The grass may be greener in your neighbor’s yard, but it won’t matter if they build a 12-foot fence.

In July, Silvia Louro, of Cypress Drive in Garden City, wrote Cranston City Council and the mayor’s office about her neighbor’s sudden installation of fence posts she says tower 12 to 15-feet high.

Her concerns led to the enactment of a new law in Cranston, regulating the height of fences in residential neighborhoods.

Request for Help

Concerned for both public safety and aesthetics, Louro reached out hoping to halt the massive fence installation.

“I have several major concerns regarding this spite fence,” Louro wrote, using the phrase “spite fence” to refer to the sections of fence, or privacy screens, that she believes may be an effort to block views of her neighbor’s property, and nearby homeowners’ surveillance cameras.

Around 8:30 a.m., July 9, Louro spotted “several men carrying unusually long fence posts into the backyard of the residence” next door, “my neighbor’s property.”

“Throughout the morning, they erected six 12-15’ columns in height,” she wrote in an email, with photos attached. “I contacted the inspector’s office to inquire if a permit had been obtained. It was not.”

The mayor’s Chief-of-Staff Anthony Moretti wrote back to Louro, pledging to contact the city’s “Buildings Inspections Department” and they’d take a look at the case prior to “permitting.” He told Louro they would have the city “solicitor’s office research ordinances and laws concerning this matter” and get back to her in a few days.

 “These structures do not align with the aesthetic of Garden City and may potentially lower property values in the neighborhood,” Louro wrote. “This project sets a precedent for other homeowners to similarly enclose their properties with 12 foot ‘privacy panels,’ potentially transforming Garden City and other areas into closed-off communities.”

She also feared the first big storm.

“There is an unnecessary risk of damage and inconvenience to neighboring families and properties when these structures are inevitably affected by windstorms,” she wrote.

City Council and the mayor’s office responded to Louro’s pleas for help.

The Response

First, Cranston Minimum Housing Inspector Annamarie Marrchetti responded to the scene to investigate. After the inspector arrived, Louro was told her neighbor was calling the new structures “privacy panels/screens,” but that the project’s completion would be stalled “pending permit issuance.”

The neighbor likely wasn’t even building a fence, according to Louro, just several huge sections of fence (the property owner who lives next door to Louro did not respond to the Cranston Herald’s requests for comment).

“However, I remain concerned that a permit will be granted, and this spite fence will be allowed to remain,” Louro told city councilors and the mayor.

“I received a complaint a fence was being put up that was over six feet,” Marrchetti confirmed via email.

The inspector traveled to the address, but found “no fence was up, just posts.”

Marrchetti said she “explained if they wanted to install a fence higher than 6 feet [they] would have to obtain a building permit.”

Meanwhile, Louro met and corresponded with several members of city council and the mayor’s office.

Ward 6 City Councilor Daniel Wall co-sponsored the zoning ordinance amendment to “Fences and Walls.”

“It came from a constituent question,” Wall said Tuesday. A constituent was asking about the city’s law on fence-height, “and we noticed that we didn’t have one.”

New Law

On Sept. 23, Wall, joined Cranston Mayor Kenneth Hopkins, Council President Jessica Marino and Councilwoman Nicole Renzulli, sponsoring a change to city code, which will now prohibit “all fences and non-retaining walls bordering between adjoining residential properties” to “unnecessarily” exceed six feet in “any yard area in a ‘Residential’ zoned district.”

“We had to go along with what the language in the state was,” Wall said. “I think we came up with a pretty good ordinance.”

The city ordinance echoes the state’s spite fence law, according to city lawyers.

Councilors wrangled some over the word “unnecessarily” in the ordinance.

City-wide City Councilor Robert J. Ferri shared that he had a six-foot-fence, but had a dog that was capable of jumping the fence. So he added six inches of trellis. Would that be legal?

Some councilors, including Renzulli and Ward 5 Councilor Christopher G. Paplauskas argued that the word “unnecessarily” added to the ordinance may provide fence violators with a loophole exception.

Louro also urged councilors to remove the word “unnecessarily” when she stood to speak during public comment.

In Effect Now

According to the mayor’s office, the fence ordinance passed the full council and was enacted into law that same night, Sept. 23. Hopkins was the primary sponsor of the ordinance, according to Moretti.

 “We had it drafted by our solicitor and invited the other council folks to join in on the ordinance,” Moretti said Tuesday. “Needless to say that the mayor is in full support of the ordinance.”

Wall argued the ordinance was important for maintaining a sense of community in city neighborhoods.

“There are places in residential areas where there should be certain limits,” Wall said. “It adds to a certain isolationism if you can have an unlimited fence. Now, if you have a very big fence, I imagine the inspector would have to go out and make sure it’s structurally sound.”