Town of Hague
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 25, 2007
Members present: Chairman Robert Goetsch, Martin Fitzgerald II, George Ianson, Lindsay Mydlarz, Bill Pittman
Members absent: Glen McKee
Also present: ZEO Catherine Clark, Recording Secretary Nancy Young
Public Hearing
The Public Hearing portion of the meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Robert Goetsch.
Sheehan, (25.3-1-16) 9394 Graphite Mountain Rd., OCI/OCII
The applicant is requesting a variance for a six foot, chain link fence, located one foot from the property line.
The Public Notice, published on 1/7/2007 in the Post Star was read by Robert Goetsch.
No comments, written or spoken were offered.
The Public Hearing was closed at 7:05 pm on a motion made by Lindsay Mydlarz and seconded by George Ianson.
Vote: Carried, 5-0.
Regular Meeting
The regular monthly meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals began at 7:05 pm.
After introductions, Lindsay Mydlarz moved to approve the minutes from December 28, 2006 as written. Martin Fitzgerald seconded.
Vote: Carried, 5-0.
Sheehan, (25.3-1-16) 9394 Graphite Mountain Rd., OCI/OCII
* Lindsay Mydlarz recused herself.
George Ianson began the discussion, making note of the Zoning Board’s previous denials of fences over four feet.
- The fences had to be removed.
- During his time, the Board has never granted a variance to allow an oversized fence; he expressed concern about precedent.
Mr. Ianson also noted that both fences and homes are considered “structures” requiring the same ten ft. setback.
- He does not feel a homeowner should be prohibited from placing a fence on their property line.
- He would like the Town Board to interpret the ordinance to ensure there is consistency throughout.
Discussion ensued concerning the interpretation of the Ordinance.
- Zoning Officers have had differing interpretations of the Ordinance. It is the responsibility of the ZBA to rule on interpretations made by the ZEO.
- Fences are frequently brought before the Board. Because rulings have been based on the term “structure”, it was suggested that review of that term, or perhaps a re-write of the fence definition would be helpful. Zoning Board members will bring suggestions to the next meeting.
In regards to the concern about setting a precedent, Cathy Clark noted Town Attorney Viscardi’s advice that each variance should be granted or denied on its own merits, based on the application.
The Planning Board referral on this application, made on 01/4/2007:
Rolly Allen moved to recommend the ZBA maintain the integrity of the four foot fence regulation as stipulated in the Code 160-52 A (1). Erwin Siwek seconded.
Vote: Carried, 6-0
Bill Pittman offered, and George Ianson seconded the following motion:
To deny the six ft. fence based on the recommendation given by the Planning Board.
Discussion:
There will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood.
The benefit can be achieved by other methods feasible to the applicant other than an area variance - a four ft. fence.
The request is substantial.
The proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The fence is partially visible from the road.
class=Section2>
The alleged difficulty is self created. The cost impact is greater because the fence was built without a permit.
One condition was placed on the motion: To allow a four ft. fence which could be placed one ft. from the property line.
Vote: Motion denied, 1-3
Ayes: Pittman
Nays: Fitzgerald, Ianson, Goetsch
Recused: Mydlarz
Martin Fitzgerald moved, and George Ianson seconded the following motion:
To accept the six ft. fence but move it one ft. from the neighbor’s property line.
Discussion:
There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will there be any detriment to nearby properties. The neighbor has no problem with the fence. The fence is green in color, is only semi- visible by people driving down the road.
The benefit cannot be achieved by other methods feasible to the applicant other than an area variance. Because of the danger from the dogs to the applicant and his family, a six foot fence is needed.
The request is not substantial considering the health and safety of the family. A six foot fence is the standard.
The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the fence is green in color and hardly visible.
The alleged difficulty is self created because no permit was obtained and the applicant built the fence on the neighbor’s property.
Vote: Carried, 4-0
Ayes: Ianson, Pittman, Fitzgerald, Goetsch
Nays: none
Recused: Mydlarz
* Lindsay Mydlarz returned.
Kearns, (25.4-1-4.21) 19 Jakes Rd. OCI/OCII
The applicant would like after-the-fact approval of a half bathroom in the second story garage office. Zoning issue: section 160-10, accessory structure and use
Cathy Clark explained that Mr. Kearns is in the process of bringing the property into compliance. The bathroom/office/storage room built over the garage is only one issue.
Robert Goetsch made a motion not to except the application. Lindsay Mydlarz seconded. The Board felt in order for the applicant to conduct a business at his residence he would need to apply for a Change of Use Variance, from a residential property to a commercial property, first.
Vote: Carried, 5-0
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 pm on a motion heard from Bill Pittman and seconded by Martin Fitzgerald.
Vote: Carried, 5-0