A proposal to extend a 6‑foot cedar board fence along the north boundary of 110 Wahwinet Road prompted sustained discussion at the Feb. 20 Conservation Commission meeting, with commissioners and neighbors questioning whether a solid board fence within the 50‑foot buffer would harm coastal bank functions, wildlife passage and scenic view. The hearing was continued to March 6.

Brian Madden of LEC Environmental Consultants, representing Lydia Denny Palmer LLC, said the fence is designed with 4–6 inches of ground clearance to allow small wildlife passage and that the applicant would replace non‑native plantings in the 25‑foot buffer zone with native shrubs. Madden described the fence posts as hand‑dug to minimize disturbance and said the cedar stockade would weather to blend with vegetation; he argued screening plantings would supplement the design.

Commissioners raised regulatory concerns: the commission's rules treat the 100‑foot zone (coastal bank buffer) as carrying the same protections as the resource itself. Several commissioners, including chair Seth Engelberg and RJ Turcotte, said performance standards require avoidance of adverse effects on bank height, stability, wildlife habitat, vegetation and scenic views. Engelberg said the proposal “cannot be done in accordance with the performance standards” without a showing that no reasonable alternatives exist. RJ and other commissioners recommended alternatives such as split‑rail fencing combined with plantings; the applicant said dense planting had failed previously because neighboring property owners repeatedly trimmed it back.

Public comment: abutter John Walker said the fence had been installed illegally in 2023 and remained on the ground for over a year before enforcement action; he objected to new permanent screening and said the proposed fence would alter migration patterns for deer and rabbits. The applicant and counsel noted some neighbors have previously trimmed planting, limiting the effectiveness of vegetative screening and argued the board fence is intended to address trespass and privacy concerns.

Outcome and next steps: the commission asked the applicant to consider alternatives, including split‑rail fencing with planting, and continued the hearing to March 6 to allow the applicant to respond with alternatives or additional analysis. No permit or waiver was granted on Feb. 20.