Town of Esopus Zoning Board Meeting Minutes

Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes January 16, 2007

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Don Cole. The Pledge to the Flag followed.

ROLL CALL

Present: Vic Barranca, Catherine Charuk, Don Cole, Rob Hare, Richard Wenzel, and Karl Wick.
Excused: Joe Guido

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS SUBMITTED. DON COLE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHATHERINE CHARUK WHO ABSTAINED. MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

Three vouchers were submitted as follows: secretarial work Laura Petit for 13.25 hours; secretarial work Kathleen Kiernan for 5 hours; public hearing notices for Markle for $16.98 and Port Ewen Housing for $18.92. KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. VIC BARRANCA SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

BROCKLAND, DONALD Case # 01-16-07-01

Mr. Brockland explained that he would like to convert an existing barn on his property into an apartment. He needs a variance for 300 square feet over the allowed 600 square feet for an accessory apartment. Mr. Cole questioned the applicant as to whether this will be a rental property and Mr. Brockland answered that it will be for his brother. He sold his house and moved next door and would like to make an apartment for his brother. Mr. Hare asked how many bedrooms there will be and Mr. Brockland said there will be one. Mr. Hare also asked if the applicant had gotten a building permit before he started working on this structure since there has clearly been a lot of work done already. Mr. Hare explained that it is necessary to get a building permit before doing this kind of work and had he done that, he wouldn't be half way through the project and now asking for this variance.

Mr. Cole asked where the 300 square feet is going to be and if the applicant is looking to add to the building. Mr. Brockland stated that the building is already there and he would like to use all of it. Ms. Charuk asked the applicant if he could provide a sketch of how the inside of the building will look. The applicant was able to provide that and he explained that the barn and the lean-to will be all that will be used. The temporary metal shed will be removed. Mr. Cole asked if the septic has been approved for that structure and Mr. Brockland answered that according to the building inspector, he needs another 500 gallons. Mr. Cole asked that the applicant bring drawings to the next meeting which will be a public hearing.

Mr. Wenzel asked if there will be additional parking. Mr. Brockland stated that he has parking for three cars in the yard now. Ms. Charuk asked that the drawings be made clearer and the dimensions shown.

SCHAEFFER, PHILLIP Case # 01-16-07-02

Mr. Cole stated that Mr. Schaeffer was before the Board previously but now there is a different plan. What he had before was a building that he was going to move but he is now going to build a new building. Mr. Schaeffer explained that it would not be cost effective to move the building since a new foundation would have to be put in anyway. He determined that he might as well build a new building that will conform more to the size of the lot. Mr. Cole stated that it looks like most of the setback requirements will be met with the exception of the rear yard setback which is 12'. Mr. Schaeffer stated that it will be consistent with the alignment of the road. Most of the houses in Sleightsburg are set that way. Mr. Hare asked if this will be a modular house and Mr. Schaeffer stated that it will be stick built.

Mr. Wick noted that on the drawing it says this is a proposed lot and he believes that the documents submitted previously showed that it was pre-existing. Mr. Schaeffer said that it is pre-existing. This was an error by the engineer. There were no further questions and the applicant was advised that the next meeting will be a public hearing on February 20.

PUBLIC HEARING

BLUE STONE REALTY Case # 10-12-06-02

Mr. Don Snyder represented the applicant. The project is for the Dunkin Donuts and the dollar store. At the last meeting there was a problem with the rear. One hundred feet were needed. Mr. Cole asked what changes had been made and Mr. Snyder answered that the retail shop, the Dollar General retail shop, still intruded into the 50' right of way from the center line of the right of way. The size of the building has been reduced from 12, 000+ to 9,520 square feet. Mr. Cole mentioned that originally it was 16,000 down to 11,000+ and now down to 9,000+. Mr. Snyder agreed and stated that they have eliminated the need for all variances except for the one required because the boundary is on residential/commercial and they have to meet a 100' setback. They are asking for roughly 50'.

The new drawings show the location of the garbage-recycling area. The applicants have checked with other retailers and have found that it is not unusual for them to load through the front doors so they will not have to go around to the rear. They have cleared up entirely the conflicts pointed out by the Board in regard to Navarro's cabins. They have added landscaping and Mr. Snyder asked for a rendering but since the grading has not been done, the engineers did not feel comfortable doing that. The building proposed is only 24' high although the maximum height allowed is 35'. That 24' will be recessed down below the grade level in the front due to the topography. Mr. Cole asked how far down they will be cutting with the wall in front and Mr. Snyder advised that he doesn't have that yet. Mr. Cole asked if they intended to cut down in the front and then level it off so there won't be so much of a pitch to the back in the cabin area. Mr. Snyder advised that it is his understanding that it will be a relatively level area. Mr. Cole advised that drainage will have to be addressed through the Planning Board.

He asked Mr. Snyder if he was before the board with the idea of moving ahead on the project and Mr. Snyder agreed. Mr. Cole then asked the Board if they were in agreeance and if they could move on with this case. Mr. Wick agreed that the applicants will have to go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Hare asked, given the grade of the parcel and where the existing gravel drive comes around, if they are going to come close to leveling the parking lot, they will have an eight or nine foot differential in the northeast corner. Mr. Snyder said the calculations will be worked out to make the grade acceptable.

Mr. Wenzel stated that there are three problems; drainage, traffic and density. Mr. Cole advised that drainage and traffic are not issues for this Board. The density is nowhere near maximum coverage according to Mr. Cole. Mr. Snyder stated that it is at 12%. Mr. Wick stated that that applies to the buildings but what about the parking area? Mr. Snyder answered that that comes out of drainage calculations and storm water but does not come out of area bulk requirements.

Mr. Cole stated that he would like to see this matter move forward and a vote being taken at this meeting. He asked if there was anyone who had any objection to allowing this to happen with the stipulation that it goes to the Planning Board for whatever changes that have to be made. Then anyone with any problems can go to the Planning Board and address those problems with that Board. He asked again if anyone had any objections to that.

Phil Schaeffer stated that he has a problem with the zoning. He said that Mr. Snyder keeps referring to it as a 100’ setback but it is not 100’ setback. It’s 100’ setback with a 50’ buffer zone so it’s 150’. The applicants want to encroach on that setback by 80’. He feels that it’s a self inflicted hardship. Ms. Charuk spoke and said that she doesn’t quite understand what Mr. Schaeffer is talking about. Mr. Schaeffer stated that there is a 50’ buffer from the center point of the right of way and then a 100’ setback to the building. Mr. Snyder disagreed. He stated that the 100’ is from the center of the right of way. Ms. Charuk read from the zoning code 123-21.B and explained that the 50’ buffer is part of the 100’ setback. Mr. Wick agreed and asked if there was any deed restriction.

Another member of the public referred to the Shuster report which makes note that the 50’ buffer cannot include roadways, parking areas, or outdoor storage. He asked how that would allow for access to the parking in the back of the area. Mr. Snyder stated that the access will be via the right of way. The same member of the public asked how that could be since that will be part of the buffer and roadways are not allowed in the buffer area. He also noted that there is no screening allowed for as is required in the zoning code. He feels that these are questions that need to be answered before the Board can move forward on this case. He also stated that the Board is not following the suggestions or advice of the Shuster report. (It should be noted that the Shuster report is not part of the Zoning Board file. That report is part of the Planning Board records.)

Mr. Snyder stated that the parking area is beyond the 50’ buffer and asked how Mr. Navarro can use the right of way and he cannot. This right of way is used to provide access to the cabins. Mr. Schaeffer said that he is not saying that the applicants cannot use it but Mr. Shuster says that the 100’ setback begins at the 50’ buffer. Mr. Snyder disagreed with Mr. Schaeffer's interpretation of the code regarding the 50' buffer and stated that the Board is reading it correctly. There followed several minutes of discussion regarding where the buffer begins and what is allowed within that buffer.

The neighbor across the street from the proposed buildings voiced his objection to the variance and proposed that the buildings should be reduced in size, that the two stores be allowed but the additional retail space should be reduced further. He stated that there is an unknown drop in the front of the property and an unknown drop in the rear of the property that drops down to the right of way. The plan doesn't show the 9W sidewalks and the screening and he requests that the Board do a little more research before they vote on this and have answers to these valid questions. Mr. Cole asked that he put his questions in writing for the next meeting.

Mr. Wick stated that he feels that two variances are needed. They need to be 100' from the district boundary and they only have 50' and also there is the "no roadway" issue. He would personally not have a problem allowing the applicant to use the existing right of way as a roadway to the rear of the property but he feels that the issue needs to be clarified so the applicant does not need to come back before the Board.

Ms. Charuk asked how much smaller the applicant can go on the dollar store. Mr. Snyder answered that there was research done and stores average 6,800 square feet. That is the smallest one. Ms. Charuk stated that although the applicant wants to make money, she feels this is still an awfully big building for the size of this lot and if it is cut back on the east side and access can be given to the parking spots in back, she would be more inclined to grant the variance. Mr. Snyder asked if he was being denied the rights that they have by deed to use the right of way. Ms. Charuk stated that he can use the right of way but if the buildings were differently configured and the variance was cut back to 25' she would be more inclined to look favorably on the variance.

Mr. Snyder asked that the Board come to a vote so he could take that to his client, even if it is a negative vote. Mr. Cole answered that the Board could vote on whether to vote at this meeting or not but would not be taking a vote on the variance. If the variance is denied, the applicant would be required to start from the beginning of the process in applying for a variance. An informal polling of the Board determined that no vote would be taken at this meeting. The applicant was requested to present a revised plan for the next meeting. Mr. Hare suggested that perhaps the client could move the Dollar General ninety degrees. If that building is turned, no variances would be required and the applicant would be able to just get a building permit. Mr. Snyder advised that he would take the Board's recommendations back to his client and appear at the next meeting.

PORT EWEN HOUSING Case # 11-09-06-01

Don Snyder spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Cole gave Mr. Snyder a copy of the Ulster County Planning Board opinion, a copy of which is in the file. Mr. Cole advised that the Board is working on two flag lots and a driveway that is coming out on Salem Street which is 35' rather than the 50' required. Mr. Snyder explained that on lot 28 going onto Salem Street there is 18,291 square feet including the flag. On lot 27 going onto Park Lane including the flagpole there is 20,420 square feet. In terms of lot sizing, the Building Inspector, after a year of discussion, determined these two lots to be flag lots. In a subdivision the regulations call for 1 1/2 times the area requirement. The area requirement for this subdivision is 12, 500 feet. One and a half times that is 18,750. On lot 27 there is a total of 20,420 but the Building Inspector informed them that you don't count the flagpole, you only count the lot. On lot 27 the applicant is asking for one variance and that is regarding the 1 1/2 area requirement. They do not have to come before the Board for the access onto Park Lane because it is 51 feet across and the Town highway superintendent advised that that is a pre-existing curb cut and there is already a gravel track that comes onto the property from that location. The applicants have agreed with Mr. Larkin that at that location which is on a curve and there is not a lot of sight distance, therefore, they have not considered bringing subdivision traffic out that way. It was designed for single family driveway. That concept has been approved by the highway department, by Don Kiernan in terms of bringing the water and sewer onto Park Lane, and the fire department. The applicants have made certain agreements with the fire department over and above what is called for in the regulations. They are voluntarily building in a new hydrant at Park Lane. They also took the request from the fire department that they increase the width of the driveways from 10' to 12' to accommodate the fire equipment. The long driveways will be engineered to support the weight of the fire fighting equipment. They have all the approvals on that. The only area in question is the sizing of the lot in a subdivision.

On lot 28, there is also a pre-existing flagpole that is 35.2' wide. It is under the 50' width required for access onto highways in the regulation for subdivision. Mr. Snyder pointed out that 50' requirement is related mostly to when a town road is going to be created. In this particular case all there will be is a 12' single family driveway. At a previous meeting, someone asked about impact. Mr. Snyder advised that he was confused about what that gentleman was referring to and when he asked for an explanation he was given no direction. Lacking that direction, he went and spoke to each one of the adjoining property owners; Ms. Bell on Park Lane, Ms. Smith on one side, and down on Salem Street, Ms. Barnhart and Ms. Steeple. All four property owners were happy to hear that the only plan was for a single family driveway. They were concerned that those entrances would be utilized for subdivision traffic.

Mr. Snyder advised the Board that the developers have DOT approval to have two driveways come out onto Salem Street but in deference to certain members of the Planning Board's objection to shared driveways, they limited their design to one. They have the approval of every department of the Town on these two situations so he could not find any impacts that would be adverse.

Mr. Cole asked if there were any water problems where water from this property would be going onto adjacent properties. Mr. Snyder referred to the topographic map which shows wetlands. He pointed out an area that is considered a cove and explained where the water comes down and goes into a DOT catch basin. Mr. Cole asked if there was any problem on Doris Street. At this time Richard Wenzel excused himself from the Board and spoke as a resident. He stated his objections to using Cynthia Street as an access street citing as a reason the fact that Park Lane is already a street and the area where Cynthia Street would be is a wetland. Mr. Snyder answered that the developers are very cognizant of the drainage problem there. It was pointed out by Al Larkin. Many of the properties on Doris Street do drain down and come out of a culvert pipe that goes to a wet area that goes halfway down the property, just beyond where the gravel track comes across, and disappears into the ground. Mr. Wenzel stated that in times of heavy rains it becomes just like a pond. Mr. Snyder advised that a wetlands delineation was done and they noted that the area has wetland plantings in it. When they went to the DEC to determine which areas would be considered wetlands and which areas they had no further permitting interest in, the wetlands at the bottom of the property were accepted as wetlands. The DEC stated that they had no further permitting interest in the small wet area around the Cynthia Street entrance. There were a number of things that came into play in terms of the entrances in and out of the property. By normal standards at least two are required to provide an access and egress in terms of emergency situations. Both Don Kiernan and the fire department required that Eugene Street and Cynthia Street be developed to provide two entrances and exits on the property.

Mr. Cole again asked if there was a water problem and who had an objection to this project because of a water problem. He asked if there is a water problem how it would be solved. Mr. Wenzel asked if the DEC signed off on this and Mr. Snyder answered that that is correct. Mr. Wenzel's objection is to using Cynthia Street as an access road to the subdivision. Mr. Snyder reiterated what he previously stated regarding access. He advised that Cynthia Street is a wet spot but the runoff will be controlled by a culvert system that will direct the water to the designated wetland area.

Ms. Charuk asked about the distance of the flag from the existing house on Salem Street. Mr. Snyder advised that the flag is located at the bottom of the slope of the adjoining property. It looks to be about 12'.

Mr. Cole asked the Board if they would be willing to vote on this application at this meeting. Mr. Wick asked if any of the four neighbors affected were present and they were not. Mr. Cole stated that the Board had not heard from anyone from the public on this case and he would like to see this case moved forward. Mr. Wick said that he was willing to vote. Mr. Wenzel said that he would abstain. Ms. Charuk stated that she objects to moving up votes and that has been done a lot lately. This is a three month process and she thinks the Board should follow the process. She stated that she doesn't see anything special or emergent about this case to justify moving the vote up. Mr. Snyder answered that the applicants have been hanging fire on this because everyone wants to see the three developments - the Town Hall, Mountainview subdivision, and Port Ewen Housing - to work together to come up with a consolidated plan. The last part of the puzzle needed to allow them to proceed is to get sketch plan approval and in order to do that they need the zoning. There are no negative impacts and all the approvals are in hand. Ms. Charuk said she would not stand in the way if the Board wants to vote. Mr. Cole closed this portion of the public hearing.

BIRCHEZ ASSOCIATES Case # 12-19-06-01

Mr. Cole asked if anyone from the public had any comment. Maureen Keegan of River Road spoke. She requested more time to review the proposal stating that she got notice from the Town on Tuesday of last week. Monday was a legal holiday. She questioned if the statutory requirement was met. Mr. Cole asked if the time was met. Ms. Keegan also stated that she called someone in the Town and was advised that there is a great amount of paperwork involved. Mr. Cole advised that the only thing being voted on here is five additional units. Ms. Keegan answered that she understands that but she is still requesting more time to review the paperwork. She would like to know why there is a need for five additional units. Mr. Cole called on Nadine Shadlock, the attorney for Birchez, to answer that question. She stated that the project was designed for the number of units set forth in this application on the basis of being strongly supported by market studies. There would be no change in the size of the buildings if there are 76 units or 81 units. The only impact in having 76 units would be that five couples or individuals would not have the pleasure of living in this residence. She stated that Birchez has a strong history of having fully occupied senior projects. She stated that the projects are beautifully maintained and developed with attention to detail. There is a strong record of benefit to the local municipalities. The City of Kingston project has a rate of 80% local residents. The Town of Saugerties is above 90% local residents. It is a strong benefit to the local municipalities and would allow seniors to remain in their Towns and not have to relocate out of the area.

There were questions from unnamed members of the public. One person asked if the developers of this project are the same ones who own Birchwood Village on Flatbush Avenue in Kingston. Ms. Shadlock answered that Birchwood Village is a family project, not just seniors, and it is owned by the same concern. The member of the public asked who does the screening for these apartments. Ms. Shadlock answered that a management company would be responsible for that. The speaker stated that she is concerned that this project would accept people who are not seniors. She stated that she spoke with several residents of the project behind Chambers school and those people are very unhappy that there are people living there who are not seniors. Ms. Shadlock stated that she has heard things about that herself and she believes that the developer had looked into the issues that were raised and there are not. The speaker stated that her major concern is about the Flatbush Avenue project that is a beautiful building that is very well maintained but there are terrible (inaudible) in that whole area. Ms. Shadlock stated that that is a family project, not a senior project. It is a very different environment regarding the individuals. Another thing that makes that project unique is that there is another family project directly adjacent to it. The speaker stated that she understands that but problems have arisen there. Mr. Cole asked that she state specifically what the problems are. The speaker answered that they are transferring to the Sunoco station at the corner of Flatbush and Foxhall. There was a brutal beating there last week and the victim had to be airlifted to Westchester. There is drug trafficking coming out of the Birchwood area and it has accelerated since Birchwood was built. Ms. Shadlock stated that she takes strong issue with those generalizations, especially since the speaker stated that the incident she referred to did not take place at the Birchwood location. She stated that the speaker hypothecated about where these people may have come from and she feels that it casts an unfair light upon her client. The speaker advised that it was in the local paper listing their residence as Birchwood.

Another speaker asked how much control the developer has over the management after the project is completed. Ms. Shadlock said the developer has a great deal of control. The developer is extremely conscientious and very concerned. The speaker then said, "Once again, what control does the developer have over the management?" Ms. Shadlock said that it is basically managing a rental project. The management company would screen prospective residents to see if they meet age, income, etc. requirements. Ms. Keegan asked if the developer is Steve Aaron, the same gentleman that the Kingston Housing Authority refused to allow to continue to operate within the City of Kingston. Ms. Shadlock responded that she does not think that is an accurate statement so Ms. Keegan asked if Mr. Aaron had relations with the Kingston Housing Authority that had been severed. Ms. Shadlock answered that she wouldn't call it that they had relations. They were co-general partners. Ms. Keegan asked if they are now and Ms. Shadlock answered that they are not. Ms. Keegan then asked why not? Ms. Shadlock's answer was because the two different entities... Ms. Keegan stated that the paper reported that they did not want to deal with Mr. Aaron and she asked Ms. Shadlock if she had knowledge of that. Ms. Shadlock stated that she has knowledge that the relationship, over a period of time, did not prosper. Ms. Shadlock stated that this project will not be run by Kingston Housing Authority but by Alant. She went on to provide information on other projects that they run.

Ms. Keegan stated that the public has had six days to be notified about this. They have had no opportunity to investigate it and she would like to know why it has to be 81 units instead of 76. She does not see any basis for that. She is requesting the opportunity to investigate these people. If there is such a need to increase the number, why is there a need for a variance if, as Ms. Shadlock says, it's going to be put up with 76 units. Ms. Keegan stated that Ms. Shadlock has not shown any great reason as to why there needs to be (inaudible) units. Ms. Shadlock answered that the market study supports the number. The approvals are in process and have been in process and before the Town of Esopus Planning Board for a year. Ms. Keegan stated that the residents should have been notified before this. Ms. Shadlock stated that that was not her responsibility and the Board tonight should determine if the notification was done correctly. If it was, the Board has the power to act on this variance which she feels is a very minimal five unit variance. The other issues raised tonight can and should be raised in the proper venue which is the Planning Board. There has still not been a public hearing for the Planning Board. There is still a great deal of information cascading in on the project and various issues. The five unit variance will in no way impact the neighborhood.

Another member of the public asked if the developer will have control over the management company's screening of the applicants to see if they are in fact senior citizens and if there will be special preference shown to Town people. Ms. Shadlock answered that there is a mechanism in place but she is not an expert on that matter.

After some explanation of what the Planning Board has been considering over the last year, Ms. Shadlock stated that the applicant was referred to this Board by the Planning Board for a variance for five additional units above what is allowed. The applicant is in the process of financing this project and the process is being watched closely.

Ms. Keegan stated that the applicant's attorney hasn't explained why there is a need for these extra five units; just because five extra people that she thinks live in the Town are going to be here. Ms. Keegan stated that Ms. Shadlock doesn't know that for a fact and she hasn't given them any reason why that has to happen. She stated that Ms. Shadlock is implying that this is a done deal and there is no opportunity or there will be no changes. They are getting their funding and everything is lined up and Ms. Shadlock is attempting to get the Zoning Board to do what she wants it to do. That's how she is approaching this and she hasn't given a reason why.

Ms. Charuk asked if Ms. Shadlock had arrived at her figure based upon the calculations having to do with the number of equivalent dwelling units. Ms. Shadlock stated that the applicant is here for not only a variance but an interpretation as well. Ms. Charuk stated the calculation based a one bedroom unit equivalent to .5 dwelling units, two bedroom unit equivalent to .7 which gives a total of 44.7 dwelling units and that makes 81 units. Ms. Shadlock answered that that is their alternative reason for being here. They are seeking a variance, however, they also noted in reviewing the Town of Esopus law that the overlay was added after the fact. The overlay was not part of the original zoning law. There is a distinction in the law between a density calculation for a single family residence and a density calculation for a rental unit. On review of the senior overlay for the Town of Esopus, she discovered the multi-family law which is the calculation method described by Ms. Charuk. If you look at just the footprint of where the buildings will be, you end up with 6.422 acres and if you multiple that by 8 dwelling units that's 51 units on just a small portion of the site, dwelling units by right. When she looked back at the multi-family law and look at dwelling units and apply the density equivalents to which the Board referred, you end up with this project only having 44.7 dwelling units. The project is permitted to build 51.276 as a right when you consider them apartments rather than single family dwellings. She stated that if this Board determines to vote on the zoning interpretation, they do not need a variance.

Ms. Charuk asked if Ms. Shadlock had had any further correspondence with Peter Graham since the letter of December 19 which is in file. Ms. Shadlock replied that she had not.

Roxanne Pecora spoke on behalf of the Planning Board for clarification. She stated that the reason the applicant was sent to this Board was that they are short five units. The reason they are short five units is because of Sorbello Lane. If Sorbello Lane becomes a public road, which is what their intent is, the Town will own that road. It cannot be included in the calculations based on the senior overlay law which is 123-13B. If that road remains a private road, it's not an issue. What the Planning Board attorney is saying is that the simple question of whether a variance should be granted is based on a calculation issue and the senior overlay law 123B supersedes the existing zoning code which means it supercedes the multi-family dwelling law. That's why they are here. Ms. Charuk said that that would anticipate that the road is going to become a public law and Ms. Pecora stated that that is their intent.

Another member of the public asked if the footprint is to remain the same, would the applicant be able to come back next month and ask for an additional four units. The answer was no. This same gentleman asked, if the applicant was going to go ahead with the project and the building would not change size, why they didn't just build it with 76 units since the public doesn't want the five additional units. Ms. Charuk stated that the question from the public had still not been answered as to why they need the five additional units. Mr. Cole answered by saying that in calculating the value of the property and the income, they needed 81. Ms. Charuk asked that the attorney for the applicant answer that question. Ms. Shadlock's answer was in audible for the most part. She mentioned something about underwriting the project. The gentleman from the public stated that the members of the public present at this meeting do not want the five additional units so if the applicant is going to build anyway, why not just build the 76 units. Mr. Cole and Ms. Shadlock both said that the project may not be built if they don't get the variance.

Ms. Keegan stated that Ms. Shadlock is saying that this project has been in the works for many months or years and nobody has said anything to anybody about it and now she expects the public to just say if you want to put in five more units or 10 more units...It's to maximize profit. Ms. Shadlock answered that the Planning Board is a very challenged site and the developer has gone forward with the financing despite that fact. The Planning Board meetings are public meetings. Ms. Keegan said that the fact is that law requires her (Ms. Shadlock) to give the public notice because their property is going to be affected by this and everybody is here because they are not happy about it. Ms. Charuk interrupted to say that the notice is a Town issue, not the applicant's issue. Mr. Cole explained that this is not a done deal yet because there are other things that are before the Planning Board and Ms. Keegan should go before the Planning Board and have her issues addressed now that she is aware of this.

Ms. Charuk asked Ms. Shadlock if she finds Ms. Keegan's statement that the additional units are being requested to maximize profits to be an accurate statement. Ms. Shadlock answered that the number of units was determined by a market study to support the development of this project. Mr. Cole asked if that came from the State. Ms. Charuk asked who did the study and Ms. Shadlock said that it was done by a private consultant to determine the number of individuals who would require such rental property in the market area.

Someone asked if there is a State funding issue with this as well and Ms. Shadlock said that there is. It is being considered by the NYS Division of Housing and Community Financing and it is very tender because Ulster County has been considered by HUD to be a difficult to develop municipality and, as a result of that designation, developers are provided with an additional 30% tax credit. As of 2007, Ulster County lost that designation. This project's financing application was deemed complete as of the end of December 2006 and that designation has been reserved for this project. They are still in the process of underwriting the financing and a great deal of the underwriting for this project hinges on the fact that the applicants are moving forward with the necessary approvals from the municipality. The same gentleman who asked about the State funding asked if there is a recommendation by the State of how many units should be built in order for them to fund this project. Ms. Shadlock responded that she doesn't know that that is the case. The State has favorably reviewed everything up to this point and based upon that she believes that the number is supported. Ms. Charuk asked what would happen if the applicant goes back to the State and tells them that they have to do it with 76. She asked if it would all fall apart in that case. Ms. Shadlock answered it would have to be...yes, I would...The application was deemed as submitted and the final door shut as of 12/31 and that's it. They cannot go back and redo. Someone asked why not. Mr. Cole answered that the funding has been ceased. Ms. Keegan stated that the boost is gone and that means that the developer doesn't get the extra 30%. Ms. Shadlock continued that that 30% allows the equity infusion to pay done the construction loan and allows the project to be built. She stated that if this project was market rate this would not be an issue because it could be made up in rents.

Ms. Keegan asked if Ms. Shadlock is saying that if she went to the State and said the Zoning Board didn't agree to the variance and you are doing construction of the same exact size but having five apartments less that they wouldn't get their funding. Ms. Shadlock answered that that is correct. Ms. Charuk asked her to provide some documentation to support that.

A gentleman from the public stated that he feels that the attorney for the applicant is saying that if the Board doesn't vote for the variance that the project will be pulled. Ms. Shadlock stated that she did not say that at all. This same gentleman then stated that this Board is a board appointed by the Town and representing the citizens of the Town. The Board knows what the public's thoughts are. He believes that the attorney is saying this is what she needs or the project doesn't go through. A woman in the audience stated that she feels that the public needs more to time to look into this and consider what the repercussions will be. Mr. Cole stated that from what he got from the Planning Board, the only thing they are interested in is the Board making a decision on whether or not five more units would be appropriate for this situation. He stated that the Planning Board attorney and the Planning Board chairman are both in agreement with it. There are letters stating that all they want if for the Zoning Board to make a decision. There are other things that have to be done before this is a done deal but we have to keep moving forward.

Some members of the public expressed concern that this project would end up with a population that it is not intended for. Ms. Keegan stated that she has seen it happen that a senior has a younger relative living with them. She expressed again her opinion that this project has been under way for a year and the applicants have not notified the neighbors. Mr. Cole explained that this matter has been before this Board for 30 days. At the last meeting it was presented as informational and now this is the public hearing and the neighbors were notified. Ms. Keegan again stated that she doesn't feel that they were notified in a timely manner.

Someone asked if there are two bedroom apartments and Ms. Shadlock stated that there are. This member of the public wanted to know why there would be a need for two bedrooms. It was explained that for health reasons a husband and wife might need two rooms or one of the bedrooms could be used by a caregiver.

A member of the public asked if the opinions of those present would be taken into consideration when the Board votes on this variance. Mr. Wick answered that he would certainly take their thoughts into consideration if they could give evidence that these five units would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Ms. Keegan stated that how is the public expected to come up with those reasons if they were only given six days notice on a project that the applicants have been preparing for over a year. Mr. Wick and Ms. Charuk both stated that they would be in favor of holding the public hearing over for another month if that would give the public enough time to investigate this.

Mr. Hare read from the zoning code on senior citizen housing as to what the parameters are for those living in senior housing. CATHERINE CHARUK MADE A MOTION TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN FOR ANOTHER MONTH. KARL WICK SECONDED. All present voted in favor.

DECISIONAL MEETING

PORT EWEN HOUSING Case #11-09-06-01

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO GRANT AN AREA VARIANCE ON LOT 27 TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF 3,485 SQUARE FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 18,750 SQUARE FEET. DON COLE SECONDED. The vote was as follows:

KARL WICK - I vote yes. I think this is a reasonably small variance. I do think it is a self created hardship. There's absolutely no doubt about it. But I think it's a good plan for this piece of land. It doesn't really hurt the Town.

VIC BARRANCA - I approve.

ROB HARE - I approve. I agree with Karl. I think it was a self created hardship. I think the developer is just trying to squeeze out another lot but given the circumstances, it's workable.

CATHERINE CHARUK - It's a single lot with access to the road and I don't think it's inconsistent with anything else being proposed. I don't think that there's any real downside to it. It's not inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood.

DON COLE - I vote yes. I approve for all the reasons stated.

RICHARD WENZEL - Abstained.

ROB HARE MADE A MOTION ON LOT 28 TO GRANT AN AREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 2,088 SQUARE FEET AND TO USE THE PRE-EXISTING ACCESS OF 35.2'. DON COLE SECONDED. The vote was as follows:

KARL WICK - I have no issue, no problems with it. It is a pre-existing road. The State only requires 15'. I feel the area could easily have been made larger by adjusting the lines in the subdivision. And that's my problem. Again if this were a separate vote by itself I think I wouldn't grant it. I'd have to weigh that against why didn't the developer move the line and the long term impact. On balance though, I don't think this is really going to hurt the Town. I vote in favor.

VIC BARRANCA - In favor for all the same reasons.

ROB HARE - I vote in favor for the reasons I stated.
DON COLE - I vote in favor for the reasons Rob stated.

CATHERINE CHARUK - I vote in favor actually largely because there is an existing access there, as far as we know, created by the original subdivider. The neighbors don't seem to object.

MOTIONS CARRIED.

OTHER BUSINESS

The secretary advised that the Building Department notified the Board that it should advise applicants that they need to go back to the Building Department after they get their approvals.

Karl Wick mentioned that the Brockland application was woefully incomplete and the Board has discussed this before. Everything was checked off but nothing was included. It should never have been accepted by the Town Clerk.

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. VIC BARRANCA SECONDED. All present voted in favor. Meeting adjourned 10:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Kiernan
Secretary