VILLAGE OF RED HOOK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
September 24, 2020
7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING VIA RINGCENTRAL
Present: Chair Erik Cuthell; Member Caroline Rider, Member Maarten Reilingh, Member
William Noonan and Member David Javsicas
Chair Erik Cuthell opened the September 24, 2020 ZBA Meeting at 7:02m.
Chair Cuthell informed tonight’s meeting is being held in accordance with NYS Executive
Order 202.1 which Governs the Open Meetings Law and makes it possible for the applicant and public to continue the business of the Village. Tonight’s meeting is being held via Ringcentral and a transcript will be provided at a later date.
Chair Cuthell did a Roll Call for all Board Members present:
Chair Cuthell – present
Member Rider – absent
Member Reilingh - present
Member Noonan – present
Member Javsicas – present
There was a quorum for tonight’s meeting.
Acting Chair Cuthell made a motion to accept and approve the minutes of the ZBA dated
August 27, 2020. Motion seconded by Member Rider. All in favor.
AGENDA ITEM #1.
Robert Santini 86 Cambridge Drive Area Variance – Fence Tax Parcel ID 6262-13-233436
Applicant, Robert Santini present.
Chair Cuthell advised that the applicant is seeking relief from Section 200-16-E-(26)-C – and applicant is present for an already installed 8 foot in height fence.
Chair Cuthell reminded that at last’s months meeting application was classified as a TYPE II Action with no further environmental review.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to open the Public Hearing for the application of 86 Cambridge Drive listed under Tax Parcel ID #6272-13-233436 at 7:04pm. Motion seconded by Member Noonan.
Page 2
9-24-2020 ZBA MTG.
Chair Cuthell read into record a letter received, via email sent to Secretary Hart, dated September 21, 2020 from Kim and Bill Burhans. Letter advised that they had no objection to the area variance request. A copy of letter is on file with the Building Department.
Chair Cuthell asked if anyone else was present for this public hearing.
#1. Steve Zacharzuk of 92 Cambridge Drive was present and advised that he has no objection to this area variance request.
Member Reilingh asked if the Notices of Hearing were mailed to owners of Mobile Home Park or individual residents of the Mobile Home Park. Secretary Hart advised that mailing list is run through Dutchess County Parcel Access and notice was mailed to owner of the Mobile Home
Park, John Colburn.
Chair Cuthell advised no other person present for comment.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:08pm. Motion seconded by Member Rider. All in favor.
Chair Cuthell read aloud Section 7-712 of the NYS Guide to Planning and Zoning pertaining to Area Variances. Chair Cuthell asked that the Board move on to the consideration of the Area Variance in addressing questions #1-#5 per Section 7-712.
Question #1. Undesirable Change in Neighborhood Character:
Member Javsicas asked with this question are we specifically referring to just this location, or is it that if we were to grant this exception would it potentially provide an undesirable change to other places where the same exceptions remain. Chair Cuthell said this was a bigger question and will be addressed later and this question pertains to the property in question. Member Rider
spoke and said from the pictures shown last time that the visible geography of these 2 pieces of property made them more susceptible to being overlooked by the people on the other side of the fence than you will find in most other places; and in most other places 6 feet would be adequate, however in this particular location because there is that shelf, it was testified that people could be looking at you because the fence only came up to about chest height, so said with this particular case and geography of the place it will prevent it from being the general precedent. Member Reilingh agreed, and said because it is also on the outer perimeter that backs up to an area of an entirely different character makes this an entirely different situation, and given the different character of the properties to the rear he does not see this as setting a precedent for the neighborhood in general; and as far as the character of the neighborhood these changes for both properties will be invisible to the rest of the neighborhood. Chair Cuthell asked Mr. Santini if his neighbor’s fence predates his replacement fence by a very long time.
Page 3
8-27-2020 ZBA MTG.
Mr. Santini advised that neighbor’s fence existed before he purchased his property. Chair Cuthell asked if that fence was set at 8 feet. Mr. Santini said he feels it is not 8 feet but lines up with his fence. No other comments from the Board.
Question #2. Alternative Cure Sought:
Chair Cuthell felt there was no other alternative but to require it be shorter than the Code would allow. Member Javsicas said trees/ shrubs could be planted but that would take a while. No other comment.
Question #3. Substantiality:
Chair Cuthell asked the Board for comment.
Member Rider felt it depends on the context and that since this is at the back of the property and lower than the land which is in back of the fence, this is reasonable under the physical circumstances. Member Noonan said he agreed with Member Rider.
Question #4. Adverse Effect or Impact:
Chair Cuthell asked for Board comments. No Comments.
Chair Cuthell felt this was a different environment and it doesn’t feel there is an adverse or negative affect on the neighborhood.
Question #5. Self Created:
Chair Cuthell said yes it is self-created but Mr. Santini replaced a fence that already existed. Mr. Santini said yes he replaced a chain link fence but that it was not 8 feet tall. Chair Cuthell said this is self-created but is not a reason to deny this application.
Chair Cuthell said all questions were answered and no significant objection raised, but bring us back to Member Javsicas’ question about precedent and this concerns him in that this property is on the border between the R10,000 and the NMU District and he looked through the Village and cannot find a situation like this, but how does this affect all those properties that abut against UBS around the corner and is this Board opening the door to all those
people wanting to put up taller fences. Chair Cuthell felt that Garden Street could be an issue but did a drive around the Village and with the exception of that border of houses against UBS there is nothing else like this and asked the Board if they had concerns with this.
Chair Cuthell felt if the Board had concerns he would reach out to the Village Attorney to make sure this Board crafts a decision that does not open the door to anyone in the Village who decides they want a taller fence and if this Board can restrict this application and approval if we were to choose to do so.
Member Reilingh said even worse it would be if it is started to create a kind of fencing situation for all of those properties in the interior of that community that do have neighbors in their backyard.
Page 4 8-27-2020 ZBA MTG.
Member Rider said she agrees with Chair Cuthell if they need to do this, but feels it is only a question of the wording, but what you do when you don’t want to create a precedent is you make it crystal clear why this particular decision related to this particular place, setting, time, etc., but feels for the reasons we stated here this isn’t precedent. Member Rider said she does not see this decision as giving people all over the Village carte blanche to grant 8 foot fences, but it wouldn’t hurt to have the Attorney’s wording. Member Javsicas said if the wording related to the Commercial Zoning vs. the Residential Zoning he would be more comfortable with that, and in terms of geography that is case by case, and indicated he put
up a fence and was told it could not go higher than 72 inches and the road is a little more than a foot higher than their back yard, so they will need to be little careful about that because other people could have that situation too.
Chair Cuthtell asked Mr. Santini if no further work was being done. Mr. Santini said correct.
Chair Cuthell said there are more issues with the next application, and although the applications are the same there are different circumstances, and asked to hold the vote until next month, so that the Board can get the Village Attorney’s input on proper wording. Mr. Santini was ok with this decision.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to table the Area Variance Application of 86 Cambridge Drive to the October 22, 2020 ZBA Meeting. Motion seconded by Member Reilingh. All in favor.
AGENDA ITEM #2.
Erica Schupp 88 Cambridge Drive Area Variance – Fence Tax Parcel ID 6262-13-244443
Applicant, Erica Scupp present.
Secretary Hart confirmed that Ms. Schupp was present as only a number showed and no visual.
Ms. Schupp confirmed she was present.
Chair Cuthell advised that the applicant is seeking relief from Section 200-16-E-(26)-C – and that applicant is requesting a fence to be 10 foot in height and proposing lattice to be added to the top of the exiting 6 foot fence to bring up to the existing 10 foot high fence. Chair Cuthell advised that applicant submitted a picture of the lattice as requested at last month’s meeting and all members
received.
Chair Cuthell advised that all mailings were completed and proof of mailings submitted to Secretary Hart.
Page 5
8-27-2020 ZBA MTG.
Chair Cuthell reminded that at last’s months meeting application was classified as a TYPE II Action with no further environmental review.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to open the Public Hearing for the application of 88 Cambridge Drive listed under Tax Parcel ID #6272-13-244443 at 7:32pm. Motion seconded by Member Rider. All in favor.
Chair Cuthell read into record a letter received, via email sent to Secretary Hart, dated September 21, 2020 from Kim and Bill Burhans. Letter advised that they had no objection to the area variance request. A copy of letter is on file with the Building Department.
Member Rider asked if letter were residents that were on the other side of the street. Ms. Schupp said yes they are across the street from both her and Mr. Santini.
Note: Prior minutes indicate that Mr. Zacharzuk residing at 92 Cambridge Drive had no objection to either application presented
this evening.
Ms. Schupp said the Board mentioned 10 feet which makes it seem like it is a different height than Mr. Santini’s but indicated if you look at the fences they have the same height line, and hers does not end up any higher than his it just sounds like that because the Mobile Home Park
ends up with a lot of fill so there is 2 feet of fill, so it ends up being only 2 feet of wood but 2 feet is only in her yard because she is so much lower and 8 feet above their fill line, which matches it up to Mr. Santini’s. Member Javsicas asked about the posts above ground. Ms. Schupp said they were getting cut off. Member Javsicas asked if the top line would match with the one next door. Ms. Schupp said correct and the lattice would come up to that height as well in sections that were not finished with the stockade. Ms. Schupp said the section of fencing is where the Mobile Home Septic is located and when they work they park their machinery there and work.
Chair Cuthell advised Ms. Schupp has a pool and gym in the back yard and with only a 6 foot high fence there is no deterrent to neighbors. Ms. Schupp said she had concerns with privacy and getting her homeowner’ insurance. Ms. Schupp said she was in agreement with the Board asking for Attorney wording in a decision.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:37pm. Motion seconded by Member Rider. All in favor.
Chair Cuthell moved on to the consideration of the Area Variance in addressing questions #1-#5 per Section 7-712.
Question #1. Undesirable Change in Neighborhood Character:
Chair Cuthell felt that since this was a utility area for the Mobile Home Park he does see this as an undesirable change to the neighborhood.
Member Reiling asked about materials to complete the project moving from wood stockade to plastic lattice. Chair Cuthell said it is not plastic and according to picture proposed it is pressure treated wood lattice, so it will continue to be a wood fence and believes the consideration to put
Page 6
8-27-2020 ZBA MTG.
the lattice above the 6 foot fence was for aesthetic so as to not have a 10 foot solid wall. Ms. Schupp said correct and there is a plan to incorporate trim work so it ends up becoming a paneled section and not just open lattice and have a frame around it.
Chair Cuthell felt Board was in agreement that there is no undesirable change.
Question #2. Alternative Cure Sought:
Chair Cuthell felt there was no other alternative. Member Rider mentioned trees but in this case would not do unless there were 15-20 years to grow and a fence is the only practicable barrier. Ms. Schupp said especially with safety reasons with the pool.
Question #3. Substantiality:
Chair Cuthell felt going from 6-10feet is substantial.
Member Rider agreed. Member Noonan agreed but said it has to be reviewed in the context of the rest of the fence and what the applicant is trying to achieve. Member Rider agreed.
Member Reilingh said it is not any more substantial than the defect
that it is trying to cure and there is a 4 foot gap there and it’s going to raise the fence to be consistent with the rest of the fence and is already consistent with Mr. Santini’s fence, and ultimately in line with what is already there. Member Noonan agreed. No other comments from the Board.
Question #4. Adverse Effect or Impact:
Chair Cuthell felt there was no adverse effect or impact. Board agreed.
Question #5. Self Created:
Chair Cuthell said yes it is self-created but is not a reason to deny this application.
Chair Cuthell asked the Board for any final comment. Member Noonan said in terms of precedent we have very specific lines that we are talking about and if those lines are the same on Garden Street then we would have a precedent, but does not feel we have a precedent because of the different in typography there. Chair Cuthell said it is more than typography and just wants to be very careful in wording and would like to confer with Village Attorney. Ms. Schupp had no problem with holding over until the next ZBA Meeting.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to table the Area Variance Application of 88 Cambridge Drive to the October 22, 2020 ZBA Meeting. Motion seconded by Member Javsicas. All in favor.
Page 7
8-27-2020 ZBA MTG.
At this time Dan Wheeler was present and asked to address the Board. Chair Cuthell said this Board is present to review Agenda items. Mr. Wheeler said back in August 26 he sent a letter to Mr. Kimble requesting input and would like to address this Board. Chair Cuthell advised we are not the body for him to address this to. Mr. Wheeler said he disagrees. Chair Cuthell advised this is the Zoning Board of Appeals who reviews applications. Mr. Wheeler said he wants to talk about a Zoning issue. Chair Cuthell said the only role they play is to review …Mr. Wheeler said he does not care what role they play and you are the Zoning Board….Member Reilingh said ..of Appeals….Chair Cuthell said they are here strictly to review applications that come before the Board when they are called for by the Code Enforcement Officer and this is not open for discussion. Mr. Wheeler said the Code Enforcement Officer who is your instrument is not doing his job. Member Rider advised he would need to address the Village Board. Mr. Wheeler said he will do that and noted on record that he has made this Board aware of a problem and they have taken no action and choose not to take any action and fall back on a statement that has not merit and said he appreciated their time and will take to the Village Board. Chair Cuthell thanked Mr. Wheeler.
Chair Cuthell made a motion to close the September 24, 2020 ZBA Meeting at 7:54pm.
All in favor. Motion approved.
/S/
Lara Hart,
Secretary
Village of Red Hook ZBA