Back to Article 4: Citizens Petition Amendment #8

Citizen’s Petition #8:

To amend Section 710.2 of the zoning ordinance, which is the section that defines fence, to read as follows: “Fence: A manmade barrier or structure of any material or combination of materials erected anywhere on a lot for the purpose of (1) enclosing or separating all or any portion of a lot or (2) shielding, concealing, hiding or obstructing the view of all or any portion of a lot.”

Ms. Skinner read Citizen’s Petition #8 into the record.

Mr. Sneider said this is not a dispute between neighbors, but an inconsistent enforcement of the code. It is a question of the lack of definition that provides standards. Consistency allows due process. Due process insists on no vagueness. He read Section 710.2 the definition of fence. He suggested changing the definition to one taken from the City of Manchester. The second portion of his new definition is taken from RSA 476.

Ms. Scott clarified that Staff and the ZBA both determined that a tarp is not a fence.

Vice-Chair Crisler opened the Hearing to the Public.

Mr. Phil LoChiatto said if the Town is taking an Ordinance from the City of Manchester are we to become the “Urban Oasis?” He thinks the tarp is an issue between neighbors and is not an issue for the Town. He does not support it.

Mr. Dubay said a better definition is needed to not include every structure erected on a lot; from rock walls around gardens to fairy houses built by his daughter.

Mr. Senibaldi said that at one time he put up a tent for a wedding which would violate this Ordinance. Draping his wet camping tarps could be considered a violation. He does not support the Petition.

Mr. Belair thinks the definitions are being read to prohibit. This is just a definition to provide clarity. The Code is already in existence.

Mr. Gendron thinks the definition is too broad; for example, “any material.” It is being restrictive when the Town already has a fence Ordinance. Does he really have to get a permit to put up a shielding so his ballplaying kids don’t hit balls into the neighbor’s yard?

Mr. Dubay thinks the definition is too broad and anyone could call you out on it.

Mr. LoChiatto disagrees with Mr. Belair. Yes, it is just a definition, but once it is defined and then applied to the Ordinance the Ordinance then becomes overly restrictive. He urged the Board not to support.

Mr. Sneider replied that a shed needs a permit anyway. Recreation limits a 20 ft. high barrier on ball hitting or paintball shields. The public is thinking too small. What about an 80 ft high barrier with a hole in it or one you could walk around. Precision is needed in legal language. Define a fence and get a permit. Easy.

Vice-chair Crisler closed the Hearing to the Public.

Ms. DiFruscia thinks the Citizen’s Petition is not satisfactory; it needs work. She thinks the vagueness of the language will cause problems with enforceability. The Board can work on what the Town has under Section 710.2.

Ms. DiFruscia motioned to not support Citizen’s Petition #8. Seconded by Mr. Wrenn.

Mr. Sycamore thinks the Citizen’s Petition #8 is less vague than what is currently in place and is a half step forward. He does have a problem with temporary fences.

Ms. Scott said that recreational fencing applies to sports courts and it must meet Planning Board approval. At this time, decisions are case specific. It is difficult to create a one size fits all ordinance.

Vice-Chair Crisler thinks a better definition is needed.

Motion passed: 6-1. Mr. Sycamore opposed.