TOWN OF ESOPUS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

 August 20, 2002

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Joseph Guido, Pledge to the Flag followed.

ROLL CALL

Present: Catherine Charuk, Steve Britton, Joe Guido, Richard Wenzel, and Karl Wick.
Absent: Rob Hare and Peter McGowan.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Steve Britton made the following corrections to the minutes of the July meeting: page 3, 2nd paragraph, 2nd line should be “he wants to...” and page 4, 1st paragraph, 12th line should be the house was built with “no variances”.  CATHERINE CHARUK MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED, RICHARD WENZEL SECONDED.  ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

KC-MOTLUCK, TINA CASE #08-20-02-01

Ms. KC-Motluck was present to explain that she would like to build a shed in violation of setbacks regulations and maximum total area coverage.  She started to build a shed without a building permit.  She was not aware that she needed a permit since she was granfathering in a shed and it wasn’t a permanent structure.  A permit is required but the shed is not five feet away from the property line.  She would like to continue to build it and have it stay where it is.  The old shed was closer to the property line than the new one.  It was 5x6 and the new one is 7x14.  The old one was about two feet from the line.  Mr. Guido asked what is on the other side of the property line and the applicant advised that on one side there is a garage which is located at 163 Hasbrouck Avenue and on the rear, there is a fence and a neighbor’s backyard..  The garage is approximately two feet from the property line.  Mr. Britton asked how high the old shed was and the applicant advised that it was about 6 feet high.  Ms. Charuk asked if the applicant is the owner of the property and she advised that her father owns it.  Ms. Charuk then asked how long the old shed was there and the applicant stated that it was a long time, probably at least 20 years.  Mr. Wenzel asked if the new shed would encroach any more than the old one and Ms. KC-Motluck advised that it would be less of an encroachment.

Mr. Guido asked if the shed could be moved in more.  The applicant advised that the yard is very small and if she moves the shed, it would take away yard space and trees would have to be taken down.  She advised that she has two Labrador and they would not have any room if she moved the shed.  Ms. Charuk asked if there was any reason why she couldn’t make the shed smaller and she advised that the shed was designed for that space.  She used to be able to store things in the basement of her house, but since the church (Port Ewen Reformed Church) put in the new parking lot about a year ago, her basement now floods in the summer when there are heavy rains.  It used to just flood in the winter when the snow was melting and they were able to plan for that.  Now they need storage for those things that they used to store in the basement.

Mr. Guido asked if the applicant went to the building department on her own or if someone reported her.  She advised that someone must have reported her because she was not aware that she needed the permit.  Ms. Charuk asked if one of the neighbors reported her?  The applicant advised that she didn’t think it was one of the neighbors but she doesn’t know who did.  Ms. KC-Motluck advised that it would be very difficult to move now since she can’t move it all the way out of the space to put something under it and it would have to sit right on the ground.  It is not pressure treated.

Mr. Guido advised the applicant that for the next meeting she should get as many statements from neighbors as she can to state that the old shed was in that spot.  He also advised that she have the building inspector make sure that everything else is OK so it the variance is granted there will be nothing structurally wrong that would require that she take the shed down anyway.  Ms. Charuk advised that there is a question of area and bulk.  Ms. Motluck advised that it is only 3% over.  Mr. Guido also asked that she provide proof that the basement floods now.

SLEIGHT, NANCY - CASE #08-20-02-02
 
Ms. Sleight and her husband, Bob Santiago, were present to explain that her house has been continuously lived in by her family since the 1940's and to her knowledge, no survey was done.  The house next door was being sold and she wanted a survey done to establish where the property lines were before her new neighbor moved in.  In doing so, she discovered that her side line was in the middle of her driveway.  She approached her neighbor to ask if she would sell her 15' for the depth of her lot so that the driveway would be hers.  Mr. Guido asked if she would be building anything and he was advised that this is just to clean up a problem.  By adding 15' to her lot, she will be making the lot next door 15' narrower.  It is now in compliance but will not b after 15' is subtracted.  The nature of the neighborhood in Sleightsburgh is mostly 50' wide lots.  Mr. Guido advised the applicant to draw the number of feet to the old line on the map.  He advised that the public hearing will be held next month.

DANIELE, THOMAS CASE #07-16-02-01

Mr. Daniele was present to advise again that he would like to change his house at 288 Broadway from a one family to a two family.  It was already used as a two family previously.  Mr. Guido asked if anyone from the public was present regarding this case.  Tim Allred of 294 Broadway advised that he was at the meeting to support Mr. Daniel’s case.  He feels that the house lends itself to being a to family.  It is of sufficient size and is located in such a way on the property that it would not violate any setback requirements and would be an improvement in use to the neighborhood.  He stated that he finds it peculiar that the GC zoning district does not allow two family residences.  Ms. Charuk asked Mr. Alfred how long he has lived here and if he has any knowledge that the house was ever used as a two family.  He responded that he has been here for about two years and he knows that two sisters live there - one upstairs and one downstairs - but he does not know if it is actually a two family setup.

Mr. Wenzel asked why the Town Planning Board feels that it should remain a one family?  Mr. Daniele was not aware that the Planning Board was involved.  Ms. Charuk advised that the referral reads “by a 4 to 2 vote it was the Planning Board’s feeling that the property should stay as a one family residence”.  It was dated August 9.  The secretary advised that any case that comes before the Zoning Board is referred to the Planning Board and this does not mean that the applicant appeared before the Planning Board.  The Planning Board offers their comments but they have very limited information about the case.

Alan Larkin spoke on behalf of the applicant to advise that in the late 80's or early 90's he looked at the house to buy it and it was a two family then.  It had two kitchens and two bathrooms.  M. Guido asked if it had been in use as a two family then and M. Larkin advised that it was.  There were no further questions or comments.  M. Guido advised that the case will be voted on next month.

STEWART’S ICE CREAM CO. - CASE #07-16-02-02

Chad Fowler represented Stewart’s Shops of PO Box 435, Saratoga Springs, New York.  He presented new drawings and overlays as requested at the last meeting.  Copies are in file.  The original variance requested was 35' to the side yard setback.  This is to replace the 24x24 canopy in the front yard with a 20x40 canopy in the side yard with two dispensers.  They have appeared before the Planning Board on two occasions.  Recommendations from the Planning Board were to eliminate a center entrance on Route 9W which is not in use at this time and to turn the south entrance into a one way in and the north entrance into a one way out.  They are proposing to keep two dispensers and not add any additional dispensers.  One of the reasons for this proposal was to alleviate congestion in the parking lot which occurs around the island.  It is their experience that having dispensers in parallel works much better with traffic flow than having dispensers in line with each other.  This arrangement would force traffic to go around and be pointing out after dispensing fuel.

Roy Britt of 201 Broadway was present and voiced his objection to the plan since he felt that his property would be negatively affected.  Phil Kirschner was also present as the attorney for Peter Wenzel and his family.  Their house is to the north, or, if you are looking at the store, the one to the left.  Moving the pumps from the front of the building to the side would being them closer to the two-family house that they have at 195 Broadway.  They have several concerns, some of those being fumes, noise, lights, and additional traffic.  All of these factors would create a health and safety hazard and would be detrimental to the value of the Wenzel property.  Mr. Kirschner stated that the purpose of zoning laws is to protect all those things, to be concerned with safety and health of all persons, those that are neighboring the applicant as well as the applicant.  Secondly, the goal is to protect property values, those of the applicant as well as those neighboring the applicant.  If the variance were granted, you would have detriment to the value of the neighboring property, increased risk of safety concerns to the neighboring property, all contrary to the zoning laws and the laws of the State of New York regarding variances.  Mr. Kirschner feels that the problem is self created.

Mr. Guido advised that the Ulster County Planning Board found no county impact.  The secretary read the following UCPB recommendations into the minutes:

The Ulster county Planning Board does not see any issues with granting the side yard
variance and notes Stewart’s proposed installation of recessed lighting underneath the
canopy.

The current site plan submitted, while accommodating the canopy, does little to improve
the appearance of the building or account for substantial pedestrian use along the street
and to this business.  We would suggest that working with the Planning Board alternative
arrangements of parking, landscaping, and sidewalks at the front of the site be explored
before the variance is granted.  We recognize that tanker movements may create problems
on the site.

Mr. Guido advised that the Town Planning Board wanted some parking issues addressed.  He asked how much seating is available inside now.  Mr. Fowler advised that there are 12 seats - three booths.  Mr. Guido advised that would require a variance for parking spaces since, if the Planning Board recommendations are followed, there will not be enough spaces.

Peter Wenzel, 261 Agnes Street, Port Ewen, stated that the Shuster report didn’t mention any impact of this project to anyone around Stewart’s.  It seems to be pro Stewart’s.  Mr. Guido advised that he cannot comment on that report or answer for the Planning Board.  The Planning Will advertise public hearings when the case comes before them again.

Dick Wenzel, part owner of the property at 195 Broadway, expressed his concern.  He stated he is opposed to the proposal because the encroachment will be within 35' of the house.  The additional noise and light and the traffic congestion will affect the residents of his house.  The problem was self created by Stewart’s when they originally put the pumps there.  He felt that Stewart’s was more of a bread and milk store than one emphasizing gasoline sales.

Mr. Fowler responded that Stewart’s purchased the building in 1979 and renovated it where it was.  He was not familiar with whether there were gas pumps there at the time.  He stated that moving the pumps will improve the safety.  Alan Schoonmaker, whose property adjoins Stewart’s to the rear, asked why it would not be possible to promote one way traffic leaving the pumps where they are.  Mr. Fowler stated that the original proposal was for two way traffic but the Planning Board suggested one way in and one way out.

Mr. Guido asked what it would cost Stewart’s to start from scratch with a new building.  Mr. Fowler stated it would be about 3/4 million dollars to replace a building.  It would probably not be considered for a store of this size.  Mr. Guido asked that the applicant provide that figure for the next meeting and also the cost of the project as proposed.  Ms. Charuk questioned the truck radius and if there would be space for plantings.  M. Guido asked how far the Wenzel house is from the property line and Mr. Fowler advised it is 21.2' and the house on the other side is 9.7 feet.  There were not further questions and Mr. Guido advised that the public hearing will be kept open until next month when the other information will be provided.

LARKIN FOR SPINNENWEBER CASE #07-16-02-03

Mr. Larkin stated that he want to build a 22x60' storage building on a lot that his located in the R-40 zoning district.  The Ulster County Planning Board sent back a finding of no county impact.  The recommendation is in file.  Mr. Larkin advised that he also presented a letter from the only adjoining property owner who has a house.  He also advised that the Port Ewen Water District is considering buying property from Mr. Spinnenweber for use for a water tower.  Other adjoining property is occupied by the Town Highway Department and the Recreation Department storage garage.  Mr. Guido advised that granting a use variance would be the only way to go in this situation since a zoning change would require much more.

Mr. Britton recommended that the applicant provide proof that financially it would be more of a hardship to go out of the Town and where else in Town could be get storage space for the blacktop equipment.  Most of the surrounding property is light industrial and the railroad is very close.  No one would buy the property for use as residential.  Storage would not change the character of the neighborhood.  The only residence is Mr. Karol’s and the garage would be 100' away from his house.  Mr. Wick mentioned that Mr. Karol’s letter states that he has no objection to Mr. Larkin buying the property but he does not say that he has no objection to the use.  Mr. Wick asked that the applicant get his neighbor to write that he does not object to the use.  There were no further questions or comments and Mr. Guido advised the applicant that this will be voted on next month.

DECISIONAL MEETING

MELCHOIR/KOPUNEK CASE #05-21-02-01

Mr. Guido advised that this case has been officially withdrawn.  There is a letter from the applicant to that effect in file.

WERBECK, RONALD CASE #06-18-02-01

The applicant was not present.  The Board felt that it could not vote on the case without the applicant being present to answer questions regarding how high the deck would be.  Some members had concerns about the size of the deck since they considered it quite large.  Ms. Charuk suggested that the case be held over until next month and that the applicant should be advised that he should be present.  KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO MOVE THE CASE TO NEXT MONTH.  CATHERINE CHARUK SECONDED.  ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Guido suggested that the paper that explains the reasons for granting variances be included with the application.  There was also a discussion of cross referencing variances be SBL which is being done in conjunction with the assessor’s office.

CATHERINE CHARUK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, KARL WICK SECONDED.
ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.  Meeting adjourned 9:11 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Kiernan
Secretary