Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals
JUNE 19, 2007
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: Vic Barranca, Don Cole, Rob Hare, Kathy Kiernan, Joe Guido and Catherine Charuk.
Absent: Karl Wick
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ROB HARE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN. VIC BARRANCA SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
Vouchers were submitted. JOE GUIDO MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. KATHY KEIRNAN SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.
DECISIONAL MEETING
10 12 06 02 Blue Stone Realty LLC
Don Cole asked if any Board members had any comments or questions.
Joe Guido stated he had several things to say. He ran through the events as he saw them when reviewing the minutes:
In October, 2006, you came before us. It was for the Dunkin Donuts and Dollar General Store. This was at the informational meeting.
In November, 2006, Bluestone stated they needed two variances with the new plan. Parking and building. You asked at that time for a table for the bulk regulations until the next meeting. We asked at that time if you were still before the Planning Board, we never really got an answer to it. We also stated at that point that there were a lot of issues that should be addressed by the Planning Board .
In December, 2006, there was to be a Dunkin Donut, Dollar Store and another store, which we were never told what it was. We found out later it was to be a pizzeria.
In January, 2007, Mr……..stated that the need for all variances was eliminated except for the boundary 100 yard setback. The building would only be 24 feet high and we stated that the applicant should go back to the Planning Board and get all these thing brought up to date on it. This is all in the minutes.
Andrew Wright: This was the Mike North Group?
Joe Guido: Yes. Mr. Cole also stated that you must go back to the Planning Board at that time.
In February, 2007, a new plan that was given to us.
In March, 2007, you stated that you were going to use a pitch roof, no mechanical was necessary, only 24 foot high, and a covered walkway. I would like you to explain more because I don’t understand what you are talking about. You would need a 70 foot variance. No need for a parking variance and hours of operation would be 6 am to 9 pm. The only light that would be left on all night long would be security lighting which would be necessary for the protection of the building. And again, Mr. Cole mentioned that you should be going before the Planning Board.
And that is pretty much we were are up to date now.
Don Cole: OK. Now one of the things that they were talking about is that we were giving Variances, which we were not giving variances. We were asking and answering questions of the owner of the property from people that surrounded the property.
Joe Guido: What he wants to do is allowed there. It is just a matter of the way he want to arrange the buildings that it falls into the 400 foot set back or what ever it ends of being. Now another issue that came up was, because we are unlike the Planning Board, obligated to have public hearings and in those public hearings we are allowed to take into account some of the things that are brought up to us through the neighbors and what their concerns are. And in doing that its “lets make a deal”. The way I look at it, it is not a use variance, it is an area variance. In doing that, he is willing to trade off some of his rights and things he could possible do in order to get that building where he would like to have it. And I do not believe we are stepping on anyone’s toes in doing that We are setting a minimum threshold, there are certain stipulations and agreements that are to be made to grant that variance, if we do grant it, and the Planning Board can still exercise its right. We are not equipped to deal with water run off, water retention, so forth, that is not our issue. But there was something that a neighbor was worried about. Water running onto the property. This is the first place we would hear about it and then if refer to the Planning Board. That is something that they should address. I feel that this Board took a little bit of a hit as far as where we were going and what we were doing.
Tim Allred commented that he agreed with Joe Guido. Mr. Allred stated that he appreciated very much being able to talk to this Board. The neighbors have heard from the developer.
Andrew Wright: The Variances on the table are two.
First variance is the building setback on Cabin Lane. That right-of-way is considered a street.
Second variance is a residential overlay.
We considered it one variance but Myles Putman considered it two. It is the same issue there are two front yards. Nothing is needed for the parking. I have discussed this with the Planning Board and with Myles, the only issue the Planning Board has they would like me to use the town spec light in the parking area. It is a very low light. They would like me to use a retaining wall of union lot bricks vs. a concrete wall. The last thing was storm water retention, which is probably the most serious issue.
Don Cole: Can we have the facts on the setbacks.
Andrew Wright: The square footage of the building is 13,270. Dunkin Donut is 2,000 and the pizzeria is secure. The rest of the space, the reason for the variance I needed so many square feet to justify the expense of what I want to do. The overhang of the walkway will be lit.
A 40 foot setback is required, that is variance number 1, residential overlay is second variance.
Rob Hare: Are we at the line for the standard setback.
Andrew Wright: They consider this a front yard (showing Cabin Lane on plan) because they say it is a road.
Rob Hare: How much variance do you need there?
Andres Wright: Basically, I have to build on the right-of-way. The road itself is only 20 feet wide, with a 50 foot right-of-way. I need to bring the building to the right of way allowing full access for the right-of-way and mechanical, sewer, whatever, down the road and the second one is the residential overlay.
Kathy Kiernan: Where is your property line?
Andrew Wright: My property is way down here (indicating map) but……..Cabin Lane. In my deed I have a 50 foot right-of-way which goes to the cabins. It is part of the deed. His tenants have the right to go this way to get to their properties. It has been there forever. I would create a road there. It would help with service deliveries. Mr. Navara, the neighbor, wants me to take it one step further and pave it so he can run a sewer. He plans to develop these lots (indicating on the map).
I was going to pump up to 9-W. Mr. Navara will give me a right of way to his property, the sewer will be a gravity feed. A bigger issue there is storm water.
The big building is 11,270 square feet and Dunkin Donut is 2,000 square feet. All together 13,270 square feet.
Don Cole: The only issue we are going to have to deal with at this time is setback and residential overlay.
Andrew Wright: I need the 50 foot setback.
Joe Guido: I would like stipulations put in there:
We now have to figure out the wording of the Variance.
Don Cole: We should not put stipulations on.
Andrew Wright: I need a forty foot setback variance on Cabin Lane, front yard setback because Cabin Lane is considered a front, not a back, it is a “0” front yard set back on Cabin Lane and a variance for residential overlay. These are commercial properties, but in a residential zone. The line goes all over the place.
Rob Hare: The distance from your lot line to the edge of your building is 50 feet?
Andrew Wright: Yes.
Rob Hare: OK, then you need a fifty foot setback.
Kathy Kiernan: How may front yards to you have? You have 2 front yards or 3.
Andrew Wright: 9-W, Cabin Lane
Kathy Kiernan: What about the parking lot?
Andrew Wright: It is a side yard.
Kathy Kiernan: You don’t have a rear yard.
Andrew Wright: What they did, if you notice towards Port Ewen Dinner, I have a 20 foot setback which is side yard, rear is ………So there is no rear yard in the property because I have two front yards and two side yards. They say Cabin Lane is a street so my property line is here (indicated on map).
Rob Hare: So then you need a 40 foot front yard setback.
Andrew Wright: Right, from the right of way. Not the property line, the right of way. The commercial stops here and the residential starts there. (Indicating on map) Residential overlay is measured from lot line. I am allowed to have parking in that area, but not a building.
Rob Hare made a motion:
With regard to Wright Builders Property SBL # 56.76-1-16
A variance from section 123.20. Bluestone Realty LLC, (Andrew Wright Builders) property (SBL 56 76 1 16) the east front yard setback abutting Cabin Lane is waived. The building foot print will be 75 feet running north/south and the south west corner will be located 20 feet from the property line. The building of concern will be 11,270 square feet and an additional structure of 2,000 square feet is allowed as shown on plan dated March 20, 2007. Additionally with the following conditions:
Second by Joe Guido
Don Cole: Poll the Board
Catherine Charuk: Actually, as far as the property, I think the setbacks are warranted. Anything you can do to improve Cabin Lane would be a betterment to the Town and improve the character of the neighborhood.
Joseph Guido: I vote in favor of this Variance because the road, even though he owns it, is still considered a road and is the primary reason why this variance is needed. I also feel that he could probably do basically what he want to do and just have a less esthetically looking lot if he just throw the building in the middle and didn’t care how they looked.
Kathy Kiernan: I vote in favor, because I think that applicant has made the effort to improve the property, do the best he can with what he has as far as the setback because of the position of Cabin Road, which is pre-existing.
Don Cole: Vote in favor for various reasons that have already been discussed. It will be an improvement to the area. I think the majority of the people that have approached me in Town want to see it.
Rob Hare: I vote in favor. I believe it will be an improvement to the property.
Vic Barranca: I vote in favor. I think it will be an excellent thing for the area. A lot of work went into this. I think it is well planned and a benefit to our area.
Don Cole: Unanimous.
Wright Builders Property SBL # 56.76-1-16 – Variance #2
Rob Hare: With regard to section 123.21.b(1) residential overlay in a general commercial district Wright Builders is granted a 50 foot variance from the 100 foot required (setback). This is contingent upon the related previous variance being in force.
Don Cole: Poll the Board:
Catherine Charuk: In favor. This variance will help this project go forward.
Joe Guido: I am in favor of this variance for the same reasons of the previous variance.
Kathy Kiernan: In favor for the same reason of the previous variance.
Don Cole: In favor. Reasons previous stated.
Rob Hare: I am in favor because I think the general commercial district is poorly laid out.
Vic Barranca: In favor for the previously stated reasons.
Andrew Wright: Mr. Cole, Wright Builders is my construction company, Blue Stone Realty is the owner of this property.
Don Cole: Passed unanimously. This will be given to Tim Keefe, Building Inspector for the Town of Esopus, tomorrow.
Andrew Wright: Thank you.
Don Cole; Is there anything else the Board wants to discuss?
Kathy Kiernan: How do I get approval to attend school?
Don Cole: The Town Board has already approved that they would pay for schooling. Diane McCord is keeping the records. See her and she will verify. Unfortunately, you all know that we have ½ hour that we have to get in. We have to put in four hours every year. This is a requirement of the state.
Joe Guido: Make a motion that the meeting be adjourned
Kathy Kiernan: Second the motion.
Don Cole: Meeting adjourned at 8:30.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Henry
Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary