Nightingale fence variance approved despite neighbours’ objections

By Melissa Crispin-Piche Local Journalism Initiative Reporter

An eight-foot fence in Nightingale can remain standing after Wheatland County’s Municipal Planning Commission approved a height variance on Oct. 13 with one member opposed.

The decision allows a 95-foot section of an existing wooden fence to exceed the six-foot limit for side and rear yards in the Hamlet Residential General district.

The fence had already been built when the application came before the commission. Development officer Suzanne Hayes said its purpose was to provide privacy and wind protection around the owners’ dwelling and yard.

A newer section extending farther east had been kept to six feet and was not part of the variance request.

Neighbours raised concerns about appearance, structural safety, property boundaries and the handling of a fence built before the necessary approval.

Five responses included in the agenda package were divided: two supported the application, two opposed it and one was neutral. A further letter from neighbour Karen Knight was read at the meeting.

“Ideally, these regulations should prevent situations that strain neighbourly relationships and divide our community,” Knight wrote. “Unfortunately, we are facing that exact issue.”

Hayes said the applicant had added posts and bracing on their own side of the fence in response to concerns about its ability to withstand wind.

Staff concluded that the fence would not interfere with vehicle sightlines or the neighbouring owner’s sightlines. They also pointed to the property’s 2.19-acre size and the separation between homes, describing the setting as closer to country residential development than a densely-built hamlet.

“There are no architectural controls in place regarding fence type or style,” Hayes said. “Therefore, the visual appearance of the fence is not regulated.”

Hayes also addressed questions about why the county had not ordered the fence removed while the variance application was pending. 

“It is more efficient and practical to await the decision before enforcing removal,” she said.

The question arose whether the additional height was necessary and whether the fence affected the neighbouring property’s enjoyment.

“I believe in the adage that good fences make good neighbours,” Coun. Shannon Laprise said. “I wish these neighbours had talked to the other side before building it.”

Coun. Burle Hebbes said a visit to the site had persuaded them that the extra height would not materially affect the neighbours’ enjoyment and that the fence appeared to be on the applicant’s side of the property line.

The commission approved the variance 6–1. Conditions require the eight-foot fence to remain entirely on the owners’ property and be safely secured to posts on their property.