Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees approve decorative gate at 24 Bonnie Heights after debate over setback and precedent
Summary
After extended discussion about whether the proposed structure would be decorative or function as a security gate and about precedent for similarly sized properties, the Flower Hill board approved the Muscot application for two entry piers and a gate at 24 Bonnie Heights, asking the applicant to submit revised plans showing screening and a slightly increased setback.
The Flower Hill Board of Trustees voted Aug. 20 to approve a decorative gate and pier application for 24 Bonnie Heights, concluding that the submitted design met the village’s code standard for decorative front‑yard structures when paired with the agreed screening and operator placement.
Applicant Cole Russo and landscape architect Kevin Natalie described a double‑leaf gate set back approximately 31 feet from the curb, with evergreen screening and a hydraulic underground operator to keep mechanical arms out of view. Russo said the gate was moved back during redesign to improve entries and deliveries and that the owners are willing to set the piers further back if the board prefers.
Trustees probed whether the structure would operate as a security gate or simply be decorative; multiple trustees emphasized concern about precedent — that approving a gate for one large property could encourage similar requests from other homeowners. Trustee comments ranged from focusing on visibility and safety for children to architectural character concerns. The board asked for comparative plans showing both the offered 31‑foot setback and a 36‑foot option so they could be certain of the visual effect; the applicant indicated a 36‑foot setback would be acceptable.
After discussion the board characterized the feature as a decorative fence that opens (not a security fence) and voted to approve the application with the requested plan revisions and screening. The decision was described by trustees as case‑by‑case, not a blanket allowance for all gate applications.
Direct quotes from the meeting: Mayor (presiding) stated, “It’s a decorative fence,” when summarizing the board’s determination. Applicant Cole Russo presented the design and landscape screening and said the owners were willing to move the piers farther back.
Next steps: the applicant will submit revised plans reflecting the agreed setback and landscape screening; village staff will confirm the gate operator and that the mechanism remains fully within private property and not in the right of way.
