Board splits 17 Minnisink Road variance request

A fence request drew the sharper line.

The board took up Calendar number 4093-26 for 17 Minnisink Road, where the applicant sought two kinds of relief: a rear-yard setback variance and permission for a front-yard fence and gate. The architect said the required rear-yard setback was 60 feet and the proposal was 46.9 feet. Board members showed early support for that part of the application, even as questioning turned to plan orientation and how the upper-level changes fit into the existing house.

Most of the hearing centered on the fence. The applicant said a six-foot fence would help protect children near a long driveway where cars can come in quickly, and argued the property sits far back from the road behind dense vegetation. To make the case, the applicant submitted a photo board with nine examples of nearby fences and gates. Board members pressed on what those photos actually showed, whether screening did the real work, and whether a smaller enclosed area elsewhere on the lot could solve the safety problem.

When deliberations began, the board separated the two requests. Members unanimously approved the rear-yard setback variance. They then approved a revised fence-and-gate motion: a six-foot gate and pillars in the surveyed location, plus a side-yard fence on the west side extending to the average established setback line of 82 feet from the right-of-way. That leaves the house changes cleared, with the fence relief narrower than first proposed.

At 53 Chestnut Street, the board approved a revised plan for additions and a detached garage in the Wyoming Historic District. The applicant’s architect said the front façade would remain largely unchanged, with the second-floor work pulled back and the garage placed far to the rear. The design team told the board the historic review body had already approved the project.

The application leaned on the lot’s size limits. Testimony described the property as 55 feet wide where 75 feet is required, and 6,250 square feet where 8,250 square feet is required. The planner argued that, aside from side-yard setbacks tied to existing conditions, the project fit the site and would stay in line with nearby homes. Revisions to paving and landscaping were presented as a way to cut impervious coverage and add privacy screening.

Neighbors backed the application. Several said the plan was modest, fit the block, and would help the family remain in town. Board members said the revisions were thoughtful and that a detached garage worked well on the property. The board then voted to approve the application unanimously.