Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board splits over proposed townwide 6-foot fence rule and limited 8-foot allowance near industrial zones
Summary
Council members and residents debated a proposed zoning change to permit 6-foot fences more broadly and 8-foot fences where residential lots abut industrial zones; concerns focused on safety at intersections, enforcement (berms/retaining walls) and whether the Board of Zoning Appeals should retain case-by-case authority.
The Town of North Hempstead board heard more than two hours of testimony and technical explanation July 8 on a proposed zoning amendment that would make 6-foot backyard fencing generally permitted and allow 8-foot fences only where residential properties abut industrial districts.
Resident Alina Uselov and several others pressed the board to restore an earlier draft that would have allowed taller fences abutting major roads. Councilman Scott said he removed town and county roads from the automatic 8-foot allowance after colleagues objected, and instead proposed a townwide rule that would normalize 6-foot rear-yard fences while permitting 8-foot fencing in specific circumstances (residential abutting industrial uses).
Deputy Building Commissioner Glenn Norgen clarified measurement and enforcement rules: fence height is measured to the grade immediately adjacent to the fence; retaining walls and engineered berms are treated differently than capped block walls; cinder-block or masonry base elements are counted in total fence height. Norgen said the department enforces fences primarily on complaint through the town27s 311 system.
Opponents warned that permissive height rules could lead to visual "walling" along streets, create blind spots at intersections and incentivize adding berms or blocks to boost effective fence heights. Supporters said the change would remove an inequity that required pool owners to use 6-foot fences while other homeowners had to apply for variances, and would reduce the cost and delay of repeated variances before the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Council members split on the measure. Several called for amendments to address line-of-sight and corner setbacks and for clearer enforcement language about berms and retaining walls. After debate the board took a recorded vote (roll-call recorded in meeting minutes) and direction to consider amendments; the final outcome on this evening's draft was contested and the board signaled further work and potential amendment before final adoption.
The building department will prepare clarifying language on measurement, berms and enforcement procedures for future consideration; residents were encouraged to file specific cases with the BZA where site-specific relief may be appropriate.
