VILLAGE OF RED HOOK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
January 23, 2020
7:00 PM
Present: Chair George Beekman, Member Caroline Rider, Member Maarten Reilingh and
Member William Noonan
Absent: Member Erik Cuthell
Chair George Beekman opened the January 23, 2020 meeting of the ZBA at 7:00pm.
Chair George Beekman made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the
Zoning Board of Appeals meeting dated October 24, 2020. Motion seconded by Member
Rider. All in favor.
#1. Dan Wheeler 24 Prince Street Area Variance Continuation
Tax Parcel ID# 6272-10-342714 Public Hearing Continuation
Present: Dan and Lorraine Wheeler, Applicants
Nick Sperry, resident of 28 Prince Street
Chair Beekman advised applicant Dan Wheeler is seeking relief from the Village of Red Hook Zoning for an Area Variance from Section 200-9-D-(7) which requires a 15 foot side yard setback. Chair Beekman advised that at the last ZBA meeting a survey was requested confirming what the current setbacks were. Chair Beekman confirmed that all Board members have received a copy of the submitted survey.
Chair Beekman said according to submitted survey the front of the shed facing Prince Street was 4.6 foot and back was 4.7 foot. Chair Beekman said original application was for a 5 foot setback from 15 feet. Chair Beekman indicated that it appears that the line is on the other side of the fence. Member Rider said according to the survey the fence is not on the property line, so there is somewhere between 4 -1/2 – 5 feet. Chair Beekman said it is less than 5 feet.
Member Rider recalled at the last meeting there was discussion on the shed height and square feet in area and discussion of additional variances. Chair Beekman said the discussion was if it was considered a building or a shed, although the building permit was for a structure 8 feet in height and 5 feet from property line. Member Rider asked how many variances is this Board looking at. Chair Beekman felt it would only be for one – side yard setback. Member Rider said if this Board grants one variance and there are 2 non-conforming conditions still outstanding where does that leave this Board? Member Reilingh asked if applicant would have to return for other variances after getting the one 5 foot variance and his concern is even if this Board grants the 5 foot variance will applicant Wheeler’s project still be out of compliance with regard to the building itself and the proximity of the line.
Page 2
1-23-2020 ZBA Mtg.
Member Reilingh also asked does the shaded area include the overhang or not because when they went there for a site visit they measured the distance from the wall to the fence, but he feels this is not clear. Member Rider said the convention is foot print and the surveys show the shaded areas as the footprint of the building. Member Reilingh said but does that requirement refer to the footprint or to the total building, Mr. Sperry indicated that building code states any part of the building. Mr. Sperry said it was in International Code. Mr. Wheeler disagreed and said traditionally if there was a roof overhang it would be depicted as such but there is nothing in IBC that calls for what Mr. Sperry is talking about. Member Rider did give an example to show that if the side yard requirement does not require the overhang to be the point from which the distance to the line is measured, you could have a building whose wall is in compliance with the granted variance, but whose overhang goes over the boundary, so when you take into account the overhang and this even less than 4 ½ feet from the boundary, what are we talking about. Member Reilingh said he is willing to set aside that concern but the bottom line is that this Board is looking at the four feet six inches or four feet seven inches to the building structure and to the footprint.
Mr. Sperry asked if the survey was done by a certified surveyor. Board indicated yes. Chair Beekman said this Board mitigates but going in another direction this Board would have to resend another notice and this Board never had this situation. Mr. Sperry asked when the survey was done. Member Rider said Jan. 7, 2020. Mr. Sperry asked if he could look at the survey. The Board said yes. Mr. Sperry said he felt it did not go along with the original stakes he saw there. Member Rider said that is why this Board suggested he also get survey because other surveys could be different. Mr. Sperry said he did not see anyone near his property. Mrs. Wheeler said that it not important and that the survey is done.
Chair Beekman asked the Board how they felt about amending the application. Member Rider said request would go down from 5 feet to 4 ½ feet. Member Reilingh said he felt it had to be amended by applicant, Mr. Wheeler. Member Rider asked if the fee could be waived but that the application has to be amended to 4 ½ feet and feels all 3 variances could be applied for at once.
The Board indicated that they would like the Village Attorney to answer these questions.
Chair Beekman felt the issue of it being a building or shed was resolved. Member Rider feels it is a shed. Chair Beekman said he feels it is an accessory building. Member Rider said it is clearly a shed and if not everything would be considered an accessory structure. Chair Beekman said but an accessory building might have electric or plumbing. Member Rider said regardless it seems that any court would interpret this as a shed and the original drawings were for shed, and feels the applicant should apply for all 3 variances per shed regulations.
Member Noonan said if this Board asked for an amended application, would we have to deny this application and start the process over. Chair Beekman said this application could be withdrawn. Chair Beekman said the Board’s questions of if this is a shed and amending
Page 3
1-23-2020 ZBA Mtg.
application will need to be addressed first. Secretary Hart suggested that the Board table the application until she can speak with Attorney Polidoro. Member Rider had the question if an applicant requests changes, can the Board, without further proceedings,
change the application. Mr. Sperry said he feels that would be a violation of Code. Member Rider indicated hat per a recent seminar she attended Boards are supposed to try and minimize the variances given. Chair Beekman said this situation is complicated because the building exists already and that it does not even conform to the permit that was issued. Chair Beekman did discuss that involving Village Attorney could require escrow. Mr. Wheeler said he will not pay escrow. Chair Beekman advised Mr. Wheeler he applied for a building permit and did not build to plan. Mr. Wheeler said the building inspector went out there measured and he said it was fine.
At this time Member Rider addressed all parties and said public comment has not even been opened and if the parties cannot be civil they will not speak at all.
Member Rider moved to table this application and contact the Village Attorney to inquire about if escrow is needed and said that if the applicant does not wish to pay escrow, the Board will vote and will probably be a vote against because in her opinion the structure would still not be put into compliance. Chair Beekman said to also motion to table the public hearing.
Voting was as follows:
Chair Beekman – yes
Member Rider – yes
Member Reilingh – yes Member Noonan – no Member Cuthell – absent
Motion passed.
Chair Beekman made a motion to close the January 23, 2020 meeting at 7:30pm. Motion seconded by Member Rider. All in favor.
/S/
Lara Hart
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary