A ZBA that confuses their personal opinions with their ZBA role

The September 8 ZBA agenda had three public hearings and a new project as a discussion. The public hearings, often open and closed with no public comment or input -- is a vehicle that neighbors or others with an opinion can speak to the board before a decision is made about a requested variance.

The Chair often introduces the project by saying "I like what I saw when we visited" or some version of "I don't like it" -- and asks for opinions from the board members BEFORE hearing from the public. Chill dude --- at least hear from the public before previewing your decision. Really, it is only a few minutes.... wait -- and then AFTER the public hearing is closed -- ask for the rest of the board's opinions and if someone on the board would like to make a motion approving or denying a variance.

So - the first public hearing - where Mid-Hudson Development built a foundation at 356 Old Hopewell Road with a 63.2 setback where 75 feet are required, their lawyer, expressed apologies for the "mistake" and described how the variance of 11.8 feet wouldn't change the character of the neighborhood, wouldn't create a precedent etc. etc. and was suitably chagrined, and apologized that his client didn't mark the property lines like the ZBA requested. The ZBA members weren't buying the "it was a simple mistake" and basically said that after visiting the site, and the long experience of the builders, that this was an "accident on purpose" -- because to have moved the foundation back, given the topology of the site, would have been difficult. They also expressed that they would have preferred that a request for a variance BEFORE the foundation was dug.... but they approved the variance. They did comment that the current placement of the driveway is very problematic and will inevitably lead to an accident, and requested that the driveway be relocated (something that the county will have to get involved in because Old Hopewell Road is a County Road).

The Second Public Hearing involved a request for a setback variance to place a new deck with stairs on a property at Scotse Road. The board seemed more concerned about a temporary shed on the property and commisserated on the inability of the materials used to stand-up to Northeast weather conditions... by the board approved the setback variance requested.

The third public hearing... where the applicant has built a shed using atypical building materials (a sliding glass door, sky lights) on a property that is sloped -- meaning that the height, while in code, appears to be higher compared to surrounding buildings, than it is. The applicant requested a variance of 1.3 feet for the rear yard and 2.4 feet on a side yard - the property is .44 acres. The property is on Pye Lane -- and the board decided to take time to tell the applicant that they didn't like the look of the shed, that it looks like a "tiny house" to them (have they seen the sheds that are purposely built to look like a small house -- a "she-shed"? apparently not) .. and that despite the architect accompanying the applicant assuring them that there is no water connections to the structure, the ZBA asserted that there will be on-going compliance checks to make sure no one is living in the shed. Neighbors spoke at the public hearing, explaining that they could see the shed from their property, complaining about the look of the shed (it has not been sided because the building department put a stop work order on the project) and one neighbor seemed more concerned that because their property was on a corner - they had "two front yards" that made their project subject to additional set-back rules, that it seemed like this project didn't have as many hurdles to go through. The shed meets all zoning code requirements for square footage etc. which seemed to baffle the ZBA members and the Building Department head asked for their input on what kind of code changes they would like the town board to consider. The Chair of the ZBA tried to placate the neighbors by saying that he thought the shed was a "massive eye-sore" - (not sure what the legal definition of "massive eye-sore" is) but since the request was for a small variance, they "had" to approve the request -- which the board did. The Chair then lectured the applicant to be more considerate to the neighbors -- (something that was not explained to the developer in Hughsonville.... just saying..)

A set-back variance request -with a public hearing scheduled for September 22 - on Red Hawk Hollow Road - would legalize an existing shed on 6.457 acres - where 40 feet on the side yard property line is required the applicant can provide 10 feet - was presented to the board.