The October 8 ZBA meeting opened with the Four Remaining Board Members. For those who are steeped in ZBA processes -- this creates a familiar quandry that is akin to "Let's Make a Deal" for the Applicant.
Here's the issue -- with 4 members instead of 5 -- there could be a split vote of 2 members voting to approve and 2 voting to deny... which would mean that the appeal is denied. BUT before there is a vote -- without indicating to the applicant which way they are leaning... the applicant... probably already on edge trying to get their project approved and not fully understanding the process of standing before a dais with men staring down at them and being recorded... are given a choice -- Go ahead with the Board Vote now -- and run the risk of 2 members voting against the project OR... wait until the Town Board names another board member -- (an unknown time frame) and having the ZBA members at that time (with a new board member who will be unfamiliar with the project/ZBA processes) and have the vote at that time -- with the possiblity that a 3 to 2 vote could happen (or 5 to 0, 4 to 1 etc) -- add in that 1 board member expresses some concerns and would like to have different parameters on the project.... and WOW ... confusing conversations can happen... and pressure is placed on the applicant to make a decision right then and there. This is bound to happen over and over again until a new ZBA member is named... and it would be very helpful if this is explained to people before they are put in the spotlight and asked to make a decision about what choice/what door they would like to choose...this is after the applicant has already written a check to go through this process.
So ... at last Tuesday's ZBA meeting -- an applicant who would like to install a fence and gates at two adjoining properties (very weird that the ZBA and the building department just assumed that both property owners are ok with this plan, it was just assumed because they share a last name that everyone is cool with this plan) on New Hackensack Road. The Columns for the fence will be 7 feet tall (where 4 feet is allowed) and fencing at 6 feet (where 4 feet is allowed) and 6 foot high metal gates. The fence will be placed 35 feet from the edge of the paved road. A concern was raised, that if 2 or more cars were pulling into the drive - and the gate wasn't open - that the cars would be sticking out onto New Hackensack Road at a point where there is a blind curve -- and while everyone was waiting for the gate to open, there could be an accident. After a long discussion about what was trying to be conveyed, the applicant was then thrown the curve ball mentioned above -- and untangling the spaghetti mess of convoluted explanations thrown at him -- he decided to go for the vote - 3 to 1 - approved the Large Gates/Fence on New Hackensack Road.
Then a public hearing for a property on Stonykill Road -- where the applicant wants to rebuild a house on the footprint of a current house - where variances for setback requirements are needed (I'm sure no one has advised the applicant ... that if they leave 1 wall standing, the rest of the building can be "remodeled" and no variance is required... but instead they have been running the gauntlet of meetings) -- the hearing was opened - and then the Building administrator mentioned that because the applicant would like to add a small porch, this adds 4 feet (the height of an elementary school child) to the building -- so the appplication has to be redone -- and the Public Hearing was adjourned to October 22.
A Request to replace a deck and porch on Blackthorn Loop was approved -- by a vote of 4 to 0. Apparently the original porch/deck didn't have a variance -either because it was installed before zoning law or was overlooked... but now they have a varianace... Yea!
A discussion for an application on Peter Drive to build a shed - which will be out of view of neighbors - but requires a variance of 35 feet because the required setback is 50 feet for a 12X18 foot shed (if the shed was smaller, a smaller setback would be required). The public hearing is scheduled for October 22.
Then.... a board member mentioned that perhaps the meeting time of the ZBA could be changed from 7 PM to 6 PM -- because the staff supporting them during the meeting has to stay from their normal end of day of 4 PM to 7 PM, and a change in time would reduce the amount of time they have to stay late. So a discussion ensued about who could make what time......and at NO TIME did anyone think about what would be the best time for applicants/citizens - especially citizens who work to pay taxes to pay for the compensation of the said Public Servants. Yes the ZBA members are volunteers, but the town staff are not.
The decision was made to keep the meeting start time at 7 PM. the meeting adjourned at 7:40.
Comentarios