Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Fence Modification topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

ZBA rules Ferncroft fence replacement a major modification, orders new public hearing

Zoning Board Of Appeals · March 26, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hearing abutter objections, the Middleton ZBA determined that the proposed replacement and partial increase to a 10‑foot fence along Locust/East streets at Ferncroft Country Club constitutes a major modification and requires a new public hearing.

The Middleton Zoning Board of Appeals on March 26 determined that a proposed repair and replacement of the boundary fence between Ferncroft Country Club and adjacent homes at 8–10 Village Road constitutes a major modification and must be considered at a new public hearing.

Attorney Jill Elmstrom Mann and owner principal Dylan Binnie described the work as repair and replacement of a long‑standing 6‑foot boundary fence; the applicant said certain locations would have the fence increased to 10 feet and would include a black windscreen for safety. The fence was originally approved as part of the site plan review when the nine‑hole course was approved in 1988, counsel said.

Several abutters urged the board to treat the change as substantial. Lisa Macinnis (10 Locust Street) said she was unaware of the proposed screening and said it would significantly affect her views. Lisa Foley (18 Locust Street) questioned the safety need for a 10‑foot fence and suggested arborvitae plantings as an alternative. Viviane Nguyen (85 East Street) said the property abuts conservation land and expressed concern for wildlife and property value impacts. Other neighbors raised similar objections, stressing visual intrusion and potential loss of property value.

Board members — including Alternate Anthony Mirabito, and members Craig Hartwell and Anne Cote — agreed the proposal appears substantial and eliminates abutters’ view amenities. The board voted unanimously to determine the application is a major modification and that a new public hearing is required.

The board did not adopt a revised design at the meeting; it directed that the applicant return for a public hearing with notice to abutters and suggested the board will consider alternatives such as reduced height, partial screening or landscaping mitigation at that hearing.