Article 54 Monaghan Substitute Motion

Open PDF in new window

Arlington Town Meeting — Substitute Motion

ARTICLE NO. 54 Dated: 04/18/2026

I, Caitlin Monaghan, do hereby submit the following Substitute Motion under Article 54:

Voted:

That the Zoning Bylaw be and hereby is amended as follows:

Amend SECTION 5.3.12.A Traffic Visibility, as follows:

Across Street Corners. For the purposes of this section, the sight triangle shall mean the

triangular area on a corner lot enclosed by the portions of the property lines abutting intersecting

streets and a straight line joining points on those property lines 20 feet distant from their point of

intersection, or, in the case of a rounded corner, from the point of intersection of their tangents at

the street intersection. Between the property lines of intersecting streets and a line joining points

on the property lines 20 feet distant from their point of intersection or in the case of a rounded

corner, the point of intersection of their tangentsWithin the sight triangle, no building or structure

in any R district may be erected and no vegetation other than shade trees may be maintained

between a height of three feet and seven feet above the plane through their the curb grades of the

intersecting streets. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a fence exceeding three feet in height, as

measured from the plane through the curb grades of the intersecting streets, may be erected

within the sight triangle provided that the portion of such fence exceeding three feet in height, as

so measured, does not materially impede the vision of operators of motor vehicles and has an

opacity of less than 35%. Opacity shall be measured as the proportion of solid material to total

area when viewed perpendicular to the fence line.

Comment:

The primary purpose of this amendment is to allow fences above three feet in height near corners

if those fences do not block the view of drivers. In the current zoning bylaw, the vision of drivers

is invoked to impose height restrictions on structures and vegetation in two areas in R districts:

across corners (5.3.12.A) and adjacent to driveways (5.3.12.B). In the case of driveways, this

restriction is not absolute: structures exceeding the height limit are permissible if they do not

impair visibility. The intent of this amendment is to provide a similar, visibility-based exception

to corner lots, but with additional guardrails. Specifically, the exception is limited to fences, and

an objective standard ensuring visibility—opacity of less than 35%—is added to streamline

enforcement and reduce the need for subjective judgment. If passed, this amendment will

provide relief to a subset of property owners with safe-but-illegal fences who are at risk of being

required to demolish their fences if ISD should choose to enforce the existing bylaw. It will also

simplify prospective fence construction, obviating the need to choose between a costly and time-

consuming variance and fencing that either excludes a large portion of the yard or is of

inadequate height to safely contain children and dogs.

The secondary purpose of this amendment is administrative: to clarify the region on corner lots

subject to height restrictions. The current text uses the ambiguous phrase “property lines of

intersecting streets.” The Inspectional Services Department (ISD) interprets this to mean

property lines bounding individual lots, rather than the curb line. In this amendment, the text is

rephrased to reflect ISD’s interpretation.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Caitlin Monaghan

Precinct 8

Date Voted: ____________

Action Taken: __________