Wellington ARB splits on fence at 13646 Barberry Drive; approves mixed set of fixes and conditions

The Wellington Architectural Review Board on Jan. 22 considered an after-the-fact fence at 13646 Barberry Drive and approved a set of corrective actions and conditions rather than ordering full removal.

Kelly (Planning and Zoning staff) described the property in Sugar Pond and explained the owner replaced an existing fence without a permit about two years earlier. The owner, Mark McKinnon, told the board he had hired a contractor who did not advise obtaining a permit and that much of the fence was already erected when staff first contacted the household. McKinnon said his goal was privacy and that the rear portion was raised because an adjacent yard sits at a higher grade.

Staff told the board the installed fence included a 6-foot stockade (vertical) fence facing Barberry Drive, 7-foot horizontal panels on the sides and an 8-foot horizontal panel on the rear, and that the horizontal panels were installed with the unfinished side outward, contrary to the standards (the transcript references section 6415 x). Staff recommended conditions if the ARB approved, including installing vertical planks on the Barberry-facing section to create dimension, reversing sides and rear so the finished face faces neighboring properties, covering unfinished horizontal edges with vertical planks to hide nails, and limiting maximum side and rear heights to 7 feet.

McKinnon told the board he and his wife had been told by a contractor that replacing the old fence did not require a permit and that the contractor had suggested taller rear panels to compensate for the neighbor’s higher yard. Several board members and staff discussed whether the matter was primarily a code enforcement/building department issue because the fence was installed without a permit; staff explained the building-permit review required ARB action when a proposed design does not meet the ARB-approved fence chart.

The board pursued a stepwise approach. An initial motion to deny the owner’s application failed. The board then took separate votes on components: it approved adding vertical planks to the portion that faces Barberry Drive; it then considered the sides and rear and, after debate about pool-barrier and climbability concerns and the adjacent hedges, ultimately approved allowing 7-foot horizontal panels on the sides and rear without reversing them, provided vertical planks are added to cover unfinished edges that face neighboring properties. A later motion to approve the remaining staff conditions also passed. One board member recorded opposition in the recorded vocal responses during the votes; multiple motions and seconds were made during the discussion.

Staff noted safety concerns with horizontal panels serving as pool barriers — horizontal boards can create footholds — and recommended flipping panels so the finished side faces neighbors; the board approved several alternative remedies instead, including requiring additional vertical elements to reduce visible nails and gaps. The board instructed the owner to work with staff and invited the owner to engage a reputable fence contractor familiar with Wellington standards to prepare corrected plans for permitting.

The ARB’s final disposition combined the board’s motions and staff conditions as the basis for permit issuance or further enforcement if the owner does not comply.