By lexi freehill
Athabasca Advocate Staff
ATHABASCA – An Amisk Lake couple looking for a solution to a years-long neighbour dispute will have to move their shed and lower the height of their fence after Athabasca County councillors voted to uphold compliance orders for contraventions of the land-use bylaw (LUB).
David and Donna Swerhun were joined by son Jonathan LaRose in Athabasca County council chambers on July 25 to appeal two compliance orders
issued by county bylaw officers in June: one for a fence exceeding height regulations and another for a side yard accessory building.
“Some of you might be aware, (my parents) have had an interesting situation with their neighbour the last couple of years,” said LaRose, who attended to lend his conflict-advising skills to his parents. LaRose read a statement compiled by his parents hinting at an “untenable” history of conflict with one next door neighbour.
On June 19, Athabasca County bylaw officers attended the Swerhuns’ property and handed out orders to bring an eight-foot fence back in compliance with the county’s LUB, which allows a maximum fence height of 6.2 feet.
LaRose noted the separation provided by the current non-compliant fence is the only method that has reduced the tension and number of negative interactions between the two neighbours.
“The eight-foot fence is our attempt, amicably and fairly, to reduce the current challenging situation for the mutual benefit of all parties, and it’s not just the landowners,” said LaRose.
“Reduction in this conflict benefits the Amisk Lake community, and it also benefits the county, because there’s going to be a reduction in call out to county services to adjudicate this neighbourhood disagreement,” he added.
A second non-compliance order was issued the same day for a steel storage shed set against the fence, which according to the LUB, must have a minimum side yard setback of 4.9 feet.
“The fence provides a great deal of privacy, and it provides security, and I’m aware that it is violating the bylaw. With the accessory building, I wasn’t aware,” said Donna.
“The accessory buildings in our neighbourhood are often right up at the property line, so we were just doing what other people do.”
During their appeal, the Swerhuns did highlight a number of other lots in the Amisk Lake community with variances — a percentage of leeway allowed for structures that don’t meet LUB regulations — for fence and accessory buildings, pointing to one example granted as recent as January of this year. The family noted in many instances, the variances allowed on other lots are greater than the leeway needed to bring both structures into compliance.
An ‘uncomfortable’ situation
According to the report created by director of community and protective services Christa Wilkinson, the June order wasn’t the first non-compliant fence erected on the Swerhuns’ property.
The county discovered a fence exceeding height regulations on the lot in January of 2021, and after several interactions between the municipality and homeowners, the couple applied for a variance allowance. The Municipal Planning Commission denied the request, and the decision was upheld by the Sub-Division Development Appeal Board.
After their appeal was denied, the Swerhuns did install a six-foot fence, but that fence was recently replaced with the current eight-foot fence as their attempt at solving privacy issues and ongoing disagreements about unsightly storage and general property use between the neighbours.
“The windows on that main cabin look into our yard, and the six-foot fence did not cover the entire window,” said Donna. “Surveillance cameras were put into the windows that look into our house and our yard.”
She added additional cameras installed in the neighbour’s yard record the Swerhuns’ activities on their own property and pick up conversations as well. “It makes it very uncomfortable,” said Donna.
The Swerhuns cited section 9.14 of the LUB, covering lighting and surveillance equipment, that notes outdoor cameras and equipment shall not be directed into public spaces or infringe on the privacy or enjoyment of neighbouring lots.
“We’ve had this addressed before, but it hasn’t been enforced at all,” said Donna. “I have a binder full of pictures showing where the cameras are and how invasive they are.”
The new fence was built approximately three months ago, and no development permit application was received by the county. Donna noted in response to a councillor question the couple were following neighbourhood precedent and said in the past, other residents had built first and permitted later.
Coun. Gary Cromwell posed a what-if question, inquiring what the Swerhuns’ plan of action would be if the cameras in question were raised above the new fence height.
“Are we going to get this again, where we find that you’ve gone ahead and demolished an eight-foot fence and put up a twelve-foot fence?” asked Cromwell. “I can see this going back and forth until we’re looking at a 30-foot concrete wall.”
LaRose said the camera angles factor into the privacy concern. Cameras installed and pointed near eye level capture different visuals than cameras pointing downwards from a height. He also said if retaliation between the parties were to escalate, further intervention by bylaw authorities would be necessary.
The storage shed’s placement was selected in order to preserve the Swerhuns’ off-highway vehicle pathway on their property; but the family stressed the height of the fence was a much more intentional and necessary decision.
“There are fewer of these moments of inappropriate behaviour, or maybe people not being their best because they’re having a tough time, they’re going through something and they significantly disagree,” said LaRose. “When I come up, (we) wave to each other, we smile. I don’t witness any conflicts between two emboldened parties. My parents are happier.”
“I think it’s very important that the council appreciate that we are trying to make this all work. We are trying very, very hard. We have invested a great deal of money trying to make it all work,” added Donna.
Councillors discussed the Swerhuns’ appeal in closed session. Reeve Brian Hall said it was first compliance order appeal this roster of councillors had seen in their term.
They returned to open session and voted to uphold the compliance order for the storage shed, with a new date of Aug. 14.
Coun. Joe Gerlach was opposed.
Councillors were split on the issue of the fence; with a 5-4 vote, the decision to uphold the order with a new date of Aug. 14 was passed.
Hall and councillors Camille Wallach, Kelly Chamzuk, Tracy Holland, and Rob Minns were in favour, while Ashtin Anderson, Natasha Kapitaniuk, Gerlach and Cromwell were opposed.
