Hearing Minutes and Decision Application #2024-002 Hearing Date February 13, 2024

Present:
DRB Members: David Cotton (Chairman), Erica Walch (Secretary), Geoff van Kirk (member), Cristine White (member), David Brown (member) Alternate member David Hull was present as a member of the public and not in his capacity of DRB alternate.

Public:
In Person: David and Antonia Belt (applicants), Laurie Merrigan, Lee Petty, Tom Brooks, Greg Record, Sam Bourne, Margot Mayor, Archer Mayor, Gayle Robertson, Greg Lopiccolo, Henriette Mantel

Via zoom: Merle Tessier (Newfane Zoning Administrator), Mandisia Wright
A letter from Beckley Gaudette (lister) was read into the record.

Minutes
A site visit preceded the hearing.
The chairman called the hearing to order at 6:00 PM and all those present were sworn in. David Belt (applicant) described his request, which is to construct a tower approximately 65 feet high on a 140-acre parcel of land (Parcel ID 00B043) addressed at 21 West Street.

The Newfane Zoning Bylaw restricts the height of all new structures in the town to a maximum 35 feet (Section 310.3).

The applicants stated that the tower they wish to build is a metal structure (like a fire tower) with stairs leading to a 20×20 wooden platform with a shed on top of the platform of about 15 feet in height, for a total of 65 feet, exceeding the town limit by 30 feet. The purpose of this tower is for the applicants to enjoy stargazing/astronomy. In order to get a view above the tree line (which is approximately 50 feet), the tower would have to be higher than the treetops.

As a secondary use, they plan to install a solar-powered cellular hotspot and camera (a trail cam) which will broadcast images to the NewBrook Fire Department, with a hope that if a forest fire is spotted it could be more easily fought.

The hearing was then opened to members of the public. Greg Record spoke on behalf of NBFD and said that the applicant had come before them previously to explain his plan. NBFD was concerned that the tower would be accessible to the public and that it would be challenging for rescue of anyone who might fall from the tower, due to the remote location (approximately one mile away from the nearest road). However, NBFD was assured that the tower would have a secure perimeter wall with a locking door and that it would not be open to the public. As for the camera feed, Record said NBFD didn’t think it would make a negative impact, but that as no one would be monitoring the feed 24/7, it remains to be seen whether it would be a helpful tool. NBFD members voted unanimously to support the project, said Record.

Village residents asked about the tower being visible from the village and a letter from a town resident regarding the visibility of the tower was read. Mandisia Wright (via zoom) showed images of line-of-sight projections and elevation drawings that demonstrated that the tower would not be visible from Newfane Village and that the one place likely to have a view of the tower is from the Mantel property on Cemetery Hill Road.

Henriette Mantel stated that she would not like a red roof or bright, reflective metal.

Present villagers averred that the Belts have been good neighbors.

The Belts stated that although they could by right clear cut an acre of land on the side of the land they own facing the village and build a 35-foot tower that would be visible from the village, they are seeking a variance in order to construct something that would not require clear-cutting so many trees and that would not be visible from the village, as they also do not wish to see a structure such as the one they are proposing when in the village.

DRB members stated they appreciated the applicant’s desire to make something that is not widely visible, but expressed concern about setting a precedent that other property owners might wish to build taller structures that exceed the height requirement. However, as this application presents the unique situation of seeking a variance from the height requirement in order to maintain the essential nature of the district and minimize detrimental impact to the public welfare, it is unlikely that a parallel application would be presented to the board. The board reviewed the variance requirements and determined that because of the unique physical circumstances of the site and the desire to preserve the district’s essential character of wooded land, the granting of this variance is warranted.

Walch made the following motion: “to grant the variance to the height restriction and allow the applicants to construct a tower not to exceed 65 feet in height, including the shed above the 20×20 platform, with the following conditions: a locked wall and door preventing access to the structure by the public, non-reflective coating to any metal elements that are above the tree line, and a dark colored roof on the shed structure that sits on the platform”.

White seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,
Erica Walch
DRB Secretary
February 15, 2024