The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5126B Petition For Appeal„1� - 1-11K Albl` Al. VII,IN(i PROCta)HRE' PETITION FOR APPEAL WCKET NU. EE ARTICLE Ill SECTIONS 5 & 6 O THE RULES AND REGULATIONS. DATE FILED (PLEASE TYPE OR PRIM) (FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY) King' s highway Regional Historic District Commission 0�G3' �2A�a9u�x►tW4: AY Box 140, Bafnstablc,^ Mass. c02630 a 4- J - Cru/i Appell ant OLS H1v VS, Old- klis lJ /l/411 I L A -y `rc l e p h o n e: 508-362 -0100 rrye,#ee. wart - YAVMOVfZjoowT Town Ylistoric DiArict Con 4ission 1. This is an appeal from the above listed town committee's decision (a copy isattached)on au�a- C--+ /6 r e.kt114tvk-eve ( rY's application for / e” e e, (Applicant) (Project) located at 6rofr oT /IIh �Y �h"C- �/r}IIK- 57• Y'di'mowl dated V 6 O and (approvedldisapproved) by the town's historic district committee on "711y o O and filed on �� ' 4 0 6 (Date) % L(Date) 2. The reason for this appeal is: ,= at �x rAeT _ _ . (If further remarks are needed, attach additional 8 1!2" x t t" sheets) 3. The relationship of the appellant to the subject of appeal is that of � f or (� M, (Applicant / Abutter / Other aggrieved party) 1 4. The remedy sought by the appellant is frC a �a d e4 ,T?y)ee7 (Reversal to town committee's decision I annulment of town committee's decision/remand application to town committee) 5. 1 hereby cerrfy that I have given notice of this appeal to Town Clerk, Town Committee & applicant, if different. 6. In the event that scheduling does not permit I grant an extention until next schedul d regular meet' g.. Date 1 Signat of pellant or designated rep. / , appellant's Address s- J�.��rel. Number U0![�/� w�Y/G Also include name, address & telephone of designee if appellant is not self -represented. Printed by: Paula Guilbicki Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:43-31 PM Title: New Document Page 1 of 2 0 Document Subject: On Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at the Yarmouthport Historic Committee meeting, the four members of the committee that were present denied our proposal for a wooden fence that would be erected along our side and back property lines. The purpose of the proposed fence is to buffer noise from Union Street which has a steady flow of car and truck traffic which travel to and from the mid -cape highway and Route 6A. Union Street has a posted speed limit of 40 m.p.h. When I asked the committee to tell me why they denied our request, they said they voted against the fence because " they did not want a wall of wood that would look like the Connecticut Turnpike". I did not propose a wall of wood that would look like the Connecticut Turnpike. The proposed fence is a wooden board fence that is 5 feet with a lattice top that is 1 foot. It is a natural cedar fence that is considered to be a more upscale fence (over stockade designs). I researched this type of fence after the committee had made a site visit and one member of the committee suggested this type of fence. She called it a "Chatham Style" fence. The proposed fence would be behind a screen of 24 5 foot arborvitae that we have already planted to help buffer the constant noise from the busy street. So, from the beginning, the wooden fence would be screened and would continue to be as the arborvitae grow in. Why did we choose this type of material? Because the three fence companies that we consulted with told us that a 5 or 6 foot solid fence would buffer noise. Our bedroom windows are on the first floor just 45 feet from the road. We hear trucks and traffic all the time. This is not a seasonal problem. This is a major road for anyone traveling from the mid -cape highway to route 6A. A 5 or 6 ft wooden fence that is architecturally attractive and screened by a natural vegetation wall seems to be a good solution for us and the historic area. In no way will this fence resemble the concrete barriers that are constructed along major Interstate highways. We would never consider such a drastic solution. Perhaps the committee member that was most vocal about the "wall of wood that would resemble the Conn turnpike" was concerned that along this very long street that stretches several miles, there are 4 houses that have taller stockade fences (probably 5 or 6 feet). Two of those residences have left the stockade style fence exposed. There is no vegetation wall. One is completely covered by several feet of natural woodland and the fourth has a vegetation wall of what appears to be hemlock. I will personally research the exact number of residences on Union Street and figure out the percentage of homes with board fences (based on the known 4 houses) before our appeals meeting. Four houses in Yarmouthport with tall fences, over a stretch of several miles does not, resemble the Conn. turnpike. The committee met with another resident on the same evening that we presented our proposal. The couple wanted to put up a 5 foot board fence around their back yard to let their dogs out. The committee approved their fence. I ask you, why can 4 other residents on Union Street and another resident requesting on the same evening as we did, all get fences erected. All are wooden. All are 5 or 6 feet. All are for the safety or well being of Printed by: Paula Guilbicki Title: New Document Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:43:32 PM Page 2 of 2 the residents or their pets. Three are on corners on Union Street. All of these residents have been allowed fences and I am not. am also confused by the fact that during the committee's site visit two members of the committee proposed fence options. One member proposed something very similar to what we proposed but instead of a stockade, she proposed a "Chatham style" fence. Another member proposed a fence along the back of our property. Neither of the two were at the hearing and their ideas were dismissed by the remaining four members who were present. This is very confusing to a resident. Committee members are proposing many options and if they do not appear at the hearing, their ideas are not considered valid. I feel that I am being discriminated against. We have been long time residents of Yarmouth. We lived in West Yarmouth for 17 years. This spring we built this house. It was a wooded lot when we began the project. We did not realize how noisy the road would be until the lot was cleared. The secretary in the Historic Committee office at town hall told me that this was a seasonal problem. This is not true. Last week three cars were drag racing up Union Street at 3 a.m. I was up for several hours. Even in October, large flatbed trucks hauling tractors and supplies pass by all week long. Our need for peace of mind and our basic physiological need for sleep are our primary concern. Our sleep is disrupted and we cannot hold a normal tone conversation on the back deck, the traffic noise is too loud. At our first meeting before the committee in September, the committee recommended plantings. We have been adding 4 to 5 foot evergreens since we moved in. We have now put in 24 evergreens. They will take many years before they alone will solve the problem. As I understand it, the committee's major function is to preserve the architectural appearance of the village. Board fences with lattice work with arborvitae seem very appropriate and can be seen in many historic villages, including Yarmouthport. It is an architectural style that has been accepted in many cases. We are appealing the committee vote. We are not proposing a visible concrete barrier. We are proposing a cedar fence and plantings that we already see in our village. We do not want to be discriminated against. 1 TOWN OF YARMOUTH 1146 ROUTE 28 SOUTH YARMOUTH MASSACHUSETi'S 02664-4451 Telephone (508) 398-2231, Est. 292 --- Fax (508) 398-2365 OLD KING'S HIGHWAY REGIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMITTEE November 2, 2000 Mr. & Mrs. Lawrence Carr 608 Grove Street Newton Lower Falls, MA 02462 re: 5 Spinnaker Lane Yarmouthport, MA 02675 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carr, RECEIVED Tni-I nc-w 0AAnl iTH NOV 9 2000 TWVN Auiv Ai6I 1RA I'OR After much discussion, your application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a six foot high stockade fence (as originally proposed) and a 5 foot board and lattice fence (as proposed at the meeting) was unanimously denied. It was the opinion of the Old King's Highway Committee that a fence at this location along Union Street is not appropriate within the historic district. Sincerely, Elizaethntonellis t� t Acting Chairman, OKHC enc EA/pc Printed on Flagded Paper