Wooden fence on Route 136 in Easton ignites opposition

The application to allow this fence along Route 136 (Westport Road) at a new Easton home is opposed by two neighbors. The fence was built without first securing a zoning permit.
The application to allow this fence along Route 136 (Westport Road) at a new Easton home is opposed by two neighbors. The fence was built without first securing a zoning permit.

Two neighbors expressed concerns about a wooden fence constructed without a permit in a floodplain along Route 136 in Easton, off Redding Road.

“We’re pretty outraged this fence went in,” Doug Newhouse said. Newhouse said he planted hundreds of trees near his house to “create a natural barrier” along the road and the builder of the new home with the fence should have to do the same.

The other neighbor, David Christopher, said the 8-foot-high stockade fence doesn’t fit “in one of the most historic parts of Easton,” and if everyone put up a similar fence it would undermine the town’s rural character. He pointed out that the fence line goes much higher on one end of the property due to elevation changes.

They spoke during a May 7 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on the developer’s after-the-fact application for a special permit for the fence. Doing any construction in a floodplain requires zoning permission, and the builder did not seek that before the fence was put in.

The developer is an entity known as 180 Redding Road LLC, reflecting the address of the house, which has considerable frontage along Route 136 (Westport Road) close to the Weston and Fairfield borders.

The Aspetuck River is across Route 136 from the 3.7-acre property, which also borders Old Redding Road. The house was built on speculation and is for sale.

The fence is 350 feet long, with about 300 feet being in the floodplain. It is not in the river’s floodway, which has more stringent requirements. The house is not in the floodplain or floodway. From the perspective of the road, the fence is behind an existing stone wall.

Homes are allowed to have a privacy fence, but floodplain regulations require that it “be anchored” and “resistant to flood damage,” according to P&Z Chairman Robert Maquat.

Applicant engineer David Bjorklund Jr. said fences are allowed in floodplains but they must include venting to allow water to go through in case of flooding. Based on the pertinent Federal Emergency Management Agency rules, he said, this fence has “more than adequate venting.” The fence bottom is from 8 to 16 inches above the ground.

Bjorklund said the fence doesn’t negatively impact the neighborhood or wetlands, and was built to “deaden noise” from Route 136, a heavily trafficked road during commuting times. He said his client was unaware it was being put in a floodplain.

Set in concrete?

The fence posts were secured in concrete, Bjorklund told the P&Z during a presentation. “We’re not going to have things floating downstream,” he said.

Alternate Justin Giorlando questioned if all 35 fence posts were set in concrete, indicating that isn’t how fences are normally built. Bjorklund’s flood calculations were based on all posts being in concrete.

“Do we want to believe a contractor who didn’t apply for a permit?” Giorlando asked.

Bjorklund said that is what the contractor indicated but he personally couldn’t testify to this fact because he wasn’t present when the fence was built. “This is well constructed,” he said.

The two upset neighbors stressed the fence was put in “illegally,” visually impacts nearby homes, is in a prominent location, and could hurt their property values.

Newhouse said the “sophisticated” builder must have known permission was needed, the fence will rot over time and it was put as close to Route 136 as possible and could be moved back. “Let them lose the fence,” he said, telling P&Z members they have “no obligation” to allow it.

Two residents who live elsewhere in town also spoke briefly. One called it “a really nice fence” that doesn’t block the view of the stone wall from the road, and pointed out that other properties along Route 136 have fences.

The application’s public hearing was kept open so fence and floodplain regulation specifics can be checked further and to allow P&Z members to view the fence.

The commission may require a random inspection of some posts as well as an affidavit from the contractor verifying all posts are set in concrete. If necessary, Bjorklund will complete a new set of flood calculations based on how many posts are actually in concrete.

“Everyone should see it,” member Ross Ogden said of the fence, describing the home’s general location as “historical.”

“I’d like to look at it,” said Maquat, noting the decision must be based on the regulations and an appeal is possible in the case. He said the P&Z has “some latitude” on a matter such as this. “These are judgment calls,” Maquat said.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This