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

Chairman Cooper called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with 3 people in the audience. File 2008-2 by Molly Adams and Imran Farooq re Canaan Sunoco has been withdrawn per Mike Behn’s email dated April 11, 2008. The Zoning Officer revisited the matter and advised that a ZBA review was not necessary and has issued a building permit.

Motion by Pat Liddle with 2nd by Ann Pearce to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2008 meeting as submitted.

David Cooper read aloud the working draft of the decision for file 2008-1, James Simmons. There was discussion of the specifics of the reasonable conditions. The buffers will have to be drawn on a map for the record, as will the “delineated crestline.” It will be a line that bisects the property and will have some density rather than being transparent. This must be done before the leaves reappear so it is seen at its most vulnerable. The “designated sideyard buffer” is from the point at which the crestline intersects the 50’ and will go to the 325’ = 375’ total.

Discussion with Mr. Wistort re the rationale for 20’ crowns in the “next 50’.” The key is to maintain the first part forever wild, which on the north line is significantly higher. There should be enough limbing to observe some basic principles of camouflage. The intent is to keep a viable crown there. The key is the undulating top line. On this property right now, there is a viable tree line. Pat Liddle is concerned about the definition of “crestline” and how wide it is. She wants a better sense of how the crestline is defined. David reviewed the definition of “crestline” in the Hillsdale law. It’s an organic thing depending on the health and vitality of the trees. It’s a combination of field and map. The trees have to be put on the map. It is not just a row of trees. We don’t make a line from one tree to the next. The question is how wide is it? Some of it will be defined by trees that are in the buffer or in the front. If they propose to remove trees that are part of the crestline, they have to set a benchmark of what height they will start from. If they need explanation, they can ask the ZBA Chair for guidance.

John Stelling is troubled with the mechanics: what if a tree is in the middle of an area of use on the property? David says we are looking for assurances that it will be perfect, but we will work with the appellant on the delineation of this line. It all has to be delineated before the permit can be issued. On the final site plan, everything has to be delineated. A woodland management expert will do this, i.e. a professional forester or comparable professional. John Stelling: as they begin construction, someone will have to observe the crestline from Peaceful Valley Road, then they’ll have to fit in the features they want, e.g. the driveway. David says prior to issuing the building permit, the crestline has to be delineated. They will have to hire a professional forester or surveyor to do it. They will have to stake the house and make sure the pinnacle is below the crestline. They have to perform to the standard we set. A member of the public can raise concerns about compliance.

Pat Liddle wants the ZBA to be a part of the delineation process. John Stelling says it needs to be clear enough for the ZEO to administer. Discussion of concerns with enforcement. We are doubling the sideyard setback for this applicant. A lot depends on how agreeable the appellant will be.

Motion by Ann Pearce that the ZBA approves this decision as amended with 2nd by Pat Liddle. The clerk polled the board:

David Cooper: Yes
Ann Pearce: Yes
Pat Liddle: Yes
John Stelling: Yes

The approved decision is attached to and is a part of these minutes.

Motion to adjourn made and 2nd at 8:55 p.m.

For the Zoning Board of Appeals,



Julie Alexander
Clerk

TOWN OF CANAAN BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS

DECISION
Appeal 2008-1

James H. Simmons and Bernirene Ramos of 315 Convent Ave., New York, NY 10031 have filed an appeal for an area variance for relief of the maximum allowed height of a proposed structure to be located on property they own at 275 Mercer Mountain Road. A public hearing and SEQR were conducted for this appeal. The board also requested comment and input from the Town of Canaan Planning Board and used the resources of the Columbia County Planning and Tourism Department. The board has reviewed and deliberated the record submitted including the following documents:

1. From the appellants: site plan, series of drawings: “Residence of James Simmons,” revision 1/15/08, and project narrative;
2. The field notes of a balloon test done at the site on 11/26/07;
3. Town of Canaan Zoning Law;
4. Town of Hillsdale Local Law #6 of 2007, which was used as a reference about ridge lines.

The board makes the following findings of fact from this record.

Findings of Fact

1. The 7 +/- acre wooded lot is in the RA IV zone. It has about 464’ +/- of frontage on Mercer Mountain Road and is lot #10 of Columbia Ridge, Inc., Shaker Mountain, Inc. Sub-Division (Tax Map # 69.-1-42).

2. Part of lot #10 has an elevation of 1600’+ and is slightly higher than the two adjacent lots. A building site has been partially cleared on or near this ridge line, and panoramic views of promontories to the NE, E, and SE have been developed by extensive cutting and clearing of the trees on a steep east facing slope adjacent to the ridge.

3. This ridge is part of Mercer Mountain, a very prominent natural feature in the town that peaks at over 1800’ and is clearly seen within the township and from neighboring towns.

4. There is a Veterans’ Memorial on the pinnacle of the mountain that was donated to the VFW Floyd Carlton Post in 1949 by the landowner Edgar Belding.

5. The area variance request involves a single family residence that will be constructed within the public view shed of the east ridge line of this mountain.

6. There are pre-existing single family residences constructed in the adjacent side lots near the ridge line (#7 to the N & #14 to the S). The lots are both 7+ acres and the immediate area around each residence has been cleared. The common side lot line with lot #7 appears to be in a natural state and undisturbed. The common side lot line with lot #14 has some evidence of clearing in the recent past along parts of it and on lot #10 perhaps during construction of the residence on lot #14.

7. The Town of Canaan does not have any ridge line consideration in the existing law. Landowners may clear their land and otherwise log property as long as they follow applicable laws and guidelines established by NYSDEC concerning this activity.

8. The crest line, defined as the highest visible ambient tree line, is still reasonably intact on lot #10 and currently provides a natural visual continuum along the ridge line.

9. The area variance request is to allow part of a proposed single family residence to exceed the maximum allowed building height of 35’ by 8 ½’ for a total of 43 ½ ’ .

10. The appellants made a previous appeal, 2007-8, for an area variance of the maximum allowed structure height. That appeal was similar to this appeal in scope and character except that request was to allow part of the structure to exceed the maximum allowed building height by 14’ (49’ total). The appeal was denied by the board on 12/19/07.

11. During the review for appeal 2007-8 and at the request of the board, the appellants performed a balloon test on 11/26/07 at this site. The test compared the allowed maximum building height (35’) with the proposed height of 49’. There was no leaf cover on the trees when the test was conducted.

12. The balloon test when viewed from Peaceful Valley Road (this is the closest public accessible thoroughfare providing a site view) showed the peak of the structure would appear to be below the existing crest line. From this vantage point many individual trees are discernible and the structure would be a very obvious feature. The views from I-90 are very similar to Peaceful Valley Road (they are parallel adjacent roads). From Tunnel Hill Road the crest line appears as the natural top of the mountain. Individual trees are not identifiable but structures are clearly visible. (The light color structures really stand out.) The views and features seen from State Route 22 are similar to those on Tunnel Hill. The visual impact that land clearing and structures have on the natural crest line are easily seen.

13. The balloon test, by focusing attention on the view shed, provided the following observations and conclusions concerning the crest line. This particular ridge has several examples of single family residences constructed in or very near the natural crest line. They provide some examples of how construction and development impact this undulating natural crown. The relationship of the structures to the crest line and its features changes as the viewer’s observation point changes. Standing on Peaceful Valley Road, it is possible to see that the crest line in its natural state is made up of individual trees. Unencumbered and with dense tree cover, it forms a natural cap that reflects the terrain of the ridge. There are, however, examples of structures that pierce the crest line. One residence has an abrupt step down break in the line and another has building features that actually appear above the line. Both of these examples present physical and visual challenges that significantly disrupt and adversely impact the view. Lighter colored structures (non-neutral) are highly visible even at great distances. There is also an example of a site where the crest line has been thinned out to such an extent that it becomes transparent, leaving little or no definition. Another Mercer Mountain structure is sited well below the crest line and thus has the least disruptive visual impact. Each of these examples serves to illustrate how site planning can significantly impact both the view shed and crest line.

14. SEQR identified the project as a listed type II action and no further review is required.

15. The proposed single family residence is +/- 6268 sq. ft. It has a 16’x16’ (256 sq. ft.) room called the Crow’s Nest. The roof lines have been significantly modified from the previously submitted plans. This room also has a deck walkway with rails on parts of three sides and there are dormers constructed as integral parts of a hip roof and walls. The roof at its cornice is 22’ x 18’ and tapers to the ridge. The top of the ridge is 43 ½’ above the base of the first floor entrance making the top 8 ½’ of its roof and walls non-conforming with regard to the maximum allowed structure height in the Canaan Zoning Law.

16. The plan submitted does not place the structure on the highest terrain on the property.

17. The balance of the structure is conforming with respect to height.

18. As presented, the residence will use natural wood and stone for siding and other facings, non-reflective roofing, non-reflective glass, down-facing exterior lighting and also minimal lighting in the tower. The intent is to have the proposed structure blend in with its surroundings and background.

19. The structure is also to have a residential sprinkler system for fire protection.

Deliberations

1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of the variance? The board divided this question into two parts, the public view shed and the abutting residences.

Public view shed: Based on the observations from the balloon test, in order to preserve the existing Crest line with uninterrupted visual continuity, it is very important to locate the top of the structure below this line. Approval of the variance could help maintain this prominent community natural resource.

Abutting properties: There is likely to be a detrimental visual impact. The proposed residence is a large structure with a feature that will be more visible to them because of its height and scale. The board is divided about the potential effectiveness of screening that maintenance of the existing tree and under story growth in these side yards will provide. One expressed concern is that there simply is not enough density to be effective and that necessary construction activity will thin this cover even more.

2. Can the benefit sought by appellant be accomplished in another feasible way other than
an area variance?

As proposed the appellant believes that its construction will provide them the scenic views that would only be available by more extensive lot clearing and locating on the highest part of the ridge line. Were the owners to carry out the second plan, the consequence would most definitely compromise the public view shed, as well as any side yard screening.

3. Is the area variance substantial?

The board agrees that the variance request is substantial. If approved, the variance would permit a 22% increase in the allowed structure height for a 16’ x 16’ room. Redesigning the structure and modifying some roof lines did lower the height- relief request from 14’ to 8½’. The board agrees that the 16’ x 16’ “Crow’s Nest” room is a substantial space that has scale that is much greater than similarly placed features such as a large cupola on a barn.

4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?

The concern is the potentially disruptive effect on the public view shed and on the immediate abutters. Adverse visual impacts could be mitigated by preserving the forest and under story along the side lines, keeping the background crest line intact, and having the structure’s peak below this line.

5. Is the difficulty that is causing the need for an area variance self-created?

The board agrees that the need is self-created. Relief sought is based on the appellants’ desire to achieve the similar scenic views that are available to them if they locate their structure on the higher ridge terrain and follow through with more extensive clearing of the crest line. Their stated goal is to attempt to keep the crest line intact and compensate by having a portion of the structure higher than allowed by the zoning law. They propose to have the structure blend with the area by their choice of construction materials and by trying to minimize further land clearing.

Decision

The board includes as part of this decision the following reasonable conditions to foster stewardship of the crest line and the available natural side yard screening of sufficient density and continuity to be viable. The conditions are designed to balance the variance request of the appellants with relief of possible adverse visual and scenic impacts for the benefit of the community and the immediate abutters

On the final site plan and at the site, the trees that will form the crest line on the property must be delineated and marked by a professional forester or other comparable professional as trees not to be removed. Those trees near actual construction must be protected from damage during all construction. Using the delineated crest line, the peak of the structure must appear to be a minimum of 10’ below this line when viewed from the south shoulder of Peaceful Valley Road, 1.2 miles east of its intersection with County Route 5. Delineation of the crest line shall also be from this reference point.

Also required to be designated on the final site plan and at the site is the area in each of the minimum 50’ side yard setbacks of lot #10, starting at a point 50’ from the Mercer Mountain Road frontage line and running 325’ along the side lot line, within which the trees including the under story shall remain undisturbed. Within the next 50 feet of the side yard (between the same points) live trees 8” in diameter at chest-high must remain and be marked on the site plan and at the site as trees not to be removed. No live tree limbs of these designated trees above 16’ may be removed. These trees also must be protected during construction activities.

Since the board is the lead agency, the final site plan including the delineated crest line trees and side yard set backs with marked trees shall be verified by a designated board member or authorized agent of the board prior to issuing the building permit for construction.. This final site plan is to be date stamped by the Town Clerk of the Town of Canaan and filed as part of this decision.

The owners of the respective properties can mutually agree in writing to allow these buffer areas to be modified. However, the designated crest line trees must remain uncompromised. If such an agreement is ever completed, an original shall be filed with the board to be included as part of this decision. Selected trees may be removed if they are determined to be a hazard to life, property or other crest line trees. The appellants and subsequent owners shall not be responsible for catastrophic natural events that destroy or damage the crest line trees.

By a voice vote on April 29, 2008 and recorded in the minutes of that meeting, the board approves the area variance as presented, including the preceding conditions, and grants relief from the decision of the zoning officer in permit #2007-050. The approval is based on the record submitted and reviewed. Any deviation or changes would be incompatible with this decision and would require subsequent review.

For the Board of Appeals,



David Cooper, Chair

Back to index of Meeting Minutes