(3) Zoning Board of Appeals

Town of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes March 14, 2007 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M. by Timothy Ross, Chairman. ROLL CALL Members Present: Kenneth Anderson, John Douglas, Robert Latimer, Corinne Weber, and Tim Ross, Chairman. Also present: Jim Ross, Town Board Liaison and Christine Chale, Town Attorney. Members Absent: Michael Mosher PRELIMINARY BUSINESS Minutes of Feb. 28, 2007: The Minutes were approved with the following correction: The word “short”, referring to the Environmental Assessment Form, shall be removed from paragraph one, page 2. Town Attorney Christine Chale indicated that she had said that whatever EAF was appropriate should be completed. Chairman Ross stated that the initial review by the Dutchess County Planning Board has not been received yet, just a brief correspondence indicate they would require an EAF and would prefer to see a long form. There will be further discussion of this issue at the Hearing. Planning Board Minutes: There were no comments on the Planning Board Minutes. Building Inspector/ZEO Permits and Memos: Chairman Ross stated that he, Christine Kane and the architect have attended a first meeting with the Planning Board regarding a variance for the Ulster Savings Bank. It is for a front setback to match the buildings in the area and would allow better traffic flow from Route 9. They would like to set up a future entrance road across from Old Farm Road and off Metzger Road. John Douglas expressed concern about having it close to the road. Chairman Ross stated that it would not be as close as the house which used to be there. The structure had a ten foot variance and it was the paved roadways which were impacted. John Douglas stated that the building would be pushed back from the old pole that was there. Rifenburg Garage: Chairman Ross said that they are not sure where they are going to build the garage and they may or may not need a variance. There was a issue regarding tow trucks on Benner Road and Chairman Ross felt that this was just an ongoing thing. He asked that any further comments on this issue be made at the end of the meeting as Bob Fennell, the Zoning Enforcement Officer, was not yet present. -1- Comments from the Chairman: Tim Ross asked whether the Board members who went to New York had filled out any forms documenting their attendance. Rob Latimer had done so and had gotten a letter in the mail thanking him for attending the Association of Towns meeting. Chairman Ross asked that the Board members fill out the appropriate documentation for all meetings they attend and give this documentation to Sue McCann, Town Clerk, so that she can keep a record of the meetings which the members have attended. The class which Kenneth Anderson and Tim Ross attended in Millbrook should mail something directly to Sue McCann. PUBLIC HEARING 7:20 PM Public Hearing for Appeal 07-01, Timothy S. Martin application for an area variance to erect two off-premises directional signs for Gigi’s Market and Grandiflora Garden Center. The proposed signs would be 21 square feet in area at a height of 15.75 feet. Zoning law limits sign area to six square feet and height to ten feet. (Chairman Ross recused himself from the discussion of this application due to the fact that he has worked for one of the businesses involved. Corinne Weber was asked to chair the Hearing.) Acting on behalf of Timothy Martin, the applicant, Laura Pensiero and Katie Parry presented photographs and a photo simulation of an amended design for the signs for the Board to review. Corinne Weber asked if the application had been changed. Laura responded that she did not realize that she had to do that. Discussion ensued regarding possible ways of dealing with the changes to the original proposal. Bob Fennell stated that the Board could approve less than what the applicant has requested. He said that this application is for a variance from section 143-27E of the law. He stated that this section of the law allows for directional signs for businesses at public destinations relating to, but isolated from, primary routes of travel. The law allows a maximum of two directional signs, each with an area of not more than six square feet and both having an aggregate of area of not more than twenty square feet. The application is for two signs, one for each business. Laura Pensiero stated that the present revision removes one of the arrows and has the second arrow hanging separately. Rob Latimer pointed out that the height is limited by law to 10 feet whereas the new proposal is at 21 feet, including the arrow. Laura pointed out that they were trying not to block Tim Martin’s sign or hamper the view seen by the traffic. The aggregate area of 21 square feet is the total of everything which would be hanging on the pole. Thus the law allows 20 square feet and the present proposal is for 21 square feet, or 38 by 54. After making calculations, Ken Anderson stated that it looks like we have 28 square feet as opposed to the maximum of 20 feet allowed by the law. The original application requested 21 square feet each for a total of 42 square feet and it has now been reduced to about 28 square feet, or 30 including the arrow. Thus there has been a reduction of about 12 square feet. Corinne Weber stated that this application is actually for three variances: one for the total; one for the individual signs and one for the height. John noted that with the maximum of 6 square feet per sign, she can have 12 square feet for the two signs. Bob Fennell stated that each business can have two directional signs. John Douglas stated that -2- he drove through the area where the signs will be erected and, when comparing signs, he thought that for a driver driving 45 mph, two six foot signs with an arrow would be difficult to see. He therefore did not have a problem with the new design. It has been reduced and he thought that it would be a nice sign. He did say that to get this approved, the present sign would have to be removed. Laura agreed that this would be done. The floor was then opened to comments from the public. Letters from Linda Keeling. Corinne Weber read the two letters received from Linda Keeling. The first letter opposed the granting of approval for the signs, primarily because of their size. Ms. Keeling stated that development of a good business plan would be a more desirable course of action for the businesses involved. The second letter stated that as Grieg is the owner of the property, the variance request should come from him and not from the tenant. In that letter, she also expressed the opinion that there was too great a proliferation of signs in this area. Bob Fennell stated that Timothy Martin is the appropriate person to make the application as this activity is taking place on his land, not on Grieg’s land. Linda Keeling asked why Timothy Martin was not present. Corinne responded that the Board received a letter authorizing Ms. Pensiero and Ms. Parry to represent him at the Hearing. Laura Pensiero responded to Ms. Keeling’s letter, stating that she does have a marketing plan; however even people who know where the turn off is have difficulty in finding it. The issue is therefore one of directions and not of marketing. She felt that she had not exceeded what was approved by the Planning Board last August. John Douglas stated that the applicant has reduced the size of the signs following the Board’s Review last month. His concerns are that customers can get there appropriately without having to look for a small sign and that we don’t have people slamming on their brakes at an intersection because they realize that they have to make a right or a left turn. This could result in cars behind them being rear ended and John stated that he did not want any accidents due to the signage. While he did feel that the initial signage was too large, he acknowledged that it had been reduced and he did not have any problem with the current proposal. Linda Keeling stated that she had to agree with Laura Pensiero in that even she has missed that turn off at times. Katie Parry stated that even though there is a DOT sign, it is very important to have a sign with the business name and logo. Ken Anderson stated that the pole has been there a very long time and signs had been hanging from it. He questioned whether perhaps there might be a grandfathering issue. He felt that the signs fit in the area in a very positive way and that it would be very appropriate to have the signs hanging from the pole. The signs are very nice and the one arrow is satisfactory. The signs are an appropriate size to allow drivers to see them and to slow down and make an appropriate turn. He said that we are looking at a 15.75 foot -3- height as opposed to an authorized 10 foot height. Perhaps the signs could be lowered; but he didn’t know whether it would be effective to do so. He said that the pole should be utilized. Rob Latimer felt that the signs would be nice and would be effective; however there are three tenants and the deviation from the law is significant. The height exceeds the maximum by 60%. Rob Latimer stated that he drives and works a lot in that area and he expressed concern about the precedent which this would set. He stated that following the discussion at the review last month he had hoped that the applicant would adhere to at least one of the three regulations involved. Corinne Weber agreed relative to the height, saying she hoped it would have been reduced more. Corinne Weber asked if there were any more questions from the public. As there were none, she closed the public session. Ken Anderson proposed that a restriction be imposed specifying that no further signs be allowed on that pole in the future. John Douglas felt that the applicant should come back to the Board with a new plan which would reduce the size of the signs. Bob Fennell said that the Board could modify the approval or could approve something less than what the applicant has asked for. Rob Latimer stated that having the signs 10 feet off the road would not obstruct anything and they could still be seen. As the pole has been in use since the 1950’s or 1960’s, the question of grandfathering arose again. Bob Fennell stated that this could not be an issue if, at any time, the pole had not been used for a one year period. Corinne Weber asked Laura Pensiero if she could live with two by four signs. Laura stated that she thought she had already made concessions. John Douglas said that she had reduced the area of the signs by six square feet per sign, but the aggregate would still be about 25 square feet. Rob Latimer stated that the signs should be made to satisfy at least one of the legal requirements or we are throwing away that whole section of the zoning law. Laura asked if she could put up another pole. Rob Latimer stated that he would not be in favor of that. He reiterated the suggestion he had made at the Review in February, saying that if there is a 20 foot aggregate, he doesn’t care how high the sign is. He emphasized that the Board is being asked to ditch the entire section of the law. FINDINGS AND DECISION Appeal 07-01, Timothy S. Martin application for an area variance to erect two off- premises directional signs for Gigi’s Market and Grandiflora Garden Center. The proposed signs would be 21 square feet in area at a height of 15.75 feet. Zoning Law limits sign height to ten feet and sign area to six square feet with an aggregate area of no more than 20 square feet. Findings: 1. The property is located in the B1 Zoning District at 8110 Albany Post Road, Red Hook. 2. Tax Map # 6373-00-214991. 3. The Zoning Law limits sign height to ten feet and sign area to six square feet with an aggregate area of no more than 20 square feet. -4-  4. A variance would be of benefit to the applicant with no detriment to the community. 5. There will be no change in the character of the neighborhood. 6. There will be a positive impact on the safety and welfare of the community. Decision: A motion was made by John Douglas and seconded by Rob Latimer to allow Gigi Market and Grandiflora Garden Center to have a sign with an arrow with an aggregate footage not to exceed 20 square feet at the height which they request, viz. 16 feet and no additional signage should be allowed on the pole by any other entities. The motion was approved by all members present. Ken Anderson noted that this was a reduction of about seven square feet. Following the approval for the smaller signage, Bob Fennell cited the Section 143-135 of the Zoning Law which authorizes the Board of Appeals to grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. He also indicated that the applicant now needs a Special Permit from the Planning Board. (Chairman Ross returned at 7:55 PM.) IN REMEMBRANCE The Board again acknowledged the tragic passing long-time member Gordon Denegar. He will be missed. PUBLIC HEARING 7:40 PM Public Hearing for Appeal 07-02, Peter and Joseph Scibelli Application for three area variances to erect a 600 square foot addition to their existing auto repair facility. The maximum building coverage allowed is 15%; applicant is proposing 17%. Expansion of a non-conforming use is allowed up to 50%; applicant’s proposed expansion will increase it to 85.5%; a 25 foot rear setback is required; applicant proposes a 16 foot rear setback. Chairman Ross said that he is going to review the layout and anyone else wishing to review this material can come up and do so as well. The Board reviewed the drawings which had been presented by the applicant. Chairman Ross asked the Board for questions/comments. As there were none, he advised the applicants that the Public Hearing would be opened. The Notice of the Hearing has been properly published and the adjoining landowners notified; however the Hearing cannot be closed. Due to the snow day in February, the County has not had adequate time to respond. They have no environmental assessment form with their package and they are requesting a long EAF. Chairman Ross requested the applicants to get the long EAF to the Board as soon as possible so that by the next meeting, the County will be able to render an opinion on the issue. -5- The Chairman opened the Hearing and asked for any comments, noting that they can be held until next month as the Hearing will be continued on April 11th. Chairman Ross then read into the record six letters from neighboring landowners in support of the applicant’s proposal. They were from Harry Webster, Robert Capowski, Ed Strieder, Timothy Terry, Larry Launhardt and Roland Traudt. These letters will be placed in the permanent file. Chairman Ross asked for further questions and stated that the Hearing must be continued as the Board is required to get a complete application to County Planning for referral. As there were no questions, the applicants were advised to try to get the long EAF done as soon as possible. The Public Hearing will be continued at 7:20 on April 11, 2007. The Minutes will reflect that the Public Hearing will be continued so that anyone who wishes to make comments will be able to do so. DECISION 8:00 PM Appeal 06-19, Raython Merrihew Request for Interpretation of Red Hook Farmland Protection Law and its applicability to the applicant’s lot located at 7887 Albany Post Road, Red Hook. Chairman Ross asked if there were additional questions, as this Appeal has been reviewed at a previous meeting. As there were no questions, Chairman Ross read the Resolution which the Board had prepared. A copy of this Resolution is attached and made part of this record. After reading the Resolution, Chairman Ross asked for discussion. The following revisions were approved: on the first page, the first “whereas” should be November 16th; on Attachment A, number 2, the date should be December 8th; the fourth “whereas” on the first page should be dated February 28th. Town Attorney Christine Chale clarified that the original Application was dated November 16th and Bob Fennell’s Letter of Interpretation was dated December 8th. She said that the other thing which should be in the record is that there was an Appeal from Bob’s decision. Chairman Ross asked for other comments. There were no further comments. A roll call vote was held and the Board voted unanimously to pass the Resolution. For purposes of clarity, Bob Fennell asked if he was correct in stating that this Resolution says that the lands which are in the Ag District which are not prime soil are not covered under this provision of the law. Town Attorney Christine Chale said that it is not just prime soils which are being referred to, but lands which are not considered important farmlands. Chairman Ross clarified that if the land is in the Ag District and it is an important farmland, it meets the second part of the “and”. John Douglas asked if there was any further business. Marcy Appel asked how this was applied. Chairman Ross stated that the Planning Board still has the opportunity to require clustering. Three quarters of an acre can be pushed to half an acre. That piece of the law was to give farmers more flexibility. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Ross moved to adjourn. Seconded by John Douglas. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. -6- Respectfully submitted by, Sheila Franklin Clerk of the Board Attachments -7-