Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals

October 15, 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, Catherine Charuk, Joe Guido, Rob Hare, Richard Wenzel, and Karl Wick.
Absent: Peter McGowan

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

KARL WICK MADE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING. RICHARD WENZEL SECONDED. CATHERINE CHARUK ABSTAINED. ALL OTHERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

Vouchers for secretarial work for eleven hours and Freeman public hearing notices for Stewart’s for $21.83 and KC-Motluck for $18.43 were submitted. STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS. KARL WICK SECONDED. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR.

INFORMATIONAL MEETING

No cases.

PUBLIC HEARING

No cases.

DECISIONAL MEETING

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

Mr. Guido advised that Stewart’s Co. is before the Board for an area variance to place the gas pumps closer to the side yard lot line than allowed. Paul Bulner was present to represent Stewart’s. Mr. Wick asked Mr. Wenzel, the neighbor directly to the north of the applicant, if his property is a rental unit and was advised that it is. Mr. Schoonmaker, the neighbor behind Stewart’s, advised that his survey does not agree with Stewart’s by about two feet on his side. Mr. Guido advised that the issued being addressed at this meeting is a side yard variance only. If it is granted, the applicant will have to go back to the Planning Board and Mr. Schoonmaker can have his concerns addressed at that time. Mr. Wick asked if Stewart’s had ever approached the Wenzels regarding buying their property and was advised that they had not.

Mr. Guido suggested that the motion be written up as granting a variance and the Board can then vote for granting it or against granting it. Mr. Wick advised that he had written up a four page paper stating the benefits and detriments to Stewart’s, the Town, and the immediate neighbors. A copy of Mr. Wick’s findings is on file. Mr. Hare brought up the issue of vapor recovery systems on the end of the hoses. Mr. Guido asked if the new system would have vapor recovery hoses and Mr. Bulner advised that could be put in as a requirement.

The Board agreed that the motion should be stated positively. It would then be up to each member to vote in favor of granting it or against granting it. STEVE BRITTON MADE A MOTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD ON THE NORTH SIDE SO THE EDGE OF THE CANOPY WILL BE NO LESS THAN 19.7' FROM THE NORTH SIDE YARD LOT LINE AND THE PUMPS WILL BE NO LESS THAN 22' FROM THE SIDE YARD LOT LINE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: THAT THE PUMPS BE CLOSED AT 11:00 P.M. AND OPENED NO EARLIER THAN 6:00 A.M.; THAT THE NEW PUMPS BE EQUIPPED WITH VAPOR RECOVERY SYSTEM; THAT THE CANOPY HAVE DOWN LIGHTING ONLY; THAT THERE BE SOME TYPE OF SOLID FENCING ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES; AND THAT THE ISSUE OF THE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE BE ADDRESSED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. MOTION SECONDED BY CATHERINE CHARUK. The vote was as follows:

KARL WICK - This is a very difficult decision for me. You have to balance the
benefits to be gained against the cost to the neighbors. I do see some gain for Stewart’s. I do think Stewart’s is trying to do this the right way. I also see some detriment to the neighboring property. If all these factors are in balance, I have to refer to the strong wording of 123-13H - the specific paragraph for gasoline pumps - fifty feet from the property line. I don’t think the benefit is great enough to outweigh that clause and to the detriment to the property. If it were just the canopy, I would have no problem with it, but because they have special wording on pumps specifically, the writers of the code in 1995 had a reason for that so I have to vote against the motion.

ROB HARE - I would go along with Karl. I agree that the shop needs renovation, however, I think this layout goes way over the stipulations laid out in 123-13H(2) that this is over a 50% variance so this is a major variance. I also believe it’s a problem with code 123-44A(2)(d) that requires consideration of the neighborhood and the environment and that, although there are two pumps now, the new configuration of pumps will encourage more traffic and more fumes, so I vote against it.

CATHERINE CHARUK - I vote in favor of it. As I saw as I drove up here this evening, we have a situation where the pumps already violate those sections of the codes. I don’t recall how long they’ve been there. The current situation is extremely crowded and congested and as I drove by tonight, it looked like it was contributing to potential traffic problems even in the street. The houses that are there, with all due respect, are already next to a gas station on both sides. And I don’t believe that if you move the pumps closer to the side yard - a distance of maybe 15 feet from where they already are - that it’s going to result in any even measurable harm to the tenants of the neighboring property. That would be my greater concern, to the human beings rather than to the property value. But I just don’t believe that will be the case, either from the occasion spill or possibly someone driving off with the not having replaced the pump. So in my view, the benefits to the citizens of the Town and the people driving through the Town on 9W - already a congested roadway - outweigh any possible detriment - which I frankly don’t see - to the neighboring property owners. I think the Town would be better off alleviating congestion rather than maintaining the situation which, as far as I can tell, becomes more untenable as traffic increases. It’s not going to be Stewart’s itself that is going to be increasing the traffic. There are simply more people traveling up and down 9W each day and that’s not Stewart’s problem. I think it’s the Town’s obligation to see that the traffic flow and the businesses in that area operate with the greatest efficiency possible so I vote in favor of it.

RICHARD WENZEL - I abstain.

STEVE BRITTON - I vote against the variance. I think, based on the environmental and safety concerns, it’s too substantial a variance and I don’t think granting the variance would meet the Town’s zoning laws.

JOE GUIDO - I’m opposed to it also. I think the traffic being routed around the building and out the other side would be more hazardous than the situation we have now. The side yard variance is a substantial one. For myself, I would entertain a proposal in the future that would put the pumps in the front and space them out a little bit.

MOTION CARRIED 4-1, 1 ABSTENTION.

OTHER BUSINESS

There was no other business to be discussed.

CATHERINE CHARUK MADE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ROB HARE SECONDED. Meeting adjourned 8:25 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Kiernan, Secretary