Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Visual Buffer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Deerfield board for trees to restore visual buffer; board tables request for legal review
Summary
Resident Mason Dupri asked the board to require a staggered row of evergreens to restore screening between his property and the town yard, saying a recent change removed prior sight protection; the board raised cost and private-benefit concerns and voted to ask town counsel for guidance before acting.
Mason Dupri, who said he lives at 12 Church Street, told the Deerfield Select Board he wants a visual buffer installed between his property and the town yard, proposing the town require a staggered row of evergreen plantings roughly 6 to 8 feet tall to restore privacy and screening. “I would like a visual buffer,” Dupri said, adding he submitted a winter photograph showing that changes made during a recent project have worsened the view from his property.
Dupri argued that while the site previously met a grandfathered condition, alterations mean that grandfathered status no longer applies. He urged the board to either require screening as part of site-plan standards or to instruct staff to clarify options for mandatory buffers. “It'9s not like I'9m trying to get something elaborate,” Dupri said. “I'9m really just asking for what I understand to be industry standard for visual buffer.”
Board members raised practical and legal concerns. They said trees in the narrow, shaded strip between the properties may struggle because of competition and elevation changes, and noted the town had not budgeted for planting comparable screening. A member noted that the town cannot spend public funds for a purely private benefit without a clear legal basis.
Rather than decide the issue immediately, a member moved to table the matter and ask Karen (staff) to consult town legal counsel on whether the town has an obligation to provide a buffer or whether alternative remedies would be permitted; the motion was seconded and carried. The board also asked staff to clarify whether town-owned land could be used for plantings, and whether residents could be advised about voluntary planting options on private property.
Next steps: the board left the matter open pending advice from town counsel on the legal boundaries for public spending and the interpretation of grandfathered site status.
