MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF ESOPUS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 19, 2006
PRESENT: Don Cole, Chairman; Richard Wenzel; Catherine Charuk; Joseph Guido; Darin DeKoskie; Karl Wick
Excused: Rob Hare
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chairman Don Cole called the meeting to order at 7:30pm
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
Interim Secretary, Laura Petit, did the roll call. Rob Hare excused; all other Zoning Board members present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD WENZEL AND SECONDED BY DARIN DeKOSKIE TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 2006 MINUTES. All present in favor.
APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
A MOTION WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE VOUCHERS FOR PAYROLL AND ADVERTISING BY JOSEPH GUIDO AND SECONDED BY CATHERINE CHARUK. All present in favor.
Chairman Cole introduced Nadine Shadlock as legal counsel for Steve Aaron and the Birchez Association. Cole said the informational meeting was to determine whether it is necessary for the applicant to apply for a variance. Ms. Shadlock explained that the project was for the development of a site with four proposed single family homes and eighty-one units of affordable senior housing. She said that she has had the opportunity over the last four months to meet with Planning Board counsel, Peter Graham, and that after reviewing the town statute, the project would be based upon proposed density. She said that under Mr. Graham’s interpretation, it would be necessary for a variance before the project could be forward. However, she would like to seek an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town law Section 267(b) to review and make a determination as to the appropriateness of the density code. Ms. Shadlock provided a memorandum dated October 31, 2006 which in the course of reviewing the local zoning law of the Town of Esopus in the context of multi-family zoning, found that there is a density computation format which states eight dwelling units per acre. For multi-family zoning there is a density equivalency computation where a single bedroom unit is point five (0.5) and a two bedroom unit is point 7 (0.7). Based upon her experience, eight single family dwelling units would equal, under the multi-family law of 123-13,
59.8 units. The project would be below the maximum density for development under this code. In fact, the total would be 44.7 dwelling unit equivalents on this site. She asked if her calculations would be a plausible interpretation under the Town of Esopus code. She said that the contractor was very anxious to move forward with the project from a timing perspective, and her client would very much appreciate an interpretation from the Board.
DeKoskie asked how the project was funded. Ms. Shadlock said it would be funded through New York State Division of Housing and Urban Renewal, and through the NYS Housing Finance Agency. DeKoskie asked if it was proposed funding or if an application had been submitted. Ms. Shadlock said it had been submitted and there was a meeting tomorrow with one of the finance groups. She explained that Ulster County had been identified as one of the difficult to develop areas and as a result of this designated; the developer is entitled to 30% in tax credits. She said that the developer is scrambling now because of deadlines to prove that he has investors and a municipality interested in the affordable senior housing proposal.
Cathy Pearson asked if the project was for senior housing, would it be guaranteed to remain senior housing. Chairman Cole said yes. Ms. Shadlock said it was in the documents for financing and would stay senior housing. Tim Allred asked if the actual location was on Sorbello Avenue behind BOCES. Ms. Shadlock said it was and this is a great location because BOCES has a wealth of multi-generational programs. The road behind BOCES will become a dedicated road built to Town specifications. She added that the existing road is not well-maintained now.
Chairman Cole said he had just gotten this request for an interpretation yesterday, and took it to the Town Building Inspector to see if it needed a variance or could be moved along. The Building Inspector didn’t feel that the project needed a variance, and didn’t understand what the hold up was. The Building Inspector felt that the ZBA should make a decision on it so Cole started the process by scheduling an informational meeting. He hoped to get an opinion from the Board or set up a public hearing. He didn’t feel that the application process should keep dragging on.
Chairman Cole asked the Board for an opinion on the project. Wenzel said that since this is the first time he has seen the proposal, he couldn’t make a decision on it in a few minutes. He needed time to determine if it needed a variance. Chairman Cole said Ms. Shadlock could tell the Board whether a variance was necessary based on the density calculation. He said it was altogether different for multiple housing. Wenzel said normally there is a response in writing from the Building Department. Cole said that the Building Department didn’t know anything about this project because the Planning Board is involved in it and have put up a block on it. He said again that according to Ms. Shadlock’s interpretation of the Town code, it shouldn’t need a variance, and the Town Board would like to see this project move forward. Cole said that the Town seniors would like to see it moved forward, too.
Guido agreed with Wenzel that he needed time to review the proposal and study it. He said that any action by the Board could impact future proposals. Cole asked if he would like the developer to come back next month. Guido asked Ms. Shadlock if she was before the ZBA for an interpretation or a variance. Ms. Shadlock said she would like to see the project moved forward. Guido explained that if she was before the Board for an interpretation, then they could give her an interpretation. But, if she was before the Board for a variance, then she had to go to the Building Department to file an application for a variance or get a referral from the Planning Board. Ms. Shadlock said they had been before the Planning Board and felt it was appropriate for her to come before the ZBA. She felt that what the Planning Board had proposed on the density calculation was ambiguous, and that her analysis under 267(b) did empower the ZBA to make a decision.
Cole asked Guido if he wanted to make a MOTION to move forward. Guido said he had no objection to moving forward, but he would like time to review the proposal. Cole said he would like this to be the first information meeting. Guido asked again if it was for an interpretation because if the developer wanted a variance, he would have to go through the application process. Cole said time is of the essence for the developer because of government funding. Ms. Shadlock said after December 31, 2006 there would be no 30% tax incentive.
DeKoskie asked what the reason was for 81 units; why not 76. Ms. Shadlock said that the buildings would have to be re-designed. DeKoskie said it would be necessary to get a sketch plan approval. He understands it would be more work, but the proposal could pass with fewer units. He was trying to understand why 81 units and not fewer. Ms. Shadlock said the proposed number of units was based on a market study, and the funding was based on the number of units already proposed. Ms. Shadlock said that the Town of Esopus has a very strong interest in developing affordable senior housing. There were already two hundred people on a waiting list for the housing. DeKoskie asked if there were any seniors on the waiting list that were not from Esopus, and what the reason would be that the tax credit would not occur after 2006. He asked if it was because Ulster County had excess senior housing in towns other than Esopus. Ms. Shadlock said she was not aware of the rationale behind taking the incentive away. She said it appeared to be a federal rationale, not a state rationale. DeKoskie said that there are other senior housing projects in the area. Maybe not in Esopus so there may be senior who have to relocate, but at the same time there may be excess housing in other municipalities. Ms. Shadlock said it is often desirable for seniors not to have to relocate and maintain there current area of residence.
Guido asked if the density calculations were with the road or without the road. Ms. Shadlock said she did not include the road and Peter Graham’s numbers were based on the gross side of nine acres. She felt that the roads should be taken into account. Guido disagreed and said if the Town was taking over the road; it shouldn’t be included in the calculations of acreage. DeKoskie felt if the road wasn’t dedicated to the Town then it could be considered usable acreage. Ms. Shadlock said that the Planning Board has made it very clear that they want the roads dedicated to the Town. She said that may be an issue to bring back before the Planning Board if ownership of the roads impacts the density calculations. Guido said if the ZBA sets a precedent for including the road in the application, then any other applications would have to consider including the roads.
Cathy Pearson asked if the waiting list for housing included Kingston residents. Ms. Shadlock said that Supervisor Coutant was maintaining the list which had two hundred names on it. DeKoskie asked about a lottery based on state requirements for anyone that applies. Ms. Shadlock said they could not guarantee that every unit would have an Esopus resident in it, but the developer would work very hard to see that the local residents are kept in their own community.
Guido wanted clarification on the request. If the calculation was with the road, the results would be different. Ms. Shadlock said she was looking at the adjustments in Town of Esopus calculations in the multi-family adjustment factor which would put the developer’s proposal significantly below the maximum. She asked that the project be allowed to move forward without further delay, and referred the Board to other Birchez’s projects such as the Saugerties and Chambers projects. Guido said he had seen the projects, and they were very well done. His concern was still for setting a precedent for future projects.
Guido asked how many bedrooms would be in the proposed single family houses. Chairman Cole said it depended on who bought the property and how they wanted the homes built. Guido said that the calculations would have to be mixed then to come up with an allowable maximum density. Ms. Shadlock said she didn’t figure the additional components of the one or two bedroom units. Wick asked about the acreage on lot five. Ms. Shadlock said it was 6.621. Wick asked if that was without the road. Guido asked that the numbers be recalculated with and without the roads.
Guido asked if there were any restrictions from the DEC as far as water rights; no wetland impacts, etc. Ms. Shadlock said no. Charuk asked what the zoning district was for this area. Ms. Shadlock said R40.
Chairman Cole asked if there were any other questions. There were none. He informed Ms. Shadlock that the next ZBA meeting will be January 16th at 7:30PM.
Graff, legal counsel for the applicant Rondout Hills, explained the history of the property and said that since 1986 the access road was gravel and followed the water/sewer line. He said that his client was acquiring the property for further development of 75 units, which has now reduced to 71 units. He said that under Section 123(b)(16) the law requires that there are two access points. He explained that when he went before the Planning Board, they had a problem with the access road. He said there is a visibility problem that the engineers have tried to address with signage, building up the road and by creating an intersection division so that cars don’t cut the corner. In addition, there is a potential fire access problem because some of the units are isolated from access. The emergency access was built to provide a second access out. Graff mentioned that Riverview and Rondout Harbor only have one access road.
Graff said that the Planning Board and highway department have indicated that they would not approve the emergency access road as a full egress and ingress road. Mr. Larkin felt that there is a visibility problem due to the elevation of the road and will cause safety issues. Graff suggested that the emergency access have a combination lock to block non-emergency traffic and signage with a grassy area like the Marriott Courtyard. Emergency vehicles would be able to access at any time. He didn’t feel that by approving a variance, the Board would set any precedent for other projects because this was unique. A reasonable determination by the ZBA would give him the authority to go back to the Planning Board.
Chairman Cole asked why the road couldn’t be brought 100 feet further out. He spoke to the highway department about moving the road or making it one way only. He remarked that the cable was down anyway. Graff said that there would be too sharp of a hairpin curve and the road would be too steeply graded if moved. The road would also need significant improvements if it was moved. Guido asked who maintained the roads now. Joe Leshman, President of the HOA said that there is a maintenance contract for upkeep of the roads including snow removal.
Chairman Cole said he would like to see a second road and asked if there was another way. He said that there was a piece of property that could be used to access Sunset Drive that may be cheaper than developing an emergency access onto Connelly Road. He asked if the Town could reduce the speed to 25mph to improve conditions since visibility was an issue. Graff said it would require a state act.
DeKoskie said he spoke with Chairperson Pecora on the Planning Board regarding this issue and she assured him that Larkin was present at the meetings. They felt the public would be best served by limiting this road as an emergency access and any unauthorized access issues could be resolved with a chain or a cable. Cole said that he concern is that the ZBA is not liable. Graff said that once the variance is approved it will be in the hands of the Planning Board to address issues such as lighting, stormwater, plowing etc.
Charuk asked what section of the zoning code the Board was being asked to grant a variance for. Graff said that Section 123(13)(b)(c)(3) use variance. Charuk questioned whether it needed an area variance. Graff said that since the number of proposed units was decreased, it did not need an area variance. Charuk said she felt comfortable granting a variance based on emergency access only. Guido agreed that the second road should not be used for egress and ingress. He also asked if the HOA was dissolved, who would maintain the roads. Graff said that the HOA has been around for twenty years and would always be responsible for maintenance. This included road improvements that were part of the agreement with each new developer. He said that under the agreements and the contracts with the owners, the access roads are as protected at a Town or State road.
Guido asked if there were approved curb cuts, and why, if the proposal was approved in 1986, did it have to be presented to the ZBA again. Graff said that the Planning Board attorney wants it approved under the new regulations. Guido said he was concerned with it being an emergency access road only and would approve a variance if the road is maintained equal to or better than the other roads. It should be plowed right away, and never be blocked off by snow. It should be maintained equal to or better than the other roads. He felt that if the ZBA but these restrictions in the variance, then the Planning Board would have to include them in their approvals. Graff said he would agree. Guido said again that his only reservation would be that an emergency road will be neglected, and the road would not be maintained properly.
Chairman Cole said the verbage in a MOTION should be clearly stated and be addressed at the next meeting. Graff offered to put in the verbage in writing for this meeting and the Board could review it now. Guido agreed that if Graff could draft up the language, he would vote on it tonight. Wenzel said as long as the language and stipulations were all included. Guido stated for the record that this decision is for this case only based on the conditions of the property, and would not affect the Board’s decisions on future variances.
Schaeffer presented a map with the exact setbacks drawn up by his engineer. He said it also showed the front of the neighboring houses. Chairman Cole asked which way the house would be facing; toward Parsell Street. Schaeffer said yes. Cole said last time it was facing the other way. Schaffer said it would fit more with the property to face the house toward Parsell Street. He also informed the Board that if the road is less than fifty feet, that 25 feet from the center of the road is the setback. Cole said that the only problem is the back lot.
Guido said that when the applicant first came before the Board, he was moving part of an existing house to the new lot. Schaeffer said that he is now going to build a foundation and move the house for his mother and/or mother-in-law. Guido asked if the size of the house is the same as he original proposed 800 square feet. Schaeffer said that the house is 1,100 square feet.
Guido said the only problem is that there is not denial from the Building Department. Chairman Cole told the applicant to go to the Building Department and file the paperwork. He would keep the Public Hearing open.
MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUIDO TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN ON THE PHILLIP SCHAEFFER APPLICATION. SECOND WAS MADE BY CATHERINE CHARUK. All present in favor.
Chairman Cole called Blue Stone, Inc. Mr. Snyder presented changes in the previous drawings based on recommendations at previous meetings. He said that the 100’ setback from the center line of the right-of way, the 50’ parking requirement, and landscaping were reviewed. Chairman Cole asked if the Dollar Store was 12,000 sf. Snyder said it was 11,270 sf; 2,000 for a Dunkin Donuts. The engineer had reduced the original size of the Dollar Store building from 13, 270 sf. Chairman Cole said the problem is that the original plans presented a Dunkin Donuts with a Dollar Store and another business. Snyder said that the developer was negotiating with a pizzeria, but the interested tenant was concerned that the variances may not be approved. Chairman Cole asked what the coverage was percentage wise of the property. Snyder said that 20% was allowed and 14% is being proposed.
Chairman Cole mentioned concerns about drainage and how it would be addressed. He said that clay would not allow drainage and would create run-off issues. Snyder said that testing had been done and was presented in the Board packages. He said that the testing included season highs and showed mottling from 9.5 to 15.5. There is sandy loam on this site. Snyder pointed out that hole number 4 went down 56 inches, and did not strike any water. This is where the perc test was done. DeKoskie asked about limitations for infiltration and stormwater control. Snyder figured at 35 minutes on hole 4 it was very good for infiltration under the existing conditions. He referred the Board back to the original submission with the old design and C-2 with the stormwater control. DeKoskie questioned what the required percolation was and what is the figure used in the calculations. Snyder said to the best of his knowledge there isn’t a figure. He explained that you need to apply calculations through a process based on lows and 100 year flood considerations. He said that the calculations applied were suitable for this particular project. DeKoskie asked about the stormwater controls. Snyder said he believed that any stormwater issues would be addressed by the Planning Board, but he assured the Board that stormwater issues were considered in the application.
Snyder said that in conversations with Mr. LaRose of the DOT, their department would require a full traffic study. He said Mr. LaRose was concerned about a single entrance and single lane. He had also suggested the continuation of Cabin Lane all the way around the diner since the existing road had maintenance issues.
Chairman Cole asked Navarra about any concerns he had. Schaeffer said Mr. Navarra is still concerned about the encroachment on the existing buildings. Schaeffer said it would need another setback variance. Snyder said the building could be pushed back. Chairman Cole said that Mr. Navarra would have to decide what he wanted. Schaeffer said that Navarra’s concern was with access of delivery trucks and garbage trucks. If the road was slippery who would maintain them so it wouldn’t be a hazard to residents in the cabins. Schaeffer also stated that if the trees were removed, it would increase run-off significantly. Guido said his concern is the size of the building and other issues would be up to the Planning Board. He didn’t feel that the developer, by offering to compromise and reduce the size of an extremely large building, fit conditions necessary to approve a variance. Snyder felt that the developer offered a fair and reasonable compromise by reducing the size of the building.
Tim Allred asked about the variance in regard to the 20% use. Wick said the code establishes that no more than 20% of the lot size is used and the setbacks are separate issues which are more restrictive than usage. Guido said that 20% of the lot is the maximum coverage of the proposed building which in this case is 14%. Snyder said that the foot print uses all of the setback requirements. Guido said if it wasn’t for the setbacks, the developer could put in the building with no problem. Allred asked about the setbacks and encroachments. Snyder explained that on the 40’ front yard setback there was 40 feet, and on the sides and rear the setbacks were met. The only variance needed was for the 50’ off center line of an existing right-of-way. Allred remarked that as an adjoining neighbor, he was concerned about protecting the characteristics of the neighborhood. He also remarked about the 9W overlay and there is generally a high residential use. A commercial building without sufficient screening would diminish property value. Allred said that people would be looking at the rear of the building with the positioning currently proposed. He also said that while a Dunkin Donuts in the area might show a very nice economic return, he didn’t think it was coherent to Port Ewen to build a Dollar Store. He also asked if there were any figures showing economic support. He said that there is just too much building for this site, and the proposed stores would diminish the quality of the neighborhood. The developers are asking for more than is necessary.
Schaeffer asked whether the Dunkin Donuts was a drive through and asked about the positioning of the drive through. He was concerned about the headlight glaring into the cabin windows. Snyder said that the cabins were down below the line of vision because of the slope and with landscaping, there would be little intrusion. Allred asked if this was a flat-roofed building. Snyder said no. He added that he is before the ZBA to address serious zoning issues, and that contracts for tenants are dependent on a favorable decision by the ZBA. He said that more details were added than is normally done at this stage of the process. He felt that the developers would make a quantum improvement to the property.
Chairman Cole asked if there was any chance of getting a visual drawing of the proposed buildings to alleviate some concerns. Snyder said he would try even though the time frame was a little tight. Guido said that the applicant can put in a Dunkin Donuts and be open for 24 hours. That is not the issue. The applicant could put in an uglier strip mall if he wanted; he has the right to do it. Guido said the issue is the boundaries not the aesthetics. Chairman Cole said the applicant is making an effort to do something. He said that the DOT traffic study needed to be done, and mentioned that if Sorbello Lane is eventually opened, it may mitigate some of the problems.
MOTION WAS MADE BY DARIN DeKOSKIE AND SECONDED BY JOSEPH GUIDO TO KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL THE JANUARY 2007 MEETING. All present in favor.
- Markle, Charles and Karen
The Markles presented photos of their property and neighboring garages as requested by the ZBA at their November 2006 meeting. The photos presented were with the curb cut shown, and the applicant described the road next to the proposed garage as being Little League Road. Guido recalled that the neighboring garage was built about four or five years ago, and is 28’X30’. The Markles project is proposed at 20’ X 24’. Chairman Cole said that the County Planning Board responded that they have no concerns. Charuk said it was a shame to cut down the pine tree. Karen Markle said they had offered it to the town and several other municipalities. Charles Markle said the only difference from the existing garage is that he will be putting in a 14’ overhead door and continue the brick veneer.
Charuk asked if the existing house is a two story. Ms. Markle said it was one. Guido asked about the right-of-way for Central Hudson and the telephone pole. Ms. Markle said the pole is 25’ from their property and encroach on it. Chairman Cole asked the Board if they were ready to make a decision tonight. Guido said he was ready to vote. DeKoskie agreed he would vote on it tonight.
Snyder said that at the last Planning Board meeting, the sketch plan was provided. Chairman Cole said that comments from the Town Planning Board stated that problems could be resolved with the project if the developer would revise the site plan. Cole said the 35’ driveway access was approved by the County Planning Board, and that the flag lots were more than large enough to be a satisfactory access onto the road. Snyder said that the one vote against the proposed site plan from the Town Planning Board was by a member that raised his personal objection to a single family driveway coming out onto Salem Street. The Board member’s comment was that it was a simple matter of taking pencil to paper and redoing the roadways so every driveway would come to the interior of the subdivision. Snyder said that the contours of the property isolated this lot, and it was not a simple matter of taking the driveway and running it up the hill for interior access. The topography would not allow it. In fact, this issue hadn’t been raised in the last five months of Planning Board meetings. He said that the Board member could not cite a specific regulation that this driveway would be in violation of.
Snyder remarked that a neighbor remembers that Spinnenweber had that flag lot point added specifically for it to act as a driveway because it is a non-conforming lot. He said the highway department told him it was grandfathered in as an existing driveway. Snyder said if the Board referred to the Schedule, Lot 27 was 15,270 square feet without the point that meets the 12,000sf requirement. Chairman Cole said that was only if there is no sewer and water. The requirements were less for a lot with municipal water and sewer, about 8,500 sf.
Cathy Pearson asked where the driveway was. Snyder pointed it out on the map. She said she was okay with a single family driveway. Her concern had been that it would be a public access. Snyder said that with the size of the property and the topography, it is just sufficient for a single family house.
Wenzel remarked that Cynthia Street is a culvert and not really a street. It is pretty swampy and the other streets all drain off into it. Snyder said that the stormwater issue will be addressed. Wenzel asked what the legality was of a “paper street”. Snyder said the street could be upgraded and built. He pointed out that there were two exits on the Mountain View subdivision. The developer planned on adding sidewalks for the children, and was negotiating a 50’ fee simple deed with the Town to determine if the street could connect to the new Town Hall. There will also be utilities and street lights.
DeKoskie remarked that Snyder had mentioned stormwater controls but didn’t see anything in the proposal. He asked about buffers to protect the wetlands and asked if the developer needed DEC approval before building. Snyder said that DEC regulations required stormwater controls for anything over a three acre disturbance. There are also stipulations for erosion control. DeKoskie asked what the requirements were for drainage. Snyder said that there is currently a huge, uncontrollable flow over Cynthia Street and into the wetlands. A stormwater plan will control it. DeKoskie said a speed-ease permit is required for stormwater discharge not just because of the acreage but with new regulations even small lots fall under the requirements for stormwater and wetland protection. Developers have to provide controls. Snyder said it was his understanding that it was for disturbances of over five acres.
Chairman Cole asked if the Board was ready to vote on this application tonight. Charuk said it was too soon. Guido said he wanted to take a look at Lot 28 to see if it would impact the lots on either side. Snyder asked if there was anything he could do to answer the question. Guido said he would rather look at the site himself. Wick asked what the square footage of the two flag pieces was. Snyder said the numbers where in the schedule. Wick remarked that the pole piece of the flag lot, the access piece, concerned him. He also asked when the subdivisions were created. Snyder said about six months ago. Guido asked Snyder for contact information.
Chairman Cole thought that square footage of the lots was presented at the last meeting. He found the numbers in the November minutes as Lot 28 being 16,622 sf and Lot 27 as being 15,265 sf. Wick said that is the footage without the pole piece. Snyder said that he would get the older plans where the pole piece had been included. The newer plans had the pole piece removed.
Graff read the MOTION to the ZBA and it was made as follows:
MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUIDO AND SECONDED BY DARIN DeKOSKIE THAT
WHEREAS, the Town of Esopus Planning Board has referred to the Town of Esopus Zoning Board (the “ZBA”) the Rondout Hills, LLC (the “applicant”) request for a variance or interpretative opinion with regard to the Town Code §Section 123-13 (B)(3)(C) which states as follows:
Vehicular entrances and exits shall be clearly visible from the street and at least 75 feet from any street intersection. Two access points onto a street separated by at least 200 feet shall be provided for any multifamily development of over 50 dwelling units, and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested that the ZBA authorize the second access point as originally granted in the approved 1986 site plan for the completion of the project known as Rondout Hills which will be limited to emergency ingress and egress only, and
WHEREAS, the ZBA has made site visits and consulted with the Town of Esopus Highway Superintendent and Town of Esopus Planning Board members, and has heard from the members and officers of the Rondout Hills Homeowners Association, the Developer, and its engineers supporting the said application which has been reviewed by the Town of Esopus Building Inspector, Town Fire Commissioner, and Town Planner indicating that the proposed location of the second access for emergency ingress and egress is satisfactory to them, and
WHEREAS, the ZBA held a public hearing thereafter,
NOW THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Town of Esopus Zoning Board of Appeals grants a variance to limit the second access roadway to an emergency ingress and egress subject to such further conditions and requirements as that the Town of Esopus Planning Board may deem appropriate in connection with the further subdivision and site plan approval of the project permit, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that such conditions shall include at least the following:
FURTHER RESOLVED, that said variance for the ingress and egress by avoiding possible and unnecessary hazardous entrances and/or exits onto Connelly road was deemed to be in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood and public by limiting the use of the existing road to emergency access and imposes no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or community,
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the variance will have no adverse effects on impacts on the physical conditions in the neighborhood and that the hardship was not created by the applicant, but rather as a response to express a desire to limit a potential hazard which was not fully perceived when the project was approved in 1986.
Discussion: Guido wanted it clarified that the access road not be blocked off and that it should be built as any standard two-lane road to town standards with maintenance equal to or better than the other neighboring roads. Graff repeated the requirements of an unlocked chain with signage and seasonal maintenance. Wick said he didn’t like seasonal maintenance and wanted the MOTION to include year round maintenance with snow removal. Charuk questioned the statement regarding environmental standards in the prepared MOTION. She didn’t feel that was within the ZBA code requirements. Guido remarked that the Planning Board had the right to put in additional requirements.
Wenzel voted in favor of the motion with the stipulations to maintain the road and said he felt that it should have been an emergency access from the beginning.
Charuk voted in favor stating that a second access was needed as long as it meets the stipulated conditions and is used as an emergency access only
Guido was in favor of a second access road and felt it was necessary as long as it is maintained in the same condition as the other roads
Cole voted in favor of the second access road being for emergency use only
DeKoskie was in favor for the reasons previously stated
Wick was in favor with the clarification that emergency use only is not restricted to emergency vehicles only and can be used by residents if necessary.
All present in favor. One absent.
Chairman Cole asked Graff to get him a copy of the MOTION so he could get it to the Building Inspector tomorrow.
MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD WENZEL AND SECONDED BY KARL WICK TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO THE APPLICANT FOR AN EIGHT FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE LITTLE LEAGUE ROAD SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. All present in favor.
Wenzel was in favor of the variance. He said that the pictures presented showed a precedent.
Charuk voted in favor and said the garage would be consistent with the characteristics of the neighborhood.
Guido was in favor because it didn’t change the characteristics of the neighborhood or interfere with any of the neighbors on a limited use road.
Cole agreed and said it fits with the characteristics of the neighborhood.
DeKoskie said the proposal conforms to the characteristics of the neighborhood.
Wick voted in favor. He didn’t feel that this was a substantial variance and will not change the characteristics of the neighborhood.
Chairman Cole said that Rob Hare’s term is up on December 31st and asked the Board for a recommendation on his reappointment. He asked Rob if he was interested in coming back on the Board and he said he was. Cole directed the secretary to write a letter to the Town Board recommending that Rob Hare is reappointed to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUIDO AND SECONDED BY CATHERINE CHARUK THAT ROB HARE IS RE-APPOINTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR ANOTHER TERM. All present in favor.
Chairman Cole asked who the Board wanted to be appointed as Chairman. The Board agreed he should be re-appointed. Cole also informed them that there may be a new member placed on the ZBA.
MOTION TO ADJOURN WAS MADE BY JOSEPH GUIDO AND SECONDED BY KARL WICK. All present in favor.
Respectfully submitted by Laura Petit, Interim ZBA Secretary