Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structure Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA Upholds Building Department Ruling That 231 Clinton Chicken Coop Requires a Permit
Summary
The Zoning Board denied an appeal by the property owner of 231 Clinton Ave and upheld the building department’s determination that a sizable chicken coop on the property meets the village definition of an accessory structure and therefore requires a permit.
The Dobbs Ferry Zoning Board of Appeals denied an appeal challenging the building department’s determination that a chicken coop at 231 Clinton Ave is an accessory structure requiring a permit.
Attorney Dan Panasi, representing the property owner, argued the village zoning code specifically contemplates chickens and enclosures without cross‑referencing accessory‑structure rules, and said the village’s past practice did not treat coops as accessory structures requiring permits. Panasi said he found no prior records in a FOIL search indicating consistent enforcement treating coops as accessory structures and urged the board to conclude the code does not mandate a permit for the coop in this case.
Neighbors who live directly adjacent to the property, including Orlando Knauss and Rachel Comey, testified the coop is intrusive, visible from many windows, produces daily noise and odor and was effectively installed without going through the architectural review or permitting processes. They argued the structure’s size and placement near their property line made it more than a simple ground‑level wire enclosure.
The chair and other members debated whether a coop can simultaneously be a permitted use and an accessory structure; the chair said the accessory‑structure definition covers a broad universe of items and that a structure used to house chickens can also meet that definition. One board member recused himself for personal reasons; the chair announced that alternate member Stuart Sachs would vote to preserve quorum.
After closing the hearing, the board moved to deny the appeal, effectively affirming the building department’s interpretation that the existing coop meets the definition of an accessory structure under the village code, and therefore must follow the building permit process. The board’s decision leaves the owner the option to seek permitting or otherwise modify the structure to comply with village requirements; a separate summons in village court was noted on the record.
