Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals

September 17, 2002

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

ROLL CALL

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

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES. KARL WICK SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

A voucher for secretarial work for 10.5 hours was submitted. KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHER. ROB HARE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

INFORMATION MEETING

No cases.

PUBLIC HEARING

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

Chad Fowler was present to represent Stewart’s. As requested by the Board at the last meeting, Mr. Fowler gave an estimate of cost for a replacement shop and submitted drawings that show two versions of what a replacement would look like. The estimated total cost to replace would be $544,052.00. After researching how this shop does in relation to the other stores, it was found that this one is 30% below the company average and would not be considered a good investment for replacement. Stewart’s is willing to make a $90,000.00 investment to move the canopy to improve traffic flow. Also as requested, gasoline spills were researched through Stewart’s own files and Department of Environmental Conservation logs. There are two spills on record, one in 1993 for an eight gallon spill from a customer overfill which was cleaned up by the fire department and closed out by the State the next day, and a 1995 spill which was a two gallon spill when a customer drove away with the hose. That was also cleaned up by the fire department.
Those are the only two spills that are on record with the State and with Stewart’s files. Mr. Guido asked what the amount is that would have to be reported and Mr. Fowler stated that the minimum reportable quantity is now five gallons unless it can’t be cleaned up within two hours or if it affects the State water or storm sewer. In those cases, there is no minimum quantity. Either of these could have gone unreported but Stewart’s has a policy to record any spills.

Mr. Guido asked if there was anyone present from the public who would like to comment. Phil Kirschner, attorney for Peter Wenzel who owns the property to the north of Stewart’s, spoke. He mentioned a case that occurred in Kingston where a customer drove away with the hose and it sparked and caused a fire. His and his client’s concern for the health and safety of the persons and property will continue. He believes that the request of the applicant, the benefit they would achieve, is significantly outweighed by the detriment to the neighboring properties. He requests that the Board deny the variance. Mr. Guido asked if any issues the property owner has would be resolved if Stewart’s put up fencing and Mr. Kirschner stated that he did not believe so.

Alan Schoonmaker who owns property to the rear of Stewart’s asked what the rear setback requirement is and was advised that it is 50'. Mr. Schoonmaker feels that there will be more traffic around the back of the building and it will be more difficult to get in and out of his driveway. He stated that the previous owner’s title insurance showed a right of way but there is nothing in his deed. Mr. Fowler stated that there is no record of any right of way in Stewart’s deed and they just had a new survey done. Stewart’s has no intention of closing that driveway. Mr. Guido read the comments from the Ulster County Planning Board, a copy of which is on file. Mr. Wick asked if the Board is voting on just the canopy or the canopy and pumps. Mr. Guido advised that it is for both. There were no further questions or comments.

Mr. Guido stated that since this public hearing was carried over from last month, the Board has the option of voting now or waiting till next month. The Board informally agreed to wait until next month.

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 setback regulations and maximum total area coverage. She started to build a shed without a building permit. The shed has to be five feet away from the property line and it is 3 ½’ on one side and 2 ½’ on the other. She presented letters from the neighbors and one from the building inspector, copies of which are on file. She also presented photos of other properties in the neighborhood.

Frank White whose property adjoins the applicant’s rear line, stated that he has no objections to her building the shed but he would like to know what the outside will be made of. He objects if it is plywood since he feels it will rot the same way the old one did. Ms. KC-Motluck advised that it will be board and batten, not plywood or pressed board.

Bernadene Quimby of 162 Hasbrouck Avenue advised that she has lived there for 30 years and knows that there was a shed there previously and she has seen the basement flooded. Lisa KC-Motluck, owner of 163 Hasbrouck Avenue, has no objections to the shed being there. She has lived in that area for ten years and has seen the basement flooded a number of times. James Ellsworth, the property owner who lived in the house since 1941 until about 20 years ago, stated that the basement does flood. It used to flood in the winter when there was frost in the ground but it now floods in the summer also since the church put in the blacktopped parking lot. That is why it is necessary to have alternative storage in a shed.

Mr. Wenzel stated that he would be in favor of voting tonight since he visited the site and feels that as long as the neighbors have no objections, neither does he. Mr. Guido closed this portion of the public hearing and advised that the case would be voted on later in the meeting.

SLEIGHT, NANCY CASE #08-20-02-02

Ms. Sleight and her husband, Bob Santiago, were present to explain that she is requesting a variance to purchase a 15' wide strip of land from her neighbors, Chuck and Annarose Milch. Mr. Guido advised that by doing so, the Milch lot would become undersized and Ms. Sleight’s would remain undersized. Ms. Sleight stated that at the last meeting she was asked to measure how far her house is from the property line. It is approximately 42". Rob Hare asked what prompted her to pursue this and Ms. Sleight explained that the property behind her was being put up for sale and she had her property surveyed. As a result of the survey, she discovered that the side line is in her driveway. She approached her neighbor so she could make her driveway part of her property and now has an agreement to purchase. The neighbor signed an affidavit allowing Ms. Sleight to approach the Zoning Board for a variance. The Board agreed to vote on this case tonight and the public hearing was closed.

DECISIONAL MEETING

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

Mr. Guido advised that the Ulster County Planning Board did not have a meeting so there was no decision from them. Mr. Werbeck advised that he would like to construct a deck in violation of rear yard setback requirements. He is seeking 15' variance. Mr. Guido stated that because of the drop off of the yard, the deck would be quite high at the farthest point from the house. Mr. Guido asked if it would be possible to reduce the size of the deck and Mr. Werbeck advised that his wife does not want to do that because now she is thinking of putting in a pool. If they are able to do that, he would have to reduce the 20' width of the deck.

Mr. Wick advised that 123-21.C-7-(e) of the zoning law states that open decks may extend into the rear yard so long as no part of the deck is closer than 15' to the lot line as long as the deck is no more than three feet above the average grade of the land around its perimeter. There was extensive discussion about requiring the deck to be lower than the first floor sill of the house and how that could be worded as part of the variance. STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A 15' REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO BUILD TO AN OPEN DECK WITH NO ROOF WITH THE STIPULATION THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THE DECK AREA WILL BE AT LEAST 21" BELOW THE FIRST FLOOR. KARL WICK SECONDED. The vote was as follows:

Richard Wenzel - I agree with the motion as put forth with the idea that the concept is better, it will look better, and it will go with the house and the adjoining property.

Steve Britton - I vote in favor. The applicant was willing to amend his original application to try to reduce the visual impact of the deck and I think it does fit in with the rest of the neighborhood.

Peter McGowan - I agree with the proposal in that it does minimize the visual impact and will be less repulsive regarding the neighbors.

Karl Wick - I vote in favor of the proposal. I think with the changes made the benefit to the applicant is good, the detriment is very minimal now. It’s less substantial. I don’t see another feasible remedy and I don’t think it’s going to alter
the character of the neighborhood.

Rob Hare - I agree with the proposal as written and I don’t think it will be a detriment to the neighborhood.

Joe Guido - I’m in favor of this. I wouldn’t voted for it if it was a straight deck but because of the stepping down on it, I feel it does tie in with it and does fit in with the neighborhood.

MOTION CARRIED 6-0.

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

The applicant was not present. Mr. Guido explained that the applicant has a two family house. He brought in various notes stating that it has been two family in a GC district and it isn’t allowed there. He wants to make it a legal two family. Mr. Wick asked what year that house was built. On the property card it showed 1960 but Mr. Wenzel felt it was a lot older than that. Mr. Guido advised that there was no decision from the U.C. Planning Board. KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO MAKE THIS A LEGAL TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE. MOTION SECONDED BY STEVE BRITTON. The vote was as follows:

Peter McGowan - I vote to approve it because it was in fact a two family house for practical use and it looks like it was before zoning took effect and therefore it  could be grand-fathered in. The fact is that as the zoning board is now looking at it, it finds out that there is documentation the fact that it was a two family house. Therefore, I vote in favor.

Karl Wick - I vote in favor. I don’t think a variance should be necessary because this was constructed before 1960 as a two family house. It certainly won’t change the character of the neighborhood because it has been used as a two family house. This is a unique problem caused by the district that it’s in. It’s a different issue. The condition of deprived of economic use or benefit is difficult but I think that because it was built this way pre-zoning it should have been grand-fathered anyway so I vote in favor.

Rob Hare - I vote in favor. It appears to have been historically a two family house and that would create a grand-fathered circumstance.

Richard Wenzel - I vote in favor because all the evidence presented showed it was a two family. There was written evidence and at the public hearing we had people verifying that fact. It is all laid out - the electric, two floors - it’s a two family.

Steve Britton - I also vote in favor. I’ve been convinced that it’s been a two family for at least the last 15 years based on the evidence brought forward. I feel it should have been grand-fathered in.

Joe Guido - I’m in favor also. I feel significant evidence has been brought forth that it has been two family. It’s not making it two family. It has been two family and it’s just legalizing the fact that it’s two family.

MOTION CARRIED 6-0.

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

Mr. Guido explained that Mr. Larkin wants to build a storage garage next to the Highway Department. The property is zoned R-40. Mr. Larkin presented written reasons as to why he should be granted a variance. He also presented a letter from the Karols stating that they are aware that he is requesting a variance to construct a commercial building. Copies of the documents are on file. Mr. Guido read the Ulster County Planning Board’s findings, a copy of which is also on file. Mr. McGowan asked why Mr. Larkin cannot build the storage garage on his own property. Mr. Larkin advised that he doesn’t have enough room, it would not be conducive to the character of the neighborhood, and his son eventually wants to take over the business and would not be able to conduct it on the property unless he owns it himself. Mr. Larkin does not want to sell his home to his son.

Mr. Guido asked how many vehicles would be stored in the building and Mr. Larkin advised that it would be four dump trucks and a paver or two. Mr. Guido asked what the hours of operation will be and Mr. Larkin advised that according to the building inspector, Hank Pittner, there are restrictions on the hours of operation in a residential area. It would be between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. six days a week. Mr. Guido asked if there would be a problem if the variance restricts the hours to 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Mr. Larkin advised that would not be a problem. RICHARD WENZEL MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE FOR THE USE OF STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE HOURS OF VEHICLE MOVEMENT BE BETWEEN 6:00 A.M. AND 9:00 P.M. AND THAT THERE BE STORAGE OF NO MORE THAN 40 CUBIC YARDS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL. ROB HARE SECONDED THE MOTION. The vote was as follows:

Rob Hare - I vote for this variance because the proposed action doesn’t significantly impact the neighborhood or change the nature of the area.

Karl Wick - I visited the site and listened to Mr. Larkin’s testimony. I’m convinced that he cannot get any economic use or benefit from any of the other permitted uses - riding stables, timber, livestock. This is a unique problem. I feel that the zoning’s wrong on this one particular lot. I don’t think it would change the character of the neighborhood at all because of the commercial use adjacent and the railroad. It is surely not self created. It was created when zoning was put in so it meets all the tests. I vote in favor.

Peter McGowan - What was clearly an omission when the zoning law was put in can be rectified now by approval of the garage at that point which is near the railroad and near the Town garage so I vote to approve.

Richard Wenzel - I vote to approve. It meets all the criteria especially what the County recommended - the financial, the character of the neighborhood, the impact. It is not self created. It is surrounded by light industry basically with the Town near it and it is right on the railroad tracks. I don’t feel it can be developed into residential property.

Steve Britton - I also vote in favor. I think it meets all the requirements. I think you need this for a reasonable return. It’s definitely a unique situation. It will not alter the character of the neighborhood since the character of the neighborhood is currently commercial although the property itself is not. The character is commercial. I don’t believe it is self created since it was created by zoning so I vote in favor.

Joe Guido - I’m in favor also. I don’t believe it changes the character of the neighborhood. What he’s doing is what’s there already. With the trains passing there, with the general commercial being on the other side of it already, there’s nothing much more you could do there than have this type of operation in there.

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

RICHARD WENZEL MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 14X7X12' STORAGE SHED WITH A 2' ENCROACHMENT ON THE REAR LOT LINE AND A 3' ENCROACHMENT ON THE SIDE LOT LINE AND 3% OVER THE BULK REQUIREMENT. MOTION SECONDED BY STEVE BRITTON. The vote was as follows:

Steve Britton - I vote in favor of the variance mainly based on the fact that they have had an increase in flooding which has caused the need for the shed. It does fit in with the character of the neighborhood.

Richard Wenzel - I vote in favor. I visited the site and it didn’t look out of place on the lot itself and they’ve had problems previous to this with flooding. There’s no protest from the neighbors and the area variance encroachment on the bulk is only 3%.

Rob Hare - I vote to approve the proposal for the variance. The shed will fit the character of the neighborhood and the need has been established.

Karl Wick - I also vote in favor. I think the benefit to the applicant far outweighs
the detriment, if any, to the neighborhood. It won’t change the character, it is not really substantial. There is no adverse environmental effect. Your hardship was not self-created. You did not pave the church’s lot. There may be another remedy and that’s to move the shed. I don’t think that’s feasible in that you would lose too much of any already small lawn if you had to do that.

Peter McGowan - I vote to approve since there is little, if any, to the neighborhood. However, I would say that your problem with the flooding of your basement should be taken up with the church people. They can’t get around it, the fact that your problem is caused by their additional parking space so I would look to that also.

Joseph Guido - I’m in favor also. There was a shed there previously. This shed is less of an imposition into the boundaries. It is in character with the neighborhood. We have several examples of buildings in the area that are also that close to the property lines.

MOTION CARRIED 6-0.

SLEIGHT, NANCY CASE #08-20-02-02

STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO ACCEPT LOT LINE CHANGE AS SHOWN ON SURVEY MAP #3388 OF GERALD BRANDT, THE VARIANCE BEING 15' ON THE LOT WIDTH OF THE FRONT YARD WHEREAS THE REQUIREMENT IS 100' AND REVISION WOULD RESULT IN IT BEING 85'; AND 1,000 SQUARE FOOT VARIANCE IN THE REQUIRED AREA WITH THE LOT BEING REDUCED TO 11,500 SQUARE FEET AND THE REQUIREMENT BEING 12,500 SQUARE FEET. MOTION SECONDED BY RICHARD WENZEL. The vote was as follows

Richard Wenzel - I vote in favor. There is really no impact. There is a positive impact on the Sleight property. It gives them a driveway. The impact on the Milch property is very limited. The character of the neighborhood is not going to change, the environment. I really see no negative impacts and nobody is against it.

Steve Britton - I also vote in favor. If anything, both lots are improved by this change.

Peter McGowan - I vote in favor because this ruling would give the Sleight party a legal driveway, number one. Number two, there would be no adverse affect on the neighborhood. Number three, no one would be hurt as evidenced by lack of people here to protest.

Karl Wick - I too vote in favor. Again, it would benefit by rectifying an existing problem. It certainly does not change the character of the neighborhood. There are smaller lots in the neighborhood. There is no detriment in granting this variance. I vote in favor.

Rob Hare - I vote in favor of granting the variance. It takes an existing condition which the neighborhood has accepted and makes it legal.

Joseph Guido - I’m in favor also for all the given reasons.

MOTION CARRIED 6-0.

ADJOURN

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ROB HARE SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. Meeting adjourned 9:25.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen S. Kiernan
Secretary