Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fences Gates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning Board approves most variances for 81 Tanglewild, rejects request for solid driveway gates
Summary
The board granted a package of variances at 81 Tanglewild for building coverage, walls and certain setbacks but rejected requests to install fully solid driveway and pedestrian gates, and conditioned some approvals on non‑opacity or tapering of fence height and on stormwater mitigation.
The Zoning Board split decisions on a complex package of requests at 81 Tanglewild, approving a building‑coverage legalization and several setback and height variances while denying a request to install multiple solid, high‑opacity driveway and pedestrian gates that board members said would set an undesirable precedent.
Greg Mercurio, landscape architect and arborist for the owner, said the property had a preexisting nonconforming building coverage of about 23.5 percent and that proposed changes (stepping-stone connections, patio work and a connector) raise coverage to 24.9 percent. "We are proposing a gate on Midland... Gate K will be 6 feet," Mercurio explained, and he described a broader plan of plantings, boardwalks and infiltrators to mitigate runoff. He also explained the intent to tie a proposed section into an existing grandfathered stockade fence.
Board members asked detailed questions about fence height, wall ties, sightlines and whether solid gates were necessary. After debate the board voted down the requested blanket permission for solid gates and opaque driveway gates — citing precedent and neighborhood character — but approved the building‑coverage variance and granted a height/setback variance for a specific retaining‑wall section that tapers from 8.5 feet down to 6 feet and will be largely obscured by planting. Janie Regan, Mary Ellen Carpenter and others supported the coverage request as not substantial; they and the chair accepted conditions limiting opacity and requiring permeability in visible locations.
During public comment a homeowner representative noted an additional personal reason for secure gates: "He has a special needs daughter... she has 2 service dogs," who would benefit from a gated, enclosed area for supervised visits, the representative said. The board balanced that personal concern against the risk of setting a precedent for solid gateway treatments in visible locations and limited approvals accordingly.
The board specified that stormwater drawings and mitigation measures must be finalized and that certain tall fence sections be designed with porosity or tapering; the applicant was told some elements may require separate filings or field verification before final permits are issued.
