Minutes of the October 17th, 2006 Meeting

PRESENT:       Don Cole, Chairman; Richard Wenzel; Catherine Charuk; Rob Hare; Darin DeKoskie; Karl Wick


Chairman Don Cole called the meeting to order at 7:30pm


Interim Secretary, Laura Petit, did the roll call. All Zoning Board members present.


No MOTION was made to approve the September 19th, 2006 minutes.  The secretary was directed to re-type and resubmit the minutes at the October 17th, 2006 Board meeting.





  1. 09-19-06-01   Rondout Hills, LLC

Cole called for a representative of Rondout Hills to provide information.  No one to represent them was present.


  1. 10-08-06-01  Phillip Schaeffer

Cole called on Phillip Schaeffer to provide information to the Board as evidence to support his application.  Mr. Schaeffer stated that he had a residence in Sleightsburg and he wanted to move half of the house to an existing, non-conforming lot across the street that he also owned.  He said that he was doing this for tax purposes since he was considered to have a river view.  He said that placing the structure on this parcel wouldn’t meet the setback criteria.  Cole said he would like to see a drawing of the lot and where the house is going to go. Schaeffer said that he did submit a copy of a sketch plan with his application. Cole noted that the lot the applicant wanted to move half of his house to is an existing 50’ by 100’ lot.  Hare asked for floor plans.  Schaeffer said he had provided a plot plan. Hare said he wanted floor plans to see what the house itself would look like. Cole wanted to know if there were any other homes within 200’ feet of the proposed site.  Schaeffer said yes.  Guido asked for pictures, floor plans, where the house was going to be split, which section is going to the other parcel, where it is going to be set on the lot, and the boundaries on all four sides.  He also asked if the applicant planned on building on the old property after the house was split.  Schaeffer said he was trying to alleviate a tax burden.  Guido asked if it was a two family house now.  Schaeffer said it was not.  He said the new addition was built in 2001 and it was up on pilings.  Charuk asked if he planned on enlarging the building on the new site or if it would remain at 800 square feet.  Schaeffer said he would leave it the same size. Wick asked for the applicant to provide evidence of when the lot was created.

Cole informed Schaeffer that the next meeting was November 21st for a public hearing.

09-19-06-01   Rondout Hills, LLC

Cole recalled the applicant.  Warren Graff reminded the Board that at the last meeting he had presented a letter from the Fire Commissioners, Building Inspector and Highway Superintendent which they communicated that they would favor further development of the property with an emergency access only where it is currently located.  What was submitted since then was a letter received from the Planning Board Chairperson asking for a variance.  Rondout Hills is requesting an interpretation of the code that an increase in the number of units will require two accesses, or for a variance.  A letter was submitted to the Planning Board with an application.  Graff also included it in the ZBA application with a list of all condo owners.

Cole noted that the subdivision where the road is has been in existence since the original sub-division.  He knew that the road was approved when the sub-division was approved.  The only other action that he knew of was that some work had to be done on the road to make it safer to come in and out. Cole wondered why the applicant had to come back to the ZBA when it was already approved in the original sub-division.  Graff said that the Fire Department and Code Enforcement Officer did not want it used as a primary egress and ingress.  There are sight distance issues.  Cole said that the original variance must be getting changed.  Graff said the original application did not take into account a “bump” that limits visibility and a dangerous left turn that concerns the property owners.  Previous owners Kennedy Funding/Victoria Ventures, and engineers, Brinier and Larios, had come up with similar compromises to make this an emergency access only. Graff said they could pave and improve the access so drivers could see what is coming up the hill, and extend it all the way to the cul-de-sac so it is no longer land locked.  This way the residents would not be isolated from emergency assistance.  Guido remarked that the applicant was putting more buildings in and needed another access. Graff said the question would be if the road was to serve the convenience of the occupants or the emergency needs.  If it was for convenience, it would be an access that no one would use because it was not safe.  Guido said the road would have to be up to code.  Graff said that if it requires switch backs, it is not up to code, and felt that limiting use would make it safer.  Guido said that was supposed to be an approved general purpose road that would allow for the safety and well-being of the people living in there.  He stated that if it was not safe for cars to use safely, then how are emergency vehicles supposed to use it with the switch backs and turns?    Graff said what he meant was if a switch back was created, it would be safe.  It was drivable, but there is a blind curve, and not safe for normal use.  Cole asked where the new houses where going.  Graff said a unit would go next to the existing units, and the others would be built further up. Cole said the vehicles would have to travel further to get access then.  Charuk said that it should be constructed to “operating road standards.” Graff agreed, but it was a narrow, rough road that needed improvements including grading that would lead to a cul-de-sac.  Guido asked how a cul-de-sac could have an exit out of it?  Graff said it would be gated with either a chain or shrubs that could be easily crossed over.  Guido asked if it was gated, who would have access and who would have the keys?  Graff said what they have now is a combination lock that all homeowners have, and there is signage depicting emergency egress and ingress only.

Cole said he would like to do a site visit before the next meeting.  Guido asked if there was a road in there that was accessible.  Graff said he could gain access. Guido felt that there were two issues.  He said the fire department might be comfortable with access, but could the residents use the road. That is the whole purpose of having double lanes.  Charuk asked if there were more homes built, how would the access road satisfy the conditions for an emergency exit based on residential numbers. Graff assured her that it would be done right. 

Wick said that there were letters included in the application that the fire commissioners felt the road was sufficient.  He asked if Graff had spoken with them, and questioned the references in the letter that it was acceptable to state fire code.

Hare requested that a set of the original approved plans be brought to the next meeting.  Graff said he had three or four copies of them.  DeKoskie asked if there were any existing specific site plans, and would the applicant bring them in.  He also requested information on an alternate egress.

Graff said he would let property manager Chris Zell know that the Board would like to meet with him on site.


  1. 10-12-06-02 Bluestone Realty, LLC

Cole passed out a set of plans and asked the applicant to explain them.  Don Snyder, Senior Consultant, appearing as authorized agent for Andrew Wright of Bluestone Realty, LLC said that the plans to build a retail store required ROW setbacks.  He included the report from Shuster in September 26th that mentioned ten issues.    He felt this was a beneficial improvement to a vacant lot.  Charuk asked where the lot was on Route 9W.  Cole said it was next to the Port Ewen diner.  Snyder said it was next to what was known as Cabin Lane.  He pointed out two things on the map that where improved upon: one was the 50’ right-of-way line and the other was signage.  Snyder said there were storm water and drain control improvements also included in the application as recommended by Shuster.  He reviewed the deeds of the adjoining properties, and each property had a right-of-way in its deed for Cabin Lane.  He submitted a photograph overlay of the property, and remarked that Hudson Terrace actually ran along the right-of-way for the rear properties.  Everyone on the back of the lot has access to Cabin Lane.  Snyder said that Item B-4 regarding open parking spaces having a ten foot setback, it was noted that there is already non-compliant usage inside the fifty foot setback by the cabins.  The property is further encumbered by being on the boundary line of the R4 district.  Snyder said that the large retail building would completely encroach the property.  He stated that if all of the setback regulations were adhered to, then this property would be virtually undevelopable. The development would be an improvement, and the variance would be for a variety of setbacks.  Snyder informed the Board that Mr. Wright has just spoken with Mr. Navarro about coming before the ZBA with an application.  Mr. Navarro was concerned, because he wanted to keep what he has as far as usage and access for his tenants.  Snyder said that a proposal had been presented to Mr. Navarro.  Charuk asked in what sense would the property be improved.  Snyder said it would be the roadway which would be graded and newly graveled.  Charuk asked why this access had to be used.  Snyder said it would maximize off-street parking, provide for a service utility, and would allow for service deliveries.
Guido asked how many retail shops would be on site.  Snyder said one shop.  There is a proposed Dunkin Donuts and one Dollar General store.   Charuk asked if there was going to be one Dollar General store or a Dollar General store and one retail shop.  Snyder said it was his understanding that there would be two operations.  Guido asked if he knew what the plans were for 9W as far as customers getting in and out of the property.  Snyder said it was his understanding that site distances were adequate.  Guido asked about the referrals from the Planning Board.  Snyder said the items in the Shuster report were cited by the Planning Board.  Guido told Mr. Snyder that the ZBA needed a referral from the Planning Board.  Wick noted that there was a notice of disapproval but no referral.  Snyder said that since there were other issues, he did not do it.  Guido said that was a good move on Bluestone’s part, but they needed to get a referral from the Planning Board.  He also asked about the location of the proposed building on the property.  Snyder said it allowed for a good flow of traffic and unimpeded use by service vehicles.  Cole asked if the access to the rear of the building was necesary.  Snyder said if the building was repositioned then it would not allow delivery access to the rear of the building.  Guido noted that parking spaces where located in the front of the building and asked if it was a violation of the fire code.  Snyder said he would look into it.

Snyder commented on the strict regulations for storm water control and said that the additional C2 and 4 plans included an eleven page document detailing actions that will comply with the one hundred year storm conditions.  DeKoskie asked what was being done with the diverted storm water.  Snyder said there would be underground tanks with filtration.  DeKoskie asked where they would be put underground and where the discharge points would be.  Snyder said without the plans in front of him, he couldn’t answer the question but thought they would be in the back.  Cole remarked that there is no room in the back of the property for discharge and there are woods.   Snyder said that there would be catch basin.  Cole said additional storm water would add to an already existing water problem in the town.

A neighboring resident (Maryanne) was concerned about the location of the store and that kids would be in the area waiting for buses.  She felt it was a safety concern.  Guido told her that this was an informational meeting, and the public hearing would be held in November.

Phillip Schaeffer had three comments on behalf of a neighboring property owner: (1) He asked about the total size of the proposed development covering 80% of the property when most commercial buildings were 20%; (2) remarked that the setback should be 150’ from the lot line and may cause a dangerous situation for the residents in the back; and (3) questioned the placement of dumpsters and a loading dock in the rear of the building.  Snyder said that there is a total usage of the property.  It was the developer’s intent to provide a low to middle income General store that is not available in the area, and a Dunkin Donuts.  Schaeffer was asked who would maintain the right-of-way since it would be used by service vehicles.  He said the developer would. Guido asked if the plan submitted was the same one presented to the Building Department. Cole said it was, and suggested that driving behind the store is limited. Guido asked that a sketch plan with the location of the loading docks and dumpsters, and a breakdown of the other shops including wall positions be provided at the next meeting.  Wenzel was also concerned about the placement of the dumpsters.  Cole said there were no elevations noted for the loading docks and said it could be a back door.  He agreed that a better layout of the proposed building was needed.  Hare said he would like to see existing property lines and other property owners’ lots such as Mr. Navarro’s.  Cole pointed out Navarro’s lot and the Port Ewen Diner on the map that was included with the application.  Snyder told Hare that the existing property owners’ names were submitted with the application.  There were two sheets.  DeKoskie asked about the survey work that was just done on the property and if it was included.  Snyder asked if he wanted to see a representation of adjoining property owners.

Tim Allred, 294 Broadway said he would look out of his window at a drive thru.  He felt that this was a self-imposed financial hardship and that the developer should have looked at things before buying the property.  He questioned what else could have been built.  Snyder said it was a very small property.  Allred remarked that very small is not a technical term, and it was the developers choice to purchase a piece of property that needed variances before it could be developed. He agreed it was a very small lot and couldn’t just a Dunkin Donuts be put on the property without all of the encumbrances and setbacks.  Allred also didn’t feel that Snyder was answering the question.  Snyder said that there could be a “reduced” alternative.  Allred said as part of this process, what would be the alternative.  For instance only one building without claiming a hardship.   He reminded Mr. Snyder that a hardship is for a tax payer with an undue burden, not a developer who wants variances to build. Guido agreed that it was for a reasonable return on the property.  He added that the reason for granting variances was to address the impact on the character of the neighborhood, the effect on the neighborhood, and degree of impacts.  Wick asked when the property was purchased.  Snyder thought it was within the last year.


  1. 08-15-06-01 Citivision, Inc

Cole reminded the Board that the public hearing was still open.  Guido had wanted to remind Cole that he was to contact Mark Rieker to confirm that the building plans were filed.  Cole said he had contacted him and he remembers that there were permits.  Guido said that Mark Rieker had signed a statement that there were new plans added in, and he wanted to know if the new plans were on file.  Cole answered that the plans that did exist, did not exist now.  There was a revised plan that was supposed to be filed for work done on the property.  Guido asked Pisani if he had any records of the revised plan.  Pisani presented a plan and stated that it was a copy of the exact plan on file in the Building Department.  He added that someone had written on the plans “not to be constructed.” Pisani questioned where the plans were that eliminated the hand writing and felt that they should be in the Building Department.  Guido asked if he had plans without the writing on it. Pisani said he did have copies with the living quarters that Mr. Rieker confirmed with his affidavit. 

Charuk asked if the proposed new living quarter plans with the pencil marks were the ones on file with the Building Department? Pisani said yes, the only copies on file have pencil marks. Guido asked if it was residence or living quarters.  Pisani said it was for staff residence, yes.  Pisani added that the living quarters were inspected by the Building Department which was also verified by the affidavit, and now for some reason, the plans on file in the Building Department are missing.  Wick asked for clarification on whether the quarters are for staff, and not for the children.  Pisani said yes, they were living quarters for the staff.  Guido stated that there was no “co” on it yet. 

Pisani said there are two applications before the ZBA.  One is to take the existing beds and put them in the towers. The other application, or appeal, is to get a “co” on the buildings.  He submitted a copy of the 1998 site plan review given to the Planning Board which preceded the Zoning Board meeting, and included the stockade and Wild, Wild West in the plans.  Guido said the ZBA knew it was there but was excluding it at the time because this is a separate issue. Pisani said it’s not a separate issue for Citivision because it was submitted, and he didn’t feel there was any reason to do another site plan review with the Planning Board.  He also showed the Board a proposed application to the State to formally recognize the CB Fellowship church which would have all assets from Citivision transferred over to it.  Guido asked how that had any bearing on the present proceedings.  Pisani said it was to clear up any question of future use of the property by a religious organization. He said the deed would be filed this week with the County Clerk’s Office. Cole said that would entitle them to certain considerations and concessions.

Pisani said the upgrades planned would include sound proofing and enclosing buildings by the wintertime so it would eliminate any noise complaints.  He apologized to the neighbors for any inconveniences, and said it has been better than in previous years.  Cole asked what time the camp closed at night. Pisani said that it closed at ten o’clock.  Cole felt that the Board should consider letting the camp move the beds from the teepees and wagons to an enclosed area where they could be monitored better.  Pisani agreed that it would help supervision and control.  Cole said the second factor is health and safety of the kids by having better control over them.  He felt it would be beneficial to grant the application to move the sleeping quarters to keep the kids inside.  Pisani agreed. Cole said he had spoken to the Building Inspector about it, and he felt it was a smart move too.  He polled the Board.  Wick said he would like to speak to the Building Inspector himself rather than go on hearsay.  Cole said he talked to Mark Rieker but also spoke to Tim Keefe who also agreed since it is before him now.  Wick said if the sleeping quarters were approved in the original plan then he didn’t have a problem with moving ahead with the application. His concern was whether they were approved at all.  Cole reminded him that it was before the ZBA when he, Wick, and Guido were on the Board back in 1998.  Pisani said not only were the plans filed, but the Building Department supervised them during every phase of construction.  Wick said that from previous experience, Mark Rieker has been wrong on occasion.  Pisani said that Rieker did recall the plans and that is why he signed an affidavit.  Wick responded that it bothered him that a true copy is not on file. Pisani said he has a copy of the plans, but they are not marked approved.  Cole said if an approval was given by the ZBA, then the Building Inspector would have to go there to do an inspection.  Guido said his feeling was it was a change of use of the building not the property.  With a change of use of the building, it would be safer, but it should go to the Planning Board for review.  Cole felt it should go to the Building Department not the Planning Board because they wouldn’t even go down and look at the site.  Pisani said Tim Keefe had looked at the Buildings and was okay with them, but did recommend a second exit.  Cole said all the ZBA should need is to hear from Keefe that the building is up to code.  Guido thought a site plan review should be done.  Cole said the problem is it would take another six months to get done because the Town Boards get hung up on opinions instead of facts. Pisani said a site plan review would require a complete new survey and would take another year.  Charuk disagreed that it would take that long.  Pisani said it was a fifty acre site with a previously approved plan for the stockade.  The new application did not change the previously approved use, just relocation of the living quarters.  It would just create another long delay.  Cole said if it was a brand new project, he would agree with a site plan review.  Guido felt it was part of due process.  Charuk said it shouldn’t take more than a few months.  Cole said it wouldn’t be cost effective.  Charuk didn’t feel that was relevant.

Pisani said that the kids are from special and religious groups coming upstate that use the facility and didn’t want to cause any delays.  DeKoskie asked if there were plans to increase the operations during the winter months.  Pisani said no.  Chairman Cole said never? Wenzel asked if these were seasonal units: towers one and three.  Pisani responded that one and three were now being used for camp activities.  Wenzel asked again if the towers were just seasonal; are they winterized?  The response was that one and three are the apartments and that two and four are year round.  Wenzel said so two and four are year round, and one and three are seasonal.  Pisani said that all four towers are year round; one and three each have two bedroom apartments.  Two and four have an upstairs that is open. Pisani added that staff occupies these units. 

Charuk thought it would be a good idea to do a site plan and have it all cleared up.  At least that way it would be clear and Citivision wouldn’t have to come back and say we want something here that used to be there. Pisani said that since Citivision has already been in front of the Planning Board, it would be redundant to go before them for use of the stockyard for the children camp.  He said it would just be a waste of time and dragging things out.  Nothing could be accomplished except a delay.  Charuk said that then Citivision could get the “co’s” on the apartments, and would have a site plan for any future projects.  Pisani said that it could be done here (at the ZBA); that’s why Citivision is here before the ZBA.  He repeated that the ZBA had the authority to do it.  That is why Citivision is before the ZBA.  Charuk disagreed and said Citivision is here because there is an error somewhere.  Pisani said the error can be corrected by the Zoning Board.  Charuk disagreed again and stated that she thought the problem was that all the information is not available and the ZBA is not sure what was approved.  Wick asked if the previous planning boards specifically approved sleeping quarters in any form.  Pisani said he didn’t think in 1998 that there were working drawings with the true concept.  They approved the concept eventually, because these plans were drawn in the year 2001. 

Chairman Cole asked the Board what they wanted to do.  Guido said he thought the Board should go through with change of use, but he still would like to see an amendment go though the Planning Board.  He didn’t feel it would take that long to go through the process.  If it did, it was a problem with the Planning Board. 


Ms. Ann Henderson said that whether Mr. Pisani liked it or not there was a special stipulation that was signed for Citivision to build the stockade.  She lives on the west side of Citivision.  She felt it was redundant and a waste of time to approve anything because Citivision is incapable of just playing by the rules, and do what they agree to do on a regular basis so there can be some sort of established trust.  She said that in terms of the noise, it is still bad.  They still amplify although they promised they wouldn’t. Often they go past ten, and then deny doing it.  She gets tired of them signing special stipulations agreeing that they will do site plans review for any changes, and then they don’t comply.  She said that when she put in an apartment, she had to go through six months of going back and forth between Boards, because she plays by the rules and lives in a community.  She felt as the closest neighbor, she got the bulk of it.  That is why she is at the ZBA meeting tonight, to provide a witness that they don’t comply.  Citivision needs to follow the rules of the community.

Pisani said that Citivision is not proposing that they should be exempt from any rules.  These plans were filed in accordance with the rules, they were approved by building officials in accordance with the rules, they were built in accordance with the rules of the building official (speaking of the living quarters) and that was done in accordance with the rules.  He said that with respect to the changing of beds from one end of the facility to the other, Citivision didn’t think it was necessary to go before the Planning Board to approve the concept.  Citivision has already gone before the Planning Board, and there is no increase usage.  It is just a matter of moving beds from one place and putting it in another place which is a mere technicality.  Pisani stated it (Citivision) has been before both Boards fifteen times over the past several years, therefore Citivision was not getting things approved after the fact.  That’s a mischaracterization of what is happening.  He added that it was not Citivision’s fault if the plans don’t exist in the Building Department because they were filed.  The Building official at the time signed a sworn statement that the plans were there.  Ms Henderson said she hears about the soccer field and other proposed projects which just exemplifies their attitude.  Guido told her she was straying from the issue.  Ms Henderson felt that frankly Catherine Charuk made a good point by saying Citivision could go through the site plan review procedure, and just clear it up. Then maybe they wouldn’t have to go through the Boards so often.  She added that as far as Citivision calling her about her complaints and apologizing promptly, they never have, and have even given her a wrong number. Cole asked where Ms. Henderson brought the complaints to. She said that she went to the police.  Cole asked what the police did.  Henderson said that they would show up and asked them to be quiet. But the noise would start up again as soon as the police left. A representative of Citivision said the accusations were not true.  Ms. Henderson asked him for his name.  He said that he was the Executive Director of Citivision.  Ms. Henderson said that he even gave her a wrong number.  Guido reminded both parties that all comments go through the Board.  Ms. Henderson said that the point was that Citivision never addressed her concerns directly.   Cole asked her how long she has lived near Citivision.  Ms. Henderson stated that she has lived there for seven years.

Pisani said that the issue of noise was addressed by the previous Director of Citivision.  The current Director said that Ms. Henderson had left one voice mail that he returned as soon as he heard the message.  He apologized for the noise and after that there were no further complaints.  He said there were never any police there.  Pisani reminded the Board that they were talking about this past year.

Ms. Henderson said that she was not a fan of bad rock and roll, and complained about the amplification of the music.  Pisani denied that there was any outside amplification whatsoever on the facility.  He did add that there was one night that a group did use an amplifier, and the staff went down immediately to stop it.  There is no equipment on the facility to provide for outside amplification.  It is against the rules.

Cole said that this is an issue, but not one that should come before the ZBA.  There are other avenues that can be used to rectify noise complaints.  He said that this is one of the reasons that the kids should get put inside rather than stay outside. He explained that cutting down on the noise in addition to other things that have to be done is like coming around the block and up the back stairs rather than working forward by going through the front door.  He said to do it in a straight forward way the kids should be put inside then the other issues can be worked through.  He agreed that other residents were making complaints about the noise complaints which could be rectified by moving the kids inside. Then if there was noise after ten o’clock, a complaint could be made. Ms. Henderson felt that ten o’clock was too late, and didn’t know where that time came from. She said she likes to go to bed early and get up early; ten o’clock is just too late. She added that in terms of compliance, the camp should not amplify anything.  She disagreed with Citivision’s statement that they don’t amplify the music. It just goes to the generally attitude that Citivision just does what they want to, and that’s the chief complaint that she has.  Citivision does not follow through with its promises, and they just try to weasel around things.  Cole said he didn’t like statements like that and told her not to use them in front of the Board anymore. 

Mr. Vincent Adinolfi said that he lived by the camp for sixty-four years.  He saw Citivision make numerous improvements to the property, and as far as the noise, he lives one hundred yards from the property.  He didn’t have any problem with noise, and never had a problem with noise.  He added that as far as neighbors, they are good neighbors.  He understood that the plans may have been misplaced because over the years there are thousands of pieces of paperwork going though the building department, but he didn’t understand how a building was erected if it wasn’t approved.  Someone had to tell Citivision that it was okay, and it wasn’t their fault if something happened to the paperwork.  He didn’t feel that there was a big problem, and it would be a bigger benefit to move the children to another building.

Pisani suggested that a variance be approved to move the children during the site plan review process rather than wait until the review is completed.  He felt it was urgent to relocate the children now even if approval to move the staff was not given yet. Guido said he didn’t have a problem with the living quarters, and that the documentation is there. He would put that in as a stipulation to the variance while the site plan review was being done.

Cole asked if there were any other comments from the Board.  Wick said if there wasn’t anymore evidence to be presented, then the Board should make a decision. Guido said he didn’t have a problem making a decision tonight.  Charuk agreed that she was ready to move ahead.  Cole closed the public hearing.


  1. Citivision, Inc.

Guido felt that there were two issues before the Board. The first is the certificate of occupancy on living quarters that are already occupied.  He said that Citivision has a statement from the Building Inspector at that time, and after an inspection by the current building inspector, if everything is okay, then a “co” should be granted. 



Wenzel said that pending approval by the Building Inspector and with the evidence presented that the previous Building Inspector had authorized use, he would approve the variance.

Charuk said she agreed with Wenzel’s statements and said that the pencil marks on the plan had nothing to do with the approval by the previous Inspector because, obviously, the plans were there.

Guido said that with the documentation from Mark Rieker and the plans in the building department, he would recommend that the application is approved pending inspection and re-certification of the buildings.

Cole said he was in favor for the same reasons.

DeKoskie said he was in favor based on the documentation of the building inspector at the time and would approve the application pending building department inspection.

Wick said he was also in favor for the previous stated reasons and there was a balance of the evidence presented.  He felt it was a very reasonable solution.

Six in favor.  Hare abstained.

Cole asked for the next MOTION.

Guido said that on the second issue regarding site plan approval, he would like to poll the Board.  Cole didn’t feel a site plan review was necessary because it would be a long, drawn out process.  Wick said he would like to see a site plan but could approve a motion to re-locate the children as long as Citivision proceeded with a site plan.  DeKoskie agreed that he could approve a move of the children from the teepees to the towers, as long as site plan review was done.  Wenzel agreed with DeKoskie that there should be a site plan.  Charuk agreed too.


Wenzel said that he approved with the conditions that were previously stated.

Charuk approved and felt that conditions were made for Citivision’s protection.

Guido approved based on the reasons stated and felt that it would protect the Board’s decision in case Citivision comes before the Board in the future.

Cole agreed and felt that it was the most sensible way to take care of the issue.  It would eliminate the long drawn out process.

DeKoskie was in favor based on the statements previously made.

Wick was in favor and felt that moving the children now would temporarily solve the problem while the site plan was being completed.
Six in favor.  Hare abstained.

Pisani asked for clarification on completion of a site plan.  Cole felt that Citivision should start right away by going before the Planning Board and begin making the provisions.  Guido said they would have to go before the Planning Board to address other issues.


  1. 06-20-06-01 LaBarbera

Cole said there was no representative from LaBarbera even though the applicant had let him know that he didn’t want to appear.



Wick agreed to deny the application because it did not meet all Zoning criteria.

DeKoskie in favor of denying the application and that it did not conform with the characteristics of the neighborhood.

Hare is in favor of denying the application because it did not meet any of the criteria for zoning and all the neighbors spoke against it.  It was a self-imposed hardship with a clear change in a residential district that would increase traffic in a spot that was already difficult.  Felt that the applicant did a terrible job of representing himself.

Cole agreed for the reasons previously stated.

Guido in favor of denying the application for the reasons stated.

Charuk agreed.

Wenzel in favor of denying the application.  Felt that the hardship was self imposed with too many objections from the neighbors.

All in favor.




Meeting adjourned 8:45pm

Next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals will be November 21, 2006