AGAWAM – During a Feb. 8 meeting, the Agawam City Council met to discuss safety provisions with regard to the town’s ordinance on fences.

The discussion lead to a unanimous approval of two amendments for the first reading, which is now revised to clarify certain aspects of the law. The first amendment for the ordinance regarding fences reads as follows:

“No fence, wall, or natural barrier shall be constructed so as to create a safety hazard for vehicles or pedestrians entering or exiting driveways or streets. All fences, walls, or natural barriers shall be properly maintained. Any fence, wall, or natural barrier found to be in disrepair shall be promptly repaired or removed.”

The second amendment for the fences ordinance, which adds to the definition of a fence, reads as follows:

"An artificially-constructed barrier of wood, decorative metal, chain link, vinyl, or composite, or other things such as a natural barrier which the building inspector considers equivalent thereto erected to enclose or screen areas of land.”

Prior to the council meeting, the legislative sub-committee members brought forth the language that they wanted included in the ordinance. “Natural barrier” was one of the phrases that was added as a result of their discussion. Even before adding the “natural barrier” language, the sub-committee still unanimously approved the ordinance as it stood before.

“We have a lot of problems, not only from fences, but with overgrown plants,” said Councilor George Bitzas, who strongly supported the ordinance with added amendments. “You got to have fence that you’re able to maintain, because you don’t want to see fences down. It would bring the values of the neighborhood down.”

Councilor Robert Rossi, who presented the amendment to the council, originally wanted to include language from the Massachusetts statute regarding fences, but town officials did not want to incorporate provisions based on state statues. The law is instead enforced based on Agawam’s ordinances at the moment.

If an artificial fence or barrier must be repaired or removed because of a safety hazard, and the resident who is causing this safety hazard refuses to repair or remove the fence, then the town would have to address the situation through enforcement provisions that are currently set in place within their own ordinances.

"I don’t believe that we would have the ability to actually go on and make a repair on private property,” said Council President Christopher Johnson. “I think the town would be left with the enforcement provisions that are currently in our zoning, which would ultimately be, to find the property owner were they not to effectuate the repair or removal.”

A question brought up by Councilor Dino Mercadante involved the idea of natural barriers, such as big trees that may impede on an intersection on the road, or someone else’s driveway. He argued that this would be something the city should consider.

“I think it would take some research to determine if it was an extreme safety hazard, if the town can step in on private property and do something,” said Johnson. “Otherwise, I think we’re left with the normal enforcement which is, ask first, and then if you get no cooperation…ultimately an enforcement action could be commenced in housing court, and you could ask the court for the appointment of a receiver to go in and actually do the work to bring the property into compliance.”

 Councilor Mario Tedeschi, who ultimately supported both amendments, relayed a concern to the council about natural barriers versus artificial barriers, wondering if the city had any power to stop natural brushes or hedges from being allowed on someone’s property. According to Johnson, there is a statute in Massachusetts that refers to nuisance fences, which includes natural planting as a possible safety hazard in special scenarios.

Regardless, the council decided to add that “natural barrier” aspect within both amendments that were unanimously approved by an 11-0 vote.