Exasperation Over Fencing
A hearing at the East Hampton Village Zoning Board of Appeals on Friday to legalize fencing that does not comply with code briefly morphed into a debate about deer and residents’ efforts to shield their property from the animals.
Morton Olshan of 61 Further Lane seeks variances to allow both the construction of eight-foot-tall fencing and to legalize the existing fencing of the same height around his 3.9-acre property that he proposes to replace in kind. The village code prohibits fencing higher than six feet but allows an additional two feet of parallel wires.
Mr. Olshan also seeks a variance to allow an approximately 357-square-foot playground area to remain within a rear-yard setback.
Frank Newbold, the board’s chairman, asked why the applicant could not conform to code by installing a six-foot-high fence with parallel wires. William J. Fleming, an attorney representing Mr. Olshan, answered that errant golf balls from the adjacent Maidstone Club sometimes fly onto the property. “That’s the primary reason for wanting to retain this,” he said. “In truth, nobody knows who put up that fence initially,” between the Maidstone Club and Mr. Olshan’s property, implying that it may have been the private club.
Mr. Olshan and his wife, Carole, have been in litigation with the club over the latter’s irrigation system upgrade, which calls for a pump house that the Olshans fear will produce a disturbing level of noise.
The applicant has grandchildren, Mr. Newbold said, and the eight-foot-high fence better protects his family from golf balls. He has also negotiated a boundary line agreement with his easterly neighbor, onto whose property the fencing encroaches.
Patrick Gunn, also representing the applicant, said that the playground equipment is in a little-used area and cannot be seen by neighbors. Board members were unmoved. “There’s plenty of room” to situate it in a conforming location, said Larry Hillel.
And, said Lys Marigold, the vice chairwoman, the board had compelled the owner of a nearby property to move playground equipment to do the same. “We have precedent to worry about.”
When Mr. Newbold asked if anyone present wished to comment on the application, Ron Delsener, a concert promoter and animal-rights activist who has a house on Middle Lane, stood. “I like animals on my property,” Mr. Delsener, who has been critical of the village’s efforts to thin the deer population, said. “This is too much consumption by the Olshan family.”
Mr. Delsener then delivered an impassioned argument against fencing and for the rights of animals. “The deer craze here, it’s like ‘Reefer Madness’ in the ’50s,” he said, referring to the propaganda film about the dangers of marijuana. “It has nothing to do with the grandchildren.” He said that very few houses in the area do not have deer fencing, and criticized the board and Mayor Paul F. Rickenbach Jr. for allowing its proliferation.
“What’s the matter with not having fencing?” Mr. Delsener asked. “Here, it’s just ‘build bigger and bigger and bigger.’ When are we going to stop and say, ‘Let’s see the vistas that we used to have here, let’s let the animals roam’? Let the hunters kill them if they have to. But for God’s sake, don’t panic. . . . It just makes me sick to see this whole thing happen.”
The sense of the board, Mr. Newbold said, was that, except for the property’s boundary with the Maidstone Club, new fencing would have to conform to code, and the playground equipment would have to be moved to a conforming location.
The hearing was closed, but it was agreed that Linda Riley, the village’s attorney, who was not present, should weigh in on the boundary line agreement that Mr. Olshan negotiated with his easterly neighbor.
As Ms. Riley was on vacation, the board postponed issuance of determinations until its next meeting, on Nov. 13.