Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals voted Monday night to uphold most of a zoning enforcement officer's cease and desist order against the activities of the homeowner at 178 Mather St.

The board agreed that three things Andrew H. Reiss has built in his yard meet the definition of structures, according to the town's zoning laws, and therefore require him to obtain a permit from the Planning and Zoning Department to keep them. The panel found a fourth item, which Reiss calls a "peace fence," not to be a structure and, therefore, it does not require a permit.

The issues concerning Reiss' property came before the commission because he was appealing a cease and desist order issued by Zoning Enforcement Officer Timothy Bunting. Bunting testified he has been responding to complaints about Reiss' property since Reiss began piling up discarded items in his yard after moving in three years ago.

Bunting's order identified four structures he said Reiss needed permits to build. In passing out photos of the structures, Bunting said he could not describe what some of them were.

Reiss has been a source of controversy since moving in, according to neighbors who attended the meeting, for collecting discarded items, including lengths of pipe, an ironing board and scraps of material, to incorporate in his fence.

Reiss, who said he is a landscaper, told the board that when completed, the fence will keep deer away from his vegetable garden and prevent his dog from running into neighbors' yards.

A phone listing for Hamilton's Landscaping is shown at Reiss' address.

Reiss said the "reclaimed material" he collects saves water and energy, and is being used to create a "multi-functional landscape." He said the structural components of the fence, which he estimated is now 60 to 70 feet long, will eventually be hidden by an overgrowth of various vines and other vegetation he'll plant along it.

Using a picture frame and several stick-like items, including a cooking skewer, Reiss demonstrated how he's building his fence. After fastening the items in place with wire, he strung lengths of vegetation over them, which he pulled from his pockets.

Reiss said his vision for his three-quarters of an acre property is to have an interesting landscape of recycled materials. When he looks across his property, he said, he'll see vegetation instead of his neighbor's house, and if he wants to be naked in his yard, no one will see him.

Bunting said that during one visit to Reiss' property he told him, "You've got to clean this place up. It's a junkyard." After several months, Bunting said, Reiss cleared his property of debris.

As for his cease and desist order, Bunting said some of Reiss' structures were too close to the property line, although there are no current surveys of his property.

In response to Reiss telling the commissioners he operates his landscaping business out of his house, Bunting said had he known that, he would have included that in his  cease and desist order since operating a business out of a residence in that area of town is a zoning violation.

Four residents of Mather Street spoke before the commission, including Madeleine Avnayim of 172 Mather St.

Avnayim said Reiss violates zoning regulations by parking his dump truck on his property and posting his business sign in front of his house. She said he also openly burns things in his yard.

Most blatant, said Avnayim, is that Reiss continues to build structures on his property despite warnings from the town, which she said was arrogant and showed disrespect.

Diane Rohde, of 7 Mather St., said she was terrified her 11–year-old child might get a glimpse of Reiss walking around his yard naked, and said calling his property a junkyard was a correct description.

Reiss concluded his comments saying he apologized to everyone upset with the appearance of his yard, but, "what you see now isn't what you get when it's done."

At the same time, he said, "I'm not the only one at fault – I'll take partial blame."

During their deliberations the commissioners struggled with the town's definition of a structure, and whether it included fences.

Agreeing with Bunting's earlier testimony that it was difficult to understand the purpose of some of the structures, the commissioners decided to identify them as:

1. a subject located in the backyard
2. an arbor with pitch fork
3. a mobile
4. a fence

In voting, they agreed 5-0 that items one and two were structures, upholding Bunting's decision that a permit was required to build them.

The vote for item three was 4-1, supporting Bunting's decision, with Commissioner John Comiskey dissenting.

For item four, the vote was 4-1 against defining the fence as a structure, overruling Bunting's decision.