Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
February 20, 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, Joe Guido, Rob Hare, Richard Wenzel, and Karl Wick.
Also present: Town Supervisor John Coutant, Town Board member Deborah Silvestro, Roxanne Pecora, Planning Board Chair.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Cole asked if anyone had any additions or corrections to the minutes from the January meeting and Tim Allred asked that his name be inserted in the public hearing portion of those minutes. Joe Guido requested that a correction be made to page 10 in the third paragraph to show public road and not public law. Karl Wick requested on page 10 third sentence from the bottom that a correction be made to the statement "Ms. Shadlock said that the Planning Board was a very challenged site." He does not understand that. This was not a typo and no change will be made. Also on top of page 10 multiple should be multiply. DON COLE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. RICHARD WENZEL SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
Vouchers for secretarial work for 25.75 hours and Freeman public hearing notices for $13.11 and $17.94 were submitted. JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. DON COLE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.
INFORMATIONAL MEETING
DeCICCO, RALPH Case # 02-20-07-01
Mr. DeCicco was present and advised that he would like to put a 12x24' addition on his house on 137 Hudson Lane, Ulster Park. It is a pie shaped lot just under an acre. The edge of the pool is 10' from the property line and the addition will be coming out to the edge of the pool. He just needs a variance on the side yard setback. Mr. Guido asked if the pool was put in with a building permit. Mr. DeCicco stated that he didn't have the pool put in but there is a record of the building permit on file. The deck was part of that building permit. Mr. Guido asked what is on the property on the side where the applicant needs the variance. Mr. DeCicco answered that there is a house there that is at least 20' off the property line. Mr. DeCicco pointed out on the plan where his driveway is and where his neighbor's driveway is. Mr. Cole asked that the applicant bring a better drawing to the next meeting which shows where his neighbor's driveway is. Mr. Guido asked what the addition will be for and Mr. DeCicco advised that it is for more living space and more storage. Mr. Guido asked that the applicant show that on a diagram for the next meeting. There were no further questions.
KELSEY, CHARLENE Case # 02-20-07-02
Ms. Kelsey was present and explained that she would like to put up a modular house to replace the existing trailer but she would like to live in the trailer while the new home is being constructed. She works at home. Mr. Cole asked about the drawing that the applicant submitted. He asked how many feet are being occupied by the trailer now and he asked that the applicant bring that information to the next meeting. There were no measurements on the drawing.
Ms. Charuk asked what the applicant's business is. Ms. Kelsey answered that she works for Uniprise, United Health Care, in medical billing. Mr. Guido asked where the house will be going. Mr. Cole said that the applicant needs a variance for 5' on the side setback. Mr. Guido asked what would happen if the applicant pulled the mobile home out first and Mr. Cole said that she wouldn't need a variance if she did that. Mr. Guido asked how close the mobile home is to the other side now and Ms. Kelsey said it is maybe 3 feet. Mr. Guido said that she would be trading a variance on one side for one that is grandfathered on the other side. He asked that the applicant bring that measurement in. If it is 3', the applicant would be improving the situation and that would be a good reason for granting the variance.
Mr. Hare asked the applicant if she would have a problem providing some kind of performance bond guaranteeing that the trailer will be removed. Ms. Kelsey said that she'll only need about two weeks to get things from one place to the other. Mr. Guido told the applicant that she will need to set up an escrow account guaranteeing that the trailer will be moved. Mr. Guido advised the applicant that the next meeting will be a public hearing and notices will be sent to the neighbors.
PUBLIC HEARING
BLUE STONE REALTY Case # 10-12-06-01
Andrew Wright, the owner of the property, was present to explain what he would like to do. There are many issues on the table. What he would like to do is develop an economically feasible and sound little shopping center. He has a lease already established with Dunkin Donuts for a stand alone, a pizzeria in the larger building, and the rest is still open for negotiation. The first reason he is here is for the setback issue on the residential buffer which he has discussed at length with Mr. Cole. The second issue is whether the right of way is or is not a road. He has spoken with Ray Navarro who owns the cabins and asked him what his issues are. He needs the access for tow trucks to come and go at night so they do not interrupt his tenants and there is an issue with overflow parking for the tenants. From his discussion with Mr. Navarro he determined that his main concerns were not with the amount of the development but with his areas being properly treated. Mr. Wright said that he is going to create a landscaping buffer, he is going to address the road and they are still working on that and on whether they will pave it or not. A lot of it has to do with absorption on the lot since they have to catch and treat the storm water. They have done extensive testing on the parking area but not on the road. They will be doing further studies on that.
Mr. Wright stated that he has close to a half a million dollars that he will be putting into the ground before he even gets to the buildings. In order to make it worth it economically he has to generate x number of dollars or it's not worth doing. He has gone back to the December 6 presentation because that is what he needs to make this work. He and Mr. Navarro are working out plowing and parking. He is putting a covered trash collection and recycling area in back and is putting 60 spaces in the front parking lot with 6 spaces in back which will probably be employee parking.
Mr. Cole asked what the applicant has changed on the setback in the back to make it more accommodating to the cabins and Mr. Navarro and to the applicant so it will work for everybody. Mr. Wright explained that the main thing he did was set the parking back 10' from the right of way. For the larger building he plans a pizzeria for 2000' and he was entertaining a Dollar Store for the balance of it but they are on the fence. He thinks he can do a lot better with individual shops. He has a few physicians who handle care of seniors, etc. who are interested. Medical office space will be good. Starbucks expressed an interest but Dunkin Donuts said they would walk if Starbucks comes in. He is not asking the Town for tax abatements. He explained again how he and Mr. Navarro are trying to work together.
Mr. Cole stated that there is an issue of a setback of 100' to residential but this is not residential. It is considered commercial so the 100' setback is not required at this time. He asked Mr. Wright if he was correct on that since Mr. Wright looked into it. Mr. Wright stated that these are commercially registered properties. In discussing that with Dan Shuster, Mr. Shuster said that that is open to interpretation. Mr. Cole said he is going to move on this and he wants the Board's feeling on it so it can move forward. Mr. Wick said he definitely wants to see a tax map to see if those properties are commercial or residential. Mr. Wright said that he copied the property cards and they are definitely commercial. Mr. Guido said that he wasn't here last month and the month before the Board asked for tables. He wanted to know if they got the tables. Mr. Wick said that this is new information that the Board didn't have last month. Mr. Cole said that this still has to go before Planning and they will rectify all that. The only thing this Board is looking at is setbacks so they don't imposition anybody in the back. Mr. Wick said that makes a big difference whether they are commercial or residential properties. Mr. Guido said the Board needs the tables they requested for the next meeting.
Bob Dederick asked what adjustment will be made for water coming down off the hill. Mr. Wright said that the entire paved area that has been planned will absorb the runoff and underneath the driveway there will be an absorption system. If he paves the road he will pave 15' and have catch basins scattered along. He is considering sharing a sewer line with those properties that he understands are on septic now. Mr. Cole asked about the storm drain and Mr. Wright said there will be dry wells scattered along and he pointed out on the plans a part that he may need to rebuild. Mr. Cole asked if the storm drains will go to River Road and Mr. Wright said that he can't do that. He contacted the DOT and they said he can't piggyback on their new storm drains because they have enough trouble on their own. Mr. Wenzel asked if the dry wells will be emptying into the storm drains. Mr. Wright said they will not. The water will be absorbed.
Mr. Guido asked what variances the applicant is looking for. Mr. Wright answered that the east side of the larger building is on the right of way. The parking spaces are well within the setback. The coverage is only 60% of what it could be. Mr. Guido asked how many feet. There was no answer given at this time.
Tim Allred, the neighbor across the street, asked to speak. He advised that he is presenting a written statement to be submitted into the record as was requested by the Board at the last meeting. He stated that the question of the commercial designation of the properties to the rear of this project has a simple answer. He reviewed the files of the Zoning Board and the Planning Board and he spoke with the Building Inspector and the tax assessor. The parcel in question is in the R-40 zone but the assessor has to assign tax codes to properties and because this property is income-producing, it is taxed at what is called commercial code. Conversely, he lives across the street and is zoned commercial but is taxed as a residential property. He also mentioned that the tax assessor pointed out that the tax rate in Esopus per thousand is $1.40 so taxes raised by this project are not going to the Town. They are going to the schools and the county so it is questionable what the value is to the Town of this increased development. He also pointed out that this is a 2.2 acre lot and with all the setbacks there is approximately 20,000 square feet of land that is unencumbered by setbacks and restrictions. Because this is a commercial zone, the developer is allowed to develop 20% of the lot. The last proposal was for 14 to 16 % of the lot so the developer could get almost all the construction that he wants and still have a free standing Dunkin Donuts without asking for any of these variances. He then read the following statement:
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Board:
The October 12, 2006 ZBA application for a variance by Blue Stone Realty, LLC to affect construction of a restaurant and retail complex on the currently vacant land at 289 Broadway on the corner of Cabin Lane lacks the “required statement of the principle points on which I base my application with a clear and accurate description of the proposed work” and “a copy of elevations of the building with all necessary measurements”. {That is directly taken from the zoning application and is necessary to come before you.}
The ZBA talking points included with the application do not give a “clear and accurate description of the proposed work” and refer to a Shuster Associates application review of September 26, 2006 that was prepared for the Planning Board but is not included as an attachment to the ZBA application.
I ask the ZBA to seek timely fulfillment of these application requirements. The public comment period should remain open until the information is provided and can be reviewed and responded to by the public in the public record, as well as used by the ZBA during its evaluation of the merits and impact of the variance that is requested. Currently the application {and I’m referring to not a moving target a different plan each month but last month’s plan} was only a request for one variance related to the 100’ yard setback. But a review of the zoning ordinance indicates that the development as presented might require additional variances.
On February 9, 2007 I met with the Building Inspector and asked him the following questions:
1. Is this a corner lot requiring 40’ front yard setbacks on the north and the west? [Section 123-21.C(1)(a)]
2. Do the walls on the southwest and northeast corners of the site, which may exceed 6 1/2 feet and thus be considered accessory structures, require a variance? [Section 123-21.C(5)]
3. Does the applicant’s deletion of the loading berth, which is required for a retail structure over 5,000 square feet, require a variance? [Section 123-24.B]
4. Should the 50’ transitional buffer properly be situated to the west of the edge of the right of way rather than the center line of the right of way and is a variance required for any prohibited roadway or parking located within the buffer?
[Section 123-21.B(1)]
Tim Allred
294 Broadway
Ulster Park, NY 12487
Mr. Allred indicated that this was the statement that he was asked to put in writing but with the reversal that was presented at this meeting the building will now be intruding into the 50’ required buffer and that would require a variance. He stated that after four months of being before the Board there have been no elevations submitted which are essential to understand the impact of the proposal. There has been nothing submitted in writing as to how the building will fit in and be appropriate to the surrounding structures. He does not feel that the Board should move forward and he personally feels that the applicant should withdraw his application and resubmit it with the proper documents.
Bob Dederick asked if any consideration was given as to how Dunkin Donuts would affect the traffic flow on 9W. Mr. Wright answered that a traffic study was done and right now there are about 13,000 cars a day. The increase would be about 10%. Mr. Dederick asked specifically about the cars going south and stopping in the middle of the hill and how that would affect the flow. Mr. Wright answered that the turning lane should take care of that.
Mr. Guido asked that Mr. Wright bring schedules to the next meeting showing what he could put there, what he is putting there. Mr. Wright asked if Mr. Guido wanted to know who the tenants are going to be. Mr. Guido said that he understands that Mr. Wright doesn’t know who the tenants are going to be. Mr. Wright then went on to explain the criteria he uses to determine who will be a tenant and Mr. Guido advised him to bring that to the next meeting also. Mr. Guido stated that he needs to know exactly what the distance is on the variance in the front that Mr. Wright is asking for.
Ms. Charuk asked if Mr. Wright’s position is that he cannot make this work unless the larger building is 11,200 square feet. Mr. Wright answered affirmatively and explained the cash flow and the economics involved in determining how large the building has to be to make it profitable.
There were no further questions from the public or the Board. JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL NEXT MONTH. KARL WICK SECONDED. All present voted in favor.
BIRCHEZ ASSOCIATES Case # 12-19-06-01
The Board members read thoroughly the comment from the Ulster County Planning Board, a copy of which is in file. Mr. Cole asked if anyone from the public had anything to say regarding this application. Alice Tipp addressed the Board saying she was present as a senior advocate for senior housing and she was here to speak on behalf of Birchez. She requested the Board to look favorably on the plan before it. She stated that there is a long waiting list for people to come into these places and she hopes the Board will consider this. Mr. Cole advised her that at this meeting the Board is just looking at adding five units to the project and that is all that is being considered and will be voted on. He also advised her that he feels that this is a very good situation to put this housing here and most everyone in Town would like to see it. There are some people who are against not the housing but where it is. He said he would take anything from anyone else who wants to say something but this Board is only interested in adding five units to this project.
Ms. Charuk asked Mrs. Tipp who she was referring to when she said "we" have a long waiting list. Mrs. Tipp answered that she was referring to the Birches in Saugerties and also at Chambers which is another Birchez project. Ms. Charuk asked if that is a private waiting list and Mrs. Tipp said it is. Ms. Charuk asked Mrs. Tipp if she is employed by Birchez and Mrs. Tipp answered that she is the senior advocate. Ms. Charuk asked if that is a paid position and Mrs. Tipp answered that she does get a stipend.
Dorothy Sorbello who lives on River Road said that she believes that there is a strip of road known as Hildebrant Lane that is on her deed. Somehow this project has come over onto this road. She questioned whether this project has been done correctly. Mr. Cole stated that she would have to go to the Planning Board with that question since all that is being done at this Board is considering the additional five units. Mr. Guido stated that if the variance is granted it would be dependent on the applicant having what they say they have. Mr. Hare asked if Mrs. Sorbello had made the applicants aware of this and she answered that she is now. She only heard about this a few weeks ago. Mr. Cole said that this has been before the Planning Board for over a year and nobody has heard of it. The members of the public present for this case all answered together that they were not informed about it.
Paul Kellar, the attorney for the Town, said that he would like to make clear to everyone present who wants to speak tonight, either for or against it, that there is only one issue tonight, and that is whether the variance for five additional units should be granted. There are many other issues which are collateral which should be before the Planning Board but not before this Board. He expressed the hope that the people who intended to speak tonight would address only the application before the ZBA which is whether or not the area variance for five additional units over 76 should be granted.
Douglas Denoff of 59 River Road spoke and stated that the only thing he wanted to say procedurally about this is that he has owned the land and the Johnson house since March 2005 and this is the first notice of any hearing whether of this Board or the Planning Board that he has received. The only thing he has learned is that the developer has established a pattern of planning or developing something and then saying "Oops, I need a bit more." He stated that he thinks it is appropriate, whether the Sorbellos knew or not, that the proportion of units to land is dependent on the land. They have to figure if they have the right ratio of land. Mr. Cole said that it is still before the Planning Board and the property size can accommodate 76 units with no variance. When the applicants applied to the State they put it in for 81 units and the Planning Board knew it was 81 units. That is why they are here, to get the additional five units. He advised Mr. Denoff that he could read the recommendation that was received from the Ulster County Planning Board that says these five units give nothing detrimental to the project. It will not interfere with anyone in the neighborhood any more than with the 76 units but they need the five units to get their State funding. Mr. Denoff asked why they didn't go to the State with 76 if they knew it was zoned for 76. Mr. Cole stated that they originally thought that it was alright for 81 but there have opinions made that it was alright for 81 and then it changed to it was not alright for 81 and now the Board has to give them a variance for 81. Mr. Denoff said that the Board doesn't have to give them a variance. These are not just numbers, they are people and each one of the residents will be going out and traveling and will need to get in and out should they need medical assistance. Each life is individual and is not just a percentage of square footage so whatever the Board decides, even it's five more people and should there be a catastrophe and five people don't make it out, that would be a tough situation. He stated that it is a narrow road there. He understands that there will be an extension down to River Road and he doesn't think that is an appropriate emergency access. Traffic goes too fast on River Road and this access road would come out where there is a bend in the road. He also expressed concern about drainage and other issues and Mr. Cole advised him that that has to be addressed with the Planning Board.
Bob Dederick of River Road asked if there is a plot plan for this project. He said that this is the first time he has heard of this and he would like to put in a request that the Planning Board notify the people of River Road of when the next meeting will be. Mr. Cole advised him that when the public hearing comes around he will be notified. Mr. Denoff stated that he thinks it is weird that he has checked his mailbox and a lot of this has just come up in the last five days. He can't understand why the first time he heard about it was when Mr. Aaron's representative contacted him regarding an easement down to the river. He thought that it was going to be a catch basin and it turns out it will be a mosquito pond. Mr. Cole advised that when this Board got it they jumped on it and made it public.
Diane Dintruff spoke and said she has tried to go onto the Town website and the last minutes posted for the Planning Board are from October. Mr. Cole advised her to go into the Town Clerk's office and ask her what the process is. She suggested that perhaps there could be a key spot on the website where all the pivotal projects are summarized.
Lori Vedder of Sorbello Lane questioned the reasoning for increasing the units from 76 to 81. She stated that it will affect the water and sewage even if the infrastructure doesn't change. It will be five to even 10 people more and the water pressure is horrible on that road now. Mr. Cole told her that the water and sewer issues will have to be addressed so that will make it better for her. Mrs. Vedder stated that five or eight or maybe ten more people will impact it and she would like to know what the reason is for that. Mr. Cole asked her why she wants to know and what is the reasoning that these additional services are needed. He asked if that is an important factor in the whole situation and Mrs. Vedder said that it must be because that is why they are here looking for that variance. Mr. Cole stated that that is for money. It will not work at 76. Mr. Denoff asked why the developer can't go back to the State and ask for 76 and Mr. Cole stated that he already has his approval. Mr. Denoff said that the State would probably be thrilled that they only have to fund 76 and not 81. Mr. Cole said that it has already been approved by the Planning Board for 81. Mr. Denoff and Mrs. Vedder asked how they could have approved it for 81 when only 76 are allowed. Mr. Cole said that that is why it was referred to the ZBA and he asked Roxanne Pecora from the Planning Board if she would explain why. Ms. Pecora said that the application to the Planning Board has always been for 81 units. It has never varied from 81. When the Planning Board reviewed the Code they found a calculation issue with the average density and they sent it to the Zoning Board for their determination and a variance and that is why it's here. Mr. Denoff asked that if it turns out that the applicant owns less land because the Sorbellos own that road wouldn't that affect the calculation as well and Ms. Pecora answered that it would. Mr. Denoff stated that perhaps it is premature to act on this until the Planning Board knows the accuracy of the calculations. Mr. Cole said that it wouldn't make a difference. Ms. Pecora stated that the road is not part of the calculation and that is why they are here. The original calculation they included the road and the road cannot be included and that is why they are before this Board.
Mr. Hare asked Ms. Pecora if the applicant had approached the Planning Board prior to applying to the State for a review of the number of units. Ms. Pecora stated that they did.
Mr. Guido asked who is here representing Birchez. Steve Aaron answered that he is. He spoke regarding the funding for the project which he stated is very complex and the monitoring is very extensive. The NYS Division of Housing and Community Renewal and the NYS Housing Finance Agency does not just supply the funds and leave. There is compliance and periodic audits not only from the State but also from the partners that leverage the tax credits. He explained that in the Chambers complex there was a tenant who was out of compliance by a week and it was addressed. Mr. Guido asked him what the age restriction is. Mr. Aaron answered that it is 55 which is the State requirement. The average age is in the high-70s in the Chambers complex and mid-70s in the Saugerties complex. Mr. Guido asked what happens if someone under the age limit is brought in to stay with someone in a two bedroom apartment. He questioned if there is a time limit for that. Mr. Aaron said that he is one of the first to introduce two bedroom apartments for seniors. There are basically three reasons for that. It may be the case of a husband and wife who don't want to sleep together or can't for medical reasons. Most importantly, the second bedroom may be needed for a caregiver. The person who stays cannot call that his/her home unless they meet the age requirement. The apartments are also income restricted so anyone who lives there is considered as contributing to the household and their income is counted which may bring them over the income level of eligibility.
Mr. Guido asked how Mr. Aaron came up with the 81 units instead of what he could have. Mr. Aaron said that it is actually 80 plus a caretakers unit. They intend to have a full-time caretaker on site. They came before the Planning Board and were given sketch plan approval for 81. He said that he believes that the roads were out of the equation at that time. There was some interpretation since the intent was to dedicate the roads to the Town. The roads have to be brought up to specs and the infrastructure including the water will be improved. The sketch plan approval was for the 81 based on a certain interpretation of the current senior overlay law that was enacted by the Town two years ago. They budgeted for 81, they went to the State for 81, and were approved for 81 but as they start winding their way through the approval process which has been going on for over a year, it was discovered that perhaps an attorney needed to make an interpretation. The Planning Board’s attorney interpreted it that it is 76, not 81. Mr. Guido asked if that was because of the road or because of the overlay and Mr. Aaron said that it is because of the road issue. He said that he consulted members of the Ulster County Planning Board and members of the Town and since the basic footprint of the building is the same whether it is 76 or 81, it was suggested by the Planning Board that they come before this Board for an interpretation and a variance. The interpretation is to see if the Zoning Board agrees with the Planning Board on this issue. If the determination is that they don’t need a variance, fine. If they do they will be taking care of it at the same time. Mr. Guido asked why the applicant doesn't just keep the road in and then he will not have to ask for anything. Mr. Aaron stated that he offered that but the Town wants the road and it's probably in the best interest of the Town.
Mr. Guido asked if most of the residents have their own vehicles and Mr. Aaron stated that the rules according to the Planning Board is 1/2 a car per space but most seniors do drive. At Chambers he finds that about 75% of the population drives. For public transportation UCAT will have a physical bus stop in front of the building and, under an agreement with the Mayor of the city of Kingston, the Citibus which already goes to BOCES will go down what is known as Sorbello Lane.
Doug Denoff asked if having the road come all the way through to River Road is a requirement of deeding the road to the Town. Mr. Aaron answered that they have to get down to River Road somehow and Mr. Denoff asked why. Mr. Aaron stated that it is an alternate access road and allows the services such as sewer and water to be connected. He pointed out that he understands Mr. Denoff's concern but he is working to have a traffic light put at the Sorbello Lane and 9W intersection so that the seniors will use that access rather than go down to River Road and then try to get out onto 9W without a traffic signal. Mr. Denoff asked then what about the private homes. He stated that he is confused as to why there are private homes that are part of this project and getting tax credits. Mr. Cole stated that that in incorrect. Mr. Denoff asked if the road which he referred to as Hildebrant Lane is going to be used for these private homes. Mr. Kellar stated at this time that this is not part of the application before this Board. Mr. Cole advised Mr. Denoff to take this up with the Planning Board.
Mr. Guido asked Mr. Kellar what his view is on the interpretation. Mr. Kellar said that the only thing he was given by Mr. Cole on this day was the variance application. He was not aware of the request for an interpretation.
Maureen Keegan spoke and presented an affidavit from a person who has knowledge of real estate in the area in question which specifically addresses the issue as to whether or not there is any economic problem in evaluating whether this Board should approve the variance requested. She stated that Mr. Aaron indicated that this is not a use variance but she disagrees and feels that this is a use variance and some of the questions that the Board has to consider includes that is there a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Keegan feels that yes, there is going to be a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Cole interrupted to say that Ms. Keegan is talking about changing the neighborhood with these buildings and that matter can be addressed with the Planning Board. Mr. Guido stated that the buildings would still be allowed to go there without the variance and it would be the same impact. Mr. Wick said that the issue is whether the five units would change the character of the neighborhood, not the whole project. Ms. Keegan said that she understands but she still feels that the addition will make an impact on the character of the neighborhood. Another issue that the Board has to consider is can the difficulty be changed by some method other than a variance and the modification of the Town law is a way that this request could have been done without the Zoning Board having to do a variance. You also have to evaluate how substantial the variance is in relation to the requirement. In other words, the public has gotten no real proof as to way this basically mathematical business mistake that was made by Birchez, why should this Zoning Board accommodate it simply because they made a mistake. There has been no proof as to why that's a valid reason. Mr. Cole said that it was sent to this Board by the Planning Board asking this Board to give them a variance if the Board thinks it is the logical thing to do. Mr. Barranca asked if the original plan was for 81 units and Mr. Aaron answered that that is correct. That is what is before the Planning Board and that is what got sketch plan approval.
Ms. Keegan continued by stating that according to the newspaper, Mr. Fox has initiated litigation against the Birchez project at Chambers simply because they also had a miscalculation as to the number of units that they wanted to change. So whether this is the modus operandi of the Birchez or whether this is just a math error, it still hasn't been proven to what she believes is people in the audience's satisfaction, to go ahead and grant the variance. Part of the reason is that there is no real change in economic difference for this person. She presented the affidavit to be entered into the file to be part of the records indicating that there is no loss to change between 76 and 81 units, to add the additional units. Mr. Cole said that the 81 units have already been approved by the State. Ms. Keegan said that no one has told the public that the State would not go forward with the project at 75 [sic]. Mr. Aaron said that that is correct and he asked if he had not presented a letter to the Board from the consultants on that subject. Ms. Keegan stated that a letter saying that the consultant said it is not the same as New York State saying they would not reconsider or that they would not fund it at 75 [sic]. Mr. Aaron rephrased the statement to say that the originator, who is licensed by the FHA and who also happens to be the consultant, has provided this Board with a letter indicating that this would constitute an entire new application and, as a new application, not only would it have to go through underwriting again, chances of it being approved by the State would be slim or none. Ms. Keegan asked if it is because it has five less units that they would not approve it. Mr. Aaron stated that the units represent income and he stated that he did try to indicate that to Ms. Keegan when they met. Ms. Keegan said that he indicated that he would be giving her all kinds of documents.
Mr. Aaron addressed the Board and stated that he did meet with Ms. Keegan after her public representation at the last meeting and he attempted to explain what took him four years and Ms. Keegan was rather busy and there was not much time. The cash flow is restricted here significantly by the various different funding sources. Hence, the loss of four or five units does have an economic impact. It is not only the economic impact, although that is important, it is the process they have to go through to get back to the beginning. He stated that he did not make a mistake. They believed in the interpretation. They believed that their counsel’s interpretation of the law that is on the books with the Town of Esopus justified the 81 units. It was after an extensive review by the Planning Board that their attorney differed with his interpretation. Ms. Keegan asked if the Zoning Board lawyer agreed with Mr. Aaron's interpretation. Mr. Cole stated that the Zoning Board does not have a lawyer. Ms. Keegan stated that Mr. Kellar issued a letter stating that he also believed that the calculations done by Birchez were incorrect or not accurate. Mr. Guido said that he just asked Mr. Kellar about his interpretation and he will have it to this Board by the next meeting. Ms. Keegan said that there is a letter attached to the zoning application from Mr. Kellar. Mr. Kellar said that he believes that the letter she is referring to has to do with using a parcel further down the road to be included with this parcel which is actually separated by three lots in between and has to do with the sewer line. Ms. Charuk stated that there is a letter dated December 27 from Roxanne Pecora which addresses the issue Ms. Keegan is referring to. In it she says that it has been determined that this section of the code supercedes existing code for the Town. In other words, the senior citizen overlay is the applicable law, not the multi-dwelling section. That is why a variance would be needed. Ms. Keegan stated that she still believes that the fact that the property was purchased with the belief that that could be done, and maybe it can be done, but whether it is profitable or not is not for this Board to consider. Mr. Cole asked where that is written in the Town law. Ms. Keegan answered that it is an interpretation of 267-E203 of Town law and she stated that there are a number of cases that interpret it. There are five or six major areas and the Town hall should be able to give Mr. Cole that information as well. Those are the areas that the Board must consider in determining a use variance or they are supposed to consider it. Ms. Keegan again stated that her position is that it is not economically different to have 76 units constructed versus 81 and that is an important issue for the Board to consider. The Board should not be put into a position to guarantee investments because of speculation by buyers and that comes from a review of case law.
Mr. Guido asked Mr. Aaron if he went to the Building Inspector or the Planning Board first when he started this project. Mr. Aaron said that he doesn't know that answer. He can say that they had a workshop meeting with the Planning Board to get the project jump started and to get input from various different Town departments.
David Bolles stated that the road that is in question that the Sorbellos may own will cut down on the accessible acreage and if the plan goes forward the applicant may have to move the road over. That will cut down on the acreage of the property which will have to be reevaluated and the formula will have to be reevaluated. The five units in question will become an even bigger variance. It will be a smaller piece of property that you will be putting 81 units on. He stated that he does not see how 81 units will help seniors who will now be having an extra ten people put into the same amount of space. There will be less parking availability, smaller hallways. That is not benefiting seniors. If anything, it is making their lives worse. He does not see how the variance will help those people. If the law says there should be 75 [sic] there is a reason for it.
Mr. Aaron said that he did not want to bring up the issue of the Sorbellos today. He wanted to meet with the Sorbellos since this is the first time he has heard of their concern, but he did represent to the Planning Board that he does have title insurance that indicates that that road can be used. He didn't want to make that an issue for tonight. Mr. Cole said that there is an imposition on the Board as far as moving forward on the case at this meeting without an answer to that question.
Mr. Denoff said that what he is hearing is that this project only works for the developer at 81 units. Even if the State re-approved tomorrow at 75 [sic] the cash flow wouldn't work. He stated that as a businessman, that is a pretty tight margin to make a commitment to a Town because that presumes that those units are occupied. He stated that he doesn’t know what the average occupancy of Mr. Aaron’s other projects is. Mr. Cole said that they are over occupied, able to be over occupied. Mr. Denoff asked why the Board was answering that question and not the applicant. Mr. Cole answered that the applicants have been saying that they have a waiting list. Mr. Cole said that the State may approve the revised number but the issue in question is the time that it will take to reapply. It has been a year on this already. Mr. Denoff asked if that isn’t the developer’s problem as a developer.
Mr. Aaron stated that he and the former Town supervisor sat down almost three years ago and discussed bringing affordable senior housing to the Town of Esopus. There have been two or three other developers who have attempted to do this and have failed. Mr. Aaron said that on the strength of the projects that he has done in the past and on the strength of the need that was established...He then said that he would like to clear up the waiting list that was brought up by Mr. Cole. There was an overwhelming response to an outreach that the former supervisor and former Town Board made for an interest for this type of housing. He said that he believes the list has nearly hundreds of people who have expressed an interest. In order to get the funding it is a long process and it is underwritten a hundred times and financial feasibility is one of the biggest concerns. As part of the State requirement for funding, a market study was done that showed an overwhelming need for over 81 units. Mr. Aaron went on to speak of the need for affordable housing in this area.
Mr. Aaron explained that he is before the Board for an interpretation of how the senior overlay district which was established by the former Town Board is to be applied. The footprint is the same or negligibly increased by the additional five units. Mr. Denoff then said that he doesn’t think anyone here who is expressing concerns is at all opposed to the spirit and the concept of senior housing. He kept his own mother at home and he wished that there was more available in the way of home care rather than forcing people into nursing homes. Mr. Aaron said that his alliance with the Elant organization from Goshen will provide an office within the complex where the seniors would have someone to help connect them with vital services available to them either through Medicare, Medicaid, or private providers.
Mr. Cole asked Mr. Aaron to read a letter from the title company which says that he has superior title to Hildebrant Lane. A copy of the letter is in the file. Mr. Sorbello said that he thought Mr. Aaron had said previously during this meeting that nobody knew about the question of the road and now he is saying that he did. Mr. Cole said that since it was brought up he sent out for the information and got a copy of the letter. Mrs. Sorbello offered a copy of her deed to the Board. Mr. Cole said he didn’t want that since he can’t get involved with her deed. Ms. Charuk also said that the Board cannot clear that up. Mr. Sorbello then asked why the Board is accepting a letter from the applicant but refusing to take a copy of his deed. Mr. Kellar advised Mr. Cole that this is a public hearing and if someone wants to submit a document, in this case a deed, that Mr. Cole may accept it. What the Board does with it is up to the Board but if the party is tendering it to him Mr. Kellar sees no reason why Mr. Cole shouldn’t accept it.
Mr. Hare asked Mr. Aaron how difficult it would be for him to take lot one and just include it with the total. Then the problem would just disappear completely. Mr. Aaron said that if the Board says no then he will just have to go back to the drawing board but that is not his choice. Mr. Hare said that he realizes those four lots are serious profit margin on the purchase of that property. Mr. Aaron said that that is what it is going to take and it has been factored into the equation. Mr. Bolles asked if Mr. Aaron is saying that it would not be possible to do this without the house since he thought that this was well thought out, well financed and looked over by the State. Now Mr. Aaron is saying that if he has to take one house off it doesn’t work. At Saugerties and Chambers there are no private homes so that doesn’t make sense.
Ms. Keegan said that the lots where the houses are to be built are under an acre and include a large sump pump or drywell or whatever plan that they have to get it to absorb all of the water that shouldn’t be running off at the high rate that it will be running off at. She stated that she knows these are Planning Board issues. Mr. Aaron responded to that by saying that the storm water system that is designed for this will actually improve the wet conditions. It was noticed that a considerable amount of runoff comes over the top of the road in a high storm. Under the road there are multiple points. There are culverts all over the place. By collecting the water and having a controlled discharge down to the river, it will actually improve the current drainage situation. With regard to the pump station, the pump station is there for the sewerage and not for the drainage. The pump station will bring the sewer not only to these houses but to anyone along River Road who wants to hook up to the Town sewer system. That’s what the pump station is that is shown on the drawing.
Mr. Denoff said he has a question about this since Mr. Aaron brought it up. On the one drawing he was sent a couple of months ago when he wasn’t in weekly communication with Mr. Bruno, it was not clear that this is an open pond. He questioned if there was a way to prevent it from being above ground so that it does not become a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Mr. Aaron answered that his experience with retention ponds is that they typically don’t fill unless there is a significant severe storm. However, if there is standing water it can be aerated and they can do a lot of things to keep it from becoming stagnant.
Mr. Cole closed the public hearing for this meeting. Mr. Guido said that the public hearing will be left open until the next meeting.
There were several minutes of discussion between Mr. Aaron and Mr. Cole about closing the public hearing at this time and voting on this issue at the next meeting. Mr. Guido said that there were issues that needed to be addressed such as the road and he did not feel that the public hearing could be closed. Mr. Cole said he wasn’t talking about voting on this tonight but just closing the public hearing so what happened at this meeting would not go on next month. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Kellar to give his opinion on what Mr. Cole wants to do on closing the public hearing and either voting on it tonight or next month. Mr. Guido said that the Board cannot vote on it tonight. Mr. Cole answered that if the Board wants to vote on it they can and if they don’t, then they don’t have to do it. Mr. Guido said that his concern is that it was already announced that the public hearing would continue next month and half the public has already left. Mr. Kellar said that presumably if Mr. Cole has already announced that this would be carried over to next month, the public would return here next month expecting the right to be heard He said that he thinks it really important that the Board has to tell the public that this is only what we are going to discuss. We’re not going to talk about mosquito ponds, etc. Mr. Cole said that is why he wants to vote on it and get it done with. Mr. Kellar said that he feels that since it was said that it will go on another month the Board has an obligation to do that. He asked what was on the record and it was determined that the meeting will remain open until next month.
BROCKLAND, DONALD Case # 01-16-07-01
Mr. Brockland addressed the Board. He presented a floor plan as requested. He is asking for an extra 300 square feet. Zoning allows 600 and he would like close to 950 square feet. He also spoke to someone at the Health Department regarding the septic system. The property has always had three bedrooms. He will be taking a bedroom out of the house and put it in the barn. The septic system should not be an issue. He would like to increase it to 1000 gallons but 500 was good enough for fifty or sixty years. The building and the barn have been there for about a hundred years. There is nothing being built. \
Mr. Guido said that the biggest problem he sees is that the applicant only has one third the amount of property that he needs to do this. The square footage is not as big a problem to him as the fact that the applicant just doesn’t have enough property. Mr. Brockland stated that he is trying to get grandfathered in by the fact that the buildings have been there. Mr. Wick said that the buildings are grandfathered but the use of the barn is not grandfathered.
Marty Peterson from the St. Remy Fire Department said that their only concern is that the applicant has sufficient off street parking. Mr. Brockland pointed out the parking on his drawing and said that it is already used for parking. There are three people and three cars. Mr. Brockland stated that if he blocks cars there is enough room for ten.
Mr. Wick asked if there is an issue of getting the fire equipment in and out of the station. Mr. Peterson answered that there could be since residents of the Town use the hall and parking is tough. Mr. Brockland said he used to park a pickup truck there and they never had any problem getting the trucks out.
No were no further questions from anyone and Mr. Cole advised that this part of the public hearing will be closed.
SCHAEFFER, PHILLIP Case # 01-16-07-02 (10-06-06-01)
Mr. Cole asked if there were any comments from the public. Mr. Guido asked Mr. Schaeffer if he would explain what he is doing. Mr. Schaeffer said that he would like to construct a one story stick built home on a preexisting lot that existed before zoning. There are certain setbacks required depending on how you view the lot since it is a corner lot. Mr. Cole said that he looked at the drawings that were submitted and the only variance he can see that has to be determined is on the rear lot. Mr. Guido asked what the Building Inspector said. Mr. Cole answered that the applicant is automatic on the front and side yards and the only thing he is short on is the back. He has 12’ and he can’t go any further than 12’ or he will be going into the side of the mountain. He is entitled to build on this even though it is an undersized lot. It was determined previously that this is a grandfathered lot. The house next to this proposed house is only about 10’ away from Third Avenue and the applicant has 24’. The house on Parcell Street in 50’ away from this lot so as long as it is within 200’ he doesn’t need a variance.
Mr. Wick discussed the drawings to determine which sides of the house were rear and side yards. The house will be 46x24’. Mr. Wick asked if it could be made smaller.
Mr. Cole asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Wick stated that Parcell Street is not 50’ and he is presuming that it is a street created by usage. Mr. Cole again asked if there were any further questions and if the Board would like to vote on this tonight. Mr. Guido asked who determines what is the front yard and which is the side yard. Mr. Cole said it is up to the owner. He is putting the front to Parcell Street. Mr. Schaeffer said that he would appreciate a vote at this meeting.
Mr. Guido asked how big the house is. Mr. Cole said that it is 46x24’. Mr. Guido then asked if it is a stick built house why the applicant couldn’t make it smaller. Mr. Schaeffer said that he would rather have a three bedroom than a two bedroom. It is an 1100 square foot house and that is not a big house. It will have a two car garage under the house and the rest will be crawl space because of the slope. The Board decided to vote on this tonight.
VIC BARRANCA MADE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD. MR. COLE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.
KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO ALLOW A SETBACK OF 14’ WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF ONE FOOT ON THE EAST SIDE AND A SETBACK OF 12’ WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF THREE FEET ON THE WEST SIDE. THE THIRD AVENUE SIDE MAY BE 24’ FROM THIRD AVENUE WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF 6’ BECAUSE IT IS GREATER THAN THE AVERAGE SETBACKS OF THE FOUR CLOSEST ADJOINING PROPERTIES. DON COLE SECONDED. The vote was as follows:
KARL WICK - I’ll vote in favor. I don’t think this is going to change the character of the neighborhood at all. I think it is slightly self- imposed hardship but this is a preexisting older lot and the applicant cannot get any financial return by building a house that is under 1000 square feet. So I think there is no detriment and a good gain here.
VIC BARRANCA- I’d be in favor. I don’t believe this would be any damaging thing to do for this neighborhood being that most of the houses don’t meet the setback.
ROB HARE - I’m in favor of the variance. It doesn’t affect the neighborhood substantially. It fits the neighborhood.
DON COLE - I vote in favor. The lot is an undersized lot. What he’s going to build on it is about as best as he’s going to do for the neighborhood. So I think that I’ll agree with the variance.
JOE GUIDO - I’m against it. The house could have been made a couple of feet shorter and he would only need the one variance for any reason. We’ve made other people cut the houses down.
CATHERINE CHARUK - I’ll vote in favor because it’s consistent with the placement of the other houses in the area.
RICHARD WENZEL - I’ll vote in favor. I feel it’s a reasonable request. The character of the neighborhood is not going to change. I don’t see any adverse conditions.
MOTION CARRIED.
OTHER BUSINESS
Joe Guido addressed a letter that was received regarding Rachel’s Daughters, a copy of which is in file. He said that what happened was that the Board let them subdivide that property. The Board let them put that road in but there were to be no further subdivisions. Todd Schroeter didn’t change the deed and now the lawyer is saying that it can’t be enforced because it is not part of the deed. Now they should go after Mr. Schroeter because he’s they one who didn’t follow through. The building should have never been able to be done unless he complied with what was written in the variance. The Planning Board doesn’t have a leg to stand on because it wasn’t followed up on.
Mr. Wick said that that is Peter Graham’s opinion. In Mr. Wick’s opinion, he is dead wrong on two issues. One, deeds are not carefully written. He does deed research and some deeds are great and some are horrible. People leave conditions out of deeds all the time on purpose, thinking they will disappear. Mr. Guido said that he also disagrees with him and he would like Mr. Kellar to check into that.
Mr. Guido also said that he would like Mr. Kellar to check into which superceded the other on the issue before the Board. There are two different rules regarding density, one of which is the senior overlay. Mr. Guido would like to know which, in Mr. Kellar’s interpretation, supercedes the other one. That is the whole thing they came before the Board about in the first place.
On the Schroeter case, what the Board is going to have to do in the future is that nothing gets done until the clauses get done. The Board should send a letter to the Town Board that something has to be done about enforcement. The Board puts all these rules in and all these restrictions and nobody does anything after they go back to the Building department. Nobody follows up on it. Mr. Cole said that something should be written up and given to the Town Board.
Mr. Guido asked what is being done about the trailers. She only has a few more months. Now there are two camping trailers in back. Mr. Hare asked if next month the Building department should be notified so she can be informed. There is no progress being made.
MR. COLE MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. RICHARD WENZEL SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. Meeting adjourned 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen Kiernan
Secretary