Article 54 Statement Caitlin Monaghan¶

Open PDF in new window

Article 54 FAQ and reference material Caitlin Monaghan, Pct. 8

About the proposal

How does Article 54 promote safety?

Article 54 promotes safety by allowing fences that are tall enough to help contain children and

dogs without deleteriously affecting driver vision.

What impact would Article 54 have?

The physical impact on the built environment will likely be modest, as the current rule is

enforced only on a complaint basis and violations are common.

However, the proposal could:

• Reduce risk of children and dogs entering the street

• Legalize existing safe fences

• Encourage safer, more transparent fence designs

• Eliminate the need to choose between noncompliance, variances, or reduced yard

usability

• Increase bylaw’s perceived legitimacy by aligning it with its stated purpose

Why not build a fence outside the sight triangle?

While the sight triangle is relatively small, the available compliant design options have

significant drawbacks. A diagonal “hypotenuse” fence preserves yard area but results in an

awkward and atypical layout. A setback fence allows a more conventional layout but can

significantly reduce the usable yard area, particularly on smaller lots. In historic districts, where

fences must follow property lines, neither of these options is permissible.

How does the 2026 proposal differ from earlier versions?

My original 2024 proposal was to adapt language from Section 5.3.12(B) so that a height

exception for transparent structures would apply to corners as it does to driveways. However,

feedback from the ARB led me to incorporate three key changes into the 2026 proposal:

• Clarify how the sight triangle is measured

• Limit the height exception strictly to fences

• Introduce an objective opacity standard

The substitute motion is identical to the initial 2026 proposal except that it lacks redundant

language regarding vegetation (which continues to be prohibited above three feet).

Questions addressing the ARB’s vote of no action

Why should Town Meeting consider an article not supported by the ARB?

The ARB was not unanimous on this question: of the six past and present members of the ARB

who have heard versions of this proposal across two Town Meeting cycles (2024 and 2026),

three voted in support and three voted no action.

Why did three members of the ARB vote no action?

The concerns cited included:

• Satisfaction with complaint-based enforcement

• Discomfort supporting a motion not endorsed by the director of Inspectional Services

• Concern about increasing bylaw complexity

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

2

• Concern about proliferation of six-foot chain-link fences

• Concern that the 35% opacity cutoff is arbitrary and cumbersome

• Belief that variances are an appropriate solution

Below, I address each of these concerns.

Complaint-based enforcement

Some ARB members expressed the view that because the current bylaw is only enforced in

response to complaints, it cannot be causing harm since innocuous infractions are not

penalized. I fundamentally disagree with this framing. Town meeting has a responsibility to

ensure our bylaws codify the type of enforcement we’d like to see. In the case of Section

5.3.12(A), this requires alignment of our requirements with the conditions that genuinely affect

visibility and safety.

Complaint-based enforcement is the inevitable result of treating corner fences over three feet as

illegal by default. This stance creates such a glut of noncompliance that Inspectional Services

cannot realistically identify and enforce all violations. In effect, an opaque eight-foot wall and a

42-inch cable rail fence are treated as equally illegal, even though their impacts on visibility are

very different. This makes proactive enforcement difficult: Inspectional Services would either

need to enforce the bylaw uniformly—needlessly antagonizing hundreds of homeowners whose

fences are not creating safety issues—or develop their own subjective criteria for deciding which

violations to pursue. In this context, a complaint-based approach is the most fair and humane

option available to Inspectional Services.

We are very lucky to have Mr. Ciampa as director of ISD—he has a lot of power, but he doesn’t

derive pleasure from catching people in bylaw violations. But as the last fifteen months have

taught us, it is unwise to rely on officials to uphold norms of their own volition when they have

the authority to do otherwise. We trust Mr. Ciampa; do we have the same faith in everyone who

will ever succeed him as director of ISD?

It’s also worth noting that while complaint-based enforcement is our best option given the

current bylaw text, it has major drawbacks. It undermines the ability of the bylaw to serve its

purpose, by failing to address hazards that go unreported. It’s also intrinsically unfair;

complaints depend as much on the quality of relationships between neighbors as on traffic

visibility.

Perspective of the director of Inspectional Services

Some ARB members were uncomfortable supporting a motion that does not have the support of

the director of Inspectional Services. Mr. Ciampa raised two concerns about the 2024 version of

this proposal.

The first was that vegetation could obscure visibility through an otherwise transparent fence.

This has been addressed in the 2026 version by restricting the height exception to fences only;

vegetation (or anything else) is not permitted above three feet within the sight triangle.

The second concern was that violations of the bylaw are already widespread, and that easing

the restriction could encourage further noncompliance. My view is that the opposite is more

likely: bringing attention to the issue and making the bylaw more reasonable would encourage

compliance.

Impact on bylaw complexity

Superficially, this amendment increases bylaw complexity: the text is longer and introduces a

new exception. However, I believe it reduces the practical complexity of both interpreting and

interacting with the bylaw. While the description of the sight triangle becomes more detailed, it

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

3

also becomes interpretable. Furthermore, allowing compliant fences as-of-right simplifies the

process of legally erecting such fences.

Rationale for 35% opacity threshold

Choosing the right opacity threshold is critical. Too high a cutoff allows fences that obstruct

visibility; too low a cutoff limits practical options, encourages awkward design choices (e.g.,

increasing the height to dilute the numerical impact of ornamentation near the top), and reduces

the acceptable margin of error for opacity calculations.

I arrived at 35% by measuring real fences. Styles that preserve visibility usually fall below this

threshold, while those that obstruct visibility consistently exceed it, making this a somewhat

conservative threshold. While any numeric standard can be gamed, the amendment includes a

backstop (compliant fences must not materially impede drivers’ vision) to facilitate enforcement

if this happens.

Opacity is defined as the proportion of solid material when viewed perpendicular to the fence

line. While this does not perfectly match a driver’s perspective, it is simple, intuitive, and

correlates well with real-world visibility. Calculations are mildly annoying but not particularly

difficult. Simple fences can be measured directly, and more complex ones can be analyzed from

photographs. If someone prefers not to calculate opacity, they can continue to comply with the

existing three-foot rule.

For enforcement, the “material impediment” clause means that neither a complainant nor

Inspectional Services needs to calculate opacity in order to act. Opacity primarily serves as an

additional tool: a clear, objective guideline that makes it easy for both homeowners and ISD to

assess compliance in a majority of circumstances.

Impact on the number of six-foot chain-link fences

I do not believe this proposal would result in a substantial increase in tall chain-link fences.

First, the current level of compliance with Section 5.3.12(A) suggests that this provision does

not strongly influence how most people build fences. Second, chain-link fences are already

permitted on interior lots, where they are neither excessively common nor particularly tall; there

is no reason to expect corner lots to be any different. Third, many aesthetically preferable

options—such as ornamental aluminum, wrought iron, and cable rail—meet the opacity

standard.

I considered explicitly prohibiting chain-link fences to address this concern, but I do not think

that that would be appropriate. First, I believe the imposition of limitations on something as

functional and commonplace as a chain-link fence on purely aesthetic grounds is outside of the

proper purview of Town Meeting. Second, restricting the most economical type of fencing would

selectively disadvantage less wealthy households. Third, if town did wish to prohibit a subset of

chain-link fences on aesthetic grounds, the appropriate place to do so would not be a section

entitled “Traffic Visibility.” And finally, were there to be such a prohibition, the appropriate scope

for such would surely not be precisely corner lots in residential districts outside of the MBMF

overlay, which is the scope of Section 5.3.12(A).

Variances vs. bylaw update

Variances are not the right tool for a recurring, low-risk situation.

First, variances are intended to address unusual hardship or edge cases. The widespread

presence of fences taller than three feet on corners suggests that these are not an edge cases.

Second, variances are not a feasible way to normalize existing safe but technically

noncompliant fences en masse. Third, the variance process is expensive, time-consuming, and

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

4

uncertain. It requires a $400 application, attendance at a hearing, and a waiting period, with no

guarantee of approval. And finally, treating corner fences as illegal by default promotes

complaint-based enforcement, with its attendant drawbacks.

Scope of Article 54

Which properties are affected by Article 54?

Section 5.3.12(A) applies only to corners in R districts, except those in the Massachusetts

Avenue/Broadway Multi-Family Overlay.

Couldn’t vegetation or a sign obstruct visibility on an otherwise low-opacity

fence?

The exception in Article 54 applies exclusively to fences—all other structures remain illegal in

the sight triangle above a height of three feet.

Does this affect buildings with small setbacks?

No; the amendment clarifies the sight triangle and allows a fence exception within it, but it does

not change setback requirements or how they are applied.

Examples of compliant fences

Below I have attached images of fences that would comply with the text of Section 5.3.12(A) as

amended by Article 54, with the three-foot cutoff indicated.

These examples are not intended to be a thorough review of all possible fence types. I have

omitted depictions of fences with wood components, including open picket fences, hogwire

fences, and split-rail fences, because the dimensions of the wood pieces typically used make it

uncommon for such fences to come below the 35% opacity threshold. Vinyl pickets fences are

omitted for the same reason. Conversely, chain-link fences are omitted for the opposite

reason—chain-link fences are consistently compliant based on their approximately 25% opacity.

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

5

Fences demonstrating < 35% opacity

Wrought iron fence on cement landscape curb. (Left) View through corner. (Right)

Frontal view. The fence is approximately 62” above the sidewalk at the top of the post and

approximately 57” above the sidewalk at the top of the pickets. The opacity above 36” is

approximately 24%. The red line indicates 36” above the sidewalk.

Cable railing fence. (Left) View through corner. (Right) Frontal view. The top of the fence

is approximately 42” above the deck. The opacity above 36” is approximately 15%. The red

line indicates 36” above the deck.

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

6

Ornamental aluminum fence. (Left) View through corner. (Right) Frontal view. The tops

of the fence posts are approximately 53” above the ground, while the top rail is

approximately 50” above the ground. The opacity above 36” is approximately 32%. The red

line indicates 36” above the ground.

Wrought iron fence on pavers. (Left) View through corner. (Right) Frontal view. The top

of the fence is approximately 48” above the sidewalk. The opacity above 36” is

approximately 30%. The red line indicates 36” above the sidewalk. Note that while the

wrought iron fence is only 36”, its placement on pavers would put it out of compliance were

this corner in a non-MBMF R district in Arlington.

Bylaw text and proposed amendments

Section 5.3.12

(A) Across Street Corners. 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, 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 curb grades.

(B) Visibility for Driveways. A fence, hedge, wall, sign, or other structure or vegetation may

be maintained on any lot provided that in the front yard area, no such structure or

vegetation shall be over two and one-half feet in height above the adjacent ground within

Article 54 FAQ and reference material

7

five feet of the front lot line unless it can be shown that the vegetation or structure will

not restrict visibility in such a way as to hinder the safe entry of a vehicle from any

driveway to the street.

Section 5.3.12(A) with substitute motion language

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. Within 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 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.

Section 5.3.12(A) with language from the initial 2026 proposal