Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposed fence bylaw stalls after amendment and debate; voters reject final measure
Summary
After extended discussion and an amendment to exempt agricultural temporary construction, Sheffield voters rejected the proposed fence bylaw (Article 5) 55–75. The amendment adding the word 'agriculture' passed 98–32 but did not secure approval for the full bylaw.
A proposed townwide fence bylaw failed after prolonged discussion at Sheffield’s special town meeting. The bylaw, presented as Article 5 by the Planning Board, sought to add Section 6.3 to the zoning bylaws covering fences, including height limitations and standards of repair.
During floor debate, Peter Martin proposed inserting the word “agriculture” to create an explicit exception for agricultural temporary construction; the amendment passed 98–32. Residents and board members debated definitions and scope, asking how "agriculture" would be defined and whether mixed-use zoning, baseball backstops, or security fencing would be affected. Planning Board counsel noted protections under state law (chapter 48, §3) and the town’s right-to-farm provisions.
After further comments raising concern about enforcement, mixed-zone impacts and whether the town should adopt a bylaw at a special meeting, the main motion to adopt the fence bylaw as amended failed by voice/clicker vote, 55 yes to 75 no. Supporters said the measure would establish baseline expectations; opponents said it would be premature without clearer definitions and enforcement plans.
Because the amendment passed but the overall bylaw did not, no new fence regulations were adopted.
