Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses requiring fence review in historic districts and outlines path to code or guideline changes
Summary
Commissioners debated whether fences visible from streets in the historic district should require Historic Preservation Commission review; members asked staff to draft a short zoning-text amendment and to update design guidelines, with an estimated path to planning-board and trustees review this summer.
Commissioners spent an extended portion of the meeting discussing whether fences visible from streets in the historic district should be required to come before the Historic Preservation Commission, and how to address nonconforming or vinyl fences that commissioners say undermine the district’s character.
Commissioner Catherine raised specific concerns about a nearby white vinyl fence that was allowed administratively and about an apparent discrepancy in the code’s treatment of through lots. “If you have a through lot, the code says that there are no such things as a backyard. You have a rear, you have a front yard,” she said, arguing that the current interpretation has enabled some taller fences along street-facing property lines.
Staff explained the existing practice: fences often do not require building permits and therefore historically have not come to HPC for review; changing that would require a zoning-text amendment or an explicit change to the design guidelines. Planning staff outlined the established process — review by planning consultant Valerie Manastra, a planning-board referral, and a public hearing before the Board of Trustees — and said a short, one-line code change requiring HPC review of fences in historic districts would be the most efficient route.
Commissioners discussed alternatives: (1) a brief zoning-text amendment to require review of street-visible fences in historic districts, and (2) strengthening design-guideline language (with photographic examples) so applicants know what will be considered appropriate. They also queried how repairs of prior nonconforming fences would be handled; staff noted that repairs are currently exempt and that the existing 10% rule is being removed from code, leaving the building inspector to determine whether a repair becomes a replacement.
The commission asked staff to draft a proposed short amendment and to attempt to get the planning consultant to a future meeting; staff said a draft could be circulated before the July meeting so the commission could refine language for possible referral this summer.
No formal action (vote) was taken on a code amendment; the discussion concluded with staff agreeing to draft language and coordinate with the planning consultant and trustees’ office.
