After its revisions to the Town of Marlborough’s ridgeline-protection rules elicited strong disagreement among the public, the Marlborough Town Board floated an alternative proposal that would slightly liberalize those rules while still significantly restricting ridgeline development. This preview of its draft rules came during the Board’s March 25 meeting at Town Hall.

 

“I really do like everybody’s input, [but] I was a bit shocked that we got that much attention,” said Town Supervisor Scott Corcoran about the multiple public hearings and Town Board comment sessions devoted to ridgeline proposals introduced late last year.  “A lot of people were worried about water runoff… though all those things were kept the same in the code. 

 

“Basically, we wanted to give more flexibility in the code,” he continued. “I heard from a lot of people who were concerned that we would be allowing all sorts of buildings, but that wasn’t the case.”

 

Corcoran said the ridgeline code does not apply to water runoff, as that subject is covered in an entirely different part of the Town Code and was not altered by the ridgeline proposal. He also pointed out that the rules apply only to elevations greater than 750 feet: Development that takes place below that level is not subject to any ridgeline restrictions.

 

The Board’s new revision of the ridgeline rules still must be reviewed by the Marlborough Planning Board, and Corcoran is submitting it for review as well to the Ulster County Planning Board. Then, it will require a public hearing – or multiple public hearings, as happened with the previous proposal – and a vote by the Town Board. 

 

The proposal would change Section F(4) of the rules, which regulate construction on or near the ridgeline. The current wording states: “Applicants for construction on properties to which this section applies shall demonstrate to the reviewing board or Town Engineer, as the case may be, that the proposed buildings or structures will not extend above the predominant tree line. No structure that is the subject of this section shall be located closer than 50 feet in elevation to the ridgeline affected by the application, as determined by the Town Engineer.”

 

The proposal would take out everything after the word “that” in the first sentence and substitute the following: “no proposed building or structure (inclusive of chimneys, vents or other fixtures attached to the structure) that is subject of this section shall extend above the elevation of the ridgeline affected by the application as determined by the Town Engineer and the Town Building and Code enforcement officer.

 

 Later in the code, in Section F(4)(b), this statement would be removed: “There shall be no disturbance within this 50-foot area except for access driveways when said driveway cannot be reasonably located outside the 50-foot area.” The Town Board proposed substituting new language as follows: “There shall be no disturbance of the area within the highest point of the structure and the highest point of the ridgeline affected by the application.”

 

One key change is that the rule defines how that 50-feet limit should be measured: from the footing of a house to the crest of the ridge. Code Enforcement Officer Tom Corcoran drew some helpful illustrations on a flipchart for attendees.

 

Under the former methodology, a builder could construct a 35-foot-tall house and still have a 15-foot “buffer” in complying with the rules. Now, as long as the top of the house does not extend above the ground level of the ridge, a proposed dwelling would be acceptable. People building a one-story house could start at a higher elevation, since their finished structure would usually be shorter than a two-story one.

 

In addition, the board proposed adding several entirely new sections, as detailed here:

 

• (C) Applicants are required to provide the Building Department with a topographic survey of the proposed building area.

 

• (D) Structures shall not use bright or fluorescent-colored materials. Structures shall use natural coloring that blend in with the ridgeline natural color scheme. Use of material with colors such as brown, black, gray, beige, green are preferred. 

 

• (E) Lighting shall not be excessive. Bright LED lighting should not be used if possible. Natural light fixtures should be used where applicable.

 

• (F) Definitions: 

 

(1) Ridgeline Is defined as the highest elevations of land running north and south across the “Marlborough Ridgeline Protection Map” as viewed from the east.

 

(2) Tree line Is defined as the edge of the habitat at which trees and vegetation are capable of growing above the ridgeline.

 

One noteworthy point is that there is no single “ridgeline” under the town’s rules. At elevations higher than 750 feet, there can be multiple ridges. The elevation of the nearest to the property owner’s east-facing development proposal is what matters. The upper portion of any proposed dwelling – which includes structures such as chimneys – cannot be higher than the crest of that nearest ridge.

 

The town code permits several exemptions to the rule, including lots that preexisted the introduction of the ridgeline code in 2005. In addition, lots under 10,000 square feet, or slightly more than a quarter acre, are also exempt. 

 

About 30 people attended this Town Board meeting – and the consensus among attendees was that the Board’s proposed changes were on the right track. After previewing the proposed changes, Corcoran asked the audience if anyone thought it was “too strict” – and just one attendee raised his hand. 

 

“Basically, you’re getting 15 feet more [to build],” he said. “And if you are coming from the east, you’re going to see a treeline – which why the rule exists.”

 

Board member David Zambito said the fact that the town considered just one proposal for ridgeline construction in the 19 years since the rule took effect illustrated that there is no mad rush to develop the ridgeline. He also said the additional clarification in the proposed rules was helpful. “It’s still confusing,” he said.

 

While Town Supervisor Corcoran described the impact of the ridgeline rule as “all visual,” Conservation Advisory Commission Chairwoman Mici Simonofsky noted that the ridgeline code helps make for a friendlier “microclimate” for agricultural production at lower levels. Corcoran said that topic is covered in other parts of the code as well as the town’s Comprehensive Plan.

 

Among other business, the Town Board approved a resolution to schedule a public hearing on the establishment of the Vineyard Hills subdivision draining district. That will take place on Monday, April 8 at 7 p.m. The Board also okayed the transfer of $67,957.50 from the Water Department’s cash fund to its capital-improvement fund.

 

In the public comments portion of the meeting, Town Supervisor Corcoran read an email from Old Indian Trail resident Maryanne Quick – who was also in attendance. Quick’s email sought clarification on when the engineering firm hired to explore ways to fix a collapsed section of roadway near her driveway – which has closed northbound traffic on Old Indian Trail – would achieve a resolution.

 

Corcoran noted that his office has held multiple meetings with Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. (GPI), the Albany-based engineering firm. One positive development has been that the land on the west edge of Old Indian Trail north of Quick’s driveway has been determined to be subject to an easement held by Central Hudson Gas & Electric – and not the owners of a property on neighboring Watson Avenue. The latter’s owners have refused to grant permission to use this strip of land to reroute Old Indian Trail away from the collapse at its eastern edge.

 

Corcoran said restoring two-way traffic along the road’s length was in the town’s best interest as well as Quick’s – who intends to list her house for sale soon. “We’re also concerned that we have town employees, who have to provide services to that road,” he said, noting that the barricade in the road just north of the Quick’s house makes that quite difficult to achieve.