A decision made in April by the Wiscasset Historic Preservation Commission, denying a certificate of appropriateness for Celeste Edwards’ fence on Fort Hill Street, was overturned at a Board of Appeals meeting on June 19.

Before the appeal was heard, the new board chose its officers. The chair was Susan Blagden, who also serves on the commission. Joan Barnes was chosen as vice chair. Blagden recused herself and left the meeting before the board began its deliberations.

Edwards, who bought her property in August 2016, maintained she was unaware of the commission or the preservation ordinance when she constructed her fence in September 2016. Because the property was in the Historic Overlay District, she should have first obtained a certificate and made the new fence look as much like the old one as possible.  However, in other parts of town, there is no requirement to obtain a building permit to demolish and rebuild a fence, according to Town Planner Ben Averill.

Averill said that when the Planning Office learned of the fence as the result of other conversations with Edwards’ builder, he advised Edwards to fill out the application for a certificate, which she did, in October. Because she is vision-impaired and does not leave the house after dark, she asked for a meeting during the day or in the spring when it would be light in the evening, she said.

Instead, the commission put Edwards on the agenda every month from November on, until she was finally able to attend in April. At that time, the commission denied the certificate and stated she would have to tear down the fence. Averill had referred members to the ordinance, which requires that they write a letter to the code enforcement officer and ask him to approach the Select Board and leave the Selectmen to determine what action they would take; Averill said Edwards could not be required to remove the fence without the town taking action against her in court.

Members of the Appeals Board said the procedure in the autumn of 2016 seemed murky, and that communication issues between the commission and residents caused a gray area that Edwards fell into, because she did not receive any notification of her home being in the district. Edwards also denied ever receiving any notification about the commission or the ordinance, which in October 2016, was sent to residents with a post office box, but not to those who received mail at their physical address.

A near neighbor, Jan Hubbs-Bailey, said she had also never received notification that her home was in the district.

Commission member James Kochan disputed that people had been uninformed, but said that even if that were so, the law was on the books and ignorance of the law was no excuse. He said that when he moved to Wiscasset, he came to town hall to determine what sorts of permits were required. “Anyone would try to find out what kinds of rules were in place before making changes to a historic home,” he said. He outlined the application Edwards had turned in, stating it was the shortest application ever turned into the commission, and then he explained why the commission rejected it.

Barnes, served as chair in Blagden’s absence, interrupted Kochan and said that they had enough information from him.

After a brief discussion, the board, on a motion from member John L. Blagdon Jr., voted unanimously to overturn the commission’s decision.

Kochan left the meeting immediately. Edwards said she was very happy to have the issue behind her. She is still considering selling her home because of the bad feeling she said was generated by the commission’s actions, and she has received an offer. “But I don’t want to move,” she said. “I’ll have to give it a lot of thought.”