Community Character & the ZBA

There were 2 Public Hearings and 1 Discussion (aka new application) on the agenda of the February 25th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Both Public Hearings were adjourned from previous meetings.

An Applicant on Regency Drive came fully prepared to defend/plea for his request to add a garage to his property of .93 acres. The board, at the last meeting, where they had only 4 members - meaning that he would need the votes of all 4 members in attendance to get his variance, seemed to be leaning to denying his variance request. Basically an accessory structure cannot be more than 800 square feet - and his initial request was for a 30x40' building with a 10'X20' overhang - meaning that he would need a variance of 600 square feet. The applicant took charge of the public hearing, reading a heartfelt statement explaining his dream, since he was small and was tinkering on machines/engines/vehicles with his Dad, and got a broken riding mower to run when he was small with his own initiative, to have a garage large enough for vehicle & tool storage, a workshop to work in, and a place where he and his children could work on vehicles together, passing along the lessons he learned from his Dad. He then segued into a litany of properties (I lost count after 10) in his neighborhood and neighboring areas that had accessory structures of similar size. He was cautioned during his recitation that some of them may have been built after zoning changes were instituted, and he was able to provide an example of a building of similar size built in the last year. He also mentioned that he would be willing to forgo the 10 by 20' overhang, which would reduce the size of the requested variance by 200 square feet. He provided pictures of the garage he would like to have built - this kicked off other discussions about whether a 30' x 36' garage would be more appropriate, the height of the garage, whether the building looked "too commercial", how large were the two garage doors - a ZBA member did mention that historic properties traditionally did have large structures/barns on them which reined in the criticims of the size -- and the chair person of the board was clearly concerned about the impact on the neighbors' view -- in which the applicant pointed out, that they visited his property in February, when there was no leaf cover, and provided pictures of his yard during the summer months, and his was willing to plant trees/shrubs to screen the view of the garage. It was then discussed that perhaps by turning the garage 90 degrees, making access a bit tricky, would be more visually appealing. And in some of the designs he showed the board, there were examples with wainscoating and details that made the garage look more "residential" and he agreed to provide those details. More discussion about neighbors -- finally the chair asked if any members of the public wanted to speak... two neighbors were in attendance, as they were at the last meeting, so clearly they look kindly upon this applicant ... .and said they don't see any buildings on this property at all and are fully supportive of the request. After some uncomfortable pauses, the board went ahead with a vote and approved the variance.

The next public hearing involved a real historic barn on Route 9D. The barn was built in the 1870s, extended at some time in the 1980s... and the new owner wants to be able to insure it - but it requires repairs before the insurance company will provide the insurance. The difficulty with this property, which is surrounded by Town of Wappinger owned property, is that the side of the barn is not parallel with the property line, so one end is .9 feet away from the property line, where 20 feet is currently required, and the other end is actually overhanging the property line by 3". This required the applicant to "republish" his request for the variance, thus the adjournment from the previous meeting. Then a long discussion of how will the property owner actually repair/maintain the building without stepping on town property, and what kind of insurance will be required etc. etc. Apparently when one gets a building permit, one has to name the town in one's insurance. So, if the work done was covered by a building permit, this is no longer an issue. However, if it is routine maintenance... this could be an issue... so the lawyers involved decided that this was a Town Board Matter and would have be to decided before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued (this should be an "interesting" discussion with the town board members). The concerns were that if the property is sold, the new owners would have to understand the restrictions/easements in place via the property title. So the good news is the applicant was issued the requested variance, so a building permit can be issued. The conditions placed on the variance was that the building can only be used as a residential accessory use, and any other uses would have to be reviewed/approved by the ZBA (isn't that normal?).

The discussion on the agenda involves a property on Robinson Lane. 50 feet is the requirement between the front of a building and the street. The applicant can provide 46.7 feet to an existing front porch, needing a variances of 3.3 feet. The ZBA will visit on March 8, and there will be a public hearing on March 11.