TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
May 20, 2003
Chairman Robert Hendrickson opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Assessor’ s Office at 339 Main Street, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Here
Leland Eaton, Here
Louis Muenkel, Here
Angelo Guiliano, Here
Denise Pitcher, Absent
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: A motion was made by Louis to accept the minutes and seconded by Angelo. The motion was accepted unanimouslyIII. CORRESPONDENCE:
A. Magazine - Towns & Topics, March/April 2003 This will be available in the Assessors Office for anyone to peruse.
B. Letter from Gardiner Zoning Board of Appeals 4/17/03 - Re: Revision of Application. Bob had a package of information that will be copied to the Gardiner Zoning Board as well as the Rosendale Zoning Board Members.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: David Reed - 2003-01 - VarianceMr. Reed explained that he would like to build an addition to the rear of the house 18’width x 14’depth. This is a long lot with no room to expand on the sides but he claims to have the right of way on the driveway on the north side, which is shared with the property next door. He’d like to build a caregiver apartment due to his health. The apartment on the second floor would be about 250’ including a living room, bedroom, bathroom and kitchen.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
John Maylie of 533 Rt. 213 commented that the traffic along Rt. 213 is already very dangerous in that area. Where does the applicant plan to park the caregiver’ s car? Mr. Reed responded that the parking would be on the shoulder across Rt. 213.
Another neighbor asked if Mr. Reed plans on remaining in that home or just renting it out. He responded that he does plan on living in the lower level of the home.
Bob Hendrickson commented that the state law says that you can’t park on the shoulder of a state highway. Mr Reed responded that the state decided that the area needed more parking especially in the winter when the plows are coming through.
Maria Adishian of 560 Rt. 213 lives next door to the north. Her home is a two-family home. Her first concern is the parking. She parks across the road and her tenant who will have 2 cars will also park across the road. There is no parking available for guests. She has asked the town to do something about parking in that area. Her two suggestions were: designated parking for the residents or buying an additional lot for parking. Ms. Adishian repeatedly went to the state highway dept. requesting that they fill in the ditch across from house #554, which they eventually did. David Reed commented that he does have space on his front lawn for parking. But he doesn’ t want to use it for that keeping it as a yard.
Mr. Reed commented that he has reduced the original plan so that her view would not be blocked.
Mary Herman of 554 Rt. 213 commented that originally Maria’s house was the main house and Mr. Reed’ s house was the garage for the house. There has never been a car bigger than a beatle that could get through that.
John Maylie of 533 Rt. 213 suggested that if the board is considering allowing this variance, they could request only parking in the rear trying to reduce the parking on 213.
Bob Hendrickson stated that the Zoning Board would make a request to the Town Board for some arrangement to be pursued concerning a parking area for the residents on that stretch of Rt. 213. He felt this type of solution could really benefit that area.
Mr. Shuster commented that the Planning Board discussed this application at it’ s last meeting. They are concerned about parking situation and that there is so little space behind and between the houses. They would not recommend granting this variance.
Chairman Hendrickson closed the public hearing at 8:05 PM.
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. John Hornbeck - 2003-02 - Variance : Gina Hornbeck explained that originally the Hornbecks applied for permission to build a two-story office/shop which would eventually be two one-bedroom apartments. The building inspector at the time gave them verbal permission to do this only requiring a variance. That variance was denied. The Hornbecks are now reapplying asking the board to take into consideration the new facts. First, there is a conflict with the map. The
Zones R-2 and B-1 divide their property. Secondly, there is plenty of parking and the area is well groomed. The applicant would like to be able to rent out the apartments.
Harry Skerritt informed the board on the Density Control Schedule. "In the B-1 district, the schedule states that "… in the B1 District, and served by both community water and sewer, the minimum lot area for two-family and multifamily dwellings shall be as follows: 3,500 square feet of lot area for one-bedroom, studio or efficiency dwelling unit …" which is essentially what the applicant is trying to do with this garage. Community water and sewer serve them. This building requires 7,000 square feet lot. The problem is the zones. There’s no problem with the septic. There’s no problem with the parking. The property is set up quite well. It doesn’t take away from the residential district."
Mr. Shuster commented that, if it were all considered in the B-1 district, the 4 dwelling units (the 2 additional units being the two-family original home at the front of the property) would require 18,000 sq. feet. The business use would require 5,000 sq. feet totaling 23,000 sq. feet, which is a bit less than what the applicant has. He felt that this would be adequate space for what is proposed on the condition that no additional business or residential use shall take place in the future on the remainder of the lot.
Mr. Shuster commented that since this is a mixed use, "If one or more permitted residential and non residential uses are located in the same structure, on the same lot, the required minimum lot area shall be either the minimum lot area required for the non-residential use or the minimum lot area per each dwelling required for the two-family." The two one-bedroom apartments in the same building with the business use require 25,000 square feet. The two apartments up front require 11,000 square feet. That’s 36,000 square feet total lot area. The applicant has 26,000 so it would be a 10,000 square foot reduction in lot area that the applicant is asking for the variance for. This variance would be about a 30 percent increase. If the property is considered in the B-1 district, there is plenty of space.The Board will schedule a public hearing for the next meeting on June 17th.B. Ronald B. Temple Jr. - Variance - 2003-03 Mr. Temple stated that he would like to put a porch on the front of the house. But the set back for High Falls Park is 35 feet and his addition would be 25 feet setback.
There was discussion regarding the required setback in High Falls Park.
Dan Shuster stated that porches are considered part of the building in the determination of the required footage.The Board will schedule a public hearing for the next meeting on June 17th.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Roinila- Clerk
__________________________________________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the June 17, 2003, meeting
Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm at the Assessor’ s Office at 339 Main Street, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, May 20, 2003 A motion was made by Angelo to approve the minutes and seconded by Angelo.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes Denise Pitcher, Abstain
Motion Carried. Angelo Guiliano, Yes
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
JOHN HORNBECK, Variance - 2003-02 - 7:35 P.M.
The applicant explained that they would like a variance to rent out the apartments above their garage. The building is sitting on the line for the B1 (building) and R2 (residential) zones.
Anita Wetzel - 18 Campbell Street -Expressed concern regarding any future building. She was unaware of what was and has been going on until this time. She would like there to be no further building at all on that property. The applicant stated that there will be no further additions or commercial business on that property.
Jere Brown stated that currently there is authorization for storage space only. But without the authorization, the apartment was built. What does this do to the density?
Harry Skerritt stated that the applicant is looking for a 30% area variance.
Denise asked what is in the downstairs? The applicant stated equipment. Denise also stated that the board should not accept heresay, referring to what was said by the previous building inspector about it being fine for the applicant to proceed, as evidence. The applicant stated that the minutes from that meeting may show that evidence.
Bob reviewed the two area amounts necessary which are divided by zoning from last month’s, May 20th , 2003, minutes. Bob feels that the application should be in the B1 district where the applicant will have plenty of space.
The application was tabled and the applicant will be hearing from the board within the 62 days.
Leland motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Angelo.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried. Angelo Guiliano, Yes
RONALD R. TEMPLE Jr. - Variance - 2003-03 - 8:00 PM
The applicant explained that he would like to build a porch on the front of the house. It is 7 feet too close to the road. He’ d like to get a variance. The porch will not be closed in.
There was discussion about the proposal.
Louis motioned to close the public hearing. Leland seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried. Angelo Guiliano, Yes
KEN WALSH - Variance - 2003-04 - 8:10 P.M.
The applicant explained that he lives at 5 John Street. The current home is a trailer and was ‘built’ in 1956. The applicant would like to put up a modular home. He would like to keep the foundation as it is. It stretches across the property leaving the allowed set backs of 12.5 feet. The new house will stretch over that limit and he is looking for about 5.5 feet of relief from this variance. There is a driveway at either side of the property where the relief is required.
Bob wondered if this would create a fire truck detriment. The applicant explained the various alternatives that could be used in such an event.
James Fitzgerald - neighbor- feels that this would be an extreme asset to the neighborhood.
Richard Lewis - 75 James St. - What Ken is proposing would be an extraordinary plus for the neighborhood.
Lee motioned to close the public hearing. Louis seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried. Angelo Guiliano, Yes
IV. OLD BUSINESS
DAVID REED - 2003-01 - Variance
We really don’t know what the applicant’ s intentions are.
The applicant claimed to have 9’ between houses where the construction vehicle would pass. Harry said it is actually 7.5’: not large enough. The area through which the vehicle would pass is ˝ property of the neighbor… where bushes and grass are already thriving.
Jere Brown stated that the county had no comment on this application.
Lee stated that he feels that there isn’ t enough parking.
Harry stated that he feels that when the home was purchased last year, he would have known if he was sick enough to need a caregiver. He also could do without the extra kitchen, which would make the home a two-family. There could just be an addition of an extra bath and bedroom and this type of addition would not require a variance as long as it stays within the footprints. Your may use only 35% of your property for buildings.
Bob polled the board on the approval or denial of this application.
Robert Hendrickson, Denied
Denise Pitcher, Denied
Louis Muenkel, Denied
Angelo Guiliano, Denied
Leland Eaton, Denied
Bob made a motion to deny the application for the variance for David Reed. Seconded by Angelo. Motion Carried.
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Letter from the Town of Gardiner recd. 5/29/03 re: Zoning Application. The clerk from Gardiner sent us a sample of the zoning application that they use. Nora has created something similar for Rosendale to begin using. It includes instruction/cover sheet, building permit flow chart, procedure for review of an application for a variance, an information sheet ‘Variances and the Zoning Board of Appeals’ , the application and the short environmental assessment form.
B. Letter from James Fitzgerald recd. 6/2/03 re: Support of the Walsh application.
C. Referral Response from Ulster County Planning Board re: Reed
D. Letter from Michelle Lay recd. 6/13/03 re: requesting denial of Hornbeck request
E. Letter from the Planning Board recd. 6/17/03 re: Temple (approve) and Hornbeck (no comment).
Respectfully submitted,
Grace Roinila, Clerk
____________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the July, 2003, meeting
Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm at the Assessor’s Office at 339 Main Street, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Absent
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, June 17, 2003 A motion was made by Angelo to approve the minutes and seconded by Louis.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. Old Business:
A. John Hornbeck – Variance – 2003-02 - Bob stated that since the Board has had time to consider this application, the board might grant the variance under the B1 area that gives them the most relief. The Board assumes that the applicant is correct in stating that the previous building inspector led them to believe that there would be no problem in getting the variance. Leland made a motion that the board grant the variance. Louis seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried
B. Ronald R. Temple Jr. – Variance – 2003-03 – The board agreed that the variance would not cause any problems and the neighbors are not objecting. Louis made a motion that the board grant the variance. Angelo seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
C. Ken Walsh – Variance – 2003-04 – The board feels that the new home that they are proposing will be a nice addition to the area. The neighbors do not object. Harry stated that the present building needs to be replaced. It may be tight but it will look much better. There are driveways on either side of the Walsh property. Bob made a motion that the board grant the variance. Louis seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING - Joseph & Dacia Eginger – 2003-05 – Side Yard Setback – 7:50 PM
The applicant stated that they would like to add a garage to the side of the house. This will be a garage (22 feet) with a room above it but will come close to the neighbor’s property (within 2 feet). The neighbors have no objection to this addition.
Harry stated that this building application was denied due to the side yard setback.
There was no input from the public.
Louis made a motion to close the public hearing. Seconded by Leland.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
a. Copy of letter to Omni Point dated 6/24/03 re: Communication Tower License
b. Resolution from Town Board
c. Letter from Planning Board re: Notice of Public Scoping
The next meeting will be on August 19th and will be held at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
espectfully submitted,
Grace Roinila, Clerk
_________________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the October 21st, 2003 Meeting
Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM at the Town of Rosendale Recreation Center on Route 32, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, Present
Billy Liggan, Planning Board, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
A motion was made by Denise Pitcher to approve the minutes and seconded by
Leland Eaton.
Roll Vote: Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business to be presented.
IV. NEW BUSINESS: T-MOBILE - Application #2003-09 - Variance
Steven Kinley, Project Manager, presented the request from T-Mobile to upgrade their existing site at 138 Maple Hill Road by changing two antennas from 56" to 72" and adding a sector with two 62" antennas. Denise Pitcher noted that in August 2003 the zoning arm of the planning board stated that they would prefer that no new antenna or ground equipment be placed on any existing facility site which is non-conforming and that this was a non-conforming project with respectto the height and set back standards. Denise felt that there would be very little impact but was curious as to why Shuster and Associates recommended in their fax to the Zoning Board, dated October 21, 2003, that the ZBA not take any further action, including scheduling a public hearing.
Robert Hendrickson polled the board and didn't see a problem and felt it would be a gain for 911. Harry Skerritt saw no problem as long as they were meeting limitation standards. Chairman, Robert Hendrickson, stated that the board would schedule a Public Hearing for the November 18, 2003, Zoning Board Meeting.
V. CORRESPONDENCE were reviewed by the board.
A. Creek Locks Commons-Resolution Adopting Final Scoping Document
B. Centers of Attention - Strengthening our Hamlets, Villages and Cities
C. Resolution #9-2003-5 - Encumbrance Deadline 2003
D. Joseph Eginger - Variance Application - 2003-05
E. Quinlan Publishing Group - Welcome!
F. The "Short Course"
A motion to adjourn was presented by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Louis Muenkel at 8:45 p.m.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson - yesLouis Muenkel - yes
Denise Pitcher - yes
Leland Eaton - yes
Angelo Guiliano - yes
Motion carried.
The next meeting will be on November 18, 2003 and held at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Lenz, Clerk
____________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the November 18, 2003 Meeting
Chairman, Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order 7:30 PM at the Town of Rosendale Recreation Center on Route 32, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Leland Eaton, Absent
Dan Shuster, Town Planning Consultant, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, October 21, 2003
Minutes were reviewed with no changes to be made. A motion was made to approve
the minutes by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Louis Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. NEW BUSINESS: Richard Wildgruber - Appeal #2003-10 - Variance
Mr. Wildgruber is requesting a variance to build a 24’ wide by 30’ deep garage
(720 sq ft.). Existing zoning law limits the area of an accessory building to 500
Sq. ft.. Robert Hendrickson advised Mr. Wildgruber to have a drawing made to
scale and have it more detailed. A public hearing will be scheduled for the
third Tuesday of December at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
IV. OLD BUSINESS: T-Mobile - Application #2003-09 - Variance
Jill Yonkers, Attorney from Hodgson Russ out of Albany, NY, represented T-Mobile.
Jill Yonkers stated that T-Mobile wanted to add one more sector which would include
two antennas and also would increase two of the existing antennas by 16" each. Ms.
Yonkers stated that she was here tonight looking for a variance and in doing that
knows that the board has the criteria spelled out in the zoning code which also
matches New York State requirements. Basically what will be done is to weigh the
benefit to the applicant, T-Mobile, against the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the community. Jill Yonkers stated that she was willing to answer any
questions from the board or audience.
Dan Shuster stated that the reason the applicant is before the Zoning Board of
Appeals is that the Planning Board determined that they could not act on the proposal
because of a provision in the recently enacted Zoning amendment regarding
commercial communication towers which states that "no new antenna or ground
equipment shall be placed on any existing facility or any existing facility site which is
nonconforming with respect to the height or setback standards set forth herein." This
facility does not conform to either the height or setback standards as incorporated in
the recently enacted amended Zoning law.
Mr. Hendrickson asked when the code was rewritten, was there any provision
made for maintenance of the tower? Could they add better equipment or update what
they currently have on the tower? Dan Shuster stated that they cannot unless they
go the route they are now doing - they can maintain, but to add, they have to go to
the ZBA, apply for a variance and justify why they need it. What benefit does the
applicant get by putting up these new antennas?
Fred Greitzer of Creek Locks Road stated that the applicant has totally ignored the
Town of Rosendale Telecommunications Act of 2003. Mr. Greitzer stated that
this is the first challenge to the law of 2003. The applicant says that this is the
way to do it but has not shown that they have tried to comply with the other
requirements of the law. Mr. Greitzer stated that the Zoning Board needs to have some information from the applicant as to why the requirements of the law cannot be
complied with. Mr.Greitzer felt that the applicant has not shown this. For that reason
Mr. Greitzer felt that the application should be denied as incomplete.
Joe Roddy of Creek Locks Road asked if T-Mobile knows the history of the tower
and the history of the people that live around it. Jill Yonkers stated that they were
aware that there would be large community outcry against it and that there were
a lot of problems in getting the original tower approved.
Nick Mercurio asked if with the additional antenna, would the tower be strong
enough? Jill Yonkers said that they are required as part of site plan to have
a certification signed and stamped by an engineer regarding the durability of the
tower.
Louis Muenkel stated that according to information he read from James Boltz, who is
a structural engineer, if T-Mobile, or any other carrier, adds equipment to this tower
it should be reanalyzed at that time for weight, size, etc.
Tim Kerin of Maple Hill Drive stated that the previous engineer for other applicants
did not inspect the towers, he had just stamped them. Louis Muenkel said that it was
stated what should be done, that is the letter that was signed by James Boltz with his
stamp, he did not state that he analyzed the tower. It has to be done as soon as all
the details are provided. Mr. Kerin also asked that because the tower is ugly, do we have to make it uglier. He felt that a stealth tower would be less intrusive.
Robert Hendrickson asked everyone to look at the before and after pictures. Assuming
they are accurate, what's up there now and what they are going to put up there, you will see that the pictures do not show increased ugliness.
Eric Morrow of 156 Maple Hill Drive stated that he had bought his home in 1975 and
it was the understanding of everyone in the neighborhood that the tower was going to
be torn down. Mr. Morrow stated that there were three issues. #1 - is the structure
appropriate - is it safe? #2 - should a variance be granted, the law was very clear that the tower is nonconforming and there should be no additions. Mr. Morrow also did
not feel coverage would be improved and felt that T-Mobile’s plans should be laid out
more clearly. #3 - Urged the ZBA not to act upon the variance until more questions had
been answered.
Randi Morf of 131 Maple Hill Drive read a statement strongly urging the ZBA not to
grant a variance as it is a direct violation of the recently adopted town code. Randi felt
that the tower was serving the thruway corridor and not serving Rosendale and it was
not Rosendale’s job to save money for T-Mobile. A stealth tower or a repeater are a lot
less restrictive.
Jill Yonkers stated that an engineer would be present at the next planning board
meeting. She also stated that the existing tower was designed to be self-collapsing to
an extent, preventing tip over or timber effect. What the board has to consider is what
will be detrimental versus what will be beneficial.
Susan Dahn of 177 Maple Hill Drive who purchased her home over 10 years ago was informed that the tower would be coming down when she purchased her home and felt the town should preserve property values. She also felt that the variance should not be granted by the ZBA and the board should be setting a precedent. If T-Mobile is
allowed to make changes, then everyone else who comes along will also be allowed
to make changes.
Robert Hendrickson stated that no precedent would be set tonight as the board has
62 days to move on it and much more information was needed before the board could
move on the variance. If the law cannot be abided by, then a mockery is being made
of the town, town board and the town laws.
Carol Staley of Maple Hill stated that the tower has been around since the 1960’s
and Verizon had already upgraded their equipment. This was done before the new
law went into effect and she felt that there was a big change in the appearance of
the tower and felt that no further additions should be allowed by any company.
Karen Shaffell stated that the new law would force companies to find other ways to
get cell service in the area. She realized that the town was stuck with the tower but
felt that they didn't have to be stuck with any new additions.
Dan Shuster stated that there is no question that the tower is nonconforming. He had
two additional questions - #1 - What is the benefit to the applicant? The application does
not show very much additional coverage due to these new facilities. #2 - The applicant
has an obligation to provide a rational explanation as why other methods that will conform to the zoning law won't provide the same benefits. Mr. Shuster suggested that
the board keep the public hearing open for the applicant to provide more information
or to presume that the information did not exist. That would be the choice of the ZBA.
He also asked that T-Mobile provide a clearer map and demonstrate with facts why alternate methods that will comply with the zoning law will not serve the same purpose. Jill Yonkers asked that she be given time to present more information before the board makes a decision.
Denise Pitcher asked where are the T-Mobile subscribers mostly located. Jill Yonkers
did not have the subscription information. Denise also asked if the competitors that
were higher on the tower had better coverage. Jill stated that generally the higher you
are on the tower, the better service you have.
Philip Kandl of 118 Maple Hill Drive stated that the new codes that are in place reflects the resident's displeasure with the other carriers who have requested variances and felt
that the ZBA has a responsibility to the residents of the community to deny the variance. Mr. Kandl also read two letters from Martha Kandl and Cyndee & Curtis Temple who
were not able to attend the meeting. Both stated their displeasure with the tower and
requested that no additions be allowed.
Ellen Edwards of 147 Maple Hill Drive asked if anyone had gone and seen how ugly
the tower actually is.
Robert Hendrickson suggested to the board that the public be kept open. Mr. Hendrickson asked for more details in coverage and would like to see what the numbers are. Also, T-Mobile must exhaust other remedies to the problem. It seems a lot of trouble for such a small gain. What had been presented hardly meets the criteria for a variance. T-Mobile needs a more convincing argument.
Mr. Shuster stated that as long as the public hearing was going to be kept open, anyone that wishes to submit additional data could certainly do so.
Robert Hendrickson stated the public hearing would remain open until next month, December 16th.
V. CORRESPONDENCE were reviewed by the board.
A. Zoning Bulletin - October 25, 2003 and November 10, 2003
B. Planning Seminar Series
C. Centers of Attention - Strengthening Our Hamlets, Villages and Cities
D. Proposed Amendments to Commercial Communication Towers, Town
Of Rosendale, NY
A motion to adjourn was presented by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Louis Muenkel at 9:35 PM.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson - Yes
Denise Pitcher - Yes
Louis Muenkel - Yes
Angelo Guiliano - Yes
Motion carried.
The next meeting will be on December 16th, 2003, and held at the Rosendale
Recreation Center.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Lenz, Clerk
___________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the September 16, 2003 Meeting
Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM at the Town of Rosendale Recreation Center on Route 32, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Absent
Jere Brown, Planning Board, Present
Jason Bradshaw, New Paltz Student, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, AUGUST 19, 2003
A motion was made by Denise Pitcher to approve the minutes
and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Absent
Motion carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS: There was no old business to be presented.
IV. NEW BUSINESS: There was no new business to be presented.
V. CORRESPONDENCE:
Letter from M. Moriello 8/4/03 RE: Goodman Associates, LLC.
Jere Brown reported to the Zoning Board on what is happening on the Planning Board.
A motion to adjourn was presented by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Robert Hendrickson.
The next meeting will be on October 21, 2003 and held at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Lenz
____________________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the August 19, 2003 meeting
Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm at the Town of Rosendale Recreation Center on Route 32, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Robert Hendrickson, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Leland Eaton, Absent
Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, JULY 15, 2003 A motion was
made by Louis Muenkel to approve the minutes and seconded by Robert
Hendrickson.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Abstain
Motion carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Joe & Dacia Eginger - 2003-05 - Side yard setback for garage.
Robert Hendrickson and Louis Muenkel had both looked at the
Property and the neighbor had no objections. Robert Hendrickson
would like to vote to approve the variance. A motion was made to
approve the variance by Angelo Guiliano and seconded by Louis
Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Abstain
Leland Eaton, Absent
Motion carried.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING - Gerard & Lorraine DeFelicis - #2003-06 -
Variance for storage shed. The applicant stated that they would
Like to add a 10 X 12 storage shed along side of their house and which would not meet the five foot setback rule. Gerald DeFelicis checked with his neighbor, Mrs. Wolf, by telephone and she had no
problem with the storage shed. A decision was made to move that
the resolution be prepared, signed and put in the mail to Gerard
DeFelicis.
Roll Vote: Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Motion carried.
B. Stefan Bolz - #2003-07- Variance for fence. Harry Skerritt has
received complaints regarding the new fence and went to look at
it and found a problem with the height of the fence - 6 foot - and
the setback - 3 feet off of the road surface. Harry Skerritt advised
that the policy of the Town is to have fences five feet off of the
road surface for the Highway Department when snow removing.
Stefan Bolz advised that he would resolve the problem himself
without a public hearing.
Variance denied.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A. Communication Tower Law -recd. 8/7/03
B. UCPB Referral Response - Amend Zoning - Commercial
Communications Tower Law dated 7/3/03
C. UCPB referral Response - Amend Zoning - Adult Business
Regulations
D. Magazine - "Towns & Topics" - July/August 2003
E. Letter 8/17/03 for Carl Hornbeck re: Bolz
F. Letter 8/13/03 from Michael Caponero
The next meeting will be on September 16, 2003 and will be held at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
Respectfully submitted,
Judy Lenz, Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________________
TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the December 16, 2003 Meeting
Board member, Louis Muenkel, called the meeting to order 7:30 PM at the Town of Rosendale Recreation Center on Route 32, Rosendale, NY.
I. ROLL CALL: Louis Muenkel, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Robert Hendrickson, Absent
Denise Pitcher, Absent
Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, Present
II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, November 18, 2003
Minutes were reviewed with no changes to be made. A motion was made to approve
the minutes by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Leland Eaton.
Roll Vote: Louis Muenkel, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
Public Hearing, T-Mobile - #2003-09 - Variance
Adjournment until January 20, 2004, meeting as applicant is not ready
Public Hearing - Richard Wildgruber - #2003-10 Variance
Variance request for a 24' by 30' detached two-story garage. Mr. Wildgruber brought in a map with more accurate measurements and presented his case. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, asked intentions regarding second story as prior request was for a garage with an apartment on the second floor. Mr. Wildgruber stated that the second floor would be built with trusses and have a center isle only for storage space. Carol St. Rose (representing Water Dept.) stated that she was concerned about the boundaries for the Water Department's easement privileges as she believed that was why she received the public hearing notice. Mr. Muenkel informed her that the notices were sent to everyone within 200' of the Wildgruber property and not for easement concerns. A question was asked if Mr. Wildgruber intended to now, or in the future, add water or sewer service to the building. Mr. Wildgruber stated that he had no intentions of doing that as it was too costly. A motion was made by Louis Muenkel to close the public hearing and seconded by Leland Eaton.
IV. NEW BUSINESS:
Variance - Douglas Hase - #2003-11
Variance request for commercial recreational activities from the Rosendale Railroad Bridge, specifically, bungee jumping and ponting. Mr. Hase submitted to the board the testimony of himself and John Rahl, the real property owner, along with the personal overview of the operator, the initiative, overview, points and community benefits and the unique opportunity.
John Maly of Rosendale stated that in January of 1992 the court findings of the Supreme Court prohibited bungee jumping from the Rosendale bridge as it was against the zoing rules and also considered an amusement ride. He was also concerned about the significant impact to the community regarding the noise level, traffic, potential accidents on Rt. 213, impact to protected waterways and the impact to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Maly felt that this would seriously impact the quality of life in Rosendale. He also felt that there was no hardship and felt that the hardship was self-creating.
Marvin Beatty, environmental planner, for the applicant and owner stated that hardship was already addressed to the board in the initial memorandum to the board.
Carol St. Rose of Rosendale wanted to know if this was a partnership between Mr. Hase and the owner? Mr. Hase said that this was a sole partnership and would be operating during the summer between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Monday through Friday, 9 to 5, and Saturday and Sunday 9 to 7. He also stated that no stopping signs would be posted along Rt. 213. Ms. St. Rose also wanted to know what the liability was to the town if someone was to get hurt. Mr. Hase stated that as far as he knew there would be no liability to the town.
Joan DeWitt of Rosendale was concerned that people would not adhere to the no stopping signs and would be stopping and watching along the road.
Another town resident also was concerned about the noise level as she currently could hear the fisherman talking under the bridge and felt that the noise level would be intense if bungee jumping were allowed. She also felt that the fisherman and swimmers under the bridge, along with the people who came to enjoy the quietness of the park would not be able to enjoy themselves with the increased noise level.
Joe Havranek of Rosendale stated that the main concern was the rural character of Rosendale. This type of activity does not meet the rural character that Rosendale is accustomed to.
Gina Porcelli of Rosendale was concerned about the safety on the ground, the hours of operation and the maximum number of people jumping per day. The maximum number of people jumping per day would be 130 people.
Harry Skerritt, building inspector, stated that Mr. Hase was asking for a use variance and this type of variance was not allowed in a R1 district. What was actually being asked for was a change in the zoning district which is spot zoning and illegal. Harry also did not see that hardship was proven. The only hardship was that Mr. Rahl was not getting any use out of the tresle which was self-created.
Marvin Beatty felt that a use variance was exactly what it means. In order to bring it into compliance he has come to the zoning board for a use that is not covered within the ordinance.
Louis Muenkel stated that the meeting be put into recess until interpretation from the town attorney on the 1991 court order.
V. CORRESPONDENCE
A. "Zoning Bulletin" - November 25, 2003
B. "Zoning Bulletin" - December 10, 2003
C. Copy of leter from Marbletown dated 11/5/03 re: Revision of Marbletown Zoning Law
D. Rosendale's Cellphone Tower Debate by Sid Norinsky
A motion to adjourn was presented by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Angelo Guiliano at 8:35 PM.
Roll Vote: Louis Muenkel, YesAngelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
The next meeting will be on January 20th, 2004 at the Rosendale Recreation Center.
Respectfullty submitted,
Judy Lenz, Clerk
|
