HomeMy WebLinkAboutEisnerappl.pdf
me35@cornell.edu
Attachment to Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form for 205 Oak Hill Road
The east side of our corner lot, which borders Triphammer Road, has a legal 4’ stockade fence a few feet
from the property line. It was in place when my wife and I acquired the house in 1997 and probably had
been there for a great many years by that time.
In 2008 a deer jumped this fence and proceeded to destroy many plants in the garden and leave some
nasty droppings before departing. In response, we had a gardener use 8’ narrow wood stakes spaced at
8’ to rig a 30” mesh barrier above the stockade fence, extending the fence to 7 ½’. Other than the 13
narrow stakes spaced at 8’, the extension is barely visible (see attached photos). It runs along 80’ of the
east side, with an additional 16’ continuing on the south property line. In the subsequent 4 years we
have had no further incursion of deer. (The remainder of the 4’ stockade fence, a few feet from the
Oak Hill Road property line, has not been extended by mesh; the vegetation there apparently deters
deer from coming in from that direction.)
When we were notified by Mr. Cross that the extended fence is in violation of a village ordinance, I
wrote to him, on April 4, 2012, proposing to remove the mesh and erect a mesh fence behind the
stockade fence at or beyond the legal distance of 25’ from the property line. I had discussed this plan
with the gardener, who agreed that it would be feasible provided that it have a gate through which a
lawnmower could be brought. The resulting solution would incorporate a gate that will be relocated as
a result of construction of an addition for which a west side lot setback variance was approved in May.
Mr. Cross agreed that this proposal would remove the violation on the east side of the lot.
Information provided to the ZBA this spring and summer have revealed my proposal to be a bad idea.
Mr. Curtis, the Village deer consultant, is quoted (with respect to discussion of other variance
applications) to the effect that such backup fencing would create a “corral” in which deer could become
trapped, with potentially bad consequences. He also has advised against long stretches of high fencing
close to the road that leave no ‘escape routes’ for deer crossing the road, since without them deer
might veer back into traffic. In the case of the mesh and fence combination at 205 Oak Hill Road, there
are escape routes to the south (a neighboring driveway and lawn) and north (Oak Hill Road). The ZBA
has approved variances for fences of longer than 80’ along roads (citations available on request).
Since my proposed solution is ill-advised and the ZBA has approved several extended fences similar to
ours, we have decided to seek a variance that would allow the mesh to remain.
Such a variance would 1) not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, since
the mesh is barely visible and there have been no complaints about it despite the large number of
passersby on Triphammer Road. As noted, I have 2) tried to achieve the benefit of the mesh by
another method and failed. I do not believe 3) the requested variance to be substantial, or that 4) it
would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood. In particular, our yard is no less visible than before, and there are escape routes for deer
crossing the road. Obviously since I caused the mesh to be added, 5) the difficulty (i.e. the violation) is
self-created but I hope that does not preclude granting of the variance.
The following photos show essentially the full length of the fence, from south to north.