(3) Zoning Board of Appeals

Town of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes (Approved) December 14, 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, Kris Munn, Tim Ross, Doug Lee, Chris Carney Members Absent: Jim Hegstetter, Chris Klose Also Present: Victoria Polidoro, ZBA counsel, Jackie Fenaroli for Anne Rubin, Applicant Jeremy Anderson, and co-owner of the property, Gabriel Hendifar. PRELIMINARY BUSINESS Minutes from November 09th, 2016 The Board decides to table the discussion on the minutes until the next ZBA meeting, since it only received the odd numbered pages in the packets. Planning Board Minutes: There are no comments on the Planning Board minutes. Kris Munn comments Teviot is back on the agenda with the tree cutting matter, stating the applicant received permission to cut some trees, but cut more than were permitted. Tim Ross comments Bard College did a good job with the tree cutting at Blythewood. Comments from the Chairman: There are no comments from the Chairman. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal 16-06, Jeremy Anderson, application for an area variance to erect a fence, seven (7) feet in height, in the required front yards of the corner property. Section 143-28 A of the Town Zoning Law limits the height of fences in the required front yard to four (4) feet, and six (6) feet in a side yard, and Section 143-28 D of the Town Zoning Law requires that all fences and walls on corner lots shall conform to Section 143-16 B, which prohibits any fence, wall, hedge, structure, or planting, over three feet in height, above the curb level, if any, or above the existing road level, within the triangle formed by the intersecting street lines, or their projections, where corners are rounded, and a straight line, joining said street lines, at points which are 30 feet distant from their point of intersection, measured along said street lines, or projections, on corner lots, with intersections. The subject property is located at 354 Metzger Rd. in the Town of Red Hook. It is located in the RD3 zoning district, Tax Grid # 6271-00- 249843. At 7:04pm Chairman Annas asks for a motion to open the public hearing. Kris Munn so moves, and Tim Ross seconds. All are in favor. Kris Munn asks the Board and the applicant, while the public hearing is still open, to briefly review the project. Chairman Annas states the applicant has a 7’ high fence, and notes the property, principle structure, and secondary structure predate zoning. As such neither of these sit back the required 60’ from the roadway. Chairman Annas further notes their permitted setback is determined by the foremost extending part of the house, which the applicant confirms is the foyer/entryway to the house, which is a recent addition, brought out to what used to be the front of the house, on the left side. Kris Munn confirms with Chairman Annas the applicant came through the ZBA for a variance on that aspect of their property. Chairman Annas comments the applicant came before the ZBA with an alternative plan for the addition, which included saving a large tree near the house. When the ZBA conducted a site visit, it determined the tree was a potential danger, due to falling limbs, and the applicant agreed to remove the tree, and revise their project. The revision created a setback that was no closer to the roadway than the furthest appendage of the house in its iteration at the time, and did not require a variance. The applicant clarifies the tree became all of the floors in the addition. Chairman Annas states since that time, the applicant has put up fencing, which was non-compliant. The ZBA determined at that time,[Appeal 15-07 Hendifar/Anderson] the fencing did not have safety issues, nor was it a detriment to the neighborhood. Since [the granting of the variance], Chairman Annas notes, the applicant has constructed additional fencing, which is non-compliant, insofar as it is 7’ high, and extends beyond the grandfathered setback, into Town property, by some 10’-15’. The Board consults the drawing, and a photograph, presented by the applicant, in order to ascertain the precise location, and dimensions of said fencing. The applicant states the [Town] Highway [Superintendent], Theresa [Burke], conducted a site visit for the hedge, and stated the hedge he had installed was ok from her perspective. He further notes the fence runs along the hedge, and so he mistakenly assumed it was in compliance. Chairman Annas asks the applicant why he had not sought a [building] permit for the fence. Mr. Anderson replies he thought he was compliant after the visit by Theresa [Burke], and further states he got approval for the gate wall, which was 6’ high, and since there was a dip, at that point, he states he thought it would be compliant, since it was lower. He also comments he thought this area was a side yard, not a second front yard, and also his contractor had told him the fence should not be an issue, since he already had approvals on the pool fence. Tim Ross confirms with the applicant Theresa [Burke] conducted a site visit for the trees, in order to ascertain sufficient traffic visibility, and maneuverability for snow plows. The applicant confirms this, and states he did move a few trees back at her request, and signed off on any potential damage caused by snow plows. Chairman Annas asks what the setback off of the centerline [of the roadway] is, and states it looks to be about 25’ from the edge of the house (closest to the roadway). Doug Lee comments the drawing states it is 25’, but he does not know how accurate it is. Kris Munn asks Chairman Annas to confirm the violation is not only the height, but also the location of the fence, which he does. Victoria Polidoro asks Chairman Annas to explain the violation regarding the location of the fence. Chairman Annas notes the applicant has a grandfathered in setback less than 60’, but not less than the corner of the house, closest to the roadway. He identifies this point on the drawing. Ms. Polidoro confirms with Chairman Annas if the fence were 4’ in height, it would be permitted in the present location. Tim Ross concurs a 4’ high fence would be permitted in a front yard, as long as it is not in the Town right-of-way. Kris Munn confirms with Tim Ross the fence, if it were 4’ high, would not have to 2 be moved from its present location. The applicant comments there is a significant dip in the property, such that a fence would appear higher, to accommodate the uneven ground upon which is was constructed. Victoria Polidoro comments this is the identical issue from the Cartier appeal, insofar as it is a fence, less than the required setback, such that it can be no higher than 4’ in height. Kris Munn asks to confirm if there is anything in the [Town] Code regarding the grade of the land on which the fence is constructed. Ms. Polidoro states this would be one of the factors the Board would consider, in granting or denying the variance - that a fence constructed on a downward sloping grade might not have the same impact as a fence constructed on an even grade, even though they might be the same height. Kris Munn further comments, on his site visit, he did not notice other, similar fences in the neighborhood, which is, however different in character than the Cartier’s neighborhood, a compact subdivision. Doug Lee concurs and comments, the fence in the Cartier neighborhood stood out like a sore thumb. Kris Munn states this fence is also fairly visible, but the neighborhood is different. The applicant states his plan was always to mitigate the appearance of the fencing by covering it with Boston ivy, so that it will disappear into the hedge, which will eventually grow to be as tall as the fence. Tim Ross comments, on his site visit, comparing the present state of the property to that of 4 years ago, it is a vast improvement. He further comments it does not appear to block any neighbor’s view, that it is neatly tucked into the property, and affords privacy into the back yard. The applicant states, for him it is also a safety issue, since it is clear to him, someone threw a rock at the living room window, from the street. The Board concurs a fence will not keep someone who is determined to get in off the property, it is merely a deterrent. Kris Munn suggests closing the public hearing, if there are no more questions. Victoria Polidoro recommends declaring the action a Type II under SEQR. At 7:25pm Tim Ross moves to declare this action a Type II under SEQR. Kris Munn seconds and all are in favor. Ms. Polidoro then recommends the Board go through the variance resolution, point by point, with discussion and votes. She notes she has filled in the top part of the resolution, which is the factual portion, and states for the record “all testimony has been considered, and the following pertinent facts noted: 1. The property is not located in a dense neighborhood. 2. The grade of the road is higher than the grade of the fence. 3. Board members conducted a site visit, and noted that the fence does not present a visual impact.” On number three the Board notes the fence is visible, it is, however, a dark color, instead of white, the area is wooded, and the applicant has plans to cover the fence in ivy, and presents no obstruction to traffic visibility. 1. The Board concurs the variance requested will not produce an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, because the lot is somewhat isolated, located behind a commercial facility, and there are no immediate neighbors. 3 Chairman Annas comments, however, there are no other such fences in the neighborhood, so the applicant is fencing off an open area. 2. The Board concurs the needs of the applicant cannot be achieved by other than an area variance, however, were the fence to be moved back, behind the front line of the hedges, it would necessitate a smaller variance. 3. The Board concurs the requested variance is numerically substantial, but the impact is less than similar sized fences, due to the slope of the land. 4. The Board concurs the requested variance will not affect the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. The Board concurs the hardship for which the variance is sought to rectify was self-created. 6. The Board concurs the variance being granted is the minimum variance to meet the needs of the applicant, since the applicant has placed the fence just beyond the hedges, as part of an overall landscaping design. At 7:43pm Kris Munn moves to close the public hearing. Tim Ross seconds, and all are in favor. Victoria Polidoro states the Board now has a resolution to approve the variance, and so it will be voting on a resolution to grant the variance, as requested. At 7:44pm, Kris Munn moves to approve the variance, as written in the variance resolution to grant the variance. Tim Ross seconds, and all are in favor. There is no further discussion. At 7:45pm the Board votes as follows on the motion to approve the variance: Tim Ross: YES Nick Annas: NO Chris Carney: YES Kris Munn: YES Doug Lee: YES The motion passes 4-1, and the variance is granted. At 7:47pm Tim Ross moves to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Annas seconds, and all are in favor. 4