Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
November 8,2021 Special Town Meeting#1(2021-1),cont. <br /> Mr.Kelly stated that in the case of a structure that was causing a danger,they would <br /> always work with the homeowner and find alternatives to make it safer. <br /> Mr.Bartenstein followed up with a question of whether,with the Planning Board <br /> version in place,any fence over 4 feet needed a Special Permit and safety issues <br /> would be taken into consideration,and that if it could be done as of right,it would be <br /> an existing structure and seemed more difficult to undo. <br /> Mr.Pato stated that even with the Amendment,safe viewing distance is still <br /> considered safe driving distance. <br /> Mr.Bartenstein asked whether there would be a process to address it if it was <br /> considered"as right". <br /> Mr.Pato stated that this would be a violation of Zoning if it were built and create safe <br /> stopping distance problems. <br /> Mr.Bartenstein asked how this affected sight lines when trees were present. <br /> Mr.Hornig noted that Zoning does not consider trees as"structures or fences"so they <br /> were not constrained with planting of trees or vegetation. He further noted that if they <br /> were extending into the public right-of-way,the Town had rights and could trim them. <br /> Mr.Kelly agreed. <br /> Mr.Bartenstein stated that he was opposed to the Amendment due to safety concerns. <br /> 8:31 p.m. Jodia Finnagan,Pct. 6,stated that a 4 or 6 foot fence might seem higher depending <br /> upon sightlines and questioned whether the concern was sightlines or viewing a tall <br /> structure. <br /> Mr.Pato noted that sightlines were taken care of in a different section and that the goal <br /> was to allow a fence to exist over a retaining wall. <br /> 8:34 p.m. John Rossi,Pct. 1,noted that if the fence were only 4 feet,unwanted animals could <br /> come into the yard such as coyotes and therefore supported the Amendment. <br /> 8:35 pm. Katherine Reynolds,Pct. 1,asked whether 6 ft.fences were allowed on top of a <br /> retaining wall or on the property without the Amendment. Mr.Pato stated that they <br /> were,but in small yards,the setback was an undue burden on a property owner. <br /> 8:37 p.m. Mr.David Kanter,Pct. 7,noted that this was an interesting discussion but that he was <br /> more inclined to not make it"by right"as long as a Special Permit process was in <br /> place. <br /> 8:38 pm. Tad Dickenson,48 Hancock Street,stated that total fence height was brought up in <br /> Planning Board. Developers wanted flat lawns rather than yards that conform with <br /> natural grade and this could create retaining walls over 4 feet,where safety dictates an <br /> additional fence so that people do not fall off. 6 foot retaining walls with 6 foot fences <br /> have been proposed,example:53 Hancock Street. <br /> 8:40 p.m. The Moderator opened the voting portal on the Amendment. The Moderator noted <br /> that a simple majority was required on the Amendment. <br /> Following remote electronic vote tallying,the Moderator declared the: <br /> Motion to Amend Article 12 <br /> Failed on a vote of: <br /> Yes No Abstain <br /> 78 103 3 <br /> MOTION FAILS <br />