the majority of those who came said they understood the need to protect fellow residents, but didn’t see a reason to restrict how tall a fence could be. 

“I have a six-foot fence in my backyard to keep my animals in,” said Patrick Carwile. The High Street resident said if he was forced to follow the proposed ordinance and reduce the fence down to four feet, he wouldn’t feel safe leaving his dog in the yard, as the pet could jump over it. 

“People should be able to put up whatever size fence they need to make their house livable,” Carwile said. “But as far as obstructing views, I’m very much on board for making sure that as you’re pulling out of your driveway, that you’re not hitting people on the sidewalks and that you’re being protective for the community.” 

North Street Press Club owner Jake Romaine agreed, adding that the fence ordinance seems a bit much, especially with placing a four foot maximum height in the front of a house.

“Once you get into restricting certain things, it’s kind of difficult,” Romaine said. He talked about owning a property on Cedar Avenue and how the house beside it was pretty dilapidated at one point. Romaine said he considered putting up a pretty large fence just to block my view of it, but under the proposed ordinance, he wouldn’t have been able to. 

On the other side, Gilliam Drive resident Carol Fauci argued that since town lots are so close to each other, people can’t just do whatever they want. Instead, there have to be rules and regulations in place to manage things like fences. In fact, she added, that’s part of the town council’s job.

What was the proposal? 

So what exactly was in this proposal? First off, it said no fence shall be built without getting a permit in writing from Farmville Town Manager Dr. Scott Davis. No permit means no fence. Second, the fence can’t block the vision of any driver or pedestrian who is walking down the street. All neighbors have to be able to see oncoming traffic as they pull in or drive out of their driveway. Third, the ordinance sets the maximum height of any fence at eight feet in the side or rear yard. 

Fences in front of “the building line” could only be four feet high. This was the part that drew the most criticism, with residents arguing for no size restriction. The ordinance says the building line “shall be the established front yard setback for the district or the actual setback of the primary building wall.” Finally, finished sides of any fence would be required to face the street or adjoining properties. 

Council divided over fence ordinance

As mentioned before, council member Amos was completely against the idea. So was John Hardy, who pointed out that residents who lived behind Huddle House had a fence well above four feet, in order to not have restaurant customers staring into their homes. He also questioned that if the ordinance passes, what happens when someone puts up a fence to protect the garden they’re growing from the deer. It would need to be higher than four feet, to stop animals from getting in. Wouldn’t that be against this ordnance? 

Other members raised concerns about residents having a solid fence and the threat it could pose. Donald Hunter argued that a solid fence is a safety risk for U.S. Marshals or State Police when they go to serve a warrant. Hunter said he had no problem with a see-through fence, as that gives law enforcement a better idea of what’s happening on the other side. Council member Chuckie Reid gave an example from his years of delivering mail. When dealing with a blind fence, he said, you could have an attack dog waiting for you to come through. 

“You’ve got to think about safety and a see-through fence is the best way to go,” Reid said, adding he was against a height restriction. 

Daniel Dwyer, meanwhile, said he sees both sides. He understands the idea that less is more when it comes to government. 

“But when I stop and think about ordinances and what they’re typically there for, it’s to put some type of limit on something,” Dwyer said. For example, Farmville residents can’t just let their lawns grow wild, he pointed out. The town has a grass height ordinance of no more than 10 inches. “So I think some limit is good, personally,” Dwyer added. 

Time to rethink 

But with that being said, Dwyer added, he thinks the ordinance needs more work. He suggested that the council back up, regroup and see if they can come to some agreement on what the fronts of the fences should look like. Should the town be specifying what materials can be used to build a fence? Does it need to be wrought iron? Should fences be required to be see-through? 

Thomas Pairet made the motion to send the fence ordinance back to the planning commission. It passed by a 6-1 vote, with Carol Amos in opposition.