Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals
MAY 20, 2008

The meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Esopus was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Don Cole.

The Pledge to the Flag followed.

ROLL CALL

Present: Don Cole, Chairman, Karl Wick, Vic Barranca, Rob Hare, Kathy Kiernan, Joe Guido and Linda Smythe.  

 

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

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHER FOR SECRETARIAL WORK AND LEGAL NOTICE IN DAILY FREEMAN. VIC BARRANCA SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR.  

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

BAILER, KENNETH AND JEFFIFER           CASE # 04-15-08-01

Chairman Don Cole called the applicant Kenneth Bailer. He was not present at this time.

JANKOWSKI, MICHAEL                         CASE # 05-20-08-01

Mr. Jankowski was present and explained that he wanted to install a 16 x 32 in ground pool in the rear yard.
 
Don Cole asked the Board of there were any questions?

Karl Wick asked Mr. Jankowski when he purchased the property? The property was purchased in 1997. Karl Wick asked when this property was original made this size? Mr. Jankowski replied 1910.

 

Rob Hare asked the setbacks of the pool from the property line. Mr. Jankowski stated that it would be 10 feet on both sides. There will be concrete of three feet around the pool. Mr. Jankowski explained that his shed is on stone and the stone will soak in the moisture. The fact that the shed is there stops the rain from going directly into the ground.

Don Cole stated that the side yard is large and would take a lot of rain.

Kathy Kiernan asked if this the shed (pointing to the property record card)? Mr. Jankowski said no, this is an old picture and this (the shed) is gone. The garage was demolished. There is a new shed sitting on gravel, and then the house and fence (indicating on picture).

Karl Wick stated the garage is actually gone. Yes, I took it down. The garage was 18 x 21. The garage was original with the house. It was taken down with the expectation of putting in the pool.       

The next meeting is June 17th, 2008 a Public Hearing.

Chairman Cole called Kenneth Bailer. Not present.

PUBLIC HEARING

SAUNDERS, NORRIS                            CASE #02-12-08-02

Don Cole called Norris Saunders. No would was present to speak for or against the application.

Joe Guido stated that he was at the property and did not see where the garage was marked off. Mr. Saunders stated that he had marked it off and then took the markers away a day or two ago. Joe stated he was there today.

Kathy Kiernan asked if we had any definite measurements. How far is it from the lot line, how big is it? The stakes were not there when Kathy made a visit to the property (today).

Karl Wick stated he took some measurements off the street. Off Second Street it was 25 feet to the edge of the pavement and 35 to the road center. It was 21 ½ feet to the edge and 31 feet to road center off of Girard Street. The streets are not that well defined.

Don Cole stated the streets are small and everything is compact. There it is a little bit of a problem doing anything in that town.

Karl Wick stated he has measured the site and it was 21 ½ feet and 25 to the edge of the road. In looking at the property and that rock in the hill, I don’t see a better solution other then to make it a lot smaller. Personally, I do not have a problem with this application.

Karl Wick and Vic Barranca agreed. The Board agreed that they would vote on this application.

JOSEPH STOPCZYNSKI                         CASE # 12-18-07-01

Joe Stopczynski was present. Chairman Cole asked if there was any one here in favor or opposed to this application. The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board? 

Joe Guido stated that there were no definite measurements on this application.

Don Cole stated if it was attached to the house it was 15 feet with a roof over it. If detached then it would be 5 feet.

Karl Wick stated we were looking for a side yard variance of five down to four. With the distance of the house from 10 down to four feet.

Don Cole stated that there was no problem on lot coverage, the question was whether or not he would put a roof between the house the garage. 

Joe Guido asked what the setback on the garage was? It is four feet. Joe asked if that was with or without the overhang?

Karl Wick stated that Code says you can go four feet into the side yard, so the overhang, by right, can go to within one foot of the property line. Don Cole did not think so.

Karl Wick did not think we had to consider overhang. Don Cole stated overhangs were a situation on your building (Karl Wick’s)……Karl Wick replied …and it was wrongfully a situation it should not have been considered. 

Overhangs make a difference to Joe Guido. Joe stated if you are four feet and you have a four feet overhang the water from that roof is going to run over into the neighbor’s property.

Don asked what the overhang on this garage was. Rob Hare stated that the overhang appears to be about 3 inches. The Building Inspector will check out the overhang and if there is a problem he will address it. Joe Guido stated if you address it in the variance he (the Building Inspector) will.      

Kathy Kiernan asked if this (indicating plans submitted) is what the garage will look like. Mr. Stopczynski stated it was a representation. Kathy asked if the peak was higher?  The peak will be 13 feet overall in height. It will be no higher than the first story of the house. 

Joe Guido asked if it would be a modular garage, no it will be stick built.

 Don Cole asked if the Board wanted to vote on this tonight?

There was a discussion on not knowing what the garage looked like, however, it does not matter what the garage looks like, you must know where it will be. The height of the garage will matter.

Karl Wick stated that section that deals with overhangs is Section 123-21 C 7 (a).

We will vote on this tonight.

MURPHY, STEPHEN AND LINDA            CASE # 04-15-08-02

Don Cole asked if there was anyone in favor or against this application.

Kathlyn Hoppe was present. She lives at 29 Ulster Ave and was also representing her parents  at 27 Ulster Ave. She received the notice and wanted an explanation of what Mr. Murphy wanted to do.

Mr. Murphy explained that he owns the property going from 9-W to Ulster Ave.  Mr. Murphy and his architects showed Ms. Hoppe the property on the survey map. They explained that right now this property in zoned for light industrial, but there is a wet land through the property. This would prevent the property from being used as light industrial. We cannot access off of Ulster Ave for light industrial purposes because the Zoning prevents us from doing that. We are looking to subdivide this property into two lots and we are asking for a use variance for this portion (indicating map) to use for residential.

Mr. Murphy indicated his property, and the Hoppe’s property on the survey map. The proposal is to sub-divide this parcel (indicating map) from 9-W.

Don Cole explained that the problem was the whole piece was zoned an industrial. Mr. Murphy want to erect a single family house, residential, off of Ulster Ave. The variance will be to build a house within a certain amount of feet from the industrial. 

Mr. Murphy continued to explain that he would sub-divide through the property. There are wet lands involved. There is 500 feet of frontage on 9-W, and he did not know what he was going to do with that piece. Mr. Murphy is paying industrial taxes on this whole lot and it cannot be utilized.  Mr. Murphy stated that the Zoning Board has a blue print of the house he proposed to build. Only one house can be built on this property.

Ms. Hoppe asked where the driveway will be. Between the barn and the proposed house. There is 104 feet of frontage on the road.

Joe Guido asked if Mr. Murphy is before the Planning Board? Mr. Murphy stated that he will be before them on Thursday. The Zoning Board cannot be sure what the Planning Board will request.

Mr. Murphy had a preliminary meeting with the Planning Board. They did not really have any problem with it. Normally the buffer zone is 150 feet, of that 100 feet cannot be built on the first 50 must be kept free of roadways, parking and storage. This applies when a L-1 abuts a residential district. The point that was made was the way the law is written the buffer has to be between the districts. We are asking for a variance from the back section of L-1 district. What we showed on the proposed sub-division map 100 foot buffer would be applied to the new boundary, regardless of the zoning. It was indicated that we might as well get that clarified. The Planning Consultant stated that right now there would be 100 feet through here (indicating map) which could possibly prevent us from putting the house where we want to put it. Initially we thought if we got the use variance, it carried with it all set backs for the residential district. We are not sure that that is the case, and if it was not the case we want it to be the case.

There is enough room on the proposed sub-division to comply completely with the 100 foot buffer.

Don Cole stated there are wet lands involved where no one could build on it. It is right in the middle of the parcel. You cannot get through it no matter what you do. There are more than 4 acres involved in both parcels.

Where the proposed line is, is where the wet lands are. Joe Guido stated he would like to hear what the Planning Board has to say. Mr. Murphy stated he has a four-wheeler and he would take the Board to the property anytime they would like.

Rob Hare asked what the Planning Board had said as far as the sub-division approval. The sub-division needs approval from the Planning Board. If the are looking at a sub-division that  basically requires variances for the setbacks and the area use then there is a situation where they would not like to consider it because they would be legalizing or encouraging an improper use.

Joe Guido stated when you go before the Planning Board, they are more familiar with the wet lands and any rules that would apply. They might want you to move a boundary or something. They won’t let you do it until we grant the Variance, so after you go before them we will know more definitely what they are going to want you to do. As opposed to us granting a variance now and then you go before them and they say we would have like to have seen this kind of buffer between the wet lands or this kind of buffer here and there. They will not approve it for you until you get the Variance, but at least you will know what they are going to be looking for. They are more equipped to deal with the wet lands.

Don Cole stated Mr. Murphy is looking for a setback which is different in commercial to residential. The set back that they are looking for normally is because someone wants to build.              
If it is a wet land situation you can’t put in anything, so it does not make any difference on the setback.

Kathy Kiernan asked the architect to point out (on the map) where the buffer would be.
We are asking for a use variance to use the property for residential we don’t want to be subject to the 100 foot buffer. For all intended purposes this would be residential, this would still be subject (indicating map) to the 100 foot buffer which is not a problem because we cannot build here.

Karl Wick asked if they had a federal wet lands map that showed this (indicating drawing) clearly. Otherwise we are kind of guessing.

There is a Federal site that publishes maps.

Everyone talking at once.

Mr. Murphy stated we are looking for a sub-division.  I own all this land, it is all high and dry. I am just asking for this line to be moved because it is a residential piece. It gives us an opportunity to use the property the way the property wants to be used. We cannot access light industrial from residential zoning. We want to use the property the way the rest of the neighborhood is being used.

Rob Hare stated that we need a 100 – 150 foot setback you would have no problem bringing it (the line) this way (indicating map). Mr. Murphy stated he would have no objection at all. Rob Hare suggested that we send the Planning Board a letter stating we have no major objections, but we need to know where the line is before we can rule. We need facts before we can actually make a decision. We just need to know more specifics.

Don Cole stated that this letter will go out tomorrow to the Planning Board. When you go to the Planning Board try to get a decision from them on what has to be done and then we can more forward.  We will vote tonight to send a letter to the Planning Board.

URBAN, ANTHONY A.                           CASE # 04-15-08-03

Anthony Urban was present.

Don Cole asked if there was anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor or against this application.

Mr. Urban lives at 187 Hasbrouck Ave and he wants to build a 10 x 20 deck on the east side of the house. The deck will be open, permeable, water will be able to run through the boards. There will be no roof.

Karl Wick stated we will be voting on an encroachment to a side yard setback.

We will vote on this tonight.

SCHAEFFER, PHILLIP AND MONIQUE     CASE 04-15-08-04

Mr. Schaeffer was present.
 
Don Cole asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak in favor or against this application?

Don Cole asked Mr. Schaeffer if he had made changes from his last application?  Mr. Schaeffer stated he has made changes.  Previously the garage was on the line. Any questions?

Linda Smythe asked Mr. Schaeffer if he had a new map with the changes? The map had been submitted.

Rob Hare asked Mr. Schaeffer how he would enter the garage. Mr. Schaeffer stated he would go down the drive and up in. It was the only way. Turn right and come up in. There is no other place to put it on the property.

Joe Guido stated as you go down your driveway, on the left hand side, there is like a double …….Mr. Schaeffer stated that was not his property. He had cleared it, but it is not my property. The property line is the driveway.

Linda Smythe stated that when she was down there, what is that cleared off right next to the road? That is a place to park in the winter time. So, actually, that garage would be behind that, Right, so you are going to have to fill in an awful lot. No, Mr. Schaeffer stated, I am going to dig, the floor of the garage is going to go into the hill. You want to come out on ground level. So, asked Ms. Smythe, the garage is really closer to the front of your house and this map makes it look.  Mr. Schaeffer replied that there is a driveway in between. It is in the correct spot. It is approximately 47 feet from the edge of the road.

Kathy Kiernan asked so if you are going to go down this way (indicating map)  and turn around and come back in. Mr. Schaeffer replied, down to the front door of the house  and turn up in. Mr. Schaeffer showed Kathy on the drawing. Mr. Schaeffer stated that it was 15 feet the maximum height of an accessory building. That shows where the 15 foot mark is.

Joe Guido asked that this garage won’t be any higher than the top of the house when you look at it from the road. Mr. Schaeffer said that was correct.  Because it is being dug into the hill. Instead of sitting on top of the rock that he had brought in it is going to …….most of the wall of the garage will be under ground.

Karl Wick asked if it would be the same type of roof that is on the house? Yes. It will blend in nicely and give some privacy at the same time.

Joe Guido asked how he measured it when it comes off the road, down at the angle or do you measure it straight across. Mr. Schaeffer stated straight across. Off of Parsell St and straight across.

Karl Wick asked how he measured it, Mr. Schaeffer stated he shot it with a scope, a transit.

Don Cole asked if there were any other questions and if the Board wanted to vote on this.  
This application will be voted on tonight.

MILES, NICKOLAS AND LINDA JO          CASE # 04-15-08-05

Nickolas and Linda Jo Miles were present along with their architect Kurt Sutherland.

Don Cole asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak in favor or against this application?

Mr. Miles stated that they wanted to add a two car garage and an accessory apartment above that. This property is in a R-40 zone.

The purpose of the apartment is so that when Mr. Miles retires, he presently lives in a parsonage, he will live there. This apartment will not be rented out.

Joe Guido stated this is a R-40 zone. This zone does not allow for apartments. Owner occupied should be addressed along with the size of the apartment. The size is over what is allowed as an accessory apartment.

Rob Hare stated that currently the size of an accessory apartment is 600 sq feet and the zoning review board suggested we go to 800 square feet.

Mr. Sutherland stated that the way he has it, the way the Building Inspector explained it to him, accessory apartment are habitable space, so it does not include closets and bathrooms. It is only kitchen, dining room and bedrooms. That equals 427 square feet. The gross square footage is different.

There was a discussion on calculating square footage and excluding bathrooms.

Don Cole stated that this is a use variance. A R-40 zone does not allow for apartments.

Mr. Sutherland stated the gross square footage is 725 square feet.

Joe Guido confirmed that the garage will be attached to the house.

 

 

Presently the house has an existing garage attached to it. What we want to do is a two part building permit. One building permit but two projects going on. Alterations within the existing garage for the primary dwelling unit creating another bedroom and an office and then we are attaching to the side of that primary dwelling a new two bay garage with an accessory apartment above it. The original house is right now 1600 square feet and when we do the alteration to the existing garage that will bring the primary dwelling unit up to 2400 square feet and then we will be adding an accessory apartment on to that.

Joe Guido stated basically you are adding two bedrooms, one to the primary dwelling unit and one to the accessory apartment.

We already have approval from the Ulster County Health Department for a new septic system.

At this time Gerald Davison, a neighbor, requested that the layout be described. The architect  reviewed the drawings with Mr. Davison.

Kathy Kiernan had Mr. Sutherland go over the drawings and show on the plans the accessory apartment. The apartment has its own separate entrance and its own separate garage. The accessory apartment is all on the same level.

The Board will vote on this application tonight.

At this time Chairman Don Cole call for the Informational Meeting for Kenneth Bailer.

Mr. Bailer lives on Fawn Meadows Court.

Mr. Bailer explained that he wanted to have an accessory apartment in his basement. It would be approximately 550 square feet and have one bedroom. This apartment will be for his sister-in-law to live in. She presently watches the children. She will be there for approximately five years and then Mr. Bailer would like to rent the apartment out.

Don Cole asked if there were any questions from the Board?

Kathy Kiernan asked Mr. Bailer to explain his drawings. The Building Inspector suggested Mr. Bailer go for a Variance for the apartment. It will have a full kitchen.

Joe Guido asked what was in the utility area? In the utility room there is a boiler, and air handler for the home.

Karl Wick wanted to know if there was any other way to access the utility area? Yes, a stairway leads to the first floor.

The property is approximately 7 acres. Don Cole explained that the zoning is one family. You are now making it a two family.

Joe Guido stated with an accessory apartment you might as well throw R-40 right out the door. Everyone can put in an accessory apartment. They are all going over sized. How do you distinguish family? You must be careful how the variance is worded. Owner occupied is definitely something to be considered.

Karl Wick asked Mr. Bailer if he objected to the stipulation that said the apartment must be occupied by a family member. Mr. Bailer said he would object to that. What is the definition of the accessory apartment? Can you rent to other people, because if you can, I would like to rent to other people. I cannot guarantee that I would rent to a family member all the time.

This is a use variance to have a two family dwelling. 

Mr. Bailer asked what the town considered an accessory apartment? Don Cole told him a kitchen, bathroom. Mr. Bailer asked if it mentioned that you cannot rent out side the family. Yes, then it would be a two family. A two family is no longer a R-40.

Joe Guido explained that the Town was trying to oblige parents moving in with their children, but by obliging that they have opened a can of worm and the door to other things. We try to oblige people who want their parents to move in, but not change R-40  into a R-30.

Mr. Bailer stated that all previous owners tried to sub-divide the property but there is not other place to put a septic tank.

Next month we will have a Public Hearing June 17th, 2008.

DECISIONAL MEETING

SAUNDERS, NORRIS                            CASE #02-12-08-02

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OF SECTION 123.21C(5)(a). TO ALLOW MR. SAUNDERS TO PUT 900 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE IN THE FRONT YARD. DON COLE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The vote was as follows:

Karl Wick voted in favor. Being a corner lot the property is very limited. The topography very much limits the options. This will not be a detriment to the neighborhood.

Rob Hare voted in favor. It reasonably fits the neighborhood.

Vic Barranca voted in favor. The variance will not change the character of the neighborhood.

Don Cole voted in favor. The Town of Connelly is very small, the terrain is such as to where you can only get certain building in certain places. It will not be a detriment to the area.

Kathy Kiernan voted in favor. This is a corner lot and there were not a lot of choices. The objections of his neighbors were answered.

Joe Guido voted in favor. For the same reasons already given.

Linda Smythe voted in favor. For the same reasons already give.

The variance is approved. Mr. Norris will receive a letter from the Board.

 JOSEPH STOPCZYNSKI                        CASE # 12-18-07-01

ROB HARE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE TO BE BUILT FOUR FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE  (A VARIANCE OF ONE FOOT) FROM THE SIDE YARD AND A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED TEN FEET BETWEEN THE GARAGE AND THE HOUSE. A REQUIREMENT OF THE VARIANCE IS THAT GUTTERS BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. THE GUTTERS WILL DIRECT THE WATER AWAY FROM THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. IN ADDITON, WE WILL ALLOW AN INCREASE OF LOT COVERAGE OF 644 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL LOT COVERAGE OF 2553 SQUARE FEET. LINDA SMYTHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The vote was as follows:

Karl Wick voted in favor. The coverage is not that big an issue. This comes down to all of Port Ewen lots are undersized. It is certainly in character with the neighborhood. It meets the owners needs without creating a problem for the neighbors.

Rob Hare voted in favor. It fits the neighborhood.

Vic Barranca voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Don Cole voted in favor. The neighborhood is basically the same and this garage will not make a difference.

Kathy Kiernan voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Joe Guido was opposed. I think it should have been five feet from the property line.

Linda Smythe voted in favor. The applicant must stick to the stipulation of the gutters.

The variance was approved.

MURPHY, STEPHEN AND LINDA            CASE # 04-15-08-02

ROB HARE MADE A MOTION THAT WE SEND A LETTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD STATING:

The Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed Stephen Murphy’s application to subdivide his property. Until we have specifics from the Planning Board we cannot rule on the lot line. However, we are in favor of the sub-division.

VIC BARRANCE SECONDED THE MOTION. All in favor.

The DECISIONAL MEETING will remain open until we receive information from the Planning Board.

URBAN, ANTHONY A.                           CASE # 04-15-08-03

VIC BARANCA MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 12 X 20 DECK AND A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO EIGHT FEET. (A SEVEN FOOT VARIANCE) BULK REGULATIONS. KARL WICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

The vote was as follows:

Karl Wick voted in favor. It is a large deck, but it is better to go bigger than smaller. It is reasonable for the size of the lot. Because it is permeable it will not have a detrimental effects to the neighborhood.

Rob Hare voted in favor. I see no problem with this, as long as it is uncovered and permeable

Vic Barranca voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Don Cole voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Kathy Kiernan voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned and because there was no objection from the neighbors.

Joe Guido voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Linda Smythe voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

The variance was approved. 

 

 

SCHAEFFER, PHILLIP AND MONIQUE     CASE 04-15-08-04

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 123-21C(5)(d) OF THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO BUILD A GARAGE IN FRONT OF THE PRINCIPAL DWELLING WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THIS GARAGE WILL NOT EXCEED THE HOUSE. THE GARAGE TO BE APPROXIMATELY 47 FEET FROM THE CURRENT END OF THE ROAD.  KATHY KIERNAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

The vote was as follows:

Karl Wick voted in favor. Because of the topography of the lot there is no other area to place the garage. This meets the intent of Section 123 – 21 C (5) (d) which specifically addresses garages in the front of principal dwellings.

Rob Hare voted in favor for all the reasons mentioned.

Vic Barranca voted in favor for all the reasons mentioned.

Don Cole voted in favor for all the reasons mentioned.

Kathy Kiernan voted in favor for all the reasons mentioned.

Joe Guido abstained.

Linda Smythe voted in favor for all the reasons mentioned.

The variance is approved.

MILES, NICKOLAS AND LINDA JO          CASE # 04-15-08-05

ROB HARE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT OF 725 SQUARE FEET (GROSS) PROVIDED THE HOME IS ALWAYS OWNER OCCUPIED.  LINDA SMYTHE SECONDED THE MOTION.

The vote was as follows:

Karl Wick voted in favor. We have covered all the ground.

Rob Hare voted in favor. This is a perfect accessory apartment.

Vic Barranca voted in favor. It should stay as stipulated owner occupied.

Don Cole voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Kathy Kiernan voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

Joe Guido voted against. I still would like to see more information on accessory apartments.

Linda Smythe voted in favor. For all the reasons mentioned.

The variance was approved.

The applicants will have to appear before the Planning Board.

The Board had a discussion on accessory apartments. Accessory apartments are created so the children can move in with the parents or the parents can move in with their children. The problem is owner occupies, and square footage. The Building Dept. is calculating square footage without bathrooms and closets. Should there be fire walls between the house and the accessory apartment?  Don suggested going to the Building Inspector for an explanation. Can we put time limits on accessory apartments? Perhaps it should go into the County record. After the variance is granted there is never any enforcement.

Don Cole made a motion that the meeting be adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Nancy Henry