Northampton holds public hearing on fence ordinance

At its regular monthly meeting Tuesday night, the Northampton County Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on proposed amendments to county fence regulations. The amendments, drafted with assistance from the Berkeley Group and reviewed by county staff and the county attorney, aimed to tighten rules on fencing materials, height, and permitting requirements in residential areas.

The changes would prohibit the use of barbed wire and salvage materials on lots of two acres or fewer when used primarily for residential purposes. Fences would be permitted along property lines but limited to eight feet in height, with front-yard fencing capped at four feet to preserve sightlines. The ordinance also introduced a zoning clearance requirement for new fences, walls, or substantial repairs, while exempting agricultural and horticultural uses.

Several residents expressed concern over the two-acre exemption, arguing that it would divide neighborhoods and allow barbed wire in some residential communities while banning it in others. Others raised frustrations over enforcement of existing ordinances, citing disputes with neighbors over potentially unsightly or unsafe fencing.

Kevin Reese, who spoke during the public hearing, said his neighbor erected a seven-foot barbed wire fence that he called “totally hideous.”

“This one neighbor is destroying Nassawadox Point,” Reese said. “He’s going to continue with more fencing and more barbed wire … and now he’s going to put up a fake railroad with crossing signs and all that. This has to stop.”

Richard and Eileen Terry also voiced concerns about a neighbor’s fencing.

“He put wooden fencing up but he didn’t cover the whole front,” Eileen said. “They are probably six to eight feet, very close to the road … you can still see all the vans and the trailers and the sheds and the old tractors.”

Board members acknowledged the concerns and discussed whether barbed wire should be restricted entirely in residential zones. Supervisor Dixon Leatherbury suggested the matter be reconsidered by the Planning Commission, noting that revisions had not yet been returned to that body for review. Ultimately, the Board voted to table the ordinance for two weeks, allowing time for further study and possible referral back to the Planning Commission with more specific guidance.