(3) Zoning Board of Appeals

Town of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (Approved) August 10, 2016 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chairman Nick Annas ROLL CALL Members Present: Chairman Nick Annas, Tim Ross, Chris Klose and Doug Lee. Members Absent: Jim Hegstetter, Chris Carney, Kris Munn PRELIMINARY BUSINESS Minutes from June 08th, 2016 At 7:00pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to approve the June 08, 2016 meeting minutes. Tim Ross so moves, and Doug Lee seconds. There are no comments. At 7:01pm the board votes unanimously to approve the June 08, 2016 meeting minutes as written. Minutes from July 25th, 2016 At 7:02pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to approve the July 25th, 2016 Special Meeting minutes. Doug Lee so moves, and Chairman Annas seconds. There are no comments. At 7:02pm the board votes unanimously to approve the July 25th, 2016 Special Meeting minutes. Planning Board Minutes: Chairman Annas asks if everyone is keeping up with Planning Board minutes, and comments that the Hoffman Estates proposal is taking a long time to conclude, and wonders how the length of time it is taking is squaring with their cash flow. Comments from the Chairman: There are no comments from the Chairman. Tim Ross comments that it is [an] encouraging [sign] to see all of the new building permits, especially regarding solar panel installations. Chris Klose comments that Bard College is creating more dormitory space. Doug Lee comments with [Bard College’s] purchase of Montgomery Place, former classroom spaces on campus are being adapted for dormitories, and new classroom space is being created at Montgomery Place. Chris Klose comments additional dormitory space will have an impact on Red Hook in terms of diminishing the rental market in Red Hook. Doug Lee responds the college is increasing enrollment. Tim Ross and Chris Klose concur, and note all students, with the exception of seniors, are now required to live on campus. Chairman Annas comments enrollment [at Bard College] is now above 2000 students. Tim Ross notes this is an economic necessity for the [college] to survive. Fred C. Cartier, the applicant, asks if the first floor of the Montgomery Place Historic Home, will be maintained as such. Chris Klose replies he thinks it will, but it is currently being debated, and that the exterior is landmarked, and within 1000’ of the Hudson River, so it cannot be altered. Chairman Annas remarks, with upstairs occupancy, [the college] will be required to install a sprinkler system, or fire escapes. Tim Ross replies with two means of ingress and egress, [the college] will meet the requirement. REVIEW OF APPEAL Appeal 16-05, Fred C. Cartier, application for an area variance to erect a fence, six feet in height, within the 35 foot setback, for the two front yards, on a corner lot. The Town Zoning Code § 143-28 A Fences and Walls limits fences to four feet in height when erected in the required front yard. The subject parcel is 6272-17-191168 in the R1 zoning district. The property cited above is located at 7 Adams Rd. in the Town of Red Hook. Chairman Annas asks the board if they know the applicant, and introduces him, noting he is a retired minister. Mr. Cartier comments he is an Episcopal minister, and served for 39 years in Red Hook, and is now the interim minister in Pine Plains. Chris Klose adds Mr. Cartier is also the videographer of every event in Town, for PANDA. Chairman Annas asks Mr. Cartier to present his case, and asks him when he put up the fence. Mr. Cartier replies the fence was put up at approximately the same time, or shortly after he received word from Steve Cole [Zoning Enforcement Officer]. Chris Klose inquires if the fence was put up with a permit, to which Mr. Cartier responds he was not aware that he needed one [to erect the fence]. Chris Klose notes the application for an area variance is dated July, 20th. Mr. Cartier remarks the fence went up prior to this date. Chairman Annas notes two letters [from neighbors], one of which is from a “Steve Cole”, and asks if this is the same Steve Cole as the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Cartier affirms it is [subsequent inquiries reveal it is not the same person, rather a different person with the same name]. Tim Ross comments Steve Cole, the Zoning Enforcement Officer resides on Rokeby Rd., [and the person who wrote the letter, regarding the appeal, resides on Jefferson Rd.]. Chairman Annas reviews the applicant’s documentation, including photographs, and asks Mr. Cartier to indicate the orientation of the fence, the location in which the photographs were taken. Mr. Cartier does so, and remarks there was formerly a hedge in roughly the same location as the present fence. He further clarifies the hedge was as high as the Central Hudson transformer, and the Central Hudson [maintenance crews] trimmed the hedge, but left a branch, indicated in the photographs. He further describes the hedge as overgrown, and intersecting the power lines at numerous points. Finally, Mr. Cartier characterizes the hedge as sprawling and in terrible shape. Doug Lee remarks the hedge is visible on Google maps, which he consulted in order to ascertain the dimensions of it. He also describes the hedge as extremely overgrown. Chairman Annas asks the applicant to indicate when the overgrowth was removed. Mr. Cartier replies it was in early July [of 2016], before the fence was put up. Chairman Annas confirms with the applicant the fence is a replacement for the hedge, and is in approximately the same location. Mr. Cartier further comments the hedge did not cause visibility problems [for street traffic]. Doug Lee concurs, remarking this is obvious from the images in Google maps. Mr. Cartier states he did not realize his corner lot had two front yards, [in terms of zoning], instead of a front [yard], two side [yards], and a back [yard]. He further elaborates he and his son were in a rush to get the fence up, as his son’s wife has very recently given birth. Tim Ross asks Mr. Cartier to 2 confirm the existence of an additional stockade fence, on his neighbor’s property to the south, which he does, stating it is constructed with plastic. Tim Ross comments this particular fence appears to be closer to Adams Rd. than the applicant’s fence. Mr. Cartier states he thinks the distance [to Adams Rd.] is about the same. Chairman Annas asks Mr. Cartier to estimate how long his neighbor’s fence has been up, to which Mr. Cartier replies, approximately two to three years. He further notes the neighbor in question also planted pine trees along the fence line, but at some point those trees were replaced with the current fence. Chairman Annas asks Mr. Cartier to indicate the setback, [to the fence], from the center line of the roadway, and from the edge of the roadway. Mr. Cartier replies it is approximately 25 feet. Tim Ross remarks, looking at the photograph, from the vantage point looking west down Jefferson Rd., and map, it should be at least 8 to 12 feet. Mr. Cartier replies he thinks it is 19 feet from the edge of the pavement. Tim Ross concludes there is no impact to visibility on the corner [of Adams Rd. and Jefferson Rd.], and in fact [the corner] appears more open now, than when the bushes were still there. Mr. Cartier notes on one of the photographs, there is a slight obstruction to visibility, but no more than when the bushes were in place. He indicates on the photograph the height of the former hedge, as compared to the present fence, which he describes as significantly lower. Doug Lee remarks, according to the Town Code [Section 143-16 B Corner Lots; obstructions at intersections], the hedge should not have been allowed to grow to the height it had attained, prior to its removal. Tim Ross clarifies this is only in certain areas of corner lots. Chairman Annas notes this area is a triangle, measured 30 feet, and asks which point the calculation is taken; from the center line of the roadway, or the edge of the roadway. Tim Ross clarifies the calculation using the photographs submitted by the applicant. Chairman Annas confirms with Mr. Ross this calculation of 30 feet is made from the edge of the right of way. Anne Rubin notes the Assistant Code Enforcement Officer, Lou Fiorese, revised his Notice of Denial to the applicant to state the fence is not placed in such a way to constitute a visual obstruction [emphasis added]. Mr. Ross subsequently notes it could also be calculated as 15 feet from the center line, of the roadway, according to the ASHIDO rules. Chairman Annas notes the language in the code is not clear, as to how the measurement is to be calculated, since measuring from the center line of the roadway, in some cases, would not reach as far as the property line. Tim Ross comments the board has received no complaints from the applicant’s neighbors. Mr. Cartier maintains the fence looks better than the hedge. Tim Ross also comments the fence is visible from the road, so that a visit to the property itself is not necessary. Chairman Annas asks the board if there are any further questions for the applicant. Mr. Cartier comments the fence is also important for security and privacy, to which Chairman Annas replies the [Code] requirements for fences do not take this into consideration. He further comments corner lots often have less privacy than other lots. Chairman Annas explains the public hearing, and notification process to Mr. Cartier, noting that all neighbors, within a 300 foot radius, from the boundary of the applicant’s property, must be notified via certified letter, with return receipt, for which the applicant pays the postage. Anne Rubin notes the parcel’s location within 500 feet of New York State Route 9, and the requirement to notify Dutchess County Planning Department. At 7:24pm Chairman Annas sets the public hearing for September 14, 2016, with Mr. Cartier’s public hearing first on the agenda, following the regular order of business. Chris Klose asks Mr. Cartier if he plans to landscape the property [in proximity to the fence]. Mr. Cartier affirms he has plans to do so. Anne Rubin informs the applicant the ZBA will need payment for the certified letters to his neighbors by August 24th, 2016. Chairman Annas asks the board if it grants the variance, do they want to make it conditional on vegetation, and if so, he states the wording should be precise. Tim Ross and Chris Klose state they do not wish to make a variance granted conditional on landscaping. Chairman Annas notes, in the past, the ZBA granted a variance, 3 conditional on vegetation covering, for solar panels, on Spring Lake Rd., commenting the neighbors are not happy with the result. At 7:26pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to adjourn. Tim Ross so moves, and Chris Klose seconds. All are in favor. 4