BRASHER FALLS The town of Brashers zoning regulations are getting a review after a resident was denied an area variance last week to house livestock on his Upper Ridge Road property.
Dale Matthews had sought the variance because his property is 1.8 acres and the towns zoning regulations require at least 5 acres to house livestock. The town Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request, citing concerns about setting a precedent. Members also expressed concern that the variance would remain with the land for years to come, causing possible problems for future residents in that neighborhood.
But the denial of a variance doesnt mean the situation is resolved. Mr. Matthews, who said his land is zoned as an agricultural district, had enlisted the aid of the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, and that office has launched an investigation.
The Department of Agriculture and Markets is reviewing the town of Brashers zoning code and the administration of its local law as applied to Mr. Matthews pursuant to his case. We continue to work with both Mr. Matthews and town officials to try and resolve this issue, Department of Agriculture and Markets Public Information Officer Joe Morrissey said in an emailed statement.
But Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Stacy J. Dutch said the board had to abide by the towns zoning regulations when making its decision.
Even though its in an ag district, it still has to meet the zoning rules of Brasher. You either meet them or have a variance to them. I dont believe you can just say, Im in an ag district and I can do anything I want. The rule is 5 acres. Ag and Markets may feel different, Mr. Dutch said.
Town Supervisor M. James Dawson said Monday that the town is working with Ag and Markets officials to resolve the situation. I think if comes back to the town board, if they override us, they override us. They can do it. I think the root of this thing comes back to the town board for the town board to make a decision, he said.
M. Dawson said the objective of establishing a 5-acre minimum was to ensure neighbors werent disturbed by a farming operation.
He said that until the issue is resolved, the town isnt requiring Mr. Matthews to remove animals from his Upper Ridge Road property.
Code Enforcement Officer Robert W. Forbes told Zoning Board of Appeals members that he was aware Mr. Matthews had animals on the property, but told him it would not be an issue unless there was a complaint. He reported in his June monthly code enforcement officer report that a complaint had been filed and Mr. Matthews was instructed to remove the animals.
Mr. Matthews told board members that animals are brought to the residence from his farm on Hopson Road primarily if theyre in need of care and are then returned to the Hopson Road site.
He said, for instance, that if a calf was born and the mother died, it would need special attention. He said the Hopson Road property had no utilities and he would need heat to make water bottles and also to use a heat lamp to nurse the animal back to health. He said he was told it would cost $4,000 to bring electrical service to the property.