Would you like a 6 foot, chain link, barbed wire fence in the front yard beside your house? That is exactly what is happening in different neighborhoods in Sanford. There is currently no ordinance regulating this type fencing. Unless your neighborhood has restrictive covenants regulating fencing, this could happen in many areas of the city.
There is no doubt the aesthetic value of homes and neighborhoods decline with this type fencing. It also sends a negative tone to the neighbors, and to the people passing by, to see a barbed wire fence in a front yard. The important question we must ask is why these residents feel they need this type fencing?
There could be many different reasons:
-
Is safety the concern? Do these residents not feel safe in their home?
-
Are these residents trying to keep something inside the fence? Do they have pets that could possibly be a danger to the rest of the neighborhood?
-
Are these residents from other cities or environments that commonly have these type fences?
This is a very complicated issue. All of the above reasons must be considered. City Council began addressing the issue of fencing in 2006. During this period, an ordinance was almost brought before Council for a vote. Revisiting the different details continued to move this issue backward instead of forward. There are many things that must be considered when discussing this subject.
Things that must be considered:
-
What types of fencing will be allowed?
-
What heights would be acceptable?
-
What about decorative fencing?
-
How will walls on property lines be classified?
-
What would the setbacks be for front yards, side yards, and back yards?
-
Would existing fences be grandfathered or would there be a sunset date for removal of the fences out of code?
There are many, many questions that need to be answered. East Sanford seems to have the majority of front yard fences. This problem is beginning to move to other areas of the city. I could not imagine a six foot, chain link, front yard fence in any neighborhood in Ward 1. I do not believe they should be in any areas zoned residential, however this could happen in most neighborhoods.
I have asked that this subject be revisited by Council as soon as possible. There will be more discussion on this issue very soon. If you have any questions or comments, please call Steve Brewer at 919-770-9587. You may also contact any Council Member. Their contact numbers are located on the city web site. www.sanfordnc.net.
Very good topic. I honestly thought that the division of the HPC and the Appearance commission was just for such things. We were led to believe that the Appearance commission was going to work up a set of guidelines for the city of Sanford for such issues as fences, walls, well appearance issues. But so far all we have seen is that they have ordered signs for the bypass and worked up a seemingly impossible, allthough wonderful plan for Horner Blvd. I think they should be tasked with writing a set of Appearance guidelines to present the city council that covers all such things.
We have such things in the HPC guidelines..on fences we have only 42 inches or less from the back plane of the house forward and are proposing in our new guidelines 42 inches from the back 2/3 of the house with 50% visibility, wood or iron (no vinyl or wire fence at all). We have 6 foot privacy fence on the back only which is wood or iron again no vinyl or wire of any kind.
Walls are rare but are the same so it would be impossible to have a front wall unless you gave it 50% open space. WE also say they haveto be painted, stained or left to weather as the wood allows.
Hedges should also be addressed because one should not be permitted to have hedges that are over 42 inches out front. These are not compounds but homes in neighborhoods and should be treated accordingly.
There are a ton of things that can help the city of Sanford on Appearance issues but the commission that is tasked to this has slacked on that issue and maybe needs to get a committtee set up to work these issues to present it to council.
I am not surprised to see this item left off your list, but another thing that “must be considered”:
The rights of private property owners to do as they wish within the bounds of their property.
Ed, I realize you are an attorney so please do not interpret the following as my attempt to lecture you or anyone else on the history or justification for law
I do however want to offer a general treatise on how I perceive the reasoning and impact of appearance code and similar property management law or deed restrictions, specifically related to ‘compound like’ yard fencing and personal property rights.
It’s true that private property rights and justifications for fencing should absolutely be considered and weighed when this topic is debated, and it seemed clear to me in Mr. Brewer’s post that this is part of the concern the city leadership faces. But along with the individual’s property (and other) rights, we must also consider and weigh the protection of property (and other) rights of those in society as well. Herein lies the challenge, finding that balance, and is a common item of debate in any community with regard to appearance code, HOA/deed covenants… and other laws we all must abide by.
I’m sure we can agree that among the many important problems facing society, tall or otherwise ‘unsightly’ front yard fencing is probably well down the list. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t ON the list of concerns that adjacent property owners cite as impacting their personal property rights, and ask for relief from via their city leadership. Otherwise, if other property owners haven’t expressed concern, that same city leadership wouldn’t have it on ‘their list’, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion
And certainly this topic is debatable as there are those with more of a conservative or liberal interpretation of where the balance between personal rights and laws limiting those rights for the good of society as a whole should fall. In some cases this distinction seems obvious, such as falsely crying fire in a theater or speeding down a residential street. In others such as whether junked cars in the front lawn devalues surrounding properties; the case may not be so clear, although there may be community consensus.
But covenants, code, law… most limit personal freedom to some degree and by definition impinge upon someone’s personal rights, property or otherwise. But if well crafted and justified, these laws/code are meant to strike that balance between limiting personal individual rights and protecting those of the community and neighbors. After all ‘personal’ property rights are relative, relative and ‘personal’ to who’s rights are being transgressed upon. And depending on one’s philosophical bent, the greater good takes precedence.
And this topic and perfect balance is not one that we will solve today in a blog posting, as jurists, legislators, and philosophers have debated this ‘perfect balance’ likely even before Hammurabi ordered his code struck on a chunk of basalt. And if it were possible and we could rely upon everyone to maximize their personal rights while maintaining no dilution of others’, then this would be simple. But it never has been.
But society has developed law, code, and even covenants toward that goal. Goals that include individual and public safety, health, and yes, even protecting wealth as that is personal property after all and is tied to quality of life. And for many neighbors of communities ‘blighted’ by these compound like walls and fencing, they feel their property rights are being infringed upon by negatively impacting their property values.
It is certainly debatable whether and to what extent code governing front fencing should fall in priority in those goals, but I think it is in there somewhere for certain applications and is a reasonable discussion to have.
Sanford isn’t the first community to have this debate, and in fact is a debate that a quick ‘Google’ will reveal is quite common. And that goes a long way toward justifying it being an issue of some import for surrounding property owners and citizens of Sanford to discuss.
Specifically on the topic of fencing:
- I personally dislike tall imposing and isolating front yard fencing/walls, especially in urban and suburban (versus agricultural/farm) scenarios. As pointed out, it sends a message of isolation and gives the impression of a besieged community. This is the same reason many communities frown on window and door ‘security bars’ (not to mention their safety implications). These fences and walls also send a message to criminals that residents are islands of isolation susceptible to prey, and large walls and fencing provide screening for criminal activity. Plus, neighbors experience a loss of community when separated by these large walls and fences. However, reasonably sized fencing for aesthetic or practical reasons (such as pet containment) maintains and builds an open community ‘good neighbor’ atmosphere, which improves quality of life and actually reduces crime (which is often the justification given for compound fencing) through communication, resident visibility, and neighborly interaction. Having lived in communities with extensive front and side yard ‘compound’ fencing, I can attest that these fences were unattractive, effective in breaking down community, and attracting non-resident troublesome traffic and criminal activity.
- When developing code to manage front, side, and rear fencing criteria, considerations and specific requirements and clear verbiage should also be developed for corner properties. For these properties, the definitions of what constitutes a side or rear yard can be unclear in many descriptions among other challenges such as equitable available fenced use of property as compared to non corner properties. In many cases the rights of neighbors and property owners of corner properties can be unfairly treated in code due to confusion, opacity, or omission of language that clearly delineates how to apply standards to corner properties. To be clear, I am not suggesting special or advantageous treatment of those with corner properties, only that when developing fencing code that these unique property types be considered and addressed to reduce confusion in execution and allow fairness of use and application as compared to non corner properties.
Although a potentially complex issue, I applaud the City of Sanford looking into appearance code issues, and specifically the potential to manage front yard walls and fencing. I think that if well-crafted, reasonable code limiting the implementation of front yard fencing/walls can have a very positive aesthetic and community quality of life impact for residents and the City image as a whole.
And it can PROTECT individual property and personal rights of the owners and neighbors by improving quality of life, reducing crime, and increasing property values. To me, it is a win-win.
Al
By my recollection, there have been nearly a dozen people shot, another 3 or 4 murders (most unsolved), and numerous robberies in the last 3-5 months alone. Rumours are running around town about the serious rise in gang violence yet Mr. Brewer wants to focus on fences? I just don’t get it. It is the job of government to address problems, not create them. I was born and raised in this town and I talk “politics” every single day with my freinds and neighbors. Not once have I every heard anyone talking about the “fence problems” in Sanford. NOT ONCE!
I talk about possible problems with many different citizens in Sanford, not just my friends and neighbors. Depending on where you live may make the difference. Barbed wire has no place in a residential neighborhood. Fences yes, with a set back from the road.
Crime & gangs. Any crime is too much. We are working hard on this challenge every day.
Thank you for your comment.
No one doubts that City Council is working hard. I thank you for at least taking your time and being involved in our community and caring enough to bring some of these issues to debate. I know that elected officials are sometimes caught up in debates they can not win or are not popular. I just think that some of the priorities of city council are out of order. For example, some one took lots of time and effort to ride around and take those pics of fences. Even more time to write about them and post them. When it comes to crime issues, many on the council seem to just “take the word” of others and do not really get involved themselves. I do not see the “urgency” from the council about the core issues (those that are the MAIN and PRIMARY function of any governing body) as I do about some of these very minor and petty problems. Take time to ride around Pineland street, Oakwood Ave, Spruce street, Boykin Ave, etc(I could name 15-20 streets) and see what are the main problems in these areas. I think you will find that these people are not talking about fences.
I just found this web site after searching for information on Sanford City Council. I think it’s a great resource.
I think there are several factors that contribute to the fence issue.
The first is safety, then the next issue is the choice for safety over a more asthetically pleasing fence would be money. Additionally, many people consider function over beauty, in the neighborhood in question having a home that has too much curb appeal could result in a break-in.
In the grand scheme of things, the bigger issue in the neighborhood is poverty and crime, the fence issue would resolve itself if the proverty and crime were diminished.
You are correct. There are several issues that need to be addressed to improve the neighborhood and the curb appeal. All must be addressed to make it work.
thanks for your comments