VILLAGE OF CORNWALL ON HUDSON ZONING BOARD MEETING AUGUST 13, 2009

Transcription

1 PRESENT: PETER OSINSKI ANDREW MARONEY MICHAEL DEFRANCO MICHAEL KELLY ROBERT QUILLIN LAWYER-BRUCE DUNN BUILDING INSPECTOR WILLIAM A. LEE RECORDING SECRETARY- ARLENE ROBERTS VILLAGE OF CORNWALL ON HUDSON ZONING BOARD MEETING AUGUST 13, 2009 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING CHAIRPERSON PETER OSINSKI CALLS THE ZONING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE VILLAGE OF CORNWALL ON HUDSON AT 7:25 P.M. THIS MEETING IS A CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY 9, 2009.

2 CHAIRPERSON ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CHRISTINE BELL- 28 CORNWALL AVENUE- THIS MEETING IS A CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING FROM JULY, TO DISCUSS THE APPLICATION FOR AN IN GROUND POOL AT 28 CORNWALL AVENUE. THE BOARD REQUESTED AT LAST MONTHS MEETING FOR MS. BELL GO BACK AND REFINE HER PROPOSAL FOR THE IN GROUND POOL, ALSO PROVIDING ANY

3 ALTERNATIVES THAT SHE MIGHT CONSIDER. CHRISTINE PRESENTS A DOCUMENT OF SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS A SIGNED INFORMAL PETITION ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES AND NOISE. I ADDITION SHE SUBMITS A LETTER TO BE READ AND A OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. PETER READS THE LETTER FROM CHRISTINE IN WHICH SHE ADDRESSES PROPERTY VALUES AND NOISE AND ITEMS THAT THE BOARD ASKED HER TO ADDRESS. CHAIRPERSON- ASKS CHRISTINE IF SHE SPOKE TO BILL LEE ABOUT THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND WHAT WHERE HIS SUGGESTIONS. CHRISTINE SPEAKS ABOUT WHAT SHE CURRENTLY HAS IN HER YARD. SHE PLANS TO PLANT EVER GREENS. AND PLACE A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO CODE. SHE HAS HAD CONVERSATION WITH A MEMBER OF THE CORNWALL GARDEN CLUB AND HAS SUGGESTIONS FOR DEER RESISTANT PLANTINGS. PETER ASKS BILL LEE ABOUT FENCING. BILL SPEAKS ABOUT VIEW PRESERVATION AND WHAT HER OPTIONS ARE; NOTHING BUT CHAIN LINK IS ALLOWED AT A HEIGHT OF NO HIGHER THEN 4 FEET, TO PRESERVE THE VIEW, OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. CHRISTINE STATES THAT THE SHRUBBERY WILL BE A LONG THE HUDSON STREET SIDE OF HER PROPERTY IN ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. CHRISTINE SUBMITS PICTURE OF AN ABOVE GROUND POOL AND THE IN GROUND POOL. APPLICANT- STATES THAT SHE WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR AN ABOVE GROUND POOL AND HAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD WHAT AN ABOVE GROUND POOL WOULD LOOK LIKE. CURRENTLY NOW ON THE PROPERTY IS A LARGE DOLL HOUSE AND FOUR BLUE SPRUCE THAT SPAN AN AREA OF AT LEAST 50 FEET. CHAIRPERSON- STATES THAT ANOTHER CONCERN, AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE LOWERING OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES IF THIS POOL IS INSTALLED. CHRISTINE PRESENTS A LETTER FROM A CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER THAT SAYS THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE PROPERTY VALUES. PETER READS THE LETTER INTO PUBLIC RECORD AND EXAMINES HIS CREDENTIALS AND RESUME. PETER ALSO SHOWS A PETITION THAT CHRISTINE HAD PRESENTED TO HER NEIGHBORS THAT LOOK DIRECTLY AT HER PROPERTY. PETER READS THIS PETITION FROM EARLY JULY, IN WHICH SHE ASKS HER NEIGHBORS APPROVAL FOR THE INSERTION OF AN IN GROUND POOL. PETER STATES THAT CHRISTINE HAS REFINED HER PLAN FOR THE IN GROUND POOL AND HAS TRIED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. SHE WILL INSTALL A CHAIN LINK FENCE AND PLANTINGS WITHIN HER PROPERTY LINES TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SCREENING. CHRISTINE SHOWS A PRINT OUT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS THAT STATES AND IN GROUND POOL WILL INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES BY 8%. CHAIRPERSON CONTINUES TO READ FROM CHRISTINE S LETTER AND SAYS THAT SHE CAN PROCEED WITH AN ABOVE GROUND WITHOUT A VARIANCE. CHRISTINE STATES THAT AN IN GROUND WILL LOOK BETTER APPEARANCE WISE AND REQUIRES NO FENCING OR SCREENING. ANDREW MARONEY ASKS ABOUT THE LOT SIZE AND CHRISTINE STATES THAT HER LOT IS A DOUBLE LOT. MR MARONEY STATES THAT BUILDING LOTS IN THE VILLAGE ARE 15,000 SQUARE FEET. ANDREW READS FROM THE VILLAGE CODE BOOK WHICH DISCUSSES SCREENING FOR PROPERTIES. ANDREW MARONEY READS FROM THE CODE BOOK TALKING ABOUT SCREENING FROM ABUTTING PROPERTIES. CHRISTINE SAID IT WOULD BE HARD TO SCREEN AN ABOVE GROUND POOL.

4 MICHAEL KELLY TALKS ABOUT ADDITIONAL FENCING. ABOVE GROUND POOL DOESN T REQUIRE A SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. AN ABOVE GROUND POOL THE FENCE THAT GOES AROUND THE TOP WOULD BE THE ONLY SCREENING. MICHAEL DE FRANCO TALKS ABOUT VIEW PRESERVATION AND THE HEIGHT AND MAINTENANCE OF SHRUBBERY IN THE VIEW CORRIDOR. BILL LEE STATES THAT HE WILL HAVE TO VIEW THE SCREENINGS AND APPROVE THE SCREENING PLANS. THE BOARD IS CLEAR WITH THE ALL THE FACTS. VILLAGE COUNCIL STATES THAT SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NOT NECESSARY. CHAIRPERSON OPENS THE MEETING TO PUBLIC COMMENTS PETER NEWMAN- 9 BRADEN PLACE -THE APPRAISER DID NOT VISIT THE SITE AND IT IS NOT VALID AND IT IS SPOKEN IN GENERALITIES. ZONING LAWS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE CHRISTINE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY. IF YOU ALLOW THE VARIANCE YOU WILL ALLOW SPOT ZONING. DAN OROUKE- 22 HEDGES- CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CONGESTION TO THE AREA. NONE OF THE ANSWERS WERE ASKED WERE TAKEN CARE OF SINCE THE LAST MEETING. THE BUSHES WILL NOT STOP THE NOISE FROM THE POOL DISTURBING HIS TENANTS. IT WILL NOT INCREASE THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY. HE RENEWS HIS OBJECTION. CHAIRPERSON MAKES SURE THAT DAN KNOWS THAT AN ABOVE GROUND IS ALLOWED AND DAN FEELS THAT IT IS A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE AND CAN BE EASILY REMOVED WITH A NEW OWNER. ARAM CASPARIAN- 32 CORNWALL AVENUE WHAT IS THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF THE FENCE? IS IT A CHAIN LINK FENCE? WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE FENCE? IF IT IS 6 6, IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE ACCEPTABLE? AND WHY ARE WE HERE TONIGHT? BILL SPEAKS ABOUT THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE VIEW PRESERVATION DISTRICT. JAMES PATCH- 11 RIVER AVENUE READS FROM THE VILLAGE CODE BOOK IN REGARDS TO FENCE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT- STATES WHAT EVER HEIGHT IS REQUIRED BY ZONING SHE WILL COMPLY. MR CASPARIAN STATES HE WOULD PREFER A 6 FOOT FENCE FOR SAFETY REASONS. HAS THE POOL BEEN DECREASED IN SIZE? HE THOUGHT THE POOL SIZE OR THE SITE OF THE POOL HAS BEEN. HE IS UNCERTAIN WHY THERE IS A MEETING TONIGHT. CHRISTINE THOUGHT THIS MEETING WAS ABOUT NOISE AND FENCING SCREENING. SHE TALKS ABOUT THE SHAPE OF THE POOL AND WHAT PORTION DOES NOT MEET THE 10 FEET SET BACK. THE ENTIRE POOL DOES NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE ONLY A SECTION. SHE ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS OF THE APPRAISERS AND THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THE VILLAGE. ANDREW MARONEY QUESTIONS IF THE POOL COULD BE CONFIGURED TO A DIFFERENT SHAPE. APPLICANT STATES THAT THE SHAPE COULD NOT BE RECONFIGURED AND IT WOULD BE LIKE A SNAKE SHAPE AND VERY NARROW. CHAIRPERSON STATES THAT WE DID ASK FOR A REFINED PLAN FOR SCREENING, AND IF THE POOL COULD BE RECONFIGURED, WHICH CHRISTINE HAS SUPPLIED FOR BOARD AND PUBLIC REVIEW. HE TALKS ABOUT THE VERY DEEP SET BACKS AND CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE POOL. WE ASKED MS. BELL TO GIVE ANOTHER SHOT TO ESTABLISH WHAT KINDS OF SCREENING WILL BE ON THE PROPERTY AND IF

5 SETBACKS CAN BE ACHIEVED. WE TRIED TO GIVE HER A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE SURE ALL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. PETER STATES THAT IT IS TOUGH TO MEET THE SETBACKS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODES, FOR IN GROUND POOLS. MARGRET MC LAUGHLIN- 34 GRANDVIEW AVENUE- QUESTIONS THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE ON A CORNER LOT AND CORNWALL AVENUE FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY IN HER AREA. CHAIRPERSON STATES THAT A 6 FOOT FENCE IN THAT AREA MIGHT NOT BE ALLOWED. APPLICANT STATES THAT SHE WILL NOT HAVE ANY FENCING ON CORNWALL AVENUE. HER FENCE WILL BE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTY LINES IN THE REAR AND ALONG HUDSON STREET. THE FENCE WILL BE FOUR FOOT FENCE AND THERE WILL BE SCREENING BY PLANTINGS. MR CASPARIAN HIS CONCERNS ARE ABOUT HIS PROPERTY VALUE. HE FEELS THE OCCUPANT IS THE ONLY PERSON THAT WOULD HAVE IN INCREASE IN THEIR VALUE; HIS PROPERTY VALUE WILL DECREASE SIGNIFICANTLY. CHAIRPERSON- ASKS MR. CASPARIAN IF HE WOULD PREFER AN ABOVE GROUND. MR. CASPARIAN REPLIES: HE WAS COUNTING ON THE VILLAGE TO ABIDE BY THE VILLAGE CODE. PETER STATES THAT WE GRANT VARIANCE AS REQUESTED ON THE PLAN AND MERIT OF THE REQUESTS PRESENTED TO THE VILLAGE ZONING BOARD. GRETA MC GLOKLIN- TALKS ABOUT THE SAFETY MEASURE OF THE FENCE HEIGHT AND WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A LOWER HEIGHT OF FENCE IN THIS AREA. ANNETTE OROUKE- 22 HEDGES AVENUE % IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE ZONING LAWS AND THIS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. CHAIRPERSON STATES THAT THIS REQUEST IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND IT IS VERY ROUTINE, FOR A ZONING BOARD VARIANCE. DAN OROUKE- 22 HEDGES TALKS ABOUT HIS CONCERNS ABOUT INCREASING THE CONGESTION OF THE AREA WITH OTHER STRUCTURE BESIDES POOLS, SHEDS. ETC. HE FEELS IT IS A SNOWBALL EFFECT AND WILL RESULT IN MANY MORE VARIANCES TO COME. CHAIRPERSON CLOSES THE MEETING TO PUBLIC COMMENT THE BOARD SHARES THERE FEELINGS WITH THE PUBLIC AND BETWEEN THEMSELVES. BRUCE DUNN DOESN T THINK THERE IS A REASON TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MICHAEL KELLY SAYS THAT IF ZONING BOARD GRANTS A VARIANCE THERE IS NO SAYING THAT THE SCREENING WILL BE DONE AS PROMISED. PETER STATES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE IT IN GOOD FAITH THAT CHRISTINE WILL DO THE PLANTING THAT SHE HAS PROMISED.

6 MICHAEL DE FRANCO TALKS ABOUT THE FACT THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY VOTE A POOL WILL BE PUT INTO THIS RESIDENCE. WE CAN NOT STOP NOR SHOULD WE STOP PEOPLE FROM INSTALLING POOLS ON THEIR PROPERTIES. BOB QUILLIN GIVES HIS OPINION ABOUT IF IT WILL BE A DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC AND IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCE. BRUCE STATES THAT THERE IS NO CHANGE OF USE AND IT IS UP TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE ZONING BOARD CAN NOT SEND THIS APPLICANT TO THE PLANNING BOARD IF NO SITE PLAN REVIEW IS REQUIRED. VOTING ROBERT QUILLIN-YES ANDREW MARONEY-YES MICHAEL DEFRANCO-YES MICHAEL KELLY-YES CHAIRPERSON PETER OSINSKI ASKS FOR A MOTION A MOTION WAS MADE BY Mr. QUILLIAN TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT PRODUCE AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD; NO SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEARBY PROPERTIES; AND IT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MICHAEL DE FRANCO SECONDS THE MOTION AND CARRIES WITH A VOTE OF 4 AYES AND 0 NAYS. ANTHONY MISSERE- 7-9 RIVER AVENUE- CHAIRPERSON READS THE NOTICE OF HEARING:

7

8 PETER READS THE NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE PUBLIC. THE NOTICE OF HEARING IS READ HALF WAY THRU AND THE CHAIRPERSON STATES THERE IS A MATERIAL PROBLEM WITH THIS NOTICE. THE VILLAGE CODE REFLECTED IN THE NOTICE OF HEARING RELATES TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION RESIDES IN THE SR DISTRICT, THE CODE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTED AS SECTION THE NOTICE IS NOT CORRECT, AND WE NEED TO BE RESOLUTE IN MAKING SURE THAT EVERY PART OF THIS PROCESS NOT BE SUBJECTED TO LABOR APPEALS ON STRONG GROUNDS, AND TO ENSURE THAT EVERY PART OF THIS PROCESS IS AS ACCURATE AS POSSIBLE. WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO REPOST THIS NOTICE, IN THE NEWSPAPER AND THIS HEARING WILL BE POSTPONED UNTIL THE NEXT ZONING BOARD MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 10, CLOSING THE MEETING AT 8:30PM RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Arlene Roberts