2021-11-08-STM#1-min-as Amended June 2022

Browse Search

November 8,2021 Special Town Meeting#1(2021-1),cont. YARD,MINIMUM REQUIRED A strip of land of uniform depth required by this bylaw measured from the lot s-�4 line and adjacent thereto. 8:10 P.M. Mr.Pato noted that Article 12 proposed changes to the Zoning Bylaw to adjust how fences and retaining walls were defined,where they were placed,and limits on how tall each structure could be,based on its location. He then explained his Amendment in further detail and told of witnessing a child bicyclist toppling over a 4 foot retaining wall. The property owners built a new retaining wall to better level the yard and added a chain link fence on top of it to provide a safety barrier. He noted that this type of mitigation would not conform to the proposed Article. 8:11 P.M. Mr.Hornig,Planning Board Chair,noted that the Planning Board unanimously did not recommended the adoption of the Amendment and that they supported the original Motion. 8:12 p.m. Ms.Hai stated that Select Board had voted 4 members in favor,and one opposed,with the one opposed concerned about height issues. 8:13 p.m. Deborah Strod,Pct. 6,asked that Mr.Hornig explain the process of obtaining an exception if the Amendment was not passed. Mr.Hornig noted that permits for higher fences and retaining walls could be obtained through a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals if warranted for certain reasons. 8:14 p.m. Robert Avallone,Pct. 8,questioned how the Planning Board would feel if the Amendment succeed. Mr.Hornig noted that the Board would continue to support the Motion as the language was clearer and unambiguous. 8:17 p.m. Steven Heinrich,Pct.3,pointed out two recent examples of walls being put up in the front of a property and asked if the Amendment was approved whether they would be legal,but if not,what would be permittable under the current Article. Mr.Hornig noted that as with any other zoning change,existing structures would be considered permitted as retained and maintained indefinitely and would only require a Special Permit if they wished to expand the structure or replace with larger structure. Mr. Heinrich followed up with a question as to who would review the Special Permit application. Mr.Hornig noted that this would be the Zoning Board of Appeals. 8:20 p.m. Dawn McKenna,Pct.6,asked how many referrals had to be brought before the Fence Viewer Committee due to property disputes. Mr.Honig asked that James Kelly,Building Commissioner,be recognized. Mr.Kelly stated that while he was not the current Fence Viewer,most questions arose on tear downs with grade changes. He estimated that the Fence Viewer services were used about a dozen times in a year. 8:23 p.m. Melinda Walker,Pct. 8,questioned Mr.Pato about the story of the bicyclist he had mentioned in his opening remarks and whether it had occurred on a hill or flat land. Mr.Pato noted that was on a steep hill incline. Ms.Walker then asked if the homeowner had put up a fence on top of the retaining wall. Mr.Pato stated that there had already been a retaining wall on his property,and the property owner that lives up the hill from him built a retaining wall right off of their property line with a chain link fence on top of it,creating the safety barrier. Ms.Walker questioned whether the addition of the chain link caused it to be approximately 12 feet tall.Mr.Pato stated that in this instance,it was 8-10 feet tall.Ms.Walker stated that a 6 foot fence on top of a 6 foot retaining wall seemed too big to be an allowable structure. 8:25 p.m. John Bartenstein,Pct. 1,asked whether the safe stopping distance issue would be grandfathered in if it was interfering with a safety issue. Mr.Hornig said that from a zoning point of view the structure would be considered existing non-conforming and would be maintained indefinitely,but he would defer to Mr.Kelly or the DPW regarding the question.