Village of Freeport

The Zoning Board addressed multiple applications concerning fence variances and construction permits. For Application 2025-4, discussions focused on the height and configuration of existing and proposed PVC fencing relative to visibility and safety near driveways, with the applicant agreeing to modify a specific section to four feet open fencing. Application 2025-5 involved a request for an 86-foot, 6-foot high closed PVC fence, where the Board expressed significant safety concerns regarding sight lines on Ray Street, particularly concerning the swinging gates and proximity to the street, leading to a reservation of decision pending the applicant's consideration of modifications to open sections. Application 2025-6 sought permission to construct a 6-foot high fence combining brick and aluminum railing, primarily for security reasons related to children escaping the property. The Board raised concerns regarding the material (brick) not conforming to neighborhood character or code, the climbing hazard presented by the brick piers, and visibility issues on Guy Lombardo Avenue, resulting in the recommendation for the applicant to adjourn and revisit the design, including setback considerations. Additionally, the Board approved variances for Application 2024-23 concerning the construction of a new three-story house, except for the rear yard setback for a hot tub, which was denied due to proximity to the bulkhead and self-created difficulty, with a lesser variance offered as an alternative.

The meeting included an Executive Session to consult with counsel, followed by a Public Hearing which was called to order. Key applications involved variances for fence installations and maintenance related to Village Ordinances regarding fence height and enclosure types. Specifically, Application #2025-7 for 526 South Ocean Avenue sought approval for a 6' H closed PVC fence to deter passersby from cutting through the property adjacent to a municipal parking field. Application #2025-4 for 66 S. Bay Avenue involved maintaining a 6' high closed PVC fence, which was granted approval with modification requiring replacement of a fence segment bordering Ray Street with a 4-foot open fence. Application #2025-5 for 3 Ray Street also involved a 6' high closed PVC fence, which was granted approval with modification requiring the gate and adjacent sections to be replaced with 4-foot open fencing to mitigate sidewalk obstruction safety concerns.

The Zoning Board meeting addressed several applications requiring variances. Key discussions involved Application 2024-23 for property at 691 South Bayview Avenue, where the applicant sought variances for constructing a new three-story house, emphasizing that surrounding waterfront properties are similarly nonconforming. Applications 2025-1 and 2025-2 for 157 Gordon Place were adjourned to the next meeting to allow for necessary revisions to denial letters. Application 2024-20 concerning construction and use change at 19 Suffolk Street was also adjourned. For Application 2025-4 regarding fence height and type at 66 South Bay Avenue, the Board deliberated on safety concerns related to sight lines near a driveway and directed the applicant to potentially modify the fence configuration and confirm the actual height. Application 2025-5 concerning fence maintenance at 3 Ray Street was introduced, and Application 2025-3 regarding maintaining a cellar entrance at 40 E. Seaman Avenue was approved.

The meeting addressed several agenda items, including the public hearing for Application #2025-11 regarding proposed additions, a new garage, a shed, and driveway modifications at 206 Church Street, requiring variances for conformity, permissible extensions of use, and lot coverage/floor area ratio. The applicant's representative argued for area variance criteria application and noted neighbor support, offering to remove the proposed shed. The Board also read a decision for Application #2025-10 concerning a proposed fence at 265 South Long Beach Avenue, which was granted subject to modifications ensuring adequate visibility at the driveway area.

The Zoning Board meeting addressed two main applications requiring variances. The first application sought approval to maintain a 648 square foot garage, which was built without a permit. The Board denied this variance request, noting the difficulty was self-created, the variance was substantial, and the benefit to the applicant was outweighed by the detriment to the neighborhood. The second application sought variances to legalize second-floor offices at a property, which included storage and incidental office use associated with a car repair shop across the street. A parking study was presented indicating existing parking was sufficient for the proposed use. The Board granted this variance subject to conditions, including obtaining necessary permits and adhering strictly to the specific use outlined, with provision for rescinding the variance if the use changes.