Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears competing views on retaining 6‑ft fence at 7 Shoreside Road; continues case and asks city for mitigation options
Summary
Britney Dunn asked to retain a recently installed 6‑foot fence on a corner lot at 7 Shoreside Road. Supporters stressed privacy and reduced yard trash; opponents warned the solid fence blocks sight lines at Post Island/C Street. The board continued the case to May 26, 2026 and asked staff to explore mitigation including a convex mirror and signage.
Britney Dunn, the applicant for 7 Shoreside Road, told the Zoning Board the fence was built to match nearby yards and to provide privacy for her family, which includes young children and dogs. Dunn said she believed the fence complied with the code’s front‑lot‑line provisions and did not know it violated height rules; she also said neighbors have told her the fence reduced trash in the yard and that the property is unique because the backyard faces a main road.
A traffic consultant for the applicant, Steven Saragusa of Bowman Consulting, presented a site‑distance analysis and said stopping sight distance along C Street and intersection sight distance toward the right exceed recommended thresholds and that the constrained left‑turn sight distance at the measured design point nonetheless met required stopping sight distances at the tested offsets. The city traffic department’s review and a separate technical review agreed that the most constrained movement (a left turn from Post Island Road) does not meet the AASHTO recommended sight triangle at the standard measurement point, though visibility improves when a driver pulls forward.
Neighbors and residents who spoke opposed the fence on safety grounds, saying drivers often exceed the posted speed and that turning visibility from Post Island Road toward the left is limited by the fence. Speakers urged mitigations including moving the fence back at the corner, installing high‑mounted convex mirrors, advanced warning signage, crosswalk flashing lights and longer‑term roadway changes. Ward 1 Councilor David Jacobs said the neighborhood sought a compromise and recommended short‑term mitigation such as a convex mirror mounted on a pole higher than the reach of vandalism and consideration of moving the fence back a few feet.
The board did not grant the variance. Instead, the board voted to continue ZBA2565 to May 26, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., asked the applicant to consult further with the city traffic department and directed staff to pursue short‑term mitigations (mirror/signage) and to return with documentation that the mitigation has been installed and assessed. The board member who made the motion and the second were not named in the record; the roll call was recorded as a unanimous voice vote.
