Concerns regarding the proposed fence centered on its placement relative to a retaining wall and the resulting impact on sightlines for drivers on Henry Street. Board members highlighted the risks associated with reduced visibility, particularly when vehicles exit driveways onto the street. It was noted that a row of trees, previously affecting visibility, had been removed, but the fence could present a similar obstruction. One member remarked that the fence could prevent a neighbor from seeing oncoming traffic when backing out of their driveway, emphasizing the potential safety threat.

The discussion also focused on the fence’s height when considered alongside the retaining wall. If constructed as proposed, the fence could reach ten feet at one end, creating an abrupt transition that could further impede visibility. The board stressed the necessity of adhering to zoning ordinances, which require a 20-foot setback from the curb. The homeowners initially requested a 10-foot setback but later attempted to reduce it to three feet, neither of which complied with ordinances. Board members expressed concern that the fence’s proximity to the street could obstruct sightlines, posing a danger to drivers.

Complications arose over property line confusion, with uncertainty about whether the retaining wall was on the applicants’ property or that of a neighbor. Accurate property surveys were deemed essential, as the board could not authorize a fence on a neighbor’s land. The applicants were advised to consult their neighbors for possible surveys to clarify property boundaries. Safety concerns extended to the proposed gates, with the risk of vehicles obstructing the roadway when attempting to open them. Suggestions were made to consider a chain-link fence or a see-through option to improve visibility and maintain safety.

Despite the homeowners’ insistence on the vinyl fence, the board concluded that the application could not be approved as presented due to non-compliance with setback requirements and safety concerns. The homeowners were encouraged to revise their proposal, possibly applying for a variance or considering alternative materials and placements that align with zoning regulations.

Another discussion involved an application for a property with an above-ground swimming pool and existing chain-link fence. The board scrutinized the fence’s placement and the lack of adequate fencing around the pool, highlighting safety risks. The representative confirmed the pool’s presence upon acquiring the property but acknowledged the insecurity of the current fencing situation. Board members underscored the need for a proper barrier to prevent unauthorized access to the pool, citing the risk of drowning for children who could easily climb over the existing three-foot fence.

Given these safety concerns, the board recommended that the representative explore options to install a compliant fence around the pool. Immediate action was urged, with suggestions to consult a pool company for appropriate fencing solutions. The representative agreed to investigate materials and consider redesigning the fence layout to address visibility concerns and meet safety regulations.

The board’s decisions underscored the challenges in balancing individual property desires with community regulations designed to ensure safety and uniformity. Both applications highlighted the need for homeowners to comply with established zoning ordinances while addressing safety issues in residential areas.