OLDS — The Olds Municipal Planning Commission (MPC) has turned down applications from two residents to extend fences beyond their property lines into town-owned property.
In both cases, the commission worded their decision so that the reasons for rejection were the same: “The fence can reasonably be constructed along the side property line without the need for the variance requested.
“The rationale provided by the applicant does not sufficiently support the relaxation of the regulations in the Town of Olds land use bylaw.”
One application that came up during the commission’s May 19 meeting was for a fence to be constructed in publicly owned land on the northwest side yard at 6206 - 60th Street.
It called for the fence to located beyond the property line in order to create a gated driveway that could enclose a welding truck.
The commission was told the property owner wanted to build the fence to enclose and safeguard the truck, as his truck had previously been stolen from his driveway. He also had a trailer.
Another factor were three trees. The land owner wanted to build the fence further out to prevent the tree roots from possibly being damaged, due to fence construction.
Eight land owners in the area were notified of the plan. One wrote a letter of support for the project.
During its April 21 meeting, MPC turned down a proposal by a property owner who wanted to build a fence out into town-owned land at 5530 - 50 Street, along 56th Avenue.
Six area land owners were notified of this application. No objections or concerns were received.
May application
“This is a work truck that doesn’t necessarily fit inside the detached garage and they would like to be able to park it in their driveway which is here to the northwest of the garage while being able to secure it on the property,” development officer Kyle Sloan said.
Commissioner Wanda Blatz raised concern that if this request was approved it could set a precedent and that other land owners with town-owned land adjacent to their property might want to do the same.
MPC chair Mary Anne Overwater was skeptical about the tree damage argument.
“He doesn’t want to put the fence on the inside of the trees because that would damage the roots but he wants to move it on the outside of the trees, which I would think (would) damage the roots too,” Overwater said.
"I feel bad that the guy’s truck got stolen. It’s his work, it’s his business, right? But I guess we all have to choose how much we’re going to park on our yard,” commissioner Dan Peters said.
“I sometimes have to park outside of my garage because I have a motorbike inside. I choose, right?”
Commissioner James Cummings agreed with Peters’ reasoning.
“It’s a personal choice of how many vehicles you park on your property,” Cummings said, adding by doing so, one runs the risk of them being stolen.
Cummings said as far as he’s concerned, fear of one’s vehicle being stolen is not a valid reason to make an exception to the town’s rules.
April application
In this case, Blatz made essentially the same argument – that if the application were approved it would be unfair to other landowners who may not be able to do the same.
“The rationale when they dropped off the application was that they feel like they already mow that boulevard, they maintain it,” Sloan said.
“They weren’t claiming it as their property but they do feel like they already use the property and that was part of the verbal rationale.”
Peters said that’s what happens when you own a corner lot; you’re expected to maintain the adjacent town-owned property.
“You know, you cannot fence that in. You’re building a structure on somebody else’s property,” he said.
Cummings noted that in this case, a driveway was allowed to be constructed on the town-owned property.
Sloan confirmed that the MPC approved an application for a garage to be constructed there last year.
Cummings said if the MPC allowed that, it seems inconsistent not to allow a fence to also be constructed on the town-owned land.
“For whatever reason, we’re going to say ‘no’ to that but ‘yes’ to this side it,” he said.
Sloan said driveways are allowed to go beyond property lines to meet the street.
The property owner said the fence would improve the area aesthetically. Cummings said he could see that, because the driveway would then appear to be part of the property.
“It becomes a kind of an oddity on the property. The fence could allow that oddity to look less like an oddity,” he said.
