Village of Red Hook Planning Board
Ronald VanTine and Paul Fredericks went before the board Dec. 12 with an application for new signage and exterior lighting for a new Mexican restaurant proposed at 7483 South Broadway, the former site of Loggerheads restaurant. The main sign measures less than the maximum allowable 24 sq. ft. and was approved to be mounted on the exterior side wall of the building, facing the Mobil station. A single gooseneck light will shine on the sign. Lettering will go in each of the six windows. The restaurant is projected to be opened in late January.
Town of Red Hook Planning Board
Lot line alteration on Turkey Hill Road
Red Wing Properties, Inc. continued its quest for a lot line adjustment between two lots on Turkey Hill Road in the towns of Red Hook and Milan at the planning board’s Dec. 2 meeting. Board members who visited the site described it as an active field at the corner of Hapeman Hill and Turkey Hill Roads. One lot is 17.6 acres in the ABD district and the other is .09 acres in the RD3 district in Red Hook. The proposed adjustment would create one 10-acre parcel and one 7.6 acre parcel, both buildable. The board agreed that because of town zoning regulations that prioritize the preservation of farmland in the agricultural district, the board could not approve the application as it is currently formulated. However, the town planner and planning board attorney agreed to go over the regulations again and report back to the board on their findings.
Feller-Newmark development passes environmental inspection
Applicant Michael Bodendorf, P.E., and his attorney, John Wagner of Certilman, Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, 90 Merrick Avenue, East Meadow, N.Y., were back before the board seeking a SEQR determination on the “Preserve at Lakes Kill” development on Feller-Newmark Road. The proposed development would place 11 lots on a total of 100.45 acres.
Four neighbors wrote letters citing concerns about increased traffic on the road if a subdivision was constructed. The board approved a negative declaration of environmental significance, noting that significant concerns had been raised but through the SEQR process all appeared to have been addressed.
A public hearing on the subdivision was set for the Dec. 16 meeting.
Town of Red Hook Zoning Board of Appeals
Side yard variance for shed on Williams Road
At their Dec. 11 meeting the board reviewed Fred Delgrosso’s application for a side yard setback variance of 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet on the west side. Delgrosso plans to build a 24 foot by 14 foot shed behind his house at 132 Williams Road. The board reviewed the plans and agreed with code enforcement officer Bob Fennell that the variance was appropriate; however at the meeting, Delgrosso said he now required a 5 foot variance, not 10 foot. After further discussion, the board granted the request. A neighbor to the west was present at the public hearing and did not object.
Town of Milan Planning Board
Permit to convert a one-bedroom apartment approved
Steven Schreiber of 775 Route 199 was before the Planning Board Dec. 4 with an application for a special use permit to convert a commercial structure to a one-bedroom apartment. The planning board declared itself lead agency for the SEQR process, approved a negative declaration, conducted a public hearing, and approved the special use permit.
Lot line adjustment on Spring Lake Road proposed
Red Wing Properties is pursuing a lot line adjustment between two of its properties on Spring Lake Road. The change involves taking 1.3 acres from the smaller parcel in order to widen access to the larger parcel from 16 to 50 feet. Permission from Columbia County will need to be granted since the property straddles the county line. A public hearing on the application was scheduled for the board’s Jan. 8 meeting.
Future public hearings
Continued public hearings on the Munsch subdivision application and the Verizon cell tower application will be held at the Jan. 8 meeting as well.
Town of Clinton Zoning Board of Appeals
Side yard setback variance granted for storage barn on Sunset Trail
A conditional side yard setback variance was granted to Joseph and Shari Jordan of 84 Sunset Trail at the Clinton ZBA meeting Dec. 5. The Jordans had requested permission for a setback of 20 feet, instead of the required 50, in order to build a new storage barn at the rear of their property. Due to the proximity to the property line, no outdoor storage will be permitted next to the barn. The ZBA requested that the Jordans resolve any existing compliance issues on driveway access to the site, which is required to be at least 10 feet from the property line.
Town of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals
Application for accessory dwelling reviewed
John Phillips of 2867 Route 9G is applying to add a second house, a “detached accessory dwelling,” to his property, a flag lot of more than 18 acres. Phillips proposes an accessory dwelling of 1,352 sq. ft. which is larger than the maximum 900 sq. ft. allowed. At the board’s Dec. 4 meeting, the application was accepted for review and the board agreed on a time for a site visit. A public hearing on the application will be held at the board’s next meeting, Dec. 18 at 7:35pm.
Bathroom addition variance to get vote
A public hearing was held on Sung Lee’s application for a side yard variance of 10 feet, instead of the required 50 feet, at his property at 270 Route 308. Lee is adding a bathroom to the house which will be within the current non-conforming setbacks for the house. No comments were made on the application and the board agreed to vote on the project at its next meeting, Dec. 18.
Garage variance on Old Farm Road requested
Peri and Marcus DeGrazia of 15 Old Farm Road are seeking an area variance to reduce the amount of the required front yard setback from 100 to 89 feet in order to build a garage. The public hearing on the application had no comments and the board plans to vote at its Dec. 18 meeting.
Privacy fence in Rhinecliff sought
Darin Page of 20 Hutton St in Rhinecliff has applied to construct a privacy fence of 10 feet, where the maximum allowed is six feet. The fence will be double-panel and made of wood. A representative for Page explained that the fence will be for privacy in the pool area and also noise reduction and must be 10 feet tall to accommodate the topography of the area. She said that the owners plan to smother the fence with vines. The board agreed to vote at its next meeting Dec. 18.
Variance for addition OK’d
Darin Page’s property at 20 Hutton St was also the subject of a second discussion on approval of a variance for square footage space. The addition had been the subject of some discussion because it was so much larger than the maximum allowed, at 2, 327 sq. ft. for a total measure of 5,814 sq. ft . The maximum square footage allowed in the district is 2,300. A 19 foot side yard variance, instead of the required 50 feet, was also requested.
Two neighbors wrote, and one spoke at a previous public hearing, about concerns, two about drainage problems in the neighborhood and one about how the project might change the character of the neighborhood and challenge the existing septic infrastructure. At the Dec. 4 meeting, board members expressed how their opinions on the project changed from their initial review of the plans and then seeing the property, described as unique, during site visits.
The board voted 3-1 to approve the variance conditional to the owner addressing drainage issues on the site. This involves including in his application to the planning board for site plan review a drainage and stormwater runoff mitigation plan, prepared by an engineer, reviewed by the town engineer, and eventually approved by the planning board. The board made clear in its resolution that the ruling should not be viewed as a precedent.
Village of Rhinebeck Zoning Board of Appeals
Fence height variance granted on Montgomery St.
Cate Long of 86 Montgomery St was before the board again to discuss her application for an area variance for a fence that is 4 feet, 11 inches high, in excess of the 4-foot maximum. Although the planning board had given the application a negative recommendation to the ZBA, the ZBA agreed that a variance was appropriate, citing “extenuating circumstances” that will not make the fence a precedent-setter in their view.