Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board flags possible encroachment, schedules hearing on Johnson Hill shed variance
Summary
Board member said the applicant’s variance paperwork did not disclose an encroachment and that a contract obtained later referenced the encroachment; the board scheduled a required public hearing for July 28 and will not act until that hearing is held.
The Marbletown Planning Board scheduled a public hearing for July 28 after a lengthy discussion over a variance request for a 10-by-15 accessory shed at 201 Johnson Hill Road.
Board member John, who led the staff presentation, said the applicant’s variance application claimed a historical boundary discrepancy but his site visit and public records showed the shed appears to encroach onto a neighbor’s property. "When I first read the narrative claiming that the applicant was an innocent victim of a long-time boundary discrepancy... I was sympathetic and interested to learn more," John said, adding that his review of county parcel records and surveys revealed no technical discrepancy aside from what he described as an encroachment. John later said he obtained a contract dated in April 2026 that "clearly notes the encroachment" and that he had spoken with the neighbor, Ms. Greenfield, who "is not in favor of granting a variance." "Punto final. End of story," John said.
The applicant, identified in the record as the Goldmans, told the board the lot-line exchange was negotiated when the neighbor decided to sell and that the existing shed had been on site since the 1970s and replaced in 2019. The applicant said permits and site grading work had been done while family health matters required travel. "We exchanged the side yard as you see here," the applicant said, describing the lot-line adjustment, and asked whether the board could delay action until the public hearing.
Board members discussed possible compliant locations for the shed — citing the property's slope, a stream bed on part of the lot and a paved area that could be used for a compliant placement — and emphasized that the board cannot make a determination without a properly noticed public hearing. One member announced an abstention when the board voted to reschedule the hearing; the motion carried.
Next steps: the board will hold a public hearing on July 28 where members will accept public comment and consider evidence before deciding whether to grant the variance. The board repeatedly told the applicant that no final action or enforcement relief could occur until after that hearing.
