Dering Harbor: Two Dering Harbor Boards take action

The Dering Harbor Architectural Review and Planning boards both conducted public hearings following the regular trustees’ meeting on Saturday, June 25 in Village Hall.

Chair Heather Brownlie convened an ARB hearing on applications from Prudence Fairweather for a hedge fence and from Elizabeth Morgan for a swimming pool fence.

Ms. Fairweather’s application was presented by her attorney and included provision for a boxwood hedge along the street, front and side of her property. The board had requested that the hedge on the street side be approximately 4 feet high. In response to a question, Ms. Fairweather noted that the boxwood was the slow-growing variety and, as a 50-year-old plant, was not likely to grow significantly taller.

Ms. Fairweather had complied earlier with a setback request.

There was no public comment, and the board approved the hedge fence application unanimously.

Ms. Morgan’s design included plans for a partial living fence of privet combined with wire mesh and picket fencing, which would do double duty as a swimming pool fence. There was no comment from the audience and the board approved the request unanimously, subject to the building inspector’s review of the plans and materials to make sure they were in compliance with New York State code. The motion to approve also contained this caveat, “that approval does not create a precedent with regard to the use of PVC materials … for a small portion of the fence, due to unique circumstances including but not limited to matching the neighbor’s fence.”

PLANNING BOARD

Planning Board Chair John Colby opened a public hearing to consider an application from resident Patrick Parcells for a lot-line change between two of three parcels he owns in a subdivision approved by the Planning Board in 2004.

At an earlier public hearing in February, the board amended a prior resolution in order to permit consideration of the change in the first place; received confirmation from the Peconic Land Trust that the open space would not be affected; and agreed to forward the application to the Suffolk County Planning Commission.

On Saturday, Mr. Colby distributed the commission’s response, which indicated that the application was subject to “local determination.” There were two comments, however: that a common driveway “serving two or more lots should be properly signed” and that for emergency purposes the width should be 18 feet, with a greater width for a distance of at least 20 feet into the property.

The Planning Board’s attorney, Joseph Prokop, had raised a question at the earlier meeting, about the barn on one of the lots where Mr. Parcells had subsequently built his residence. At that time, it conformed to village code as an auxiliary structure. With a lot lane change, the barn would be situated on a vacant lot, which might create a non-conforming use of the structure.

At Saturday’s hearing, Mr. Prokop reported that his research into village law had indicated that approval of the application would be in violation of village code.

Mr. Parcells pointed out that, before his house was built, the barn had also been non-conforming. The board’s response was that the barn legally predated the zoning code.

There were two options, Mr. Colby said: approve the application and the barn’s non-conforming use and go against village code, or deny the application and refer the request to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.

If the application is approved, board member Marion Brownlie commented, “The precedent has to be considered.”

The vote to deny was unanimous.

Before opening the public hearing, the board had discussed a provision of Suffolk County Planning Commission rules that permits local municipalities to act on “minor matters” without referring them to the commission — a process that can take up to 45 days for a response. Guidelines are in effect that spell out what actions will still require referral.

To take advantage of the expedited process, town and village boards must sign on to an “Inter-mural Agreement” (IMA) with the commission. In discussing the pros and cons, board members noted that they meet so infrequently that a savings in time could be helpful. On the other hand, it was pointed out that comments by the commission even on minor issues had been useful in the past.

The board agreed to recommend to the trustees that the Village Board sign on to the IMA.