63-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

members of the Open Space Committee to visit the project site to determine wildlife presence. Based on the reports and record of subsequent Planning Commission public hearings, the applicant did not comply with the Commission's directives or supply information for most of these requests to answer the Commission's questions. Instead, the applicant has maintained a position throughout the public hearings that the Commission's requests were excessive for a zoning permit application and would be more appropriate for a site development permit review. For instance, in reviewing records for the October 7, 2021, January 13, 2022, and March 3, 2022 public hearings and correspondences from the applicant to the Town, the only additional submissions from the applicant to address the Planning Commission's inquiries were a revised site plan and a topographical map on February 14, 2022. These submittals, however, remained inaccurate in that they showed the existing fence in wrong locations and the topographical map was from a previous subdivision dated 10-17-14. Likewise, the applicant has also refused to revise. fencing designs to utilize wooden posts or wildlife friendly designs on the grounds that the request to revise design is excessive for a zoning permit application review. The applicant has also not confirmed the location of existing easements, waterways or swales on the site, and has not clarified where the proposed planting areas and crops would be located on the subject property. As shown in the public hearing records and correspondences to the Town, the applicant has similarly maintained that providing such information would be excessive for a zoning permit application, and is more appropriate for a site development permit review. At the same time, the public hearing records and related submittals demonstrate that the conditions of approval imposed by the Planning Commission were warranted. Of the ten (10) conditions of approval issued on March 3, 2022, Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 9 would require the proposed fencing be set back a certain distance, be constructed in accordance with approved plans, and not be located or interfere with any property lines, swales and various types of easements. Condition Nos. 2, 6, 7 and 8 would limit the design of the new fencing to be without spikes, sharpened edges, new lighting, barbed wire and electrified fences. Condition No. 2 would also require wooden posts to match the rural/agricultural character of the property. Condition No. 10 would require certain sections of the proposed fencing design to be constructed with wildlife friendly fence or chain link fence. Based on a review of the record below, these conditions of approval were reasonably related to the project and necessary to achieve the goals contemplated by the Town's Fence Ordinance and zoning/development standards. A stated goal under Section 10-1.507 for fence regulations is to "preserve the beauty and open rural quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy." The design and location of new fencing is well within the Planning Commission's authority to impose and is reasonably related to preserving property interests and maintain the Town's rural/open space characteristics. Prohibiting proposed new fencing from locating within easement areas, swales and other private property interest areas are also reasonably related and necessary to allow the construction of fencing while preserving the use of private property and avoid intervention with natural site features. Resolution 63-22 Page 6