Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Canaan
Columbia County, New York

February 27, 2007

Present: David Cooper, Ann Pearce, Pat Liddle, Jean Dickason, John Stelling

Chairman Cooper opened the meeting at 7:15 p.m. with an audience of 20. Motion by John Stelling with 2nd by Ann Pearce to approve the January 2007 minutes as amended. All in favor.

Mr. Cooper announced that the public hearing for appeal 2007-1 will not be conducted. Reason: as of February 12th, which was the last day to have the file complete, the file was only 50% complete, with requested materials not received until February 20th. The legal notice was not published in the newspaper, and the hearing will not be opened. The board is still amassing the file, will distribute to all parties any information that comes in pertaining to the file, and will put all information in the record when the hearing opens.

There are two other files for the board’s consideration, and the board must decide how to proceed on appeal 2007-1. We will review the two files in a manner that makes sense to the board.

Chairman Cooper read aloud appeal 2007-3 by Crist & Anna Byler, who were not present. The board has to know whether or not the greenhouse has been approved. We need eight copies of the building permit, #07-003 dated January 8, 2007, and a better description of the business. They may want to change the application to apply for a temporary roadside stand if the greenhouse has been approved. If they are growing produce on the property and selling it seasonally, that is one of the definitions of a roadside stand. Ann Pearce noted the approval should be renewed annually if they go for the roadside stand; and she asked, if the building is plastic, does it need approval more than one of those zip-up garages that people erect? David Cooper suggests the appellants talk with David Weller, who is an expert on greenhouses. It should be noted that the appellants will need site plan approval if they follow through with a request for a special permit, and the application should be forwarded to the county and town planning boards. We should have the abutters within 500’ of the property, and we would like a picture of the building. Pat Liddle noted that the proposed structure, the greenhouse, has already been built. David Cooper thinks the structure was approved. We should send a letter to the building officer asking for information about the structure. The hearing will take place March 27th at 7:00 p.m. if they meet the contingencies. Supervisor Flaherty said he was contacted by the county, and the appellants need nothing because they come under agriculture and markets. The county says the town can’t regulate greenhouses and should refund the appellants’ application fees. David Cooper added the ZBA needs more information from the zoning officer to understand if they are only selling out of a temporary roadside stand. Motion by Pat Liddle to accept the file conditionally, depending on their providing the requested information 15 days prior to the hearing (by March 12th), with second by Ann Pearce. All in favor.

David Cooper then read aloud appeal 2007-2 by Peter and Michele Bartlett, the ZBA letter of February 15th to the Bartletts, their response, and their submitted packet dated September 20, 2006. He spoke to the Bartletts: You are requesting an interpretation of the zoning officer’s action, which was the denial of the Clarks’ application for a building permit because he judged they needed a special permit. You must state why you think he is in error. We must focus on the use to which the property is being put. Your focus should be why he is in error. You are challenging what he decided. Mr. Bartlett referred to page 17 of the zoning law indicating the requested use is not allowed in the C-II zone. Mr. Cooper said that the ZBA will make a determination of whether or not the original decision of the zoning officer will stand and how file 2007-1 will proceed.

Brian Baker, attorney for the Flints Crossing residents, expressed confusion. Mr. Cooper explained what has happened with 2007-1 thus far. We are going to get as much information as possible tonight. The focus should be to determine what the use is and whether or not it is an allowed use in that zone; and if allowed, is it allowed by special permit. This is not a public hearing. We will have a hearing on this request for an interpretation and on the original application. You will be able to say everything you want to at the public hearing. We want it to be productive. It will determine how the Clarks proceed with their project. We will make a decision on the interpretation after the public hearing for that appeal. We know this is a serious matter for the appellants but we cannot act without a public hearing. We do not want to take away anyone’s rights if it is a permitted use. It could force the application into a use variance. Along those lines, the focus of this interpretation should be what the use is, how it fits into the definitions in the zoning law, and if it does not, exactly why not. Such things as inaccuracies of the infrastructure don’t apply to what the use is. Once we determine whether the zoning officer made an error and whether or not we concur with his decision, we will determine how to proceed. The Bartletts are interested parties with standing who have initiated their appeal in a timely manner. We are trying to get the file complete so we can proceed. There will be two hearings: one on each appeal. We will get through the request for an interpretation. It is a minor action, a listed Type II action in the SEQR.

Jean Dickason pointed out an error in the Bartlett’s letter to town attorney Lois Phillips: it should say 22,000 sq. ft. rather than 2,200. Jean also requested the clerk to note in the minutes that 34 people signed the petition contained in the Bartletts’ packet dated September 20, 2006.

Attorney Baker will submit 15 days before the hearing (by March 12th) a more narrow delineation in keeping with the way the board is narrowing the issue and will send copies directly to Attorney Macdonald for the Clarks. Mr. Cooper suggests the Bartletts review the information that has come in.

Mr. Macdonald asked if the public record on the interpretation will include all the material he has submitted or will it be parts of different public records? Mr. Cooper answered that Mr. Macdonald’s narrative should be part of 2007-2, the request for interpretation. Mr. Macdonald said the plans go to use as well. Mr. Cooper is not sure how to block the layers out to judge how the use fits into the zoning, and the narrative is most useful. Mr. Cooper asked the board if they need anything else beyond Mr. Baker’s more narrow delineation and the Bartletts’ notice to abutters. Motion by John Stelling to accept file 2007-2 with second by Ann Pearce with the conditions that have been discussed at the table which are principally to focus on the use to which the property is being put and a more narrow delineation. All in favor. Hearing set for March 27th at 7:00 p.m.

Motion by David Cooper to table file 2007-1 until there is a decision on the interpretation so that the Clarks are not kept in limbo while we consider 2007-2, with second by Ann Pearce. All in favor.

The whole purpose of this is so that the board gets as much pertinent information as possible. Mr. Macdond submitted pictures of the Cromwell site and will give four copies to Mr. Baker for the Bartletts. Mr. Kie asked about the legal time frames. Mr. Cooper explained that the board will deliberate at the close of the public hearing and if possible will reach a decision that night. This is an administrative function of the board and we don’t have to wait for any outside input. Then it will determine how action on 2007-1 will proceed. Discussion between Mr. Kie and Mr. Cooper on various elements of the appeal process.

There being nothing else before the Board, motion by Ann Pearce with 2nd by Pat Liddle to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.

For the Zoning Board of Appeals,



Julie Alexander, Clerk

Back to index of Meeting Minutes