Minutes

 

Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals

 

January 16, 2001

 

 

 

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Joseph Guido. Pledge to the Flag

followed.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present: Steve Britton, Catherine Charuk, Joseph Guido, Peter McGowan, and Richard Wenzel

Absent: Robert Martin and Karl Wick   

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

Peter McGowan made two corrections to the verbatim minutes - page 9, lines 9 and 25 add question mark at the end of each line and page 14 line 18 correct the spelling from Virus to Vires. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CATHERINE CHARUK TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION SECONDED BY STEVE BRITTON. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.

 

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

 

Vouchers for secretarial work for 15 hours and public hearing notices from the Daily Freeman for $51.90 were presented to the Board. A MOTION WAS MADE BY CATHERINE CHARUK  TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. MOTION SECONDED BY STEVE BRITTON. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED 5-0.

 

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

 

GORDON/BREWER # 01-16-01-01

 

No representation present.

 

ELCO # 01-16-01-02

 

Paper work incomplete.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

PRINZ # 12-19-00-01

 

Mr. Guido advised that Mr. Prinz has property that he wishes to subdivide. According to code, the total area he needs is 52,200 square feet and he has 31,537.44. The variance would be for 20,000 square feet for a mixed use property. Mr. Guido asked if there were any questions from the Board and there were none. There were several people present from the public. Fred Schiskie of 214 Doris Street stated that what he understands about this proposal is that Mr. Prinz wants to square off the end of the pie shaped piece of land so he has access from Bowne Street. Mr. Guido advised that that issue is with the Planning Board and all this Board is dealing with is the other part of the property that has the business and residence on it. If Mr. Prinz divides his property the way he wants, it would create an undersized lot which is what he would need a variance for. John Netter from Riverview asked what he plans to use as access for this property. Mr. Guido advised that the property that is question has access from Route 9W in Port Ewen and that would remain where it is now. Mr. Netter asked where the new owner would get access if the property is subdivided. Mr. Guido again advised that that issue is with the Planning Board and the neighbors should receive notification from that Board when there is a Public Hearing.

 

Several neighbors expressed concern about where the access for the new piece of property would be and Mr. Prinz advised that it has access now through Bowne Street and that would be the only access. Mr. Schiskie asked if the zoning is mixed now and if it will change if he subdivides it. Mr. Guido advised that the piece will be divided right at the line where the zoning is General Commercial now. The second property will be R-12.

 

Mike Lucks of 151 Clark Street asked for clarification and asked to see drawings. Mr. Guido again advised that if Mr. Prinz subdivides his property, he will be creating a lot that would be undersized according to zoning code for having both a residence and a business on it. The property as it is now is not undersized. Mr. Netter questioned what the minimum acreage on lots is. Mr. Guido advised that it depends on what zone it is in. Without specific information, it would not be possible to answer that question. Some discussion followed regarding a paper street in the area. Holly Netter 111 Riverview asked if, as the property stands now and if it wasn’t subdivided, would it be possible for a business to buy it and expand farther back on the property? Mr. Guido advised that if a business bought it now because it is grand-fathered in, it would have to stay pretty much as it is now. Since it is one piece of property, the business could come before the Board if it had a good enough reason and request permission to expand.

 

Mr. Guido asked if there were any more questions. He also asked Mr. Prinz if there was something in writing stating that the trade with Mr. Spinnenweber that Mr. Prinz showed on his drawings was actually going to take place. Mr. Spinnenweber stated at this time that if Mr. Prinz doesn’t have something good to put in the property, there is the possibility that he will change his mind. Mr. Prinz advised that he has no ulterior motives. All he wants to do is sell the property one way or the other. If he has to sell it as it is he will sell it that way. He would like to make a profit so he would like to sell it as two lots. Even if Mr. Spinnenweber doesn’t trade with him, he still has enough to sell as two lots but the residential lot would be odd shaped and not much use to anyone where it comes to the pie shaped point. Mr. Prinz stated that he doesn’t know why the Town put the General Commercial zone line through his property where they did if there wasn’t enough property there to begin with. Mr. Guido explained that they take a major map and just draw a line through it. Mr. Prinz stated that they could have moved the line 50 feet and there would be no problem. It wasn’t his fault. Ms. Charuk asked if Mr. Prinz runs a business there now and he answered that he has a shop that makes rubber mats out of recycled tires. Before he was there, there was a machine shop there and prior to that there was an automobile repair shop.

 

There were no further questions from the Board or the public. The public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m.

 

DECISIONAL MEETING

 

No cases.

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

Mr. Guido introduced Russ Shultis from the Town of Esopus Planning Board who requested an opportunity to speak to the Board. The reason he appeared was to discuss a subdivision that is before the Planning Board now that concerns a decision made by the ZBA. He advised that he is speaking for himself only and not for the entire Planning Board. He showed a map of the Schroeter property that is on Suominen Lane. He pointed out a piece of property that is landlocked. Mr. Schroeter asked for a subdivision and the Planning Board noted that the Clark property was landlocked. The Planning Board asked Mr. Schroeter to give access to that property off the 50 foot right of way and he declined. Mr. Schroeter since then purchased that piece of property and appeared before the ZBA requesting access to that property from the right of way which he originally declined to allow. Mr. Shultis stated that as a Planning Board member he felt that when he bought that property and decided to make it a bigger lot, he created the problem himself. Mr. Shultis felt that granting the right of way should not have been done. He stated that he doesn’t personally like seeing multiple accesses off one right of way. Mr. Wenzel asked why this wasn’t presented before the decisional meeting. Mr. Shultis stated that a referral was made by the Planning Board that read “regarding the Schroeter case, the Planning Board is asking the ZBA to please take into account that some of it’s members feel there should be road frontage to building lots, especially since it is basically a state law”. Mr. Guido advised that that is why the applicant is before the ZBA, because it is not legal and they are seeking to make it legal. He suggested that in the future if the Planning Board refers someone to the ZBA that they give more information. He also stated that he was going to ask the Planning Board to be more specific in the future when they refer someone to the ZBA. He asked that they state why the person is being referred and what the recommendations of the Planning Board are and also give some history. All the ZBA is allowed to use is what is before them at the public hearing. Mr. Guido thanked Mr. Shultis for his time.

 

OTHER BUSINESS

 

Mr. Guido opened a discussion of a letter that was received from Mr. Pisani regarding Citivision, a copy of which is on file. He asked if anyone had any objection to including the word “adults” in the decision. He advised that he is leaning towards including “adult” and leaving off the retreat part of it. After some discussion, it was the consensus of the Board to include that the premises had been used for some adult use as well as a children’s camp. Ms. Charuk suggested that it be limited to “some adult camping” and it was agreed that it would be better worded that way.

 

Mr. Guido read the following which will be used to reply to Mr. Pisani’s letter: “The general consensus of the Board is that it should read as “ with respect to your request that our opinion be modified, we do not think that it is necessary or appropriate as the narrow scope of the issues raised by the appellants did not require us to identify every use for which the property has been utilized. However, based upon the record, we concur that the premises had been used for adult camping as well as for a children’s camp”. Everyone agreed.

 

There were no further issues. A MOTION WAS MADE BY PETER MCGOWAN TO ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD WENZEL. ALL IN FAVOR. Meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Kathleen S. Kiernan

Secretary