Planning & Zoning updates for Hyde Park & Clinton

Town of Hyde Park Zoning Board of Appeals

Mobil sign review continues on
Chris Gent, construction manager for CPD, the developer of the Chestnut Mart/Mobil station at 1110 Violet Ave, came before the ZBA Feb. 26 to discuss the firm’s application for multiple sign variances and related interpretations. The board, consisting of only three people, which was enough to conduct business, explained that county planners had advised them that their they think the station’s canopy is a roof, not a wall. The board said their research backed up this opinion, and therefore a requested sign could only be mounted if the roof was gabled. The board then closed the public hearing on that issue. Two other issues, addressing the free-standing sign’s height and the size of its lettering, will continue the board’s March 26 meeting, partly because a decision by county planning holds the board to agreeing by a super majority on its finding.

The board, supported by attorney Victoria Polidoro, explained to Gent that his company would have to show that it cannot make income on the site without the requested variances.

“I have studies ad nauseam that show if I have a sign on my site, the bigger the sign is, the more money I make…but I’m sure you don’t want to read them,” Gent said, to which the board responded with laughter. Gent said he would give Mobil the board’s comments and redesign some signage options to bring back to the March 26 meeting.

Privacy fence proposed on Salt Point Turnpike
Rosa Theiss of 537 Salt Point Turnpike came before the board to present her application for a privacy fence around her property. The fence will be 6 ft. high and 80 feet long and border three sides of her .70 acre property. The board accepted the application and set a public hearing for March 26. The application will also be referred to county planning since the property is on a county road.

Town of Clinton Planning Board

Stissing View Dr. area variance gets recommendation
The board on March 4 approved a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance request by Nancy Packes for her proposed two-lot subdivision at 27–37 Stissing View Drive. One lot of 10.02 acres includes the current primary dwelling and a pre-existing, non-conforming accessory dwelling. The zoning code requires that an accessory dwelling be no more than 35 percent of the habitable floor space of the primary dwelling, or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is more restrictive. In this case, the accessory dwelling is 752 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 612 sq. ft., so Packes is applying for an area variance for an additional 150 sq. ft. The application should be before the ZBA at its March 27 meeting, after which the planning board can consider the subdivision approval.

Lot line adjustment proposed for Rymph Rd
Jim and Lori Brands of 110 Rymph Rd, who own 45.15 acres according to county records, were before the planning board to discuss a lot line alteration March 4. The Brands wish to sell 17 acres to Jennifer Malcarne, who currently owns 5.8 acres at 89 Rymph Rd. The exchange was planned 10 years ago but fell through for tax reasons. The additional acreage would be added to Malcarne’s current parcel and is not intended for another residence but only for added privacy. However, the board found that Malcarne has not filed the necessary application to combine the two lots, so further action was put on hold. The application will return to the board’s agenda March 18.

Town of Clinton Zoning Board of Appeals

Sodom Road side yard setback approved
Kevin and Nancy McDonald of 110 Sodom Rd presented their application for a side yard setback variance for 32 ft. 8 in., where 50 ft. is required. The variance was granted Oct. 2012 but the McDonalds discovered it had expired by the time they applied for a building permit. Nothing has changed about the project which involves construction of a 24 by 30 ft. storage shed. One neighbor spoke at the public hearing but had no issue with the plans. The board closed the hearing and voted unanimously to grant the variance on the condition that nothing be stored in the setbacks in the future. The board also agreed to add an expiration date to every variance resolution in order to prevent future confusion.

Facebook Comments