Minutes of the November 21, 2006


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


Interim Secretary, Laura Petit, did the roll call.   
PRESENT: Don Cole, Chairman; Joseph Guido; Rob Hare; Darin DeKoskie; Karl Wick

ABSENT:  Richard Wenzel; Catherine Charuk


A correction to the September 2006 minutes was made by Karl Wick on page seven; paragraph three in the motion from “…right-of-ways” to rights-of way.   


A correction to the October minutes was made by Joe Guido to the decisional meeting MOTION for Citivision.  He said it should read that the application was approved to (add) use Building units numbers 2 & 4 pending re-inspection by the Building Department. 

The second correction was in the second decisional meeting MOTION for Citivision.  Joe Guido recommended that the MOTION read…” that a site plan approval is needed and that the site plan approval only pertains to those buildings involved in the move.”



(The vouchers for legal ad advertising were not available for review.  Chairman Cole asked the Board for authorization to sign them when the bills and voucher came in.   The Board agreed.)


  1. Port Ewen Housing, LLC

Cole called on the representative for Port Ewen Housing, LLC to provide information on the application.  Don Snyder, Senior Engineering Consultant for Northern Engineers stated that he had discussions with the Planning Board regarding the rights-of-way to Salem Street and whether a fifty foot wide road was required for a flag lot.  The application submitted to the ZBA is seeking a variance to allow a thirty-five foot driveway instead of a fifty foot driveway.  He included with the application a letter from the Ulster County Highway and Bridges Department giving their okay for a single family driveway coming out from that location onto Salem Street – flag lot number 28. Mr. Snyder said he thought going before the Planning Board would be sufficient to allow an entryway, but the issue was raised again at a later meeting.  That is why the applicant is before the ZBA now seeking a variance to allow a thirty-five foot access instead of a fifty foot one.  When he met with the Ulster County Highway department, the adjoining property owner mentioned that in her discussions with Mr. Spinnenweber, the idea had been to have an entry on that flag lot going onto Salem Street.  If the property was not involved with a sub-division, the applicant would be allowed to put a single family driveway exiting out onto Salem Street without coming before the ZBA.

Mr. Snyder said he had stopped by the Building Inspector’s office to drop off a courtesy copy of the entire application, and the Building Inspector remarked that there were two variances needed. He had reviewed the prior applications, and because Lot number 28 was considered a flag lot, there is a fifty foot requirement for an entry way.  Additionally, there is a bulk requirement for this lot that goes from 1,250 square feet to one and half times the footage of the lot which cannot include the flag lot.  Chairman Cole asked if he meant 12,000 feet.  Mr. Snyder corrected his statement.  He said that after this discussion, the Building Department concluded that a variance should also be sought for Lot 27. 

The design required by the Planning Board was for structures that would “marry itself” to the surrounding neighborhood.  The plan includes small single family homes on small lots.  Each one is designed to meet the topography, especially the units on Lots 27 and 28.  It is a cul-de-sac, and all of the drainage and communications runs along the shared driveway that exits on Salem Street.  The original request by the applicant for three units on one lot was denied, and two units will be approved.

Mr. Snyder said that the Town Highway Superintendent approved a single family driveway from Lot 27 coming out onto Park Lane.  One stipulation was that the existing entry onto Park Lane could service only one single family home.  The Town Highway Superintendent pointed out that there was an existing curb cut on the property existing onto Park lane.
Guido asked if situation was self-created.  Mr. Snyder said yes, because the applicant was sub-dividing the lot.   The flag lot already existed.  Guido remarked that the reason for including the flag lot was to get one more house into the development.  Mr. Snyder said that the developer was looking to maximize the number of single family resident homes he could build in the development.  The applicant started with twenty-nine homes and is now down to twenty-seven. 

Cole asked for clarification on what the applicant was asking for.  Mr. Snyder said he was asking for two variances.  One variance for a thirty-five foot instead of fifty foot driveway onto Salem street, and one for a variance from the one and a half times requirement on Lot 28.  And on Lot 27, the applicant was asking for one variance in regard to the size.

Wick asked what the square footage was for Lot 27.  Mr. Snyder said the square footage was about 15,750 square feet.

Hare asked what the footage was on Lot 28.  Mr. Snyder said it was about 18,750 square feet.

Michael North, Northern Engineers, said the Town ordinance does not require counting the portion of the flag lot referred to as the pole area.  Both lots without including the point on the flag lot are approximately 16,000 square feet each.  DeKoskie remarked that he didn’t see any storm water plans.  Mr. Snyder said that drainage is an issue on the property, and the storm water design is already part of the discussions with the Planning Board.  He hopes to get a sketch plan approval by the next time he appears before the Board.  Wick asked for the Metes and Bounds description to be brought to the next meeting for Lots 27 and 28 so he can see exactly what the square footage is.  DeKoskie asked for a table of the bulk regulations for the next meeting.

Chairman Cole informed the applicant that the next meeting is on December 19th, 2006 at 7:30pm.

Markle, Charles and Karen

Cole called on the Markles to provide information to the Board on their application.  Mr. Markle explained he was seeking a variance to build a two car garage roughly 24’ X 24” feet in size, and needed a variance for a side yard set back from fifteen feet to seven feet.  Chairman Cole said the application had eight feet not seven. Mrs. Markle said it was eight feet on one side and seven on other. Chairman Cole said that if the garage was   attached to the house, it would decrease the setback an extra five feet, and the applicant wouldn’t need a variance.  He checked with the Building Inspector and there is another house in the neighborhood with a structure twelve feet from the property line.  Guido explained that because a precedent has been set for a twelve foot setback in that neighborhood, Mr. Markle would not need a variance. Mr. Markle said there was a house across the street from him with a similar design to his proposed building that also set a precedent.  He wanted to move ahead with the application for a side yard set back variance.

Cole asked the Markles to make more copies of the site plan proposal for Board review at the public hearing in December.  Hare asked where access to the garage would be. Mr. Markle said it would come in from Roger Street.  Guido asked if there was a driveway there now.  Mr. Markle said yes.  Guido said that the driveway would have to be widened. Chairman Cole asked Mr. Markle to bring in more information for the Board members that weren’t present.  Mr. Markle said he had pictures of his property and the neighboring property with a similar design. 

Guido asked for clarification of which side of the property the eight foot set back would be, and where the neighboring property owner was that had set the precedent.   Mrs. Markle said the neighbor was across the street and only had a five to six foot set back.  Guido asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to twenty feet.  Mrs. Markle didn’t think it could since it was a two-car garage. Guido asked for copies of pictures of their property including the other house across the street, and measurements of the Markle property.  He said a survey map would be ideal.

Chairman Cole informed the applicants that the next meeting is on December 19th, 2006 at 7:30pm.


-    Rondout Hills, LLC

Cole opened the public hearing for Rondout Hills, LLC. and asked if anyone had public comment.

Mr. Alan Dunefsky, 56 Rondout Hills said after eighteen years there is light at the end of the tunnel for getting the project finished.  He stated that Section D’s cul-de-sac where the chain will be for emergency vehicles has a steep topography.  He is concerned about access for snow plows and emergency vehicles that he doesn’t think could make it up the hill in the winter.

Mr. Wayne Stopczynski, 58 Rondout Hills was concerned about safety when there is only one primary access road that is bordered by rocks and trees which have fallen twice this year already.  He said there was a fire on site once, and the buildings house many older residents.  In the event that the one existing road was blocked in an emergency situation, the residents would have no other means of access or exit.

Chris Zell, Brinier and Larios, said the plans were for an emergency access only.  He suggested a retaining wall for the area with falling rocks.  Guido said his concern was having an emergency access instead of a full access road.  If it is suitable for an emergency road, why can’t it be a full access road. Wayne Graff, Rondout legal Hills representative, said it could be but the preference was for an emergency access due to site distance visibility.  He said that cars turning left and right could not see over the crown in the road.  Blasting out the embankment was not a viable solution, and the developer would loose a building if they were required to create a road with a switchback. It was really not a suitable full access road.  The Building Department indicated that it’s a go and they will sign off on it.  Guido said that the Building Department would sign off on it once it was approved by the Board.

Guido said he was on site, and it was like a giant ant hill.  He didn’t see where one access road with an emergency road would be safer than having two roads.  He said one fire truck on the single existing primary road would block all other access.  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.  He said the emergency road was gravel and would allow passage of vehicles.  Guido reminded Graff that with the building of more units, there would be more traffic.  He asked how many more units were planned.  Graff said there were 41 buildings in Section B, and would increase to 70-75 units.  He said that code enforcement officer suggested putting in a loop road past Section B.  He said the reason for a second access road is that it is required for emergencies in a development with over fifty units.  The emergency access only road was approved unanimously by the Homeowners Association back in 1986.  He asked the ZBA just review the decisional request and allow the Planning Board to make any other changes or added requirements to the proposal.  The purpose of this hearing was to determine if an emergency access road would be allowed.

Wick asked if the cost difference would be much more for a full access road compared to an emergency access road.  His concern was getting larger vehicles, such as a ladder truck, on site in the event of an emergency.  Graff said that the way it was presented in the original plans, it would allow emergency vehicles to enter the property including fire trucks with an emergency access only road.  He said that developing a road built to highway standards would cause an environmental impact with cost increases, and would be of no benefit because the remaining issue is vehicles making left hand turns.  Wick suggested that the road be posted with a “right-hand turn only” sign.  Graff said a right hand turn only would be an option.  It would be up to the Planning Board whether they wanted a right hand turn only into the development, or right hand turn only out of the development, or a full egress and ingress.

Chairman Cole said he would like to see a road that was suitable to take any traffic in or out.  Wick said he would too. Cole recommended that the Building Department and Highway Department oversee what is going on.  He recalls that Art Cross, previous Highway Superintendent, was responsible for researching how that road could be made accessible in and out.  The Chairman said the previous Building Inspector, Peter Ungerland, designed that road to put it into a condition that was safe.  He added that as far as Connelly Road is concerned, you would think it was a speedway from previous comments about turning and crowns.  He lives next door to the road and doesn’t see it being a big problem with traffic.  He did agree that health, safety, and welfare is the most important part of public decisions and that if vehicles followed the rules, it wouldn’t be an issue. Wick asked what the speed limit was.  Hare thought it was 35mph. 

DeKoskie asked if the applicant had considered improvements to Connelly Road. Graff said that they had met with the highway department and it was not possible to lower the crest in the road to allow for more visibility.  Cole reminded him that there was sewer and water going through the road.   Graff added that there were also power lines.  He said that there was a suggestion to raise the road up to the crest to make it safer.  He said the other idea was to design a divider at the main entrance to move traffic over for more visibility.  DeKoskie asked if there were discussions to improve the emergency access road then.  Graff said yes. If that didn’t work, then there was talk about adding base fill.  Hare asked if the base fill was for the access road onto Connelly Road or the emergency access. Graff said the suggestion to add fill was for the primary access road onto Connelly Road. He said that there was continued discussion on primary access safety and much more should be done.  DeKoskie thought that the curb would have to be cut down to improve site distance in addition to fill.  He felt this would mean a re-alignment by doing a cut, fill, and repaving for a two-way egress and ingress.  Mr. Zell didn’t think the site distance would be substantially changed.

Joe Westman, President HOA said the association had voted unanimously on the presented plans.  He said major safety issues in Section B and Section D were addressed.  Much of the traffic would come out the main entrance anyway. There were only two buildings with six units in Section B that may use the emergency access.  It is an unpaved road with a chain across it.  All homeowners have the combination to the lock so they can get out.  The HOA continuously provides homeowners with the information in their monthly minutes.

Guido said all of the other things Mr. Westman commented on should be done anyway regardless of whether it is a full access or emergency access road.  Graff said that the Planning Board does not want it as an access.  If they don’t approve it as a full access, and the ZBA doesn’t approve an emergency access then they are stuck short of litigation.  Chairman Cole asked what the Planning Board’s reason was for not making it a full access road.  Graff said that the Planning Board believes that it would not be a safe egress or ingress at that location.  Chairman Cole said if it was properly built it would be. Graff presented the first plan which the Town and Fire Commission were happy with.  The Planning Board wants to see it as an emergency access only.  Chairman Cole said that was not the original reason.  The original reason was that they were going to build more houses, and the health, safety, and welfare of the residents was a concern. 

Graff said that to meet requirements for emergency vehicles, the road would be upgraded.  Chris Zell said if the Board would consider a right ingress and right egress only.  He felt that would be the middle ground to move the process, and would give emergency vehicles access.  Cole said the rise in the road has been there since day one when the units were first built. Zell said the only description would be that ordinary passenger vehicles could make a right hand turn only.  DeKoskie remarked that there are standards for Town roads that still need to be met. Wick thought it would be an advantage to get a copy of the original Planning Board minutes where this project was approved, and any current minutes before a decision is made.  Cole thought the Building Department would have them too.  Graff said it wasn’t finished until 2004 or 2005. The original proposal was through another developer.  Chairman Cole asked if that was Kennedy Funding.  
Graff said it was Kennedy Funding through Victoria Ventures.  Chairman Cole said more background information and previous discussions on the project has to be researched.

Leo Maurie a seven year Hills resident said his issue was that an emergency road as it currently exists cannot be used for ingress and egress.  He said unless major improvements were done, there was no way that Al Larkin would approve the road.  He said it is equivalent to the suggestion of having an “S” road which the fire department opposed because of the difficulty it would pose to access with emergency vehicles.  He said it was determined by the engineers that only six homes would use the emergency access road anyway.  If another road was created or a loop, it would still pose a problem for residents in that section if the main road was blocked off.  Guido said that was only if the main road was blocked off.

Maurie felt that access onto Connelly road was equivalent to the Indianapolis Speedway.  He barely has enough time to pull out when cars come flying up the road.  He said that further improvements to another access road would not be approved by Al Larkin. Chairman Cole said he would speak to both Art Cross and Al Larkin.

Joe Westman said that in 2001 when there was a unit fire, he was unable to enter the development.  He said he tried to walk from Sunset by cutting through adjoining properties and still couldn’t get access to his home.  Chairman Cole said that is why the Board is interested it getting proper access.  Westman said if there are multiple emergencies, then the second vehicle responding would not have access. Mr. Zell said the road would be paved and improved as if it was a regular road but planned to use it as an emergency access road only.  Chairman Cole asked if it was because the developer didn’t want to invest the money to bring it up to highway standards.  He thought that the reason the road is not used is because it is inaccessible even with his four-wheel drive. Zell said it was an issue of site distance and traffic speed.  Chairman Cole said the speed limit should be lowered if that was the concern, and vehicles should obey the law.  Guido said to Zell if he was the engineer in charge of building the road, that he should be responsible for building the road to highway standards.


Chairman Cole informed the applicants that the next meeting is on December 19th, 2006 at 7:30pm.

  1. Schaeffer, Phillip

Chairman Cole called on the applicant to present information.  Mr. Schaeffer presented the deed and noted other homes that didn’t meet setback requirements.  Hare asked for clarification on whether Schaeffer’s home had the red tin roof and was overlooking the river.  Mr. Schaeffer pointed out the house on the map.  Chairman Cole remarked that it was a rough piece of ground. Mr. Schaeffer agreed and said he planned on using fill before putting in the foundation.  Hare asked if he was planning on selling the property.  Mr. Schaeffer said yes.  Chairman Cole reminded him that the last time he was before the Board, he answered no to that question, and said it was for his mother-in-law.  Guido asked which part of the building he planned on moving.  Mr. Schaeffer said it was the part on the right facing the river.  Chairman Cole said that the lot sits lower down from Parsell, and has a steep drop. 

Chairman Cole asked how many square feet the applicant planned on moving.  Mr. Schaeffer said 896 square feet. He was looking for tax relief of approximately 25-30% by decreasing the size of the existing house.  Guido said if he developed another lot, it would still present the same tax problem.  Mr. Schaeffer said not if he sold it after.  Guido asked if the existing home was a two family or a one family with an addition.  Mr. Schaeffer said it was a one family with an addition.  He planned to either rent or sell.  Chairman Cole noted there was an even smaller lot (45 feet) that was developed.  DeKoskie asked if the Planning Board had reviewed the application.

Hare asked if there was water and sewer to this property.  Mr. Schaeffer said yes.  Chairman Cole asked what size the building was.  Mr. Schaeffer said it was the 32 X 28’ addition that he planned on moving to the other property.  Hare noted that the ZBA had to know exactly where the applicant planned to move the building and exactly where it would sit on the property before a variance could be approved.  The Board needed to know exactly how it would be sited. Mr. Schaeffer said it was ten feet from the front line.  Chairman Cole said it was a corner lot. Wick said it appeared to be a pre-existing lot.  Chairman Cole said it would need a variance on each side. 

Mr. Schaeffer said that since Parsell was less than fifty feet, the setback requirements would be different.  Guido asked if the request for a variance came from the building department and if the applicant submitted a map and site plan.  Chairman Cole said they would know more with a site plan and design.  Guido remarked that without that information the Board wouldn’t know what the Building Department wanted.  The applicant could go back to the Building Department and be denied again. Then he would be sent back to the ZBA for another variance.  The application should be more specific and have details on where the house would be built. Wick noted that the lot had two front yards.  Hare said the two front yards is not what matters, what matters is where the house is located on the property.

Bill Benson was concerned that the new house would block his view of the river.  Chairman Cole said the design would need a height noted on it too.  Guido said a river view was not part of the variance requirements.  Hare asked if his house was on Third Avenue and if it was a one or two story.  Mr. Schaeffer  said it would be a one story.  Guido suggested that the public hearing be kept open so more information could be presented.


 Blue Stone, Inc

Cole asked for any public comment on Blue Stone’s application.  Don Snyder, Senior Consultant, appearing as authorized agent for Andrew Wright of Blue Stone Realty, said that the plans were revised as requested by the Board to show various setbacks. Tim Allred asked if these were the same plans presented last month, and if they were not, could the public have more time to review them.  Chairman Cole said that if there was a decision, it wouldn’t be made until next month’s meeting. 

Mr. Snyder said that he would was prepared tonight to present the project with revisions but he didn’t bring any extra copies.  Guido asked what variances the applicant would be looking for with the revisions.  Mr. Snyder said that with the revisions there would be a building variance and a parking variance.  Chairman Cole asked on clarification of the building variance.  Mr. Snyder said it would be for a Dunkin Donuts and a Dollar General. Chairman Cole asked if the size of the buildings were reduced. Mr. Snyder said yes.  Chairman Cole then asked how many square feet on the lot did the applicant plan on covering with the two buildings.  Mr. Snyder pointed out that the buildings were down sized and relocated based on the advice of the Board.  The twenty foot set back would be maintained on the yard, and the developer consolidated the parking in that area with all eight spaces in the back.  Everything was taken out of the rights-of-way.  Chairman Cole asked how many square feet the developer planned on covering in total land space.  Mr. Snyder said 11,265 feet for one building, and 2,000 square feet for the small building.  Chairman Cole said he was trying to come up with a percentage of use of the property.  He also said that after a site visit, he was concern about what was going to be done with the right-of-way.  Would that be maintained by the developer or the property owner.  Mr. Snyder said it was his understanding that the road coming out of 9W would be paved and that the road would be re-graded and re-graveled.  It would also require a maintenance agreement and there is none existing now between the adjoining property owners now.  Chairman Cole said that the existing road is almost impassible.  Hare said that he had made it through. Chairman Cole said that he had made it through too, but it was a very bad road.  He was concerned about access by emergency vehicles. 

Chairman Cole reminded Mr. Snyder that the other major concern was drainage.  Mr. Snyder said he did confirm that the last two pages of the plans presented at the October meeting dealt with storm water controls.  Those controls were developed under the 100-year flood concept.  Chairman Cole asked how this would tie in to the project.  Mr. Snyder said drains would go underground.  Chairman Cole said he knew it would go underground and come out on River Road, but once it was on River Road, how would it tie into the drains.  Mr. Snyder said he made a call to the Waterfront Advisory Board, who said they would make a recommendation.  Chairman Cole said they could make a recommendation, but how was the developer proposing to handle the storm water. Mr. Snyder said he called the Chairman of the WAB, and asked to get on their agenda this month.  Chairman Cole said he should be talking to the highway department because they are the ones that are involved in making sure the drainage is taken care of properly.  Mr. Snyder said he would like to get a general reaction to the revised plans to see if the developers were going in the right direction.

Guido said there is still the issue of unloading trucks. Mr. Snyder said it would be at the building down at the bottom. Guido asked if it would all be done at one building. Mr. Snyder said all the unloading would be done in the back.  Chairman Cole asked if he had an estimate of square footage yet.  Mr. Snyder said he didn’t know if the final square footage was worked out yet.  DeKoskie asked for the square footage, and for the Table of Bulk regulations.

 Chairman Cole said that the new drawing presented was not as big of a problem with the vehicles routed around the way they were now proposed.  He said part of the lot could be accessed from 9W.  Mr. Snyder said that there were some retaining walls that would be needed.  Chairman Cole said that the property grades down twenty feet from the front to the back and is quite steep.  Guido asked if this application was before the Planning Board.  He said he didn’t want it to be kick back later, if the Planning Board had other issues.

DeKoskie said that the loading docks in the rear would present an access problem to the cottages in the back.  It looked like there was only a ten foot roadway.  Hare said it was about a thirty-five foot drop and would need a serious retaining wall.

Phillip Schaeffer spoke for Ray Navarro who could not be present.  He said Mr. Navarro’s first concern was that there is no drainage problem because there are dirt and trees there now.  Once the area is paved, it will cause a drainage problem with run off.  His second concern is the buffer zone which would encroach on his property and that there is little room for the proposed loading and unloading of trucks.

Bob Dederick of River Road said his house is down hill from the site.  The worst thing to put on this lot is a Dunkin Donuts shop for southbound traffic to turn left.  Chairman Cole thought that there was a third lane planned by the County.  Guido suggested that the applicant contact the DOT because he would need approvals for curb cuts anyway.

DeKoskie questioned the underground drainage plans.  He asked what type of system would be used and what types of units would be used.  Mr. Snyder said that they were specified on the plan for filtration etc. DeKoskie felt that this project required soil testing.  Mr. Snyder said that perk testing relating to drainage issues was done and the engineers took those findings to do the calculations which complies with the 100-year plan.  DeKoskie said he would like to review the results from the perk tests.  Chairman Cole asked if it was clay soil.  DeKoskie remarked that would be part of the soil and water testing.  Chairman Cole said he wanted to know now so he could consider the impact.  He said that if it was clay, woods or no woods, it still wouldn’t drain off any better once  black top was put in. DeKoskie said that if it was clay, it would be a drainage filtration maintenance nightmare.  If it was sand, it wouldn’t be as bad.  DeKoskie said that any soil information would be useful.   He was concerned about the cabins, and asked about the grade in the back of the site.  He asked if the cabins were eight to ten feet below the proposed parking lot.  Hare said it looked like the cabins were at least eight to ten feet below the parking lot.  DeKoskie reminded Mr. Snyder that the last time he presented information, he said that there would be underground tanks, and an outlet on the corner of the site.  He said this was a shallow flow, and asked where the discharge points would be.  Mr. Snyder said he would bring in clearer calculations and design for storm water issues from the engineers next time.  Hare asked if the drains would run off across Mr. Navarro’s property or would it have be diverted back out.  Mr. Snyder said it was all done through infiltration.  Chairman Cole asked if there was a sewer line to the cabins or septic.  Mr. Snyder didn’t know.  Chairman Cole  said it would have to be determined.  Schaeffer said that there was a sewer line with laterals.  Chairman Cole  said there was the sewer line brought in to the road but didn’t know if the cabins were tapped in.  DeKoskie said in that case, there should be concern about any wells. He also said that there was limited vegetation, and if it was removed to put in the loading area, then some sort of buffer should be built for the cabins.  Chairman Cole  said he would ask Don Kiernan about the sewer and water.  He was concerned about this issue.

Mr. Schaeffer asked if there was going to be a drive through.  He said the headlights would shine right through the windows of people living on the other side. He also remarked that the cabins were not up to occupancy code and that Mr. Navarro has been given building permits to double the size of each of them.  There may be children living there soon, and he was concerned about use of the right-of way and storm water run off.  Mr. Snyder said that the law prohibited increase of run off from a property due to development of a property and blacktopping. Guido said if Mr. Navarro is making improvements to the cabins, he will have to shoulder some of the responsibility too.  Mr. Snyder said the two principals needed to start talking to one other.  Schaeffer said that the two men had spoken before.  He also remarked about the three lane highway, new town hall, and how the cluster of traffic would impact the area. 

Tim Allred remarked that at the last meeting he had asked to be provided with information on square footage. He said that even though the revised plan had less square footage, he was just being presented with it tonight, and did not have enough time to review and comment on it. He questioned the fifty foot buffer that was supposed to have no building or parking.  Mr. Snyder remarked that the existing cabins were not compliant either.  Mr. Allred said as a lay person, he assumed that the cabins were grandfathered in.  Mr. Snyder said that the revised proposed plan uses less of the property but still require variances.  It is an otherwise undevelopable lot.  Mr. Allred said it was a significant variance that was double of what was allowed.  Chairman Cole said that is why he is asking for the square footage.  He is trying to determine the total usage of the lot.  Mr. Allred lives across the street from the proposed development and is interested in the building so he can respond to the impact.  He realizes that the developer should expect a reasonable return but doesn’t feel that this building would be appropriate to the neighborhood.  He said that even though it is a commercially zoned area, most of the buildings are residential and this building would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood.  He is also concerned about the traffic flow with a bottom sloping northbound lane and 45mph traffic.

Chairman Cole said more answers will be available at the next meeting.  Hare asked for a larger font copy of the proposal with the past and present design, and with the next proposal so he can see the changes. Guido also asked that the applicant contact DOT

Mercedes Ross of 292 Broadway commented on the proposed third lane and said it would not be a continual lane.

Debbie Silvestro 173 Broadway was curious to see what size the building is and the parking spaces.  She said the parking didn’t seem to fit the building needs.  Mr. Snyder said the standards would mean 59 spaces were needed.  Ms. Silvestro said she had articles on other Dollar General stores where there were violation issues due to fire and safety codes.  She wanted to know what guarantees the Town would have that this store would comply.  Mr. Snyder said he had no first hand knowledge of compliance issues.

Ann Gordon asked how the developers decided that Port Ewen needed a dollar store and why not put one further south.

Tim Allred asked if the larger building could be further reduced from three to one business.  Chairman Cole thought it was for two stores.  Mr. Snyder said he was trying to work with the developer and the Town to resolve any concerns.

Guido felt that a lot of the issues being raised that should be addressed by the Planning Board including lighting, parking and landscaping.  He said the Planning Board may want more parking.





                                                 ADJOURNED 9:30PM



The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 19, 2006

 Prepared by Interim Secretary Laura Petit