Sheds, fences, decks and a tongue lashing

The Public Hearings scheduled for the August 26 Zoning Board Meeting were Routine -- no public came to comment and the Board approved the following requests for variances:

• Sachson Place - area variance allowing for a replacement deck approved

• Lake Oniad Drive - area variance allowing a 6 foot fence in the "front yard" and hot tub was approved. It was noted that because of the shape of the property, they have "two" front yards and the fence looks like an extension of the house -- not a boundary of the property and the lot is a "difficult" shape

• Dara Lane - area variance approved legalizing the placement of 3 shed and because only 2 accessory structures are allowed, legalizing the 3rd shed - all in place when the owners purchased the property. The condition that if the shed were to be replaced, a new variance request would have to be submitted.

• Old Hopewell Road - the area variance approving the setback of the pool cabana, to a property line that borders a property the owner owns. The board noting that the structure is not visible to any other property.

A discussion on a new variance request -

• Gold Road - an architect representing the applicant explained how the applicant wants to increase the size of their home and add a garage - and the current house is "non-conforming" with the current set-back rules, so any addition will require variances. The Property is .68 acres. A site visit was scheduled and a public hearing will be at the next ZBA meeting.

And then...

Without introducing the lawyer representing the Spook Hill Road applicant, who was in attendance, along with a few supporters, the chairperson of the ZBA, reading as quickly as his mouth could operate, read off the history of the ZBA's interaction with the applicant and the decisions that the board had made. including bad behavior and bad faith of the applicant, not owning up to any mistakes the applicant made, the original lawyer the applicant had hired, the replacement lawyer, the article 78 suit that was filed, the actions of landscaping on town property etc. BUT given all of that he read a resolution in which the town would grant a variance for the front porch to remain on the house, requesting a set-back variance of 23.3 feet with the following conditions:

• the Porch is to remain open - no screening or enclosures

• the application will side the house withing 6 months in the color that the board has approved

• plantings in front of the house will be maintained

• other improvements to the house need to be brought up to code

• the 2nd driveway will be blocked by a vinyl fence - which will all access to assist with septic etc.

Two of the board members voted no to the resolution - without stating their concerns... three voted yes -- the resolution passed -- in what was clearly a pre-ordained matter resulting from discussions among the attorneys.