Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-A119 88 and 100 Mill Lane Comment Letter Stayn and RosenUffinj DD OCT 2 6 7.076 October 26, 2026 Old King'c: Highway Yarmouth Old King's Highway Historic District Committee Historic District Town of Yarmouth, Massachusetts Re: Application 26-A119 for Fencing and Gates at 88 and 100 Mill Lane, Yarmouth Port Dear Members of the Yarmouth Old King's Highway Historic District Committee, We recently learned of the application by the owners of 88 and 100 Mill Lane for fencing and gates associated with their planned commercial farming operation. We were not formally notified. We own the property at 128 Water Street, which sits approximately 75 feet from 88 Mill Lane, diagonally across Water Street, and appears on the map on page 6 of Applicant's filing. We have a direct view of areas proposed for fencing and gates, making us directly affected neighbors. We write to express our concern that the proposed work conflicts with the Committee's requirements and would materially alter the historic character of Water Street and Mill Lane. The application substantially understates the proposed work. Applicant describes the project as primarily the restoration and maintenance of existing agricultural fencing. Its own Site Plan, however, identifies net -new "proposed" fencing and gates in numerous locations and calls for substantial existing fencing to be moved, which would involve demolition and new construction. We ask the Committee to evaluate the work shown on the Site Plan, including the new gates and new or relocated fencing, against Applicant's description of the project. The proposed heights appear to conflict with the Committee's requirements_ The Committee's rules prohibit fencing over four feet high forward of a building's front fascia. Nearly all the proposed fencing, ranging from 54" to 84", would stand between the houses at 88 and 100 Mill Lane and the street. The proposed 84" vegetable garden fence also exceeds the six- foot height limit and is substantially taller than the existing fence. The submission does not explain why an 84" fence is necessary given the lot's topography. The proposed 72" driveway gates would be substantially taller than the existing gates at the barn's Water Street entrance. A new 72" gate is also proposed for the 88 Mill Lane driveway and would be visible from the street. The proposed 54-inch perimeter fencing would also be taller than the existing fencing. Applicant's submission also leaves important details unresolved. It does not make clear whether the proposed perimeter fencing would sit atop the existing stone walls or behind them, despite the Site Plan's notation that the stone wall would be "augmented." Also, Applicant's submission inconsistently identifies the perimeter fencing's height as either 54" or 56". Further, it is unclear whether the stated heights account for Condition 19(l) of the Yarmouth Conservation Commission's September 23, 2025 Order of Conditions, which requires fencing around stormwater Best Management Practices to be at least 6" above grade to allow wildlife passage. We ask the Committee to clarify the proposed fence heights, their placement relative to the stone walls, and how the required ground clearance would be maintained before determining compliance with its requirements. ,�t(,-,A)>q The iproposed materials do not a ear to be consistent with the neighborhood's historic character. Applicant describes wrought -iron fencing as consistent with the property's history, but its photographs show no existing metal fencing at 88 or 100 Mill Lane. We are unaware of any wrought -iron fencing visible along Water Street or Mill Lane. Long stretches of 54"-56" wrought -iron fencing in currently open areas could impact views and alter the historic, open character of Water Street and Mill Lane, Yarmouth's oldest road. The application also appears to lack the explanation required by the Committee for use of metal fencing. We have similar concerns about the proposed black -mesh -covered post -and -beam fencing. Applicant's photographs show uncovered split -rail fencing, and we know of no comparable black -mesh -covered fencing along either street. Black mesh would be conspicuous in the open landscape and would detract from the historic setting. Also, Applicant has not specified the size of the openings in the proposed welded -wire, black -mesh, or other wire covering, which matters to the fence's visual character. Especially on long stretches of 54"-56" fencing, openings smaller than 6"x6" could give the fencing a more industrial appearance than the uncovered split -rail fencing shown in Applicant's photographs. Applicant's claimed screening does not reflect actual conditions. Applicant states that most paddock, pasture, and vegetable garden fencing is screened from public view or visible only through brief, oblique views of existing vegetation. Based on our direct view from I28 Water Street, that description does not appear accurate; we would see the proposed six -foot -high gate and 54"-56" perimeter fencing along Water Street from our property. The Committee should evaluate the proposed fencing as it would appear from the public ways and nearby properties, including in areas with little or no vegetative screening. Finally, the Site Plan and the Conservation Commission's publicly available Order of Conditions indicate additional anticipated work, including a manure building and concrete pad near the corner of Mill Lane and Water Street and an animal run-in structure visible from the street. Although Applicant is not currently seeking approval for these structures, they appear to be part of the same planned commercial farming operation. We ask the Committee to consider this broader context when evaluating the cumulative visual impact on the historic streets and neighboring properties. The proposed heights, materials, visibility, and unresolved plan details raise substantial questions about compliance with the Committee's requirements and the effect of the project on the historic character of Water Street and Mill Lane. We respectfully ask the Committee to address these issues in evaluating the application. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments. Respectfully, Joshua Stayn and Rachel Rosen