Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Fence Approval topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commission approves 6‑foot privacy fence at 104 Shore Drive with conditions after neighbors raise access and camera concerns

Dennis Old Kings Highway Regional Historic District Commission · June 24, 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

The Dennis commission approved a 6‑foot fence at 104 Shore Drive with conditions (vertical boards, 8‑inch gap, good side facing the right‑of‑way), amid neighbor objections about access and allegations a post with a camera recorded nearby properties. The board deferred enforcement matters to the building department.

At a meeting of the Dennis Old Kings Highway Regional Historic District Commission, the board considered an application from Brian Hickey to install a 6‑foot privacy fence along a private way at 104 Shore Drive. Hickey said the fence would sit on his property, behind vegetation, and include an approximately 8‑inch clearance at the bottom to allow animals to pass.

Paul Marr, a neighbor, described long‑running disputes and objected to what he said was an intrusive post and camera on Hickey’s property. “There’s a camera that is videotaping and audio taping all of us on our property,” Marr said, raising concerns about privacy and enforcement.

Hickey told the commission he had removed the camera and the post in question. “I have removed that camera and that post. It’s no longer there,” he said during the hearing. The chair and other board members said that enforcement or permit questions for a post or sign belong to the building department and encouraged neighbors to file complaints there for investigation.

The board discussed historic‑district standards and typical placement rules (the commission generally does not allow solid fences forward of the house). Because the fence was located within a vegetative buffer and not in front of a principal façade, commissioners were willing to approve it with conditions intended to limit visual impact and preserve public access along the way.

A motion to approve the application carried with conditions requiring the boards to run vertically, the good/finished side to face the right‑of‑way, a six‑foot maximum post height, and approximately an eight‑inch clearance at the bottom. The commission noted there was one recorded opposing vote in the roll call but the motion otherwise passed.

The commission advised neighbors that complaints about an unpermitted post, sign or surveillance equipment should be taken to the building department for enforcement action.