Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA continues fence variance for 20 North Maple Street; applicant to provide measurements and traffic input
Summary
The Zoning Board continued Adam O'Doherty’s request for a variance to install a 6-foot privacy fence within the front setback at 20 North Maple Street and asked the applicant to submit certified distance measurements from lot lines and a brief traffic-safety statement; matter continued to the board’s next scheduled meeting.
The Woburn City Zoning Board of Appeals continued a petition from Adam O’Doherty seeking a variance to erect a 6-foot privacy fence within the front setback at 20 North Maple Street, giving the applicant time to provide certified measurements showing the distance from the lot line and a traffic-safety comment from the city’s traffic safety officer or police reviewer.
O’Doherty told the board his property is on an “island” parcel with complex topography and multiple streets around it; he said the proposed fence location is intended to improve security and contain a child in the backyard and that terrain and slopes limit where a fence can be placed. The board told O’Doherty that to evaluate the variance request it needs precise dimensions on the site plan showing how far the proposed fence would be set in from his lot line. Members asked for certified plot measurements (an as‑built/certified plot) rather than contractor estimates.
Board members also suggested the applicant obtain a brief statement from the city’s traffic safety officer or police reviewer because vehicle and pedestrian sight lines at the adjacent intersection (North Maple/Dexter/Ninth Street area) are a community concern. Several members said the plan should show whether existing shrubs would remain between the fence and the street to soften visual impact.
No vote on the merits occurred. The applicant requested and the board granted a continuance to the next regularly scheduled meeting (the board noted its next meeting date); staff advised the applicant that the board focuses on lot-line setbacks and not on the width of the public right-of-way when making a variance determination. The board asked for a revised site plan showing proposed distance from the lot line, and indicated the building commissioner would verify compliance after any approval.
