When 3 inches matters

The February 11 Zoning board meeting - with 4 members present - could be a case study in when is "being careful and cautious" being "too careful and cautious"

The first Public Hearing -- referred to at times as a "public meeting" - involves a request to provide setback variances for the removal of a current building on Route 376 as being too close to the road, leaky basement and a second story that doesn't have enough height to allow individuals to standup. The property owners wish to demolish the building built in 1890 and build a new structure, further back from the road, that is more energy efficient. To do that, because the 1 acre lot's shape, requires variances of 20 feet on each side of the proposed building -- and a variance on the requirment that homes in that zoning code have 2 acres. The ZBA chair cheerily announce that he saw no problem with the request -- and then asked if there were any members of the public who would like to speak or if the other board members had any questions of the architect who was representing the applicant. With that forshadowing of decision... .the board went on to approve the variance.

The second public hearing involves a request by an applicant to build a 1400 sf garage with a 10'x20' overhang on a 1 acre lot on Regency Drive. In addition to a variance for the size (800 sf is allowed), because the applicant already has 2 existing structures - a variance for a 3rd accessory structure is required. The Chair opened the public hearing by commenting that this is an enormous size and doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood -- and that there are neighbors who can see into the yard. With that first volley -- the applicant was in a defensive position of having to explain his request (he has a lot of vehicles) and asking that with only 4 ZBA members available at this meeting, if/when he can ask for an adjournment, also mentioning that he works in the evenings so attending the meeting requires him to take time off. The Board members began asking if he would consider a smaller size garage, and strongly suggesting that he request an adjournment to think about his "options". The Director of Strategic Planning and Municipal Codes then went on to comment that the town allows a limited number of vehicles and equipment on properties, and he really needs to address the number of vehicles on his property. The public hear was adjourned.

Now... where 3 inches apparently matters.... So.... an applicant, represented in these discussions by an attorney, recently purchased 2505 Route 9D -- which is surrounded by municipal property - Property on one side where a building had to be demolished by the town because it was beyond repair. The new property owner, has been unable to get insurance on a barn because it is not water tight and in desperate need of repair... a building built in 1871. The Barn may have been added on to in the 1980s -- and was the source of all kinds of speculation based on historical aerial maps -- very grainy - not definitive -- the kind of block used as the foundation (compared with stone in other parts of the building) - but the town has no building permits on file for that exention - so it is all a bit ambigious and really besides the point. So where the property owner went to the town to get a permit to begin to work on repairing the building so that he can get insurance .... he was informed by the building department that he needs 20 feet to the right side yard property line and that his building is 1.5 feet from the property line -- therefore a variance of 18.5 feet is needed. That is how the request was published in the legal notice -- based on the building department's concern and statements. However -- it turns out that the side of the barn and the property line are not parallel -- and that only part of the barn is 1.5 feet away from the property line... the other end of the barn is .9 feet - or 10.8 inches away from the property line so the variance would actually need to be 19 feet 11 inches -- and since that request is MORE than what was published (less than is ok) -- the request has to go through the legal notice process again (trust me... this was a very long conversation). Then -- the question arose -- on whether the EAVE of the barn was actually over the property line ... and would there be concerns about water dripping over the edge of the property line from the rain/snow on the roof... and how would repairs be made without stepping over the property line (please remember the town now owns the adjacent property, and whether THREE inches of the Eave should be removed. There were a few brief segues into "what does the owner want to do with the barn, with the attorney saying that while some other uses have been speculated upon, right now the objective of the applicant is to get the building repaired so that it can be insured and that it would be used as ......... a barn. So the process needs to begin again... and the public hearing was adjourned to February 25th. The Director of Strategic Planning & Municipal Codes stated she would meet with the Town Supervisor, as the owner of the town property to get an opinion on the 3 inches - and the ability of the barn's owner to step on town property to do the required work on the barn... enabling him to get insurance on his investment in the Town of Wappinger.

It is absolutely delightful to find the members of the ZBA so concerned about community character, size of proposed new buildings, concerns about precision of measurements on an historic structure... when the hamlet of Hughsonville is being gutted - and has a large superstructure being built in it. The ironies are painful.