Zoning board weighs variance on fence height in business district

An application was made by the Loris family of Railroad Avenue to grant a variance for their corner lot property on South Street, in a D2 business district, to have a 6-foot, stepped fence erected on one of the front yard sections for privacy and as a deterrent for littering.

The application was adjourned to the Oct. 20 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting following another on-site inspection of the property.

The variance was in relief from building code 43540 that specifies fences must:

• Have a maximum height of 6 feet and that the height is measured from the existing elevation of the center line of the highway opposite the fence.
• Have corner visibility (sight triangle) within a 15-foot radius of the corner formed by any intersecting roads or highways, the fence height cannot exceed 2.5 feet (30 inches).
• Comply that if a lot boundary is adjacent to a street, road, or highway, no fence can be erected between that boundary and the building line of the principal structure if it exceeds 30 inches in height.
• Have a street setback where fences adjacent to a street, road, or highway must not be erected within 10 feet of that boundary line without a variance.

Chairman Nick Fuccillo recused himself in the matter as his family had interest and stake in a property less than 200 feet from the applicant. Committee member Nicole LaMontagne took over as chairperson for the duration of the application.

“Well, basically, I have lived in Patchogue since I was born there, and my family has lived there over 120 years. And we’ve seen the urban surround us. We used to be houses with families and it’s just a question now of adding a little more privacy for our front yard and having some security because there’s so much [sic] businesses around the area. It’s integrated that way. So we would appreciate a little variance to block off some of that for privacy,” said applicant James Loris.

Chelsea Loris addressed the board and acknowledged there was an existing 3-foot chain-link fence on the property that was in need of repair from years of wear.

Chelsea said it had become a nuisance on South Street with bar and restaurant patrons from Main Street “blasting music,” urinating on her yard, and littering with bottles and cans. “I get full of garbage… I’ve had to deal with screaming, yelling, I’ve had to deal with businesses’ loud music, so I would like a fence for privacy. I do have a dog. I have children. I just feel that having the privacy will hopefully keep away the debris and the peeing in my yard and the shoes and everyone else’s garbage,”

Chelsea also stated she wanted to make the proposed solid fence more visually appealing with landscaping.

“I know Patchogue used to hand out certificates for best yard, and I wish you guys still did that,” said Chelsea.

James pointed out that the concrete walkway of their house led up to three steps going up the roadway, which was problematic with storm drains and that their street was two feet lower than the surrounding areas.

“A 4-foot fence becomes a 2-foot fence. A 5-foot fence becomes a 3-foot fence.”

The board asked for clarification on plans for a tree in the front yard and the Lorises confirmed that the over 100-year-old tree was going to remain and would be in front of the fence.

The board also pondered how sight lines would be affected for those making a turn in the intersection, noting the stop sign at the end of South Street. It was determined that since the fence would be behind the sidewalk that the effect would be minimal, if any.

A discussion was held on the addition of a garbage can on the intersection as the Florises had previously put one out, but found the contents—e.g., used hypodermic needles—to be harmful for their health.

It was suggested by the board to amend the plan from a 5-foot to 4-foot fence scaling down to a 3-foot fence eastbound on the property.

As a corner lot, previously coded as having two front yards, fences were now allowed for one of the yards that did not include the main entrance to the home. The application was for the non-frontal yard, but was not 10 feet off the property line.

“We have been pretty strict about that as a board. We have not set a precedence with granting a variance for that 10 feet within the property line,” said LaMontagne.

The Florises responded firmly on the suggestion of moving the proposed fence back 10 feet to comply with the current code.

“That’s a lot,” said James.

The board, citing that previously no fences were allowed until the code was changed in February, said that a see-through chain-link fence would not be subject to the height and distance requirements of a solid fence.

“The main objective is to get some privacy in this area and a chain-link fence isn’t going to do it,” said James after the board concluded to make another site visit at their property.