TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the January 20th, 2004 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
Louise Muenkel, Present

Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, Present
Dan Shuster, Town Consultant, Present

II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, December 16, 2003
A motion was made by Louis Muenkel to approve the minutes and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Abstain
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.

III. OLD BUSINESS:
Richard Wildgruber - #2203-10 Variance. Variance was approved and signed by all five board members.

Douglas Hase - #2003-11 Variance. No new information was reviewed. Variance request is still open.

T-Mobile - #2003-09 Variance - Public Hearing continuation.
Jill Yonkers, from Hodgson Russ Law Firm, submitted propagation maps to the board and information on what the proposed upgrade would do. With the upgrade, T-Mobile can serve over 1400 more people in the Town of Rosendale. This number does not count people traveling through the area. Allowing this upgrade would also allow T-Mobile to provide E911 service. E911 makes sure they can get the telephone number of the person making the 911 call and they would also be able to point to the antenna where the call came from so that they would be able to locate callers usually within a 50 to 100 meter radius which is important during emergencies. The FCC found E911 so important that they demanded all carriers add this by the end of 2005. The board had also asked about alternatives to the tower, particularly repeaters, and Ms. Yonkers had asked her engineers and they felt that repeaters are generally used for small combined structures such as in buildings, stadiums, theaters, concert halls, etc., but not open roadways. T-Mobile is targeting the open stretch of 87. The board had also asked if T-Mobile was doing the least intrusive alternative. Other than changing antennas, T-Mobile would have to put up a whole new structure which would be even more intrusive than the simple change that is proposed. As a public utility, T-Mobile is required to show that this modification is necessary for safe and adequate service and that the intrusion on the community is minimal. T-Mobile feels they have demonstrated that by their quote simulations. The board had indicated that it was hard to tell that there was a difference.
Robert Hendrickson asked how they determined the extended coverage with the additions. Jill stated that a drive test is done where an engineer actually goes out with a specific phone. The engineers designed the coverage differences by using a computer program for their projections and actually what they know about signal coverage based on the terrain of the area, as well as, the existing coverage. Per Ms. Yonkers, the overlays and projections are the best that are available in the industry as this time.

Fred Greitzer, of Creek Locks Road, stated that Federal regulations do not mandate the method they only mandate results. Mr. Greitzer said that it was pointed out that stealth towers would be more intrusive; that is not the case, it is specifically the intent of the Town of Rosendale law to require stealth towers and internal building structures. The significance of this is that it is the first challenge under the new law and would therefore set precedence.

Dan Shuster asked what DBM these propagation plots were prepared at. Jill stated that she would get the numbers to Dan as she did not have them with her. Mr. Shuster also asked since a build out plan for the entire town was not submitted, is the assumption that this will be the only tower you need to provide service to the entire town despite the fact that there are a considerable amount of areas that are not covered? T-Mobile has not plans to put any other towers in at this time. The primary reason is to cover the stretch along 87 because there were so many dropped calls. Did T-Mobile look at the tower and say they could provide all of the coverage that we want to provide to the Town of Rosendale? No promise could be made that T-Mobile would never come back to the town for a new tower. If they do, they realize they would have to meet the town’s code. There is now no plan to build any other site in this town. Jill stated that there is certainly other options for T-Mobile if there variance request is denied by the Town of Rosendale.

Denise Pitcher asked if any of the other companies that are on the tower now have E911 capacity. A town resident stated that Verizon is on the tower and has E911. Verizon was the last approval before the new law.

A town resident asked if upgrading a stealth tower in another part of town, such as a church steeple, would it be cost effective for the company using an existing structure fill in the gap for the thruway? Per Jill Yonkers, no, not necessarily, it is a function largely of signal distance and terrain, if they can’t get up high enough, they cannot get the coverage.

Dan Shuster asked, was there no analysis done in picking other possible sites in the town as to how they would affect coverage. T-Mobile was just focusing along Rt. 87 and had the existing tower so they did not really need a second site because that site with the upgrade would cover it. This was the most feasible option for T-Mobile.

Harry Skerritt stated that the whole idea of the new cell tower law was because we have one cell tower in Rosendale and the residents of the Town of Rosendale are not getting coverage. For T-Mobile to add to an existing cell tower and not to provide additional coverage for the town is totally against the new cell tower law that was written. The whole idea of letting T-Mobile on the tower was so that the Town of Rosendale could get cell service. Mr. Skerritt noted that Jill Yonkers had stated that repeater technology was not a viable option, however, he had attended a planning board meeting and there was a gentlemen from another cell company in attendance who said that repeater technology was a great option for the Town of Rosendale. It was also stated that T-Mobile is spending money to fill their gap along the Rt. 87 corridor and spending no money to meet the needs of the Town of Rosendale residents. The whole idea of the additions was to give adequate coverage to the town for putting up with T-Mobile’s facility. Ms. Yonkers noted that T-Mobile was already on the tower, and no matter what happens, they would still be on the tower. In terms of repeaters, an expert could be brought to the planning board as much of what was mentioned was planning board issues.

Bob Hendrickson asked for the definition of maintenance when it comes to the tower.
Dan Shuster stated that maintenance includes structural and maintenance if the equipment. Expansion of the facility, particularly increasing the size of existing, as well as putting new ones on is not the customary definition of maintenance.

Jill Yonkers noted that 1409 more Rosendale residents would be served. At the present, T-Mobile is serving 4401 residents. It was unknown what level of coverage this would be, whether in the car, on the street, or in a building. These numbers are not in the sense of subscribers; it is in numbers of possible residents covered.

Phil Kandl of Maple Hill Drive questioned what would happen when T-Mobile wants to walk away from the tower. Dan Shuster noted that the towns recently enacted laws provides procedures for the removal of towers that are no longer in use.

Tim Kerin of Maple Hill Drive read a letter to the board requesting that the variance not be granted. He had also requested that the board enlist the services of legal counsel to be sure that the written decision reflects the extensive and well-reasoned input of the public hearing process.

Denise Pitcher noted that the cell tower was never built for purposes that are currently before the board and was very sympathetic to the residents of Maple Hill. She was also concerned about the integrity and life span of the 46 year old tower and the well being and safety of the residents.

Harry Skerritt stated that because it was brought up about the integrity of the tower, in the minutes of the November 2003, Tim Kerin did state that the previous engineer for other applicants for the tower were not inspected; they were just stamped that the tower was okay. Louis Muenkel stated that the letter that was signed and stamped by Mr. Bolz
did not state that he analyzed the tower, he just stamped approval of the tower. Also, Mr. Skerritt noted that also at the November meeting, Jill Yonkers stated that an engineer would be present at this meeting to address these issues. No engineer was present and Jill advised that the engineer was to be present at the planning board meeting after a decision was made by the zoning board.

Public hearing closed by Robert Hendrickson and advised that a decision would be made in 62 days.




IV. NEW BUSINESS:
Ken Walsh - #2004-01 Variance
Mr. Walsh would like to convert the property at 25 Brown Avenue, Rosendale, NY from a one family house to a two family house. The variance was required as the land density criteria was not met. Mr. Walsh noted that he can afford to buy the house, but can’t afford to give it the justice the house deserves as a one family house. Currently Mr. Walsh does not hold the title to the house, however, expects to have the closing by the end of the month or shortly thereafter. Robert Hendrickson advised Mr. Walsh that no variance could be approved until he had the title to the house. Dan Shuster advised the board that they could schedule a public hearing. Mr. Walsh could either have the deed by that hearing or his brother, who currently owns the house, authorizing him to proceed with the application. Mr. Shuster advised Mr. Walsh that he had good news and bad news - the good news - this is a type 2 action with no seqra required. The bad news - assuming the board grants the variance you would still have to go to the planning board for a special permit. Public hearing was scheduled for the February 17th meeting.

Sam Friedman - #2004-02 Variance
Mr. Friedman would like to build a 26’ by 30’ studio-office/shop on an existing foundation. An engineer has already looked at the foundation and it has been approved. Harry Skerritt had a set of plans of the house he wants to build, an engineering report and pictures. Approval was already gotten for the septic. Dan Shuster stated that again this is a type 2 action - no seqra required. The public hearing is scheduled for the February 17th meeting.

V. CORRESPONDENCE:
A. "Zoning Bulletin" - December 24, 2003
B. "Zoning Bulletin" - 50th Anniversary Edition
C. "Zoning Bulletin" - January 10, 2004
D. Senator John Bonacic’s Guide to Federal/State/Municipal Parks in Ulster County
E. Senator John Bonacic’s reports on open space in Ulster County

A motion to adjourn was presented by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Leland Eaton at 9:15 PM.

Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.

The next meeting will be on February 17th, 2004 at the Rosendale Recreation Center.

Respectfully submitted,

TOWN OF ROSENDALE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the February 17, 2004 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, Chairman, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present

Dan Shuster, Town Consultant, Present
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, Present

II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, January 20th, 2004
Denise Pitcher noted that on page #4 under the new business information for Ken Walsh, Variance #2004-01, and Sam Friedman, Variance #2004-02, a correction should be made to read "type 2 action - no seqra required" not as written "no seeker required". A motion was made to approve the minutes with the correction by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.

Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes

Motion Carried.

III. OLD BUSINESS
Kenneth Walsh - Variance #2004-01 PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Walsh stated that he wishes to turn a single family home into a two family home on 25 Brown Avenue, Rosendale. He was applying for a variance because the town code requires 1.5 acres for a two family home and he has 1.1 acre. Mr. Walsh plans to be a resident and a landlord and felt it will be good for himself and the community. By having a two family home it would allow him the income to make the necessary renovations to the property. It was also noted that there are currently two septic systems on the property.
Joseph Walsh, present owner of the property @ 25 Brown Avenue, and who was unable to attend the public hearing, submitted a notarized letter stating that his brother, Kenneth Walsh, would speak to the board on his behalf.
Shari Doherty of 33 Brown Avenue, stated that both her and her husband whole heartedly support the change.
Paul Lentz of 29 Brown Avenue, Apt. B, who is currently renting the property, attended to support the request from Mr. Walsh and noted that he had already done improvements on the house. Michael DeMock of 3 & 6 Bradley Avenue also supported the application for Mr. Walsh.

Jere Brown asked what percent of variance is being requested. Bob Henderson explained that the zone is R-2, which is zoned for a two family home, however, Mr. Walsh only has 1.1 acres and 1.5 acres is required.

Mr. Henderson closed the public hearing and advised Mr. Walsh that he would be notified of the board’s decision within 62 days.
Sam Friedman - #2004-02 Variance PUBLIC HEARING
Mr. Friedman wants to rebuild on an existing foundation at 138 Sawdust Ave. Mr. Friedman wants to construct a shop/studio apartment on an existing stone foundation with a shop space on the ground level and a studio on the first floor. Pictures were presented of the existing foundation and what he proposes to build, as well as, what the 3 story house had looked life before being torn down. The downstairs workspace would be used for projects for the house that he currently resides in which is located behind the proposed house and also for arts and crafts. The upstairs would be for photography and woodworking. Mr. Friedman is looking for a variance so he has the ability to have the upstairs space as a dwelling sometime in the future. Mr. Friedman stated that he has owned the house since 2001 and has had an engineer look at the existing 22" stone foundation and has also had the health board come and look at the septic system.

Ann Marie Callan who lives next door to Mr. Friedman asked for specifics regarding the septic system as she was aware that the previous owner had applied several times for a septic and leach field and had been denied. Mr. Friedman advised that Mr. Dave Ryder, who is a professional engineer, had looked at the property and has given his approval. It was noted that only one bathroom would be installed in the new space and also that the existing well would be used. Ms. Callan was also concerned about her well’s distance from Mr. Friedman’s leech field. Dan Shuster stated that should the board be favorably inclined towards this variance certainly one of the appropriate conditions would be that the septic system received approval from the county health department. Nicholas Simili asked if the existing town laws concerning setbacks and property lines apply for an existing foundation; as the existing foundation is only 6 feet from his property line. Dan Shuster advised that this the variance that is being requested. Since the foundation was not rebuild upon within 1 year after demolition of the previous building, the existing setbacks would apply. Mr. Friedman is asking for a variance from the setback requirement to allow him to build closer to the property line which happens to be on an original foundation. The zoning law applies and he is applying for a variance from that provision of the zoning law.

Dan Shuster and Jere Brown raised questions regarding personal use or retail use. Mr. Friedman said that he plans to use the workshop for still photography and hobbies for his own personal use and wishes to have a studio/apartment for only one or two people above the workshop. Ann Marie Callan asked if the apartment was used as a guest house or possibly residence what would be done about parking? Mr. Friedman stated that he would use the existing driveway and would not be looking to add more parking.

Mr. Hendrickson asked if there were any questions from the board members and since there was none the public hearing was closed and Mr. Friedman was advised that a decision would be made within 62 days.


Douglas Hase - $2003-11 Variance
Public hearing is to be scheduled for the March 16, 2004 meeting.

John Maly advised that the supreme court judge made a finding back in â€:92 and at the December meeting it was said that the town was going to get legal interpretation of the judge’s decision. Robert Hendrickson said that at that point the activity wasn’t allowed and that it was a permanent injunction, however, that can be superceded by granting a variance. Mary Lou Christiana, the legal council hired by the town, had reviewed Judge Bradley’s decision and what that said was that there was an injunction at that time and that it was not an allowed use. The applicant, Douglas Hase, is coming to the board for a variance. It is now appropriate to schedule a public hearing and see what everyone has to say and then see whether he meets the criteria to obtain the variance.

Jere Brown asked what was the specific variance being requested? Mr. Hendrickson said that Mr. Hase was asking for a variance that is not permitted in the zone. They are aware that it is not a permitted use, however, they are citing other cases most of which are outside of the country where a particular type of structure that has been known to have no monetary return and where there is only certain things that can be done with it to have a monetary return - bungee jumping is one of them. Mr. Shuster noted that there is very strict criteria that the board would have to measure Mr. Hase’s request against. Fred Greitzer asked if the applicant had submitted a request for a public hearing in writing. A written request was received and is in the file for review. Mr. Hendrickson stated that the attorney has reviewed the case and the board is going ahead with a public hearing scheduling. Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, yes
Motion Carried.

T-Mobile #2003-09 Variance
Mary Lou Christiana advised that last August the town board passed an amendment to the code dealing with cell towers. This application from T-Mobile came to the board prior to the law being filed with the Secretary of State’s office. It is the understanding since the application, the filing has taken place. This board cannot grant or deny the variance with the new law because it did not exist at the time of this application. So the recommendation was made that the zoning board make a decision that does not grant or deny and refers it back to the building department and planning board. Fred Greitzer asked if there was any grace period or time period allowed between the time the town board votes on something and when it has to be filed with the state. Mary Lou Christiana was not sure of the period of time, however, the application was filed before the law was filed with the state. The law does not take effect until it is filed. Dan Shuster said that it was his understanding that the town board acted last week to initiate filing to the state. Town residents questioned why the time lapse and who is responsible for filing. Mary Lou Christiana was unsure whether the clerk, supervisor or attorney was responsible for the filing. The town clerk and attorney must sign the form before submitting to the state and then a letter comes back from the state stating date of filing. She also noted that the laws are actually passed by the town board and filed by the town, not the zoning board.
Dan Shuster said that the reason it was before this board was because the law that was approved by the town board in August â€:03 said among other new provisions that no new facility could take plan on an existing tower that did not conform to any of the standards of the new law. The previous law did not have such a provision. It will have to go before the planning board and would not require a variance from the zoning board. T-Mobile was referred back to the planning board for their review.

IV. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business

V. CORRESPONDENCE

A. "Zoning Bulletin" - January 25, 2004

A motion to adjourn was presented by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Angelo Guiliano at 8:40 PM.

Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes

Motion Carried.

The next meeting will be on March 16, 2004 at the Rosendale Recreation Center.


Respectfully submitted,


Judy Lenz, Clerk

TOWN OF ROSENDALEZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the April 20, 2004 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, Chairman, Present
Angelo Guiliano, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Absent

Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, Present

II. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING, February 17, 2004 (3/04 meeting cancelled)
A motion was made by Leland Eaton to approve the minutes and seconded by
Denise Pitcher.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Absent
Motion Carried.

III. OLD BUSINESS:
Kenneth Walsh - #2004-01 Variance
A motion was made by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Angelo Guiliano to approve the variance request. Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson - Yes, Angelo Guiliano - Yes, Denise Pitcher - Yes, Leland Eaton - Yes.
Motion Carried.
The resolution was approved and signed by Robert Hendrickson, Denise Pitcher, Leland Eaton and Angelo Guiliano.
Samuel Friedman - #2004-02 Variance
A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson and seconded by Leland Eaton to approve the variance request. Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson - Yes, Angelo Guiliano - Yes, Denise Pitcher - Yes, Leland Eaton - Yes.
Motion Carried.
The resolution was approved and signed by Robert Hendrickson, Denise Pitcher, Leland Eaton and Angelo Guiliano.

IV. NEW BUSINESS:
Barbara Valocore - #2004-03 Variance
The application to the Zoning Board of Appeals is for a use variance to allow a residential structure on a 95 acre parcel on 333 Mountain Road, Rosendale, in a A zoning district, to be utilized by the applicant, The Lifebridge Foundation, Inc., as an occasional retreat and small conference center with limited overnight accommodations. The foundation is currently receiving 501 3(C) status from the IRS. It was noted that the reason for the variance request to the ZBA was because use of this nature can not be on a minor road and Mountain Road is the only access to the site. The intention of the foundation is to have very little traffic to the site. The building is currently under construction, with 4 bedrooms, and a maximum of 20 people at any event. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, questioned the size of the building and Barbara Valocore stated that the existing building was a 1772 Dutch stone house with approximately 12,000 square feet. Barbara Valocore stated that it is the intention, at this time, for the board to pay the full burden of taxes to the Town of Rosendale. The foundation acquired the property in December of 2003 and has paid the taxes in full. The previous owner paid approximately $30,000 in school taxes and $12,000 in property taxes. The foundation is a grant making foundation and it’s purpose is to give money away. If it is located, or has a property in Rosendale, the intention of the foundation board would be to benefit the town in some way, and possibly, enter into some kind of grant program with the town, in addition to taxes that would benefit the town. It was noted that this was not a public hearing and the board was asked to set a public hearing date for further review. A public hearing was scheduled for the next meeting on Tuesday, May 18th. Website information for the Life Bridge Foundation is www.lifebridge.org. Lisa Sterer - #2004-03 Variance
Variance request for a cheese shop at 402 Main Street, Rosendale. Conversion of a two car garage and two other small rooms into a small commercial space - located behind 406 Main Street in between the Bell Tower and the movie theater (formerly Gilmartin ice cream shop). Ernest DeWitt asked that since this was to be a retail shop, what provisions were being made for public parking? Lisa Sterer stated that the cheese shop would be located next to public parking and was hoping that people parking for the movies would also visit the shop. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, stated that Lisa Sterer is looking for an area variance because of the parking. They are the closest of anyone to municipal parking. The things to consider are the number of potential customers and the hours of operation. Customers should be encouraged to use municipal parking. Public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, May 18th.
John Hornbeck - #2004-04 Variance
Variance request to replace a 21 X 21 above ground pool, w/deck, with a 14 X 28 in ground, no deck pool with cement sidewalks. Gina Hornbeck stated that the new pool would be 7’ from the property line and that a 10’ setback is required. They are looking for 3’ of relief. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, stated that the problem was the permit that was issued for the current pool from the previous building inspector. B1 refers to Main Street only and the property is not located on Main Street, therefore, the B1 setback refers back to a R2 setback. The original code was misinterpreted when the building permit was issued so the current pool should not have been permitted because of the setback requirements. Harry also noted that a B1 code only allows for 50% of your property area be taken up by building structures, accessory buildings, etc. The property is already over 50% limit. With the right interpretation of the code, they now require a variance. Robert Hendrickson stated that they were looking for 3’ of relief. Denise Pitcher’s concern was that the current pool was portable and the pool requested was not portable. Public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, May 18th.

V. PUBLIC HEARING
Douglas Hase- #2003-11 Variance
Variance request for commercial recreational activities from the Rosendale Railroad Trestle - specifically bungee jumping and ponting (pendulum type swing ride).
Douglas Hase stated that neither the applicant, nor the owner of the trestle, given the current zoning restrictions can make a reasonable return on the property. Since 1986 there has not been a return on the property nor has there been offers whereby a return could be realized.

Although the trestle sits in an area zoned R-1, the land adjacent to the trestle is open space. There are several residential structures that border the trestle but there is reasonable distance and screening between the trestle and these structures. In fact, the proposed activity will be several hundred feet to the north in the middle of the trestle. The owner purchased the Wallkill Valley Railroad Trestle, along with approximately 11 miles of line in 1986. Plans were begun and material purchased for the decking in 1989 with the present decking being completed early in 1991. Financial statements have been submitted. The applicant believes that the portion of the trestle to be used will not appreciably affect the current use as a rail trail nor substantially generate any burdensome traffic. In addition, Mr. Hase noted that the noise generated by cars and particularly trucks on the highway below the trestle is greater than any noise generated by participants of the facility. The proposed facility at the trestle is limited in its capacity. It is anticipated that there will be 10 to 130 participants at the facility in a given day.
Robert Hendrickson said that there was a state injunction against bungee jumping happening and that it was not a permitted use. Mr. Hase is asking for a variance which would override the legal injunction. He is asking for a variance from the board for a monetary hardship that is not self-created. Mr. Hase stated that the use of the trestle is severely restricted because of the R1 zone.
Mrs. St. Rose, from Rosendale, noted that #1-Mr. Rahl bought the railroad trestle for one dollar, #2- Mr. Rahl did the construction without looking into the variance approval first
#3 - Mr. Rahl could charge money to see the view from the bridge and #4 if in 1991 it was a violation and can’t see how today it would change because he is not making money off of his one dollar purchase.
Pamela VanBuren, who lives under the trestle, was concerned about buses turning around, children’s safety, garbage, bathroom facilities.
Sandy Peterson, of Fairview Ave, was concerned about the change of the neighborhood and felt that Mr. Hase was setting up a carnival in a residential neighborhood. Regarding the financial hardship, Mr. Rahl put the decking on with the bungee jumping in mind.
Fred Greitzer, a Rosendale resident, speaking as a citizen, was concerned that if this was approved, the rights go with the property and he was also concerned because Mr. Hase has not operated anything within the last ten years. It was noted that the Town of Rosendale Planning Board voted and made a recommendation that this application not be approved.
Barbara Shay of Rosendale asked why the injunction was turned down the first time? Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, noted that in the early 90’s the owner of the trestle wanted to have bungee jumping from the trestle, the building inspector said that it was not an allowed use so, therefore, the town went to court to stop that. The judge decided that in reading our code bungee jumping was not an allowed use, and therefore, had a court order to file an injunction and said that in order to have the bungee jumping you would need a variance and that is why we are here today.
Mary Carroll runs a nursery school for 3 and 4 year olds at the St. Peter’s School - 5 days a week and the school is also used on Saturday for religious instruction where about 100 attend. On Saturday night and Sunday, church services. Feels bungee jumping is detrimental to 3 and 4 year olds for moral development to see people jumping from the trestle. Mary Carroll is urging the board to deny variance.
John Maylie, who lives with his wife, two houses up from the trestle, mentioned that in the court hearing on 91-92, the Judge did state that bungee jumping is amusement ride. Mr. And Mrs. Maylie’s concerns were loss of peace and quiet, loss of tourism, loss of historical character, loss of environmental habitat, increased town costs, loss of public safety and loss of quality of life.
Michael Montella of Elting Road, Rosendale, asked how many people attending the meeting actually use the trail and bridge. He would like to see a creative solution for the landowner so he can continue to afford and maintain the trail and bridge.
Alan Lomita, County Legislature, from Mountain Road, felt that bungee jumping would have a negative impact on the character of this community, as well as, a threat to the public safety. Mr. Lomita opposed the project a decade ago and opposes it now.
Joe Havranek of Rt. 213, had done bungee jumping in the past and screamed before, during and after. He also noted that the average age of people jumping was between 12 and 17 and did not see that age group supporting our economy.
Barbara Gambino of Fairview Avenue, noted that years ago when there was trial bungee jumps, she was driving by, fully aware that bungee jumping was going on, saw something flying, and still crashed her car. Felt that bungee jumping is entirely unsafe.
Harry Skerritt, building inspector, pointed out that it was stated that Mr. Rahl bought the trestle in 1986 and at that time the code didn’t specifically address commercial jumping. In the building inspector’s office there is a copy of the 1979 Rosendale code, prior to Mr. Rahl buying the trestle, which states that under R1 zoning commercial recreation was not allowed. When Mr. Rahl purchased the trestle for $1.00, he only wanted the railroad because his father has worked for the railroad.
Chairman, Robert Hendrickson, read the recommendation from the Ulster County Planning Board which was to disapprove the application for the "Rosendale Bridge Adventures" as the bulk of evidence available to the Ulster County Planning Board at this time indicates that the applicant has failed to meet the tests for a variance. Re: Reasonable Return, Self-Created, and Essential Character. In making its recommendation for disapproval as a County Planning Board they had been guided by concerns related to public safety associated with the high visibility of the site from public roadways and the failure at this time to provide a "dollars and cents" proof of financial hardship.
Joan Maylie noted that a railroad is permitted in a residential zone, however, bungee jumping is not a railroad and should not be allowed.
Deb Horowitz of Tall Oaks Drive, Tillson, questioned whether the hardships of the Rosendale citizens would be considered in the Seqra process. Mary Lou Christiana, attorney, assured Deb that it would be considered.
Questions where asked regarding liability to the town if someone was hurt or killed. Mary Lou Christiana did not feel that the town would be liable, but could not promise there would not be a lawsuit against the town.
Questions were raised regarding parking as the current parking lots are not big enough now. Mr. Hase stated that there would be a congregation area and one van would take up to thirteen people to the site, they would jump, then return for another group. A question was then asked, If jumpers were being bused in, where are they spending money in town?
Rochelle Maucher questioned the Mr. Hase’s emergency plan. Mr. Hase stated that he would set up a plan with the local community regarding emergency situations.
Mary Lou Christiana noted that if a variance was granted by the Zoning Board, it would be a minimal variance, not a variance for Mr. Rahl’s entire property.
Joan Maylie raised a question about the liability insurance Mr. Hase would carry. Mr. Hase said that he would carry the state requirements which is $1,000,000. Mary Lou Christiana noted that if someone were hurt and it was the fault of the company running the operation, that would not mean the town has any liability, however, that does not stop the injured party from suing the town. Robert Hendrickson asked who would inspect the operation. Harry Skerritt said that the proprietor would be responsible for supplying him with the inspections and engineer studies. That would not be the responsibility of the Rosendale building inspector.
A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson to close the public hearing and to allow written public comments for 30 days. The motion was seconded by Angelo Guiliano.

A motion to adjourn was presented by Leland Eaton and seconded by Angelo Guiliano at 10:15 PM.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes

Motion Carried.

The next meeting will be on May 18th, 2004, at the Rosendale Recreation Center.

Respectfully submitted,



Judy Lenz, Recording Clerk

Barbara Valocore - #2004-03 Variance
Jack Zand, an attorney, representing Barbara Valocore, explained that the application was for proposed use of an existing residence on a 95-acre parcel to be used as a philanthropic organization retreat/small conference center for groups of approximately 20-30 people with limited overnight accommodations. There is currently a large building on the property which is being renovated, and when completed, would like to be used as a retreat by The Lifebridge Foundation, which is a not-for-profit organization. The town’s concern is that the primary access to the property should not be on a minor town street serving as access to residential properties, Mountain Road does serve residential properties exclusively. Questions were raised concerning the intention of the foundation to pay taxes or to be tax exempt. Schools taxes were in the neighborhood of $31,000 and town and county taxes roughly $15,000. Barbara Valocore stated that it is the foundations intentions to contribute to the Town of Rosendale, not to take away.
Tax exempt status is currently being applied for and Barbara Valocore said that it is up to the Town Accessor to determine if the foundation falls under tax exempt guidelines. Mr. Zand noted that this was not a hardship created by the property owner, it was a hardship created by interpretation of the law saying that the property could not be used unless they took the 95 acre tract and put a lot of houses on it. They certainly do not want to do that. Also, the use would not alter the character of the neighborhood.

V. NEW BUSINESS:
Tammy & Steven Kelley - #2004-07 Variance
The applicants submitted an application for a minor subdivision to the property at 188 Grove Street, Tillson, and to remove an existing structure and build a residential home. Two existing houses are now on 1.2 acres. The land falls short of the 1 acre zoning code.
Robert Hendrickson was concerned that the property is currently non-conforming and they are requesting that the property be made more non-conforming. It was learned that the property is currently in the aunt’s name. The Kelley’s were informed that they will need a letter from the current owner giving permission to the applicant to speak at the public hearing.
A public hearing is scheduled for the June 15th, 2004, meeting.

Cingular Wireless (Southwestern Bell Mobile) #2004-06 Variance
Seth Mandelbaum, the attorney representing Cingular Wireless, submitted an application for use of the existing cell tower located on Maple Hill Road, Rosendale. Cingular’s proposed facility consists of panel antennas mounted at the 160 foot level of the 200 foot existing tower, together with a related 10’ X 12’ equipment shelter within the existing fenced compound at the base. Cingular Wireless was informed by the planning board at their April 1st, meeting that the proposed facility was not permitted on the existing tower per the Town of Rosendale Zoning Code. Therefore, they were applying to the Zoning Board for a use variance. Their proposal is to add additional coverage along Route 32, along the thruway and surrounding roadways.
Jere Brown, Planning Board Chairman, asked if Mr. Mandelbaum’s client had looked at any alternatives. Mr. Mandelbaum replied that this cell tower was the first site looked at for coverage. Robert Hendrickson advised Mr. Mandelbaum that the cell tower neighbors were entitled to the protection that is granted to them by this code. Mr. Mandelbaum replied that his client is also entitled to protection of his FCC license. Mr. Mandelbaum pointed out that Cingular Wireless also plans to submit a comprehensive landscape plan if their variance request is approved.
A public hearing is scheduled for the June 15th, 2004, meeting.

Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Abstained
Motion Carried.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Tammy & Steven Kelley - Variance #2004-07 - Steven Kelley presented letter from Sharon McClinton to allow Steven and Tammy Kelley to speak on her behalf for this variance request. A copy of Sharon McClinton’s deed was also submitted to the board.
The Kelley’s would like to subdivide 1.2 acres of land located at 188 Grove St. Tillson, remove an existing structure and build a residential home. The Kelley’s intention is to have the maximum size house available for this lot. The concern of the board was the fact that if a minor subdivision was done, it would create two undersized lots. Also, questions were raised regarding ample space for the well and septic systems on both properties if subdivided.
Daniel Baker, who lives two parcels down from the McClinton’s, noted that the 1.2 acre lot in question was classified by the Town Accessor as inferior due to the slope in the rear of the property. The slope was used as drainage from Bloomingdale and Grove Street. He also noted that this is a R1 zone and that stipulates 1 acre per residential home. Mr. Baker stated that he has a 150 foot drilled well and that many of his neighbors have had to redrill their wells due to the increased development. Approving this request would effect him in a negative way and believes the board should follow the zoning laws to protect himself and his neighbors. Amy Britton of 194 Grove Street voiced concerns about her septic system in relationship to where the well on her property is and also subdividing to smaller than 1 acre lots. Donna Fritz, who owns the property across the street, had the same concerns and also future subdivisions if this variance is approved. The Planning Board voted at their last meeting for an initial denial of the variance. However, if the Zoning Board chose to approve the variance, the recommendation is that they limit the size of any new structure to within 20% of the size of the existing structure. A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson to close the public hearing and advised the Kelley’s that a decision would be made within 62 days.
Lisa Sterer - Variance #2004-04 - Ms. Sterer is requesting a variance for conversion of a two car garage plus two small rooms into a small cheese shop at 402 Main St. Rosendale. The property is located behind the movie theatre. There were many people who felt that this was a great idea and supported the applicant’s request for a variance. Harry Skerritt remarked - "we all know the power of cheese". Robert Hendrickson felt that this would enhance the property and since there was no more input from the public closed the public hearing and advised that a decision would be made within 62 days.
Cingular Wireless (Southwestern Bell Mobile) - Variance #2004-05 - Seth Mandlebaum, attorney for Snyder & Snyder, representing Cingular Wireless regarding an application on the existing cell tower located at Maple Hill Drive. Proposal to install six panel antennas at the 160 foot level of the existing 260 foot tower with a 10 by 12 foot equipment shelter in a fenced area on the ground at the base. The proposal before the board is for a use variance as the town adopted an amendment to its zoning last year, which was filed with the state earlier this year, and under that amendment it states that no existing site which is non-conforming may be used for a facility - such as that proposal by Cingular Wireless. Mr. Mandlebaum also noted that under the Federal Telecommunications Act and New York State Public Utility Law, local governments were required to cooperated with and refrain from obstructing the expansion of the cellular communication network. A structural report and an analysis from a NYS professional engineer confirming that the tower is structurally capable of supporting the new equipment. They also submitted an extensive landscaping plan to supplement and screen the equipment that was already on the facility. Mr. Mandlebaum stated that this was not the typical applicant and hoped that the board take this application seriously as it is public utility and federally licensed provider. Robert Hendrickson informed Mr. Mandlebaum that T-Mobile was here prior to this application and was denied. Mr. Hendrickson also noted that the tower was legally non-conforming and the new cell tower law was written and stated that no new equipment can be added to the existing tower. Mr. Mandlebaum did not see any ground where the board could legally disapprove this application.
Harry Skerritt, building inspector, noted that the tower was over 60 years old and does not meet the current standards for structural strength at winds of 90 MPH. The stress levels are above allowable stresses and the tower was designed for 75 MPH winds not 90.
A question was asked what the objective was for Cingular. Mr. Mandlebaum advised that coverage was for Route 32, NYS Thruway and surrounding roadways. Currently there is not sufficient coverage in these areas. It was noted that the code was written because of concern with the existing tower. Mr. Mandlebaum reminded the board that the standards are much lower for cellular standards and they are entitled to special recognition.
Fred Greitzer stated that the applicant has not provided information as to why they are having difficulty complying with the terms of the cell tower law. The applicant has made no representation as to why the law should not be followed.
Tim Kerin asked if there was currently a signal sharing agreement with any other carrier currently on the tower. Mr. Mandlebaum advised that Cingular does have an agreement with T-Mobile, but due to the pending acquisition with AT&T, this agreement is being phased out gradually. Mr. Kerin then questioned the possibility of entering an agreement with another carrier already on the tower. Mr. Mandlebaum said to keep in mind that the other providers each have their own frequency and equipment and there is already competitors operating on the tower now.
Several area residents also felt that the additional antennas would be visible and would be a huge intrusion on the town.
Concerns were raised in regard to the weight on the tower. The current weight now is 1050 lbs. with an additional 250 lbs. if Cingular is added. Also, the structural integrity issues were questioned.
The Planning Board voted at their last meeting that this variance be denied.
Several residents, as well as, Mr. Mandlebaum requested approval to keep the public hearing open for another month in order to have the additional questions that were raised answered.
Robert Hendrickson asked the board to vote on the issue of keeping the public hearing open. All board members agreed to keep the public meeting open.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried.
The public hearing for Cingular Wireless will continue at the next meeting scheduled for July 20, 2004, at 7:30 PM.
IV. OLD BUSINESS
Douglas Hase - Variance #2003-11 (Decision)
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, read the seqra report submitted by Dan Shuster. The action is denial of the use variance submitted by Douglas Hase an unlisted action.
A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson and seconded by Louis Muenkel to deny the variance. All voted in favor of the denial.
A motion was made by Leland Eaton and seconded by Angelo Guiliano to accept the negative declaration in accordance with the opinion that was just read by Mary Lou Christiana.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, YesAngelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried.
The resolution to deny the variance, prepared by Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, was read by Chairman Hendrickson. Based on a complete analysis of the evidence submitted and full evaluation of the factors submitted, the Town of Rosendale Zoning Board of Appeals finds that the applicant has not proven unnecessary hardship as needed to obtain a use variance, therefore, the use variance is denied.
A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson and seconded by Angelo Guiliano to accept the negative resolution as written.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
Barbara Valocore - Variance #2004-03 (62 day decision)
Decision not finalized.
V. NEW BUSINESS
John T. & Jeanne Walsh - Variance #2004-08
The property is located at 430 Main St., Rosendale (next to Rosendale Cafm©). The property is on an undersized lot. The Walsh’s are looking to use this property for commercial space downstairs and residential upstairs. The planning board could not grant a variance because the property had a discontinuance of use and was referred to the zoning board. Jeanne Walsh noted that a Acupuncturist is interested in going in the downstairs and upstairs there would be two small one bedroom apartments. It was noted that the building is in character with other properties in the neighborhood and would add revitalization of the street.
Harry Skerritt, building inspector, stated that they are looking for an area variance because they do not have onsite parking.
A public hearing is scheduled for the next meeting on July 20, 2004.
Rondout Productions (Catskill Cake Company) - Variance #2004-09
Margaret Rion and Peter McCormick are looking for a variance to run a wholesale bakery in a newly finished basement at 410 Main St., Rosendale. It would be a small operation that will employ up to 4 people. They had previously gone before the Planning Board and were advised that the wholesale manufacturing of foods was in violation of the 75-8 zoning laws that prohibits food manufacturing in a B-1 district. They are seeking a zoning variance based on the fact that the proposed wholesale bakery is more of a craft thing than a manufacturing of baked goods on a large scale. It will be a very small operation, a mom & pop business who would cater to other businesses.
Lou Muenkel asked what number of ovens would be used in this space. One would be a blodgett oven, a convection oven and a 6 burner stove w/oven.
The character of the neighborhood would not be altered.
A public hearing is scheduled for the next meeting on July 20, 2004.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE
Zoning Bulletin - May 10, 2004 & May 25, 2004
Letter from John Rah, dated May 18, 2004, regarding Affidavit
Letter from Ron & Barbara Schade regarding bungee jumping
Letter from Bob Gallagher regarding meeting attendance
A motion was made by Denise Pitcher and seconded by Louis Muenkel to close the meeting at 10:00 PM.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 20, 2004 at the Rosendale Recreation Center.

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
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, Present
II. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, June 15, 2004: A motion was made by Denise Pitcher to approve the minutes and seconded by Louis Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
John & Jeanne Walsh - 62.82-5-4 Variance #2004-08 - The Walsh’s are applying for approval of an area variance for mixed use on an undersized lot located at 430 Main Street, Rosendale, NY. The building is on an undersized lot and had discontinuance of use. The property is in a B1 district. The Walsh’s currently have a building permit and are restoring the building to hopefully use for commercial space downstairs and residential upstairs. The building is in character with the neighboring properties and would add to the revitalization of Main Street. Mark Morganstern, owner of the Rosendale Cafm©, expressed concerns about the parking availability. He asked about the number of parking spaces that were allotted per business in the municipal parking area. Fred Greitzer explained that there was currently no answer on the number of available spots as the town parking committee has just been formed and they are in the process of determining the number of spaces per business. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, also voiced concern regarding the number of spaces being waived to businesses before knowing the amount of spaces that are actually available. Jeanne Walsh did not feel that there would be a problem and noted that her tenants would know that they had to use a municipal lot. Mr. Morganstern wanted to have signage for the municipal parking that people could see from Main Street.
The public hearing was closed by Robert Hendrickson. All board member voted in favor.
Cingular Wireless (Southwestern Bell Mobile) Variance #2004-05 - Seth Mandelbaum, Attorney for Snyder & Snyder, LLP, continued the public hearing by presenting answers to the questions that were previously raised by the ZBA. A report prepared by Tower & Wireless Construction Co., dated July 15, 2004, concludes that the existing tower is in great shape and there are no reasons why any other sectors & antennas should not go up. It is clear that the existing tower can structurally support the proposed Cingular facility. Also presented was a report from Edward J. Ferrarone, President of Lane Appraisals, Inc., dated July 15, 2004, that stated based upon his inspection of the area surrounding the existing tower, and experience as an appraiser, the installation, presence, and/or operation of the proposed Cingular antennas and shelter would not result in the diminution of property values or reduce the marketability of the homes in the area. A complete listing of Mr. Ferrarone’s qualifications was also submitted to the board. Cingular confirmed that a generator is not proposed in connection with the proposed facility and that the battery backup system in the proposed equipment shelter would last approximately four hours in the event of a power outage. Cingular also considered the following locations at the suggestion of the ZBA, the public and other Town officials, none which proved to be a technically viable location to remedy Cingular’s significant gap in reliable service to the Town; Joppenberg Mountain, Town of Rosendale Water Department property off of Mountain Road and Rosendale Transfer Station off Hickory Bush Road. It was also noted that Cingular is classified as a public utility for the purpose of zoning applications and the Zoning Board has a narrower range of discretion in dealing with variance applications filed by them. Also, Mr. Mandelbaum stated that the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that the regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any state or local government shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. In light of the prior approvals granted by the Town of Rosendale to Cingular’s competitors to locate nearly identical installations on the existing tower to that proposed by Cingular, the denial of the application would discriminate against Cingular and have the effect of prohibiting the provision of Cingular’s service to the Town of Rosendale which is violation of the Telecommunications Act. Mr. Mandelbaum said that this is the initial build out for Cingular, they want to provide coverage for the Town and sign long term leases. They would start with the major roadways and gradually fill in the minor roadways. The existing structure does fulfill the initial goal of covering major roadways, including the Thruway and Route 32.
Fred Greitzer of Creek Locks Road, also a member of the committee who wrote the common cell tower law, asked about the meeting the counsel had with Town Officials. Russ Archer, of Site Acquisition, Inc., met briefly with the Building Inspector and also the Town Supervisor and asked for some direction. Mr. Greitzer did not see why Cingular should have a variance and why Cingular can’t comply with the law. Since this is the first application under the new law, and would set precedence, he felt the variance should be denied.
Barbara Valocore asked if the variance was granted would Cingular pay taxes to the town? Cingular would have a lease agreement with the owner of the tower and they would be taxed by the Town Accessor.
Tim Kerin of Maple Hill noted that even though an inspection had been done by a certified inspector the unforeseen could happen and the tower could collapse. There may also be undetected defects and he believes it is not worth the risk. It was also noted that the tower is less than 200 feet from five residents. The tower doesn’t met setback requirements and additional equipment should not be put on it.
Harry Skerritt, building inspector had spoken to engineers about the tower. It was a lattice tower when constructed and was an overkill when originally built because of AT&T big dish antennas that were put on it. The equipment that is on there now does not have the surface area that the AT&T equipment had. Mr. Skerritt did not want to see anymore equipment put on the tower, but did not believe there was any danger of the tower blowing over.
Robert Hendrickson made note that the law was written to protect the residents of Maple Hill and their properties.
Tim Kerin questioned the fact that Cingular was terminating the roaming agreement they currently have with T-Mobile, who is already on the tower. Mr. Kerin felt that this was a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Mandelbaum said that the roaming agreement was very limited and the agreement with T-Mobile is being phased out. Cingular wants their own network.
Seth Mandelbaum felt that all of the questions have been answered and asked that the public hearing be closed by the board and a decision made.
The public hearing was closed by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
All board members voted in favor. Mr. Mandelbaum was advised that a decision would be made within the 62 day time frame.
IV. OLD BUSINESS:
Barbara Valocore - 70.001-4-20 & 70.003-2-2.1-Variance #2004-03 - A motion was made by Robert Hendrickson to declare the board the lead agency with a negative dec
(no environmental impact under state law) and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
The resolution was read by Chairman Hendrickson approving the variance request for Barbara Valocore, on behalf of the Life Bridge Foundation, Inc. The ZBA found that the applicant has demonstrated that the zoning regulations have resulted in unnecessary hardship to the property owner and the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood. The variance request was granted subject to the following stipulations.
A. There would be no more than 30 participants in any program or retreat at the site
B. There shall be no more than 10 vehicles accessing the site for any program or retreat
C. There shall be no use made of the property other than that use allowed in this variance.A motion was made by Louis Muenkel to approve the resolution and seconded by Robert Hendrickson.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
Tammy & Steven Kelley - 70.8-4-26-Variance #2004-07 - Variance request for subdivision of 1.2 acre, removal of an existing structure and construction of a residential home. Robert Hendrickson stated that the board is not in the business of subdividing a non-conforming lot into two more non-conforming lots. The board voted as follows to disapprove this subdivision:
Robert Hendrickson, No
Louis Muenkel , No
Leland Eaton, No
Angelo Guiliano, No
Denise Pitcher, Abstain
The formal decision would be drawn up and presented for signatures at the next meeting scheduled for August 17, 2004.

Lisa Sterer - 62.82-5-14 - Variance #2004-04 - Robert Hendrickson read the resolution approving the variance request to permit conversion of a two-car garage and two small rooms into a small commercial space located at 402 Main Street, Rosendale, NY. The variance request observes the spirit of the law and would not change the character of the neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the variance by Leland Eaton and seconded by Robert Hendrickson.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried.
V. NEW BUSINESS:
Debra Saunders - 70.43-3-3 - Variance #2004-10 - Variance request to keep five chickens in a R-2 district. The property is located at 120 Grove St., Tillson. Applicant had no idea that she needed a variance request to keep them on her property. A complaint was received from her neighbor stating that she was in violation of the zoning law. Harry Skerritt, building inspector, stated when the neighbor moved in a few years ago they had a issue regarding the Saunder’s fence. The fence was on her property by 7 inches in certain spots. The neighbor was very irate and abusive and wanted the fence removed and also complained about rats on her property because of the chickens. Mr. Skerritt looked around the neighbors property and could find no rats or any signs where rats had been. The neighbor seems to be very unreasonable. Ms. Saunders would like to keep these chickens until their demise and does not intend to have any more after these five are gone.
A public hearing is scheduled for the next meeting scheduled for August 17, 2004.
Lawrence E. Craig, Sr. - 70-42-3-31 - Variance #2004-11 - Variance request to construct an attached two-car garage within two feet of the property line. The property is located at 23 Wallkill Ave., Tillson. A public hearing is scheduled for the next meeting scheduled for August 17, 2004.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
Cingular Wireless - Correspondence dated 6/10, 7/6,7/16 & 7/19/04
Planning Board Recommendations - Walsh & Rondout Productions
Letter from Ulster County Planning Board regarding side yard, rear yard and fence height exemption agreement. Mary Lou Christiana read the letter which stated that the exemption will eliminate the need for referral to the County Planning Board of all residential area variances related to side yard, rear yard and fence heights, and as a result, would help to expedite the review process and reduce interagency paperwork.
A motion was made by Denise Pitcher to approve the agreement and was seconded by Louis Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Louis Muenkel, YesLeland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.
Mr. Hendrickson signed the agreement and it will be forwarded to the Ulster County Planning Board.
Creek Locks Commons withdrawal letter
Zoning Bulletin - #11 - June 10, 2004
Letter from Stefan Lisowski regarding Valocore application
Douglas Hase & John E. Rahl, appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of New York

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
Leland Eaton, Present
Louis Muenkel, Present
Denise Pitcher, Present
Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney, Present
II. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, July 20, 2004: A motion was made by Leland Eaton to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Motion Carried.
III. OLD BUSINESS:
Jeanne & John Walsh - 62.82-5-4 Variance #Z2004-08 - Chairman, Robert Hendrickson read the resolution approving the area variance to permit commercial use of the downstairs and residential use upstairs on the property located @ 430 Main Street, Rosendale, NY, in the B-1 zoning district. A motion was made to approve the resolution as read by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Leland Eaton.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, YesMotion Carried.
Cingular Wireless - 70.26-1-5 Variance #Z2004-06 - Mary Lou Christiana, Attorney representing the Town of Rosendale, suggested that the ZBA make a motion pursuant to Seqra (State Environmental Quality Review) regulations, as the short environmental assessment form has been submitted. Mary Lou Christiana recommended that the board make a motion declaring this an unlisted action and declaring a negative declaration under Seqra. A motion was made by Angelo Guiliano to declare this as an unlisted action and a negative declaration under Seqra. The motion was seconded by Louis Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Motion Carried.
Mary Lou Christiana read the drafted decision that she had prepared for the board's consideration. The ZBA of the Town of Rosendale found that the applicant has demonstrated it has a need for the facility and that the broader public would be served by granting the variance and that the variance would not change the character of the neighborhood. A motion was made by Louis Muenkel to grant the requested variance and seconded by Angelo Guiliano.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Motion Carried.
Mary Lou Christiana made comment that the board did not want to grant the variance. However, after she had done extensive research of the law in the area, and the fact that the applicant has met it’s burden that it must meet in order to have this variance granted, she advised the board to grant the variance because she is quite sure that if it were denied Cellular would have a good Article 78 appeal to Supreme Court. After reading many cases, the Telecommunications Act, and the Town's local law, she felt that the applicant would be successful.
Tammy & Steven Kelley - 70.26-1-5 Variance #Z2004-07 - Chairman, Robert Hendrickson, read the resolution to deny the variance application request to permit the subdivision of land @ 188 Grove St, Tillson, NY, to form two undersized non-conforming lots. The lots sought to be created by the application would require a substantial variance and would change the character of the neighborhood and be detrimental to nearby properties. A motion was made by Leland Eaton to deny the requested variance and seconded by Louis Muenkel.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Abstained
Motion Carried.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Debra Saunders 70.43-3-3 Variance #Z2004-10 - Ms. Saunders submitted an application for approval of a variance for agriculture/livestock use (Chapter 75-18J) on property located @ 120 Grove St., Tillson, NY. Debra Saunders stated that she has lived @ 120 Grove Street for 19 years and always had chickens and has never had a complaint from any of her neighbors until recently. Irene Hodder, the neighbor making the complaint, stated that when she moved in eight years ago next door to the Saunder's, their property was not fenced in and the chickens were often in her yard and constantly destroying her garden. At Ms. Hodder's request, the Saunder's put up a fence. A complaint was then made about the rats that were burrowing under her fence which carried ticks that were infecting her family. It was felt that the rats were attracted to the chickens and chicken feed from the Saunder's property. The Building Inspector and the Public Health Department has been to the Saunder's property, as well as, the Hodder's property and did not find any signs of rats. A neighbor who had goats did have rats and the goats have been removed. The whole foundation had been infested with rats and Mr. Skerritt was not aware that they had resolved their problem with the rats. They may be trying to solve the problem, however, Mr. Skerritt believes this is where the problem with rats is coming from. Several other neighbors who were in attendance have not seen, or had a problem with rats, and did not see a problem with the chickens and felt that the Saunder's should be able to keep their chickens (4) until their demise. Jere Brown, Chairman of the Planning Board, stated that it is the Planning Board's recommendation to let the Saunder's be allowed to keep the remaining chickens until their demise and not to replace them.
A motion was made by Louis Muenkel and seconded by Leland Eaton to close the public hearing.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.
Lawrence E. Craig, Sr. 70-42-3.31 Variance #Z2004- Mr. Craig submitted an application for a area variance for addition of a attached two-car garage to his property located @ 23 Wallkill Ave, Tillson. The proposed addition will not meet the side yard setback requirements. Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, recommended that Mr. Craig go to his neighbor and get a notarized letter stating that they agree with the variance before going any further as there was problems in the past with similar situations. Mr. Craig would comply with Mr. Skerritt's request. Chairman Hendrickson advised that there were certified letters sent out to the adjacent neighbors, however, since there was a lot of relief being asked for, he felt that a notarized letter from the neighbor would be appropriate. Denise Pitcher asked why the garage could not be on the other side of the house and Mr. Craig advised that this is where the drain field is located. The recommendation from the Planning Board was to modify the size of the garage to a single car size allowing more of a setback for Fire Department access. A motion was made by Angelo Guiliano and seconded by Louis Muenkel to close the public hearing.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Louis Muenkel, Yes
Leland Eaton, Yes
Denise Pitcher, Yes
Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.
V. NEW BUSINESS
John & Linda O'Sullivan 70.8-2-22 Variance #Z2004-12 - Mr. O'Sullivan submitted an application for an area variance as he cannot meet the setback requirements. The O'Sullivan’s would like to add a two-story addition approximately 42' by 20' with a 10' by 16' mudroom entranceway on their property located @ 10 Spring St, Tillson. The lot is .357 acres. Jere Brown felt that with the addition the house would not be out of character with the neighborhood. Harry Skerritt, Building Inspector, has not seen the plans, however, stated that the applicant is looking for a 10 foot relief from the 35 foot setback requirements and didn't see where it would be a major problem A public hearing will be scheduled for September 21, 2004.

VI. CORRESPONDENCE
Zoning Bulletin #16, August 25, 2004
Recommendation from Planning Board regarding John & Linda
O’Sullivan

IV. OLD BUSINESS:
John and Linda O’Sullivan - 70.42-3-31, Variance #Z2004-12 - Request for area variance on property located at 10 Spring St., Tillson, NY.
Chairman Hendrickson read the resolution stating that the O’Sullivan’s are looking for an appeal to permit a two-story addition, approximately 42 feet by 20 feet, with a mudroom entrance way, approximately 10 feet by 16 feet. The applicant had submitted a plot plan showing the existing property with the addition, the matter was referred to the Rosendale Planning Board and a public hearing was held on September 21, 2004. The Rosendale Zoning Board of Appeals approved the variance as it observes the spirit of the law and would not change the character of the neighborhood since it is the minimum variance deemed necessary and adequate for this purpose and, at the same time, would preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood. It was also noted that the variance is good for one year. The motion was made by Louis Muenkel to approve the resolution and seconded by Leland Eaton.
Roll Vote: Chairman, Robert Hendrickson, Yes
Member Louis Muenkel, Yes
Member, Leland Eaton, Yes
Member, Denise Pitcher, Yes
Member, Angelo Guiliano, Yes
Motion Carried.