Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Would it be legal for the Town of Farmville to require residents to get a conditional use permit before being able to build a fence? That’s the question Town Attorney Gary Elder has been asked to research, in the wake of the council’s latest work session. 

The proposed fence 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. 

Over the course of several months, the town’s planning commission put together a proposed ordinance, which was neither approved nor rejected by council back in August. Instead, the majority, with Carol Amos in opposition, voted to send it back to the planning commission for more work. Amos, meanwhile, had argued the council is getting too involved, telling people what they can do on their own property. 

But before the planning commission takes this back up, Farmville Town Manager Scott Davis asked the council for more guidance, as far as what the planning commission should be looking to do with a fence ordinance. During the council’s Wednesday, Oct. 2 work session, members submitted several ideas about what they would like to see, and the main question fell on if a permit would be legal. 

Proposing a Farmville permit 

Council member Thomas Pairet suggested splitting the concept in two. First, set some height limits for safety and visibility, so that no one is blocking their neighbor’s view of oncoming traffic on the street. He suggested that be adopted as a fence ordinance, but then also require any resident who wants to put up a fence to go through the conditional use permit process. That way the town can monitor what’s being proposed and if it meets the guidelines or would cause a safety risk. 

Farmville Town Manager Dr. Scott Davis reminded the council that filing the application for a conditional use permit costs $500. Four fences were approved between July and August of this year and the town averages roughly one a month. Davis pointed out that if the town required a conditional use permit, each of those requests for a fence would have to come before council, which would likely mean at least one a month. 

“Doing it each time? That’s a whole lot of money for people,” council member Donald Hunter said. 

Pairet countered that fences are not cheap, so if residents are building one, they would likely be prepared to pay. 

“If you’re going to go to the expense of spending the kind of money that I think would be involved with your average fence, I think you will find a conditional use permit of $500 would be a minute amount of money compared to what you’re getting ready to spend on a fence,” Pairet said. 

Davis also pointed out that the $500 fee to apply for a conditional use permit does not cover the costs involved, such as advertising for a public hearing. As a result, the town loses money on these. The more they do, the more public hearings need to be held and the more money the town loses. The only way to avoid that would be to increase the fee beyond $500, which the council has rejected before. 

Davis also pointed out that the council would be making this a fairly lengthy process for any resident who wants a fence. If they agree that fences need a conditional use permit, that means the resident has to pay the fee, go through the planning process, go and take part in the public hearing at the planning commission, then get a recommendation from the commission and take part in a public hearing the next month before town council. 

“So these people could wait two to three months to get a fence approved,” Davis said. 

Is it legal? 

But before council or the planning commission can even discuss the proposal, the question remains if it is legal. Can the town make fences a conditional use? During the Oct. 2 meeting, Elder said he would need to research and get back to council on that point, as he didn’t know. 

As for the rest of the proposed ordinance, currently it would require that fences can’t block the vision of any 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. Also, the ordinance would set 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 under this proposal.. The Farmville 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. 

Some council members raised concerns about these pieces, namely any attempt to either regulate height or if the fence had to be see-through. 

“I’m dead set against the height (restriction) and I’m dead set against the see-through) restriction,” council member John Hardy said. “I’m sorry, I won’t infringe on anyone’s fourth amendment rights to privacy.” 

Council member Daniel Dwyer disagreed, saying height restrictions were necessary. 

“It could be (for) safety, it could be appearance or somebody putting up something that is absurd that is detrimental to the neighbors’ property values,” Dwyer said. He suggested that the council look at reducing the maximum height from 8 ft to 6 ft. in the proposed ordinance. 

Council member Adam Yoelin, meanwhile, felt that putting restrictions on all sides, especially on the front, might be overreaching. 

“I don’t think it is a problem or has ever been a problem in Farmville,” Yoelin said. “I think we’re reacting to a situation we found on Longwood Avenue that needs to be rectified but maybe overreaching if we’re going to try and standardize everything in the front of people’s houses.”  

Dwyer disagreed, saying the ordinance would protect residents. 

“What we’re protecting against is extreme behavior that would not be acceptable to probably most people,” Dwyer said. 

The council is now waiting to hear from Elder on if the conditional use permit idea is legal, before deciding what the next steps will be.