Town of Esopus Zoning Board Meeting Minutes

Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals
March 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, and Karl Wick
Absent: Richard Wenzel
Also present: Deborah Silvestro and Gloria VanVliet, members of the Town Council; Roxanne Pecora, Chair of the Town of Esopus Planning Board; Tim Keefe, Building Inspector; and John Coutant, Town Supervisor.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

VIC BARRANCA MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. KARL WICK SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

Vouchers for secretarial work for 26 hours and two public hearing notices in the Freeman for a total of $38.80 were submitted. CATHERINE CHARUK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS AS SUBMITTED. ROB HARE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

GUEVARA, DEANNA Case # 03-20-07-01

Mrs. Guevara was present to advise the Board that she would like to put a house up on 22 Lake Shore Drive and she needs a variance of 20' on the side line. Mr. Wick asked her if she could turn the house 90 degrees. Mr. Guevara advised him that the house has two big arched windows that would overlook the water and that is why they want the house positioned that way. Mr. Wick asked if there is a well on the property and the applicants said that there is not one yet.

Mr. Hare asked if the house was purchased already. Mrs. Guevara stated that it is a modular that they are waiting to purchase if they get the approval. Mr. Hare suggested that, going along with Mr. Wick's question, there are many different models and shapes and they might be able to order something with windows on the side. Mrs. Guevara said that they already have stamped plans that they paid for.

Mr. Cole asked how close to existing houses this will be. Mrs. Guevara answered that there are empty lots on both sides and they have already talked to the neighbor on one side and he doesn't have a problem with it at all. His house is set closer to the lake. Mr. Cole asked if the houses that are there now are all about the same size and are the lots the same size. Mrs. Guevara said that all the lots are about the same, narrow and long. Mr. Cole said that he meant are all of the houses that are there as close to the side yard line as 9' which is what the applicants are requesting. Mr. Guevara said that one of the people who lives there owns the lot next to him. Mr. Cole said that the Board has to be careful about setting a precedent on this because it could affect all the lots that are not built on yet.

Mr. Wick asked if there is any municipal water and sewer there and the answer was no.

Ms. Charuk asked if it would be possible to put the garage in front of the house. Mrs. Guevara said that is something they considered but above the garage is a bonus room and they could not do that if it was behind the house. They already talked to the architect about that. Ms. Charuk then asked if they could angle the house someway so they could meet all the setbacks. Even thought the lots next to them are vacant now they could be built on someday.

Mr. Cole said that the Board members will be going out to look at the lot. Mr. Wick asked if it is marked and Mrs. Guevara said it is the second one from the end.

Mr. Hare again mentioned that this would be setting a precedent for the whole neighborhood. Mr. Cole said that with the depth of these lots the houses should be back to front rather than side to side. Mr. Wick asked if the applicants had inquired about buying either of the neighboring lots or part of the lot. Mr. Cole mentioned that 83' long is a big house.

Ms. Charuk asked if the applicant could bring some photos of the lot and the two neighboring lots for the next meeting. Mr. Hare suggested that the applicants look for different houses.

MURPHY, STEPHEN Case # 03-20-07-02

SEFF, LESLIE Case # 03-20-07-03

Joe Pisani spoke and said that he was representing Mr. Murphy and he requests that the Board consider both Mr. Murphy's case and Mr. Seff's case together since they are the same requests and the same area. The Board agreed but pointed out that there would be separate rulings on the cases. Mr. Cole stated that the building inspector is present also if there are any questions. Mr. Pisani pointed out that the properties in question are distinguished by an X on the map. He explained the history of the property and the site plan which goes back to 1984 when it was approved by the Planning Board. Since that time there have been only two houses built in that subdivision. One is on parcel 3 which is on Burroughs Drive and the other is on 5.1 and a building permit was granted about ten or fifteen years ago. Since that time building permits have not been granted for the reason that the road is not suitable for construction purposes on these lots. Mr. Seff and Mr. Murphy, and in a subsequent meeting there will be another application, have submitted to the building official footprints that show where they would like to build their homes and where they would like to get building permits. The issue before this Board is going to be seeking a variance for purposes of construction on the grounds that they feel that since this development was approved by the Planning Board back in 1984 that the criteria that existed back in 1984 should be applied relative to private roads opposed to what might be utilized today. The building official may be able to give more information.

Tim Keefe, the building inspector, said that what occurred back in 1984 was that they gave the subdivision under the premise that the road be turned over to the Town. No bond was required at that time for some reason. The road was not brought up to Town standards. Since then there have been many homeowners who have bought separate plots. There is only one home that uses the road. Ms. Charuk asked if the only issue is that the road does not conforming with standards and she also asked if there were any plans to bring it up to code. Mr. Pisani answered that what they propose is that it continue as a private road as opposed to being dedicated to the Town. If it was to be dedicated to the Town it would have to be built in accordance with Town specs. They feel that since it is a private road it should not have to meet such specifications. It is their understanding that back in 1984 as a private road it does not have to be paved and can be utilized as a private road without macadam and without Town specs. Ms. Charuk asked if in 1984 it was required to be dedicated to the Town. Mr. Pisani answered that there was never a requirement that a road be dedicated to the community. The option was always available for a developer to retain it as a private road or to dedicate it. If it was to be dedicated then it must meet specifications. In previous years if it was to be kept as a private road the maintenance of which is left to the owners of the adjacent properties, that there be no requirement to construct it with those high criteria. It could be constructed in a criteria that would be acceptable for emergency access but that is about the only criteria that should be applied to it.

Ms. Charuk said that she was still confused because the notice of disapproval says that “the application for a two story dwelling requires that the road is constructed to the standards as per the Timberline subdivision.” She asked what those requirements were. Mr. Pisani said that there are none that he knows of. Mr. Keefe said that the only requirement was that the road be turned over to the Town before any construction was allowed to happen there. Ms. Charuk said that that is dedication. Mr. Keefe said that this never happened and now there are 15 landowners who want build. Ms. Charuk said that they want to build on what is essentially a private road and Mr. Pisani said that they don’t want to turn it over to the Town. Mr. Murphy said that they have been paying taxes on it for twenty years. Mr. Pisani said that since 1984 lots have been sold but for the most part, fifteen or sixteen lots have been paying taxes to the Town but have been unable to get building permits. Ms. Charuk asked how this happened. Mr. Keefe said that unlike today where a bond would be required and if the road went in the bond would be turned back over, that didn’t happen. Ms. Charuk said that they didn’t require a bond but they also didn’t set the standards for the road. Mr. Keefe said that they did. The road standards were given at the time. He has correspondence back and forth between the highway superintendent and Highland Vineyards which was Mr. Fiore. Ms. Charuk said that basically then this should have been a dedicated road but no one made that happen at that time. Mr. Pisani said that is correct and now they propose that it be a private road. Ms. Charuk asked how that one person was allowed to build. Mr. Pisani said that he can’t answer that. He has no idea how they got a building permit but the fact is that they did get one and they built. Mr. Guido asked Mr. Murphy if he bought the property from Highland Vineyards. Mr. Murphy said no and Mr. Pisani said that he bought it in subsequent ownership from a second party. Mr. Guido asked Mr. Murphy if he got title insurance and Mr. Murphy said that he did. Mr. Guido asked if the title insurance mentioned this and Mr. Murphy said that there is no building on it so it’s not a problem.

Mr. Pisani said there is a problem that has to be addressed and they feel that the best way to do it and the most expeditious way since all the landowners agree that they will maintain the road as a private road, that that be considered as such. The Town will not have to maintain it or plow it. Mr. Murphy said that the road is plowed right now. There was a fire call at that residence on that road several weeks ago and they responded with the fire trucks and they all made it up there and everything was fine.

Mr. Cole said that he talked to Al Larkin and he said that he doesn’t want any road dedicated to the Town that is not a fifty foot road and there is only a 35’ road in there. Mr. Cole found out that there is a fifty foot right of way and as far as he sees, with the problems that they have had, he would like to see that road kept the way it is, unpaved and ditches put on both sides for storm water. Mr. Murphy said there are ditches there now. Mr. Cole said he saw them and what looks like a pond or a lake. Mr. Cole said that as far as drainage, he thinks that the road being a private road, unpaved, is better for water problems up in that area. Mr. Murphy said that they have the resources to take care of the road. The road was impassable six months ago. The road is passable now and when the weather breaks it will be better. Mr. Pisani said that it was always passable up to 5.1 since they have been living there for ten years but Mr. Murphy has taken it upon himself to make it passable all the way down to the cul-de-sac. Obviously, considerably more work will have to be done on it in terms of item four and just grading, but other than that they don’t feel that it will be necessary to raise it to Town specs because it is not going to be dedicated. Mr. Murphy said that there are several hundreds yards of stone sitting up there right now but it just hasn’t been spread because the weather conditions have not permitted.

Mr. Guido said that he doesn’t have a problem with the road. He wants to make sure that by doing this the applicants are not circumventing certain things that would have been done by the Planning Board if it had been done properly as far as water run off, grading and things like that. Mr. Murphy said there are culverts installed under the road now. Mr. Guido said that he would like to be assured that every member who owns property on that road is addressed on this. He doesn’t know what the views of the other owners on the road are as far as that road staying private since there are only two people before him. Mr. Pisani said that he thinks it would be unanimous if they were asked whether or not they want to remain owning building plots that can’t be built on or to allow their plots to be built on along side of a private road. He thinks it would be unanimous in the affirmative but that remains to be seen and that query can be made.

Mr. Guido said that the applicants should get that documentation since they are ones requesting a variance. Mr. Pisani said that he accepts that challenge. Mr. Keefe said that they will need a maintenance agreement. Mr. Seff asked what would happen if the majority signs off on it but not everyone signs off. Mr. Guido said that that would make it more difficult for the Board and more difficult for the applicants. Mr. Pisani said that what he thinks that Mr. Seff is addressing is that he thinks that it would be unanimous that they would like to have access to that road for purposes of construction. Whether or not they will join a road maintenance agreement, he doesn’t know if that will be unanimous but he feels that there would be sufficient landowners who will execute a road maintenance agreement that will keep the road open to Town requirements. What should be a concern to the community is that there is a maintenance agreement subscribed to by owners who will undertake the cost of maintaining that road. Some of the people may decide to just keep their lots up there and not contribute and not build on it but that’s beside the point. The point is that whoever wants to build on it will sign a maintenance agreement. There are three that he knows of for a fact and possibly two others who will sign a road maintenance agreement. Ms. Charuk said that anyone who wants to go for financing will have to. Mr. Guido said that the Town will not be held responsible for any differences in the future among landowners as to who is responsible for maintaining that road. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Pisani both said that that is a private situation. Mr. Pisani said that in the road maintenance agreement, a copy of which he will submit, they undertake it without equivocation and it will be their sole responsibility to maintain the road. Mr. Cole asked Mr. Keefe what he wants and he said that is exactly what he wants. If they are all in agreement he doesn’t see any problem. Mr. Guido said that he does see problems and that is why he wants to cover everything. Mr. Murphy said he doesn’t think that you will get sixteen people to agree on anything but if the majority agree...He has taken on the burden himself of maintaining the road already and no one is handing him any money. Mr. Wick asked him what happens when he sells. Mr. Murphy said that there is going to be a signed agreement so that isn’t an issue. Mr. Pisani said that a road maintenance agreement will be signed and recorded and will run with the land. Subsequent owners will take on the agreement. There will be a covenant running with the land.

Mr. Guido said that he will talk to someone from the Planning Board but he wants to make sure the Board is not circumventing them. Mr. Cole said that the Planning Board Chairman was present and asked if Mr. Guido wanted to hear from her. Mr. Guido said that he wants it when it’s an official meeting. He doesn’t want it when it’s an informational meeting. Mr. Wick said the Board definitely needs to see the original Planning Board materials on this. Mr. Pisani said he will get copies of the minutes and will make them available to the Board. He said that it will be a win/win situation for the community because whatever homes that will be built up there will not be small homes. They will be very substantial homes that will run, he’s sure, each one over a million dollars generating substantial taxes and the people up there who will buy those homes will be able to afford to maintain that road properly. Mr. Pisani said that he will provide ten copies of the original Planning Board subdivision map for the next meeting. Mr. Guido asked Mr. Pisani to get in touch with as many people as he can for the next meeting and if they object have them come to the meeting. Mr. Cole said that the next meeting will be a public hearing on these cases.

PUBLIC HEARING

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

Andrew Wright submitted revised drawings. He said that last month he got a lot of feedback of what the Town is looking for and the comments of the neighbors. The variance requested is a setback variance on the western edge of the right of way for the building because Cabin Lane is considered a road and this would be considered a front yard. Forty feet is the usual setback and he would like to be on it and also a variance for the encroachment of the building and parking on the transitional buffer caused by the residential overlay. According to Shuster’s study from the middle of the right of way one would have to be 125’ and he would have no parking and no building to be in total compliance with the transitional buffer. The reason for the variance is economic. Crunching the numbers for the extensive water absorption system he has to put in to completely absorb all the storm water that this site, building and everything will get, is pretty extensive and is getting close to two or three hundred thousand dollars because he can’t run a new storm sewer. He also made efforts to make this, instead of a flat roof, mechanicals-on-the-roof standard commercial development, a pitched roof with no mechanicals on the roof, dormers, mechanicals would be behind the building to the south. The portico in the front would give a covered walkway and a staircase in the front to go up to 9W to encourage pedestrian traffic, even one going down to Cabin Lane. In the event that more development happens down the road, this would be more pedestrian friendly. Those issues caused the startup costs to be rather extensive. The typical rule of thumb is eighty dollars a square foot will get you a metal building with basic parking. At thirteen thousand feet that’s about a million dollars. If you add the three hundred plus thousand for the landscaping - they want to do extensive, dense landscaping on the east side of the parking towards Cabin Lane to help buffer those residents and tenants, extensive landscaping to the south leg of the lot which would be basically not for any other reason except sound buffer, more absorption, more keeping a green fence along Cabin Lane. There will be landscaping along 9W, Broadway as well but not dense, more deciduous trees, more just keeping the sidewalk and the walkway attractive. They have done a lot of work at how any building can sit on this lot. The marketability determined that he had to turn the building east-west and put it to the south so 70’ of building violates the building setbacks. The rest he does keep in the 10’ setback for parking from right of way. He couldn’t find anything else that he was having trouble with. He doesn’t need any variance for parking. He changed his business plan. He has Dunkin Donuts and a pizza place already on board but the retail would be a small retail, professional office, and restaurants because they seem to be the tenants that can pay the $12.00 per square foot that he needs to get to make this work. The larger stores, the Dollar Generals, can barely do $8.00 a square foot so they have already lost the equation. He has been working with his neighbor, Ray Navarro, on road maintenance agreement to help each other. Mr. Wright will pave Cabin Lane to make the units work better and give him better access to the lower lot of his property. In exchange they will be considering an easement to possibly run a sewer line down to River Road rather than pumping it up. That will depend on what the sewage department says. They may just have to do a pump station. In the event that he needs extra absorption because of paving Cabin Lane which wasn’t done on the last set up, they will be trading fill.

Some issues were brought up at the last meeting regarding hours of operation and lights. They will be going with 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. operational which will be seven days a week. Dunkin Donuts is morning. The pizzeria is afternoon and evening. Dunkin Donuts is suggesting that they will be closed by 7 or 8 o’clock. The lighting will be off on off hours. They will keep a few lights on the canopy for security. They will be covered by the overhang and should not be a bother. Traffic studies show approximately 500 to 600 cars at peak and if a quarter of those pulled in on their site plan they made sure they had stacking ability for cars that are in line to order, which has a six car capability, and also stacking ability for the cars going back onto 9W. Once Hudson Terrace is developed that would be an alternate way out and, once it’s paved, it will be usable. It is good to have two ways out.

Ms. Charuk asked if the elevation listed on the map for the building is for the roof peak. Mr. Wright said that is going to be the slab at 92 which is approximately 18’ below 9W at that point. The roof peak is at 24 so you will see about 6 feet. It is tucked down in there. The Dunkin Donuts like the flat roof but he saw in their prototypes a peaked roof stucco building which they haven’t signed off on yet. They should be happy with the Dunkin Donuts on the signage.

Ms. Charuk asked if the Dunkin Donuts entrance is on the east. Mr. Wright said that they wanted to have their entrance east and south facing the other stores. He put a fence around the truck and trash area because they like to be able to keep a small tractor trailer as they unload in the morning so it won’t interfere with the rest of the traffic.

Mr. Cole said that most bases have been covered. He asked if anyone had anything to ask. Ms. Charuk asked Tim Allred if he has seen the elevations since he lives across the street and had many objections in the past. He answered that he has seen the elevations and he sees a big improvement with the roof line which was a major issue with him. He has objected in the past to the size of the building and the cut into the back buffers, but there is nothing additional that he needs to say about that. Mr. Wright has addressed a number of the issues that were of a concern to him.

John Bell of River Road asked about water run off to River Road. Mr. Cole advised him that that will be addressed by the Planning Board. Mr. Wright said that there is a sewer line. Storm water will be caught and maintained on the site only. It was the sewer that possibly by gravity to run it down because sometimes pump stations fail.

Dorothy Sorbello asked about Hudson View Terrace and what Mr. Wright is doing with that. Mr. Wright asked if that is the name of the road that runs right next to the Port Ewen Diner. It was pointed out to him that he was referring to the wrong road. Mr. Wright then said that it is Cabin Lane that runs into that road and he is going to pave along that road. Mr. Navarro stated that Cabin Lane was known as Hudson View Terrace up until a year ago. Mrs. Sorbello asked who owns that road and Mr. Wright answered that the Sorbellos were the owners and he had approached them about it. Mrs. Sorbello said that she knows that and that she was not interested.

Doug Denoff of River Road said that he wanted to comment favorably since there have been a lot of going on lately that affects the residents of River Road. This project seems to have had some issues to overcome but both the developer and the residents around seem to have worked very well together. He doesn't think there could be anything better in terms of a process in doing something like this.

Mr. Guido asked if the plan that Mr. Wright presented at this meeting is in front of the Planning Board and Mr. Wright said that what Mr. Guido sees now, if this Board signs off, will go to the Planning Board and he will try to address some of their issues before he goes there so he doesn't have to go through it four times. Mr. Guido then asked Roxanne Pecora, Chair of the Planning Board if she has seen this plan. She answered that the Board has not seen this plan or any plan and it is not before them now. Mr. Wright said he understands that the process is that he starts here and then he goes to the Planning Board now. Mr. Cole said that he was referred to this Board because of the back lot but since he appeared before the Board other things came up and the Board was addressing them. The only thing this Board should have been addressing was the back lot line and that's it. The Board went a little further to try to get this moving forward and it is moving forward. Most of the problems of the people that are around there can be presented to the Planning Board and it will probably help Mr. Wright move through it faster than if he started from scratch.

Mr. Guido said that there were a lot of statements that Mr. Wright made, a lot of promises, and he doesn't know how the Board is going to incorporate what he just stated. He is also wondering about if the Board grants variances on this and it goes to the Planning Board and they make changes it will end up back here again anyway. Mr. Guido said that that is why he asked if it was before the Planning Board because if they have any problems they can look at it now. Mr. Wright asked what the process is. Mr. Guido said that he was referred to this Board by the Planning Board but the plans that he has now are all different. Mr. Cole said that the next step is for him to go before the Planning Board and this Board will send the Planning Board a favorable decision. Ms. Charuk said that the Board hasn't voted yet.

Ms. Charuk said that if she approves this it would be based on what is here and if the Board approves it and something else gets built that doesn't look like this she will be upset. Mr. Wright said that he lives in Stone Ridge and his office is in Kingston and he has many other properties in Port Ewen. Mr. Cole said that the building inspector is here. Mr. Wright said that this is what he wants to build. Tim gave him a good point. If you build something well you are going to get good tenants. If you build something not so well then he will be fighting all the time to keep a good tenant or to get a good tenant. He has done a bunch of these little buildings and he has learned that if you do it right then he can come before the Board again with another project and if he does this and cuts corners he will not be very well received. Ms. Charuk asked what other buildings he has done. Mr. Wright answered that he did the Dollar Store in Kingston on Foxhall. He is doing four apartments on Wall Street in Kingston and he's putting elevators in and washers and dryers in every apartment. He tends to do something nice. He has done a few buildings in Manhattan that were loft conversions and his office on Fair and Maiden Lane. He also has a building on Tilden and Harriman which he made into a two family instead of a three family. He has a management group. He is an architect by trade.

Peter (last name inaudible) asked if everybody wants this. He said he gets the feeling that the Board has all stamped this in their heads already. Ms. Charuk said that he got that impression from Mr. Cole. Mr. Guido agreed. The speaker said that what bothers him is the density of everything. He is concerned about the problems that will be coming down the road with more cars, more people. It looks great. Mr. Wright did a great job.

Ms. Charuk said that she understands where his impression is coming from since she had that same impression herself in the beginning but the only thing in front of this Board is...
Minimum lot size required is 40,000 square feet. They have more than double that. Minimum lot width required is 150 and they have 321. Minimum lot depth is 150 and they have 239. Maximum coverage permitted by the zoning laws is 20% and they have 14 building, not parking lot. Maximum building height is 35 and they have 24. Ms. Charuk said that she understands that when the speaker looks at it it looks like too much but he is within what the law requires. The only thing that he is asking for is variance of 25' off the rear right of way. The speaker then said that the other part of his question is is there an alternative site. Is this the only thing that is usable at this time, this little piece of property that fits all the requirements as far as the measurements. Ms. Charuk said that that's the one Mr. Wright owns and the speaker asked how that is his problem that that is the one he owns. Mr. Guido said that it isn't and what Ms. Charuk is trying to say is that the applicant can do this building and do everything he wants to do and more and just move it down and around and maybe be not as nice looking and not as practical but he could do more than what he's doing. He just wouldn't have the drive around for Dunkin Donuts. The speaker said that he is also thinking in terms of other projects and if you add it all up there is a lot going on.

Mr. Guido asked how much closer this building will be than the blue building that is already there. Mr. Wright and Mr. Navarro said that it is probably a little further back.

Mr. Helbercamp asked if there is going to be a traffic light at the juncture of River Road and 9W. Mr. Cole said that he doesn't know and Mr. Helbercamp asked what his thoughts are on that. Mr. Cole said that he thinks it would be a good idea to slow traffic down on 9W but they have to go to the DOT for that.

Dottie Grosso said that what she thinks that speaker was saying is that Esopus is growing and that it's going to get too congested with the building that is going on. She said that years ago they wanted to put Lake Success down by Mirror Lake and they wouldn't let them. She asked what is here and there is nothing much.

Mr. Cole said the Board is not voting on this tonight but he wanted to cover as many things as he could so it can go to the Planning Board and move forward. Mr. Guido said that he would like a copy of this plan to go to the Planning Board. Ms. Pecora said that it has to be officially submitted when he makes his application. Mr. Guido said that he would like a list of all the promises that were made for the next meeting so he has it before him when he votes.

DON COLE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR BLUE STONE REALTY. ROB HARE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

BIRCHEZ ASSOCIATES Case # 12-19-06-01

Mr. Cole opened the public hearing on Birchez and stated that there would be a 3 minute limit on anyone who wanted to say anything on it. He asked if there were any questions or comments. Jason Watzka of Riverview Court read from a prepared statement.

            I would like to address the Board with the following comments concerning the               variance that is before you for the proposed Birches at Esopus project:
                        The first comment is that the variance that is before the Board for the                             additional 5 units is a self created one by Birchez Associates. The only                                reason a variance is needed for density is because of the 4 residential lots                              that are being included in the subdivision of this piece of property.

The second comment is that I disagree with the town's determination that 76 units complies with the zoning code as stated in the December 7, 2006 letter from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board. The 76 units were calculated using the adjusted gross area of Lot 5A and the lot which includes Sorbello Avenue, Riverview Avenue, and Hildebrant Lane. It is my understanding that either all of or some portion of the three previously mentioned roads will be turned over to the Town as part of this project. In that case any part of the road system which is Town property should not be included in any density calculations and the adjusted gross area that was used to come up with the 76 units be reduced.

My third comment is that as per the site plan done by Delaware Engineering and submitted by Birchez Associates dated October 12, 2006, ( I realize that it has been amended since then) there exists an area with a slope in excess of 20% totaling 18,854 sq. ft. (based on the existing contours). This area exists mostly within Lot 1 and Lot 2. Eighteen percent of the total area of Lot 1 and 16% of the total area of Lot 2 contain this slope in excess of 20%. Based on this I believe that the proposed lot areas of Lots 1 and 2 currently shown to meet the minimum lot requirements should be reevaluated to take into account steep slopes. Looking to the average density subdivision code and senior overlay code, both of those make some reduction for any slope over 20%. Based on the fact that each of these two lots is just above the minimum required lot area and that a 18% or 16% reduction in the area would push the adjusted lot are below the minimum required lot area for an R-40 district. Based on that this issue should be carefully looked at before any approvals are granted.

My fourth comment is that I would like to bring to the Board's attention
that according to the Subdivision Plat done by Decker Surveying and submitted by Birchez Associates dated November 27, 2006, that the Central Hudson Gas Line easement falls within the bounds of Lots 2 and 3. Based on the meets and bounds given for these lots this easement has been included in the gross area for Lots 2 and 3. I request that the Board take this into consideration before any approvals are given for lot area for Lots 2 and 3.

My fifth comment is that after reviewing the boundaries of this piece of property on the Ulster County parcel viewer (located on the Ulster County website) it is clear that Hildebrant Lane is not part of this parcel. Also Ulster County lists this parcel, #56.76-2-5 as having an acreage of 12.799 acres. This is 0.914 acres less than the 13.713 acres Birchez Associates has on its subdivision plat dated November 27, 2006 by Decker Surveying.
Based on that there should be no approval given until that matter is straightened out.

Mr. Cole stated that what Mr. Watzka said is all his opinion. Mr. Watzka presented copies of his statement to the Board to be included in the file.

Maureen Keegan presented statements to everyone on the Board. She stated that she felt that Mr. Watzka brought up many important ideas. He did not identify himself as an engineer but that is what he does for a living. His assessment of the slope is a very important issue and she thinks that the Board should consider the issues that he raised. The last issue that he raised is one that she has in her paperwork. This is the issue raised by the Sorbellos when they came before the Board and said they own that property. In searching the deeds more carefully than the title company that the Birchez supplied to the Board confirms the fact that the property does lie within the Sorbellos deed. In addition, there is the strip right on River Road that is completely in contention and that is why the title company that she utilized for purposes of evaluating this deed concluded that the property is in Sorbellos name and that they are the ones with superior title to the 55 foot strip in the front, the 55 by 135 foot strip, because it has never been conveyed to anyone at any of the times when the property was switched back and forth as referenced in the title company supplied to you on behalf of Birchez. That deed, there is also a document that Jason (Watzka) has that shows you that the County excluded that right of way... This issue is an important issue for the Board to consider because when we first came before you the argument was that this is just a small variance, it's not a big deal. In fact, the property is about an acre short of what was produced for you originally as a calculation. So instead of being five more units, it probably needs twenty more units to be within the variance. I don't know. I haven't done all of the math calculations but they are certainly very short of the acreage they say they have for purposes of developing this property. So therefore I don't think the zoning board, now that it has some concrete evidence not only from what Jason was able to determine by the slope of this project and the property lines that really exist, that this is a developer that doesn't own the property he says he owns. Now if you were to build a house the first thing that you would check is that you actually own the property. I believe this is evidence that this is a developer who is rushing to get this project completed, wants to get it done, and isn't following all the necessary rules and regulations that we as citizens ourselves would have to follow through on just to get a variance from the Zoning Board. And I'm requesting that you carefully review it and consider it and not vote in a positive variance at this point. We still know that it is a much more significant variance than just five units at this point. He's short an acre of property. The slope issue adds to the needs of the variance. If that slope is severe enough...

Mr. Cole asked why the Planning Board hasn't heard this situation that Ms. Keegan is referring to. He stated that there are all kinds of engineers involved in the Planning Board going over this whole project. He stated that this can all be brought to the Planning Board. They have a public...

Ms. Keegan answered that they will bring it. She wants let Mr. Cole know that the issue before this Zoning Board that was made clear at all three meetings that all these citizens have come to time after time, just like you guys give up your nights, they're giving up their nights and showing you their support and requesting that you carefully consider this variance. It's not such a diminutive variance as five units. This person does not have title to the property, is trying to get people to do things that probably haven't been followed accurately, haven't been properly checked. The reason why the survey is being brought before us now is Jason just came to our attention recently. He's an engineer. That's what he's supposed to do. The variance has to do with how many acres he has or how much property. That's the Zoning Board's job. We will bring all these issues up to the Planning Board. We intend to. But it is not a simple variance and we want you to consider the fact that the first step of the way, who has title to the property, has been eclipsed by this developer and gives you an indication of how he's taking care of the rest of his business.

Mr. Guido stated that a letter was received from Paul Kellar.

Peter Kelbercamp asked a question regarding the funding for the purchase. It is his understanding that if this goes through it will go from 76 to 81 units and that will automatically kick in state and federal funding. He asked if that is how it works. Mr. Cole answered affirmatively. Mr. Kelbercamp then said that at that point there would be no local control over these properties or the use of these properties. It will be determined by state and federal bureaucracies. They can put anything they want in there. Senior citizen housing is one of them. Mr. Cole advised the speaker that this has all been discussed at previous meetings and this has to stay senior housing for fifty years. Mr. Kelbercamp said that once state and federal money is involved there is nothing locked in.

Doug Denoff said that he has done some calling around and has tried to talk to the DEC and tried to reach some people at the state housing authority. He said that what he found on the state senior housing authority website is a very substantial manual, about 300 pages. The whole thing is classified as low income housing. He thinks that maybe certain income levels are required, not just a chronological age, to get this funding for this property. He said that he doesn't know that it's a fact that the state would not fund a fifty unit project. He has not yet ascertained, but he intends to ascertain, that if the variance were not granted the whole project would have to go back to the drawing board and the State would withdraw their approval. Some of the concerns of the residents has to do with the waste water. Light pollution is something that hasn't even been addressed here but they all choose to live on the scenic River Road and have telescopes and look at the stars. Some developers have taken care to put a certain type of lighting. With this type of housing they may require more lighting because of the nature of the residents there. That creates a glow that destroys the scenic, bucolic nature of this environment. The waste water issue is a substantial one. He spoke to a gentleman at the DEC in New Paltz. They have not received any requests for permits for this project. Mr. Denoff again mentioned the drainage pond and how the residents have expressed their concern that it is going to attract mosquitoes. Mr. Cole said that none of this is before this Board. Mr. Denoff answered that all of this affects the size of the project. The bigger the project, the more drainage, the more waste water. The DEC said that they have specific specifications that require aeration and other treatment of this water and those standards "prevent the nature of mosquitoes that attract West Nile." After more remarks about mosquitoes, Mr. Denoff said, "Senior housing is a good thing, we are all in favor of it, but maybe this isn't the right, site within Port Ewen for it. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be in a number of other locations that would allow the developer more freedom."

Ed Watzka said that the Board keeps saying to bring this before the Planning Board. What we're talking about is that they're trying to build too many units, land usage per the size of the property. That's for the Zoning Board. If the Zoning Board doesn't approve it they will not have to waste their time going to the Planning Board and he told Mr. Cole that he wishes that Mr. Cole would stop saying bring it up at the Planning Board. He wants the issue resolved. He asked if there are calculations from the engineering firm substantiating what Jason said. Mr. Cole asked if Mr. Watzka is concerned about the Board voting on this tonight. Mr. Watzka said that he wants the Board to research it and find out if the land usage is proper. He said that he and the others with him feel that the land is too small for what is to be built, especially since there is a question of who owns the right of way, half the property. He said that even without that he doesn't half enough property. He only has about half of what he needs.
Ms. Charuk said that her understanding is that the piece of property in question is only 135.8' by 55.9'. Mr. Watzka said that the applicant doesn't have enough property to begin with and adding that in only complicates the matter.

Ms. Keegan clarified for the Board that it is 0.6 acres that the Sorbellos own. It is the 3/10 of an acre that Ms. Charuk is measuring at 55.9 by 138'. That is the other portion that the title company went all the way back to the original deed and concluded was never conveyed to Kren, was never conveyed to the other people, and has always remained in Sorbello's possession. The 0.6 was out of their possession for a period of time and was recently came back to them so it is title almost an acre, 0.9, so it is not a small piece of property.

Mr. Watzka asked, if he is looking for this variance to increase his units, I just heard that from somebody at the meeting, that he's doing because he wants to build more units to make the project more feasible to him money wise. Why is that our problem or your problem? If it can't fit that should have no bearing on it. He wants to add these units so it's more economically feasible. That's not our problem. That definitely should not be granted for that reason. (Applause.)

David Bolles stated that so far the reasons that have been heard are citizens reasons but when Mr. Aaron was here before he said that he needed to put the five more units in because...He said he couldn't do it financially unless he had five more units which someone else at that point raised the point that if that was his profit margin that was awfully thin for a project this size. So there is some question as to whether he's giving us a line or if that's the truth or not. He did say also at that last meeting that if he didn't get the five more units...He needs the five more units and the way would fit it in is he would not change the footprint so he would take common areas away from the senior citizens. He would take out rec rooms, kitchens, the common kitchen area. What he essentially is doing, then, is trying to make more money for himself at the expense of the neighborhood and the senior tenants because he is going to squash more people into the same space and take away from them. He's not benefiting senior citizens by putting five more units in. So, in my mind, there's no question here as to what the right course is. This whole project is supposed to help seniors. He shouldn't be going the other way and give them a push to the side for the sake of more money for the development. (Applause.)

Doug Denoff spoke again to say they are going to present to the Planning Board that they have been assessing the impact that these projects have had in the other communities as to what the representations were, how they actually came. Our concerns are for emergency services. We have a certain amount of resources for fire and emergency and they have to be able to get up and down these narrow roads. It's a kind of closed in space even with a potential egress onto River Road which is not really a good road for a big fire vehicle anyway. So we want to present to all the authorities the knowledge that this will impact the cost of supporting this type of enterprise by those emergency services, determine the number of calls, how many people. We've got a volunteer department that is trying to raise money for a building for their EMS. It's not saying that they shouldn't be there for the people but those are all factors that enter into this. It's not just the 75,000 per unit that the developer gets from the State. The impact...It would be nice if these people, some of these seniors are living in this Town and part of the reason they have to move is taxes, let's have this be a ground breaking Town of Port Ewen, make it senior friendly, and give seniors a tax break. Maybe they don't need to pay the school tax anymore. Most of them have grandchildren or great grand children. Make it tax friendly so they don't have to reduce their standard of living, moving into a smaller place with less services.

Alice Tipp spoke and introduced herself as being a past legislator for thirty years. She said that she represented the senior citizens on many issues. One of the most important issues for senior citizens is senior housing. They need it. We have it in Saugerties and it's a great project. There's not one day that goes by that the seniors are not looking for housing. The seniors up there are happy. They're happy to be in Chambers Court. They're real thrilled to have a place to live in dignity. I really think that maybe some of you aren't senior citizens but you may be one day. You may be looking for houses. There are a lot of seniors who can't afford to live in their beautiful homes that they have now. That's why we need affordable housing and I'm here to plead for housing for seniors, not only in Saugerties, not only in the Town of Ulster, but also in Port Ewen where they really need it. I probably won't get any applause from the other side but that's alright. I'm not here to get claps. I'm here to plead that the senior citizens plead that the senior citizens have a real good life and a nice place to live. (Applause.)

Doug Denoff again spoke and said that he and those who are with him are not the other side. We are not against senior housing. We are all approaching seniors. I don't know where these seniors are living though that they can't afford, as I said, their houses now. Let's make it affordable for them to stay where they are as long as they don't need care and support. If the taxes are killing them help them with taxes. That would make this a wonderful thing. We're not against you. This woman, as I recall from the last meeting, is an employee of Mr. Aaron, the developer. Mrs. Tipp said that she gets a stipend. She said she is not here for herself because of a salary or stipend. She is here for the senior citizens. She said she also got paid as a legislator but the fact is that she wasn't there to get the money. She was there to plead for the seniors. Mr. Denoff said that all he is saying for the quality of life of the residents there, what this Town needs or what the Town may have to go through to support this, this is not the site for it. He said that there are plenty of other wonderful sites in this Town that would be more appropriate with less impact. Mr. Guido asked where. Mr. Cole said that it has to be in the sewer and water district and there is not that much in this area.

Lori Vedder spoke and said that this is not the sewer road as she takes it. He's tying into it. She asked if that is correct. Mr. Cole said that he is and he will probably bring sewer into Sorbello Road where they need major work. Mrs. Vedder said that five additional units will be more sewerage. She also said that her water pressure is not good now.

Jeff Schechter of River Road spoke. He said that he has been there 35+ years and his question is with the sewer situation. There are so many gallons per day that can be sent to Kingston, is that correct? Mr. Cole said that that has already been calculated and taken care of. Mr. Schechter asked where that money will be coming from for the additional gallons per day. Mr. Cole said it's paid from the people that use it. Mr. Schechter asked how many feet from the sewer lines are the people that use it. Whether you are tied into the sewer or not, to be considered in the Town of Esopus sewer district how close to a sewer line must you be before you start getting taxed for it whether you're using it or not using it. Also there is a stipulation saying ... Mr. Cole said that everybody that uses it pays for it. Mr. Schechter asked if everybody that doesn't use it, even though they're in the sewer district, doesn't pay for it. Mr. Schechter stated that there is an additional 10.28% that the people in Town of Esopus sewer district have to pay on maintenance costs or upkeep which may mean that at some point in the future if the City of Kingston decides that the sewerage system there needs to be upgraded, the additional amount of money... The Town of Esopus Sewer District pays in increments of $100 ... Mr. Cole said that he doesn't know and Mr. Schechter will have to go to the Water and Sewer Department and ask them. Mr. Schechter said that he already has and if Mr. Cole doesn't have the answers perhaps he should get the answers for the next meeting since he is the Chairman. Mr. Cole said he doesn't handle the sewer and water board.

Doug Denoff spoke and said in looking at the map, we keep forgetting the significant portion of this developers, he desperately need five units or he loses money... Mr. Cole said no, it's four and Mr. Denoff said he thought it was five. Again Mr. Cole said four and was corrected. Mr. Denoff went on to say that the developer's problem is four river front, river view million dollar homes. He asked why that is in front of us and why it is even on this plan. Why is that land considered part of this. It is private enterprise for pure profit. Mr. Guido said that is not part of what is before this Board. Mr. Denoff said that the land is being taken as part of the calculation. The drainage from all of this is on this land and he doesn't know if he would want to live on the land fronting on that cesspool. He said that it is very confusing to him because this is two completely different endeavors and yet...There is also a slope issue here and he asked why any of this land that is going to be private homes by private citizens have anything to do with what Mr. Aaron wants to build here. To him, as a lay person here, if he wants to build this it should only involve this property on which it is sited because these people are not going to have anything to do with this. As a lay architect, he does not understand this.

Ms. Keegan said, to answer that question, he is doing this to use the drainage from the other property. Otherwise he couldn't build them there.

Mr. Denoff went on to ask why any of this acreage is part of the calculation to develop this project. If Mr. Sorbello wanted to sell off part of his property on 9W to put senior housing there he couldn't include his residential property in it. He said that he doesn't know what the zoning is here and Ms. Keegan stated that it is residential. Mr. Denoff said that even if it's residential if you take that part away...Mr. Cole said that it is not even part of this meeting. Mr. Denoff asked why it isn't since we're talking about a zoning variance to provide housing at a certain ratio... Mr. Cole said in the senior housing area, not down there. Mr. Denoff asked again if this land that he is referring to and this drainage is being considered part of this project. It is on this drawing. It says "Proposed site plan Birches at Esopus." This is not Birches. It is four homes. He said that nothing on this plan, in his laypersons opinion, even if it is sewer or drainage or egress, should be considered in any of this project. It should stand on its own. Mr. Cole said that it does. Mr. Denoff said that it doesn't if the developer is going to drain into here. This whole .527 acres for this drainage is not there so much for these houses as for the runoff of this newly paved area. He asked if that is correct and he asked that question to Jason Watzka. Jason answered that it is for the houses and the road. Mr. Denoff said that they should not co-mingle.

Ed Watzka said that the number statement that Jason made was if you are giving a self made variance, the guy is trying to cram all this in, and you are giving him just... Mr. Cole said that he hasn't given anyone anything yet.

Mr. Bolles said that he wanted to tell the Board quickly what Mr. Schechter was trying to say. He was saying that the sewage and the flow and the cost down the road will be greater because Kingston is going to have more use. Five more units doesn't help the issue.

MR. COLE MADE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Mr. Guido stated that the reason this came before the Board was because there were two different calculations in the zoning book. One of them said they could have 76 units, the other one said 81. The calculation, from the attorney's point of view and Mr. Guido agrees, is that the lesser one is the one the Board has to go by. It is the more restrictive, the senior citizen housing one. It solves one of the things that they were before the Board for, the question of which one they have to go by. They have to go by the senior citizen housing. They have to go by the lesser density one. That is in the letter from Mr. Kellar that the Board asked him for. They did all the calculations using the wrong table. Someone from the audience asked if the Board checked that he owns it. Mr. Guido responded that the Board's decision is based on the property that the applicant gives. If the Board does grant the variance it is based on the amount of property that they say they have. If they don't have the amount of property that they say they have, the variance won't do them any good anyway. A member of the audience asked if someone in the Town isn't supposed to check that they actually own that property, especially since that question has been brought up. Mr. Guido said that the Board would grant a variance stating that for the amount of property they have the Board will grant them the five extra units. If they don't have the amount of property that they are supposed to have, that would not apply because they don't have it. He said that this Board is not enforcement. Mr. Cole said that this Board has to go by the information it receives. Mr. Guido said that because this has been brought to the Board's attention he knows that any variance that is granted he would put the stipulation in that this pertains to the amount of property that they say they have.
Several members of the Board stated that they agreed.

Mr. Denoff said that when he complimented Mr. Wright on his process on his project, this project is going through the same variance "oops we made a mistake" that this developer has made the same mistake two or three times before. He said that he doesn't understand how he can keep making the same mistake if he is an experienced and ethical businessman. Every single time he has built a project he has had to do the same thing. He said that he thinks that the State requires a certain standard of the people who participate
these projects and gain from this State funding. He asked who do we want making our Town grow.

Mr. Wick said that he would like to ask five simple questions of the person who was just speaking.
            Mr. Wick: Do you think these five additional units, not the project as a whole, just                     these additional units, will create an undesirable change in the                                         neighborhood?
            Mr. Denoff: Yes.
            Mr. Wick: Do you think these five additional units...Do you think there is another                                   remedy that the applicant can achieve the benefit he seeks without having                              these five additional units?
            Mr. Denoff: Absolutely.
            Mr. Wick: Do you think this is...
            Mr. Denoff: I know these are the standards that the Board has to use to approve...
            Mr. Wick: Do you think this is a substantial variance which is about 7% over?
            Mr. Denoff: It's only 7% if you accept the original calculations.
            Mr. Wick: Given the information before this Board...
            Mr. Denoff: I think it's much more substantial than 7%.
            Mr. Wick: Do you think these five additional units will have adverse effect on the                                   physical or environmental conditions?
            Mr. Denoff: Yes.
            Mr. Wick: Do you think this is a self-created hardship?
            Mr. Denoff: Yes.
            Mr. Wick: Those are the applicable criteria.

Mr. Cole asked if there was a second to his motion to close the public hearing. JOE GUIDO SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MS. CHARUK. Motion carried.

DECICCO, RALPH Case # 02-20-07-01

Mr. and Mrs. DeCicco were present and spoke to the members of the Board regarding their request for a variance to construct an addition. Most of it was inaudible due to the noise of people leaving. Mr. Guido asked the applicants if they would again explain what they want. Mr. DeCicco said that he was before the Board last month for the addition. His neighbor found his survey and Mr. DeCicco used that survey to show the property line. The Board had asked for a bigger picture so he is using this. He pointed out his house and existing deck and pool. The addition that he wants to put on is just extending the house out. It will have a full foundation and be one story with a crawl space above. He presented photos that are in the file. He stated that he would have 17' feet in one part and the closest point would be 12' from the corner of the proposed addition to the property line. The houses are right now 50' apart. Mr. Guido asked if the house is angled or is the property is angled. Mr. DeCicco said that the road turns so his house is angled a little bit. Mr. Guido asked what will be in the addition. Mr. DeCicco said it will be living room-dining room for a growing family. Mr. Hare asked if the neighbor is present. Mr. DeCicco said that he was going to come but he doesn't know what happened. He is ready to start and give him a hand with it. There was some discussion about the fire place and how much farther out it will come. It was determined that it will be an additional two feet and probably four feet wide. Mr. Guido asked if he could put it inside the house and Mr. DeCicco said that two feet inside would cut down on the inside space. Mr. Cole asked how far from the other house it is. Mr. Hare said it is now 50' and it would be less 12' so it would be 38'.

Mr. Cole asked if the Board wants to vote at this meeting and the Board said that they would. Mr. Cole declared that the public hearing was closed and a vote would be taken later in the meeting.

KELSEY, CHARLENE Case # 02-20-07-02

No one was present for this case. It was determined that the public hearing will be kept open for the next meeting. JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL NEXT MONTH BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT. DON COLE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

DECISIONAL MEETING

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

Mr. Guido said that the County Planning Board sent a determination on this case. Mr. Wick asked if the applicant is looking for two variances, one for the accessory apartment on one for the size of the accessory apartment. Ms. Charuk asked the applicant if he is already working on this. Mr. Brockland said that he has owned it for thirty years. He said that he thought it was an eyesore so he has been putting siding on it.

Mr. Wick said that he would like to do the two variances as separate motions. The apartment could be allowed but not the square footage. If the Board doesn't allow the apartment it doesn't matter what the square footage is. Mr. Cole asked if the Board had read the County recommendation. The applicant has to coordinate with the County Health Department to determine the adequacy the septic system for the increase in density of use as to whether there is sufficient room on the site for the 100% reserve area. Mr. Cole explained to the applicant that that has to be taken care of before the Board can give a variance. Mr. Brockland said that he would like it to be grandfathered in since the place already had three bedrooms and at the end of this project it will have three bedrooms. The building inspector said septic is determined by the number of bedrooms. As far as 100' goes, nobody in that area has that. His well is within 100' of three septic systems. The man he spoke to in the Board of Health said he could put his well under his septic system. He said he feels that new rules are being imposed on him.
Mr. Guido said he just has to get approval from the Health Department. Mr. Wick said if the applicant gets something from the Board of Health saying that it is not a concern then this Board doesn't have to think about it. Mr. Brockland said that he feels that this Board has the authority to do this and Mr. Cole said that not when it comes to the Board of Health. Mr. Hare explained that because of the recommendation from the County Planning Board this Board's hands are tied. The applicant will have to get a letter from the Board of Health. Mr. Hare said that in his opinion the applicant does not have enough land. Mr. Brockland said that the number of bedrooms will not change and it doesn't matter how many bathrooms there will be. The building is there and he is not changing the building. Mr. Wick said that he is changing the use.

Mr. Cole said that the applicant will have to get something from the Board of Health and then the Board can vote. Mr. Guido said that he will have to get this for the next meeting since once the public hearing is closed the Board only has 61 days until they vote. If he is unable to get the letter the Board will have to disapprove and the applicant will have to start over. JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE DECISIONAL UNTIL NEXT MONTH. DON COLE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

DECICCO, RALPH Case # 02-20-07-01

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 8 1/2 FEET ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, THE CORNER TOWARDS HUDSON LANE, TO A SETBACK OF 11 1/2 FEET AND A VARIANCE ON THE REAR CORNER WHICH IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 3 1/2 FEET ALLOWING A SETBACK OF 16 1/2 FEET WITH A STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN. JOE GUIDO SECONDED. The vote was as follows:

VIC BARRANCA - I'm in favor. I don't see any major impact to the detriment of neighboring properties.

ROB HARE - I'm in favor. It seems to fit the neighborhood. The neighbor helped determine the placement of the addition and there was no adverse commentary at the public hearing.

DON COLE - I vote in favor. No adverse commentary from any neighbors so there should be no problems.

JOE GUIDO - I'm in favor of it because the addition doesn't exceed where the pool deck already is. The neighbor has over 20' on the other side.

CATHERINE CHARUK - I'm in favor also for those reasons.

KARL WICK - I'm in favor because I don't believe this will create any undesirable change in the neighborhood. While there may be other remedies that could achieve the same benefit for the applicant this seems the most reasonable. This is not a substantial variance. There will be no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the area and this is not a self- created hardship.

Motion carried 6-0.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Guido said that one of the variances granted a few months ago did not address all the issues. It was the one on the flag lots. There were two or three things. Mr. Cole asked if it was brought up and how the Board was to know if it wasn't brought up. Mr. Guido said he didn't know but he just wanted the members to know that it might be coming back.

Mr. Guido also mentioned that he contacted Paul Kellar regarding the case where a variance was issued but it was not specifically put in there that there would be no further subdivisions. This was regarding Skytop. The Board talked about it but when the motion was made it was not put in as a stipulation.

JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ROB HARE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. Meeting adjourned 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Kiernan
Secretary