Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
July 12, 2010 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Jolly, Brown, Verma; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Member Maloney
Chairperson Lawrence called the meeting to order and began with the new public hearing to give Mr. and Mrs. Blumin an opportunity to read a letter concerning their application that was given to the board at the beginning of the meeting from Carole Griffiths, Chairperson of the Tarrytown Environmental Advisory Council.
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – June 14, 2010
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of June 14, 2010, be approved as submitted. Motion carried
PUBLIC HEARING – Patsch – 96 Crest Drive
The Secretary read the following Notice of Public Hearing:
“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Tarrytown will hold a public hearing at 8:00 p.m. on Monday, July 12, 2010 in the Municipal Building, One Depot Plaza, Tarrytown, New York to hear and consider an application by:
Geoffrey and Kristina Patsch
96 Crest Drive
Tarrytown, NY 10591
for a variance from the Zoning Code of the Village of Tarrytown for property located at the above address regarding the installation of an air conditioner condenser unit within the side yard setback requiring the following variance:
- A variance from Section 305-47 of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
- One side yard: Required: 12 ft. / Existing: 8’-1” / Proposed: 3’-9”
Documents are available for inspection in the Planning and Zoning Office at Tarrytown Village Hall. The property is shown on the Tax Maps of the Village of Tarrytown as Sheet 19A, Block 104, Lot(s): 20 and is located in an R7.5 (Residential) zone.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. Access to the meeting room is available to the elderly and the handicapped. Signing is available for the hearing impaired; request must be made to the Village Clerk at least one week in advance of the meeting.
By Order of the Zoning Board of Appeals”
The certified mailing receipts were submitted
The sign was posted
Board members visited the property.
Chairperson Lawrence read the following Environmental Review:
“I have reviewed this application for installation of an air conditioner condenser unit within the side yard setback and determined the proposal appears to pose no significant adverse environmental impact.”
Mr. and Mrs. Patsch were present at the meeting. They are seeking a variance for an existing air conditioner condenser unit that is located within their side yard setback. Ms. Lawrence stated that she and Ms. Brown were at the site the day before and that Mr. Jolly had been at the previous site visit. She said she noticed during the site visit that there were two condenser units. One to the rear of the house, which cools only the first floor; and the one to the side of the house, is used for the second floor. She also stated that although it is close to the property line, it is not close to the neighbor. Ms. Lawrence asked if they had heard anything negative from the neighbors regarding the unit. Mrs. Patsch responded that they had not.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 96 Crest Drive.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the Findings required by the ordinance:
- That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood
- That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood
- That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method
- That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment
- That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood
- That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community
grants the following variances for 96 Crest Drive:
- A variance from Section 305-47 of the Zoning Code entitled Yards; setbacks as follows:
- One side yard: Required: 12 ft. / Existing: 8’-1” / Proposed: 3’-9”
Motion Carried.
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – Blumin – 119 Cobb Lane
Ms. Lawrence read Carol Griffith’s letter into the minutes as follows:
“To: Village of Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Deer Fencing
I have several concerns about the application for an 8’ fence around the property on Cobb Lane.
1. An eight-foot fence may not be enough to exclude deer in the areas where the land is relatively flat and not heavily wooded. (Many sources recommend adding high tensile wires, increasing the height of the fence to 9 to 10 feet, to increase the effectiveness. Therefore, allowing a variance that would set a precedent does not seem warranted.
2. There are alternatives to high fences (see attachment).
3. An eight-foot fence in a forested or wooded area, if made of ‘invisible’ fencing material, can cause problems to other wildlife. Birds, in particular, might not see the fencing material and become entangled in the fence. This may be more problematic during migration when migratory birds (protected by federal law) might use these kinds of wooded areas as stopovers.
4. The fence must be constructed properly or it could sag, trapping or injuring deer tying to jump over the fence.
I have attached a sheet with some information, with sources noted.”
Signed by: Carole Griffiths, Chair, Village of Tarrytown Environmental Advisory Council
The following is the attachment to Ms. Griffiths’ letter:
“Polypropylene or plastic deer fencing is a heavy plastic mesh that can be used to exclude deer in areas where damage pressure is light to moderate. It can be used to prevent deer damage to gardens, landscaping, some crops and individual plants. It is more flexible than steel wire mesh and readily follows the ground contour.
Because it is flexible, Polypropylene mesh may sag, and the manufacturer recommends that a cable be strung through the top of the fence to support it between posts, The mesh should be supported by posts spaced 3-4, 5 yards apart, and can be fastened to poles using self-locking plastic ties. In wooded areas, fencing staples can be used to attach plastic fencing to trees.
(Maryland Department of Natural Resources –
A little know fact about deer is that although they are good jumpers, they don’t like to jump wide and high at the same time. Gardeners can take advantage of this by building a double fence. The key is to build two parallel fences, about four feet tall, and place them about four feet apart. This way, the deer trying to jump into your garden won’t try for fear of getting stuck in the gap. Planting between the fences will create even more of a visual barrier, further discouraging the deer, try a vine or a climbing rose. Prevent the deer from crawling underneath by using a picket fence for the outside barrier, or pin a wire fence to the ground with landscape staples. (http://www.deerproofgardens.com/deer-proof-your-garden-4-foot-double-fence/)
- May negative feedback is sheer outrage that the State would “give” me a fence that would not, in fact, keep out the deer. I invested close to $4,000 excluding my farm labor time on the additional posts and post installation to install a fence that is inadequate. We watch the deer fly over the 8+ foot fence (Please note that deer caught inside a deer fence during the retail harvest season of a farm engaged in agri-tourism represents a very serious hazard to PYO customers). I installed 12 foot posts at the 3 ½ to 4 foot depth recommended in all instructional materials and seminar demonstrations. My farmer colleagues look at me aghast when I tell them I followed the State’s directions and recommendations. Everyone, apparently, know that a deer fence must
be at least 9 feet, preferable 10 feet (The 10+ fence around the other half of my farm installed by my father in 1994 without State subsidy or assistance, requires no maintenance, is solid as when it was constructed, and keeps out the deer). (2005 NJ Supplemental Deer Fencing Program Evaluation Survey and On-site Evaluation Results).
Ms. Lawrence invited Mr. and Mrs. Blumin to come forward. Mr. Blumin said he would like to address the comments in Ms Griffiths’ letter:
Mr. Blumin said he was a little puzzled as to why Ms. Griffith said that an 8’ fence would not be high enough and suggested a 9 to 10’ fence. Ms. Lawrence said that she had heard that in some cases the 8’ fence was not sufficient and that a foot or two had to be added in order to make the fence effective. Mr. Blumin said he had looked into this through the Cornell University website for the College of Agriculture which said that a 9 to 10’ fence is normally required for farmers, specifically fruit growers with orchards, which is a much great enticement for the deer because of the rewards on the other side; but for the average home gardener, an 8’ fence is sufficient. He felt that an 8’ fence would be fine because he did not think the deer would be motivated enough; however, if a deer
where to jump over, they would just shoo it out of the yard. He also stated that the 8’ fence kit is actually 7.5’ because there is a half foot which runs along the bottom and is stapled down to prevent them from going under the fence, which is what they were prefer to do.
Mr. Blumin then discussed Ms. Griffiths comment about the land being relatively flat. Mr. Blumin said the land is not relatively flat, except for the area by the road. For the most part the land is actually downhill from the fence, which will make it more difficult for the deer to jump over it. He planned put the fence way back from the road and to plant some Blue Spruces, which are repaid grower, in the area near the road as an additional deterrent. The alternative of two 4’ fences 4’ apart is not feasible to Mr. Blumin. There are some areas where it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to install the fence because of the terrain. He was skeptical that two 4’ fences would work and they far more expensive than the fence he proposes. Ms. Lawrence stated that they would be
separated far enough apart so that they could not jump over them. Ms. Verma said they would have to jump further in order to get over it.
Mr. Blumin discussed the meshing. He said the mesh is not the type of mesh that birds get entangled in. It is much wider; and if an even wider mesh were available, he would prefer it., but they make the fence of this mesh because it does work. He does not want to hurt or entangle any birds.
Mr. Blumin said that he did intend to install a cable along the top to prevent sagging. The cable is part of the fence kit.
Mrs. Blumim asked to speak. She stated that she is concerned about the deer and the birds, but she is also concerned about her own welfare. She has been bitten by a deer tick twice, and both she and her husband have been confirmed that they have contracted Lyme disease. She would like to feel comfortable in her own space.
Ms. Lawrence asked if anyone would like to speak
David Hick of 111 Cobb Lane stated his concerns. He feared that if the fence were installed, the deer would come between the fence and his house. The deer path would then be moved so that they would come right in front of his living room window. He felt that seeing an 8-10’ fence outside of his window would be an unpleasant sight. Ms. Lawrence said that the fence was invisible, but they would be required to put the orange flaps on the fence which would be visible.
Ms. Lawrence asked Mr. Shumejda to reiterate the 5 criteria used as guidelines for approving a variance, which he did as follows:
- Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
- Whether the benefit sought by the applicant cam be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
- Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
- Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and
- Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
Ms. Lawrence was concerned that she did not know of any other 8’ fences in Tarrytown – none have come before this board before. Ms. Verma said that Hackley had a 8’ fence. Mr. Shumejda did not have a recollection of any other applications for an 8’ fence. Ms. Verma asked Mr. Blumin to explain, besides the cost, why the two 4’ fences would be difficult to install. Mr. Blumin said that the structure of the terrain is such that it would be very difficult to install. There are tree stumps and bushes, as well as concrete from a previously existing pool. It was difficult enough to get one line for a fence, but impossible to get two.
Ms. Lawrence felt that the fence could cause the deer to spread out and go nearer to the neighbors’ houses.
Mr. Blumin stated that they are being sensitive to the neighbors, they did not go as far down to the property line as he could have. He also said that they would remove the existing fence, which would improve the aesthetics of the property.
Ms. Lawrence said she was hesitant to approve the variance because it would set a precedence which will not enhance the Village, and she does not want to see Tarrytown with 8’ fences and tags throughout the Village. She was also concerned that Mr. Blumin was not clear as to exactly where the fence was going. She said that typically they are given a plan that shows exactly what is being done. Mr. Blumin said he could clarify that.
Ms. Brown stated that they could install a 6’ fence without a variance and she is afraid that there would be a lot of fencing off of property such as the Blumin’s which is important to the whole flow of the deer in general.
Mr. Jolly asked if they installed the existing 6’ stockade fence. Mr. Blumin said it was there when they bought the house. Mr. Jolly asked why they did not want to put a 6’ stockade fence around all of the property. Mr. Blumin said it would be more more expensive as well as much more offensive to the neighbors.
Ms. Brown asked if the enclosed area that they have now is deer free. Mr. Blumin said, yes it is.
Mr. Jolly asked that since they find that the deer do not come over the 6’ fence now, what would they do with a 6’ mesh fence? Mr. Blumin said that they would jump over it because they can see over it; but, for some reason, they do not jump over an 8’ fence even though they can. He does not know why but fears that a 6’ mesh fence would be such a small challenge that they would continually jump over it.
Ms. Lawrence stated that she felt based on testimony this evening, the Board should issue a positive declaration under SEQRA that granting the variance would pose a significant adverse environmental impact.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Ms. Verma, and all in favor, that the Board determines that granting the variance would pose a significant adverse environmental impact.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the Board, after considering the required criteria for a variance and incorporating the reasons stated by the Board during this hearing, denies the variance allowing an 8’ deer fence on the property located at 119 Cobb Lane.
Variance denied.
Mr. Blumin asked the board to clarify if they want to build a 6’ fence around the perimeter, they could do so without a variance. Ms. Lawrence stated that was correct.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Verma, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:35 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
