III. PUBLIC HEARING:
William Jobsis/Sandra Petersen, 363 Main St, Rosendale, NY (Tax Map 62.82-4-28) Request for a new commercial/residential building.
Kurt Sutherland of KWS Architectural Services represented the applicants. The applicants are proposing a new multi-use building on the former grange lot. The proposed building will have a similar character and historical design to other building currently on Main Street. It would basically be retail space facing Main Street with a one bedroom residential rental unit on top and three duplex units with two bedrooms each behind; Town House style with historic quality. The back yard parking towards Stewart’s would be screened as much as possible with plantings. To the west side, parking would be shared with neighbor, Bill Brooks. A sidewalk would be put in from the Main Street sidewalk across the West side of the building. Mr. Sutherland noted that they have met the parking requirements, however, did not meet the area square footage requirements. He also feels that the proposed building is not out of character and feels they are meeting the purpose and intent of the Zoning Law. The footprint of the new buildings are smaller than the former grange building. The applicant wanted the footprint size pointed out as people were concerned about the size of the proposed building. Chairman Hendrickson pointed out that the square footage of the lot - per code - is much smaller than what you propose. As he understood it, the applicant is looking for 200% relief. What is the hardship? Mr. Jobsis advised that it makes sense financially. Chairman Hendrickson advised the applicants that they are asking for tremendous relief and needed to convince the board why that much of relief is needed from the code. Mr. Jobsis stated that they are staying within the character of the land. Sandra Petersen advised that it was not a hardship when they purchased the property; they wanted to develop Main Street and have people live there.
Dorothea Verdey and Vance Riley of 359 Main Street asked how close to their property line will this proposed building would be. Also how will water be assessed to this house? Kurt Sutherland advised that the building would be three feet from their property line and the water would be coming in from the front under the State road.    Mr. Riley felt that the size was too big for Main Street.
John Maylie was curious about the parking, the map shows seven off street parking spaces. Mr. Sutherland advised that seven and a half are required and they have seven in the back and two on the street.
Bill Brooks noted that anybody on the street has use of the municipal parking lot which has recently been expanded.
John Maylie had a few questions - What was rational on not changing the character of the neighborhood? Mr. Sutherland advised that research was done and the proposed building in regard to width, height and number of units were not out of sync with other buildings on Main Street.
What about the sidewalk as the proposed building would be very close to the road? Mr. Sutherland felt that it would be a positive impact as all of the other buildings already on Main Street are closer to the road than this proposed building with retail frontage other than Mr. Brooks’s building. It was pointed out that the two buildings next to this lot are farther back from the street than the proposed building would be.
Can a desired result be achieved by some other means than by granting a variance? Mr. Jobsis advised that the desire result is return on his investment. Also it would be low impact for the town (no disco - no fast food) with a good use for the lot and would increase the tax base. The retail store would probably be an art studio or a gift shop.
What is your rational for the variance request not being substantial?   That question on the application was answer no. Kurt Sutherland noted that all factors being taken in account, the request is not substantial. Part of the proposed building is zoned B-1 and part is zoned R-3.   The less restrictive zone can be used as guidelines, therefore, the building would be primary R-3.
Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood? Sandra Petersen felt that proposed building would be an improvement, will look nicer, be kept up and planning on making sure that there will be sufficient drainage area - a catch basin for storm water.   If the Board was in favor of this application, Mr. Maylie advised that the Planning Board would require a design on drainage.
Is the alleged hardship self-created? Mr. Jobsis stated that they are trying to get a variance for the existing zoning. In every other way, they are in conformance to the property.   Sandra Petersen believes the hardship may be self-created, however, they need a larger building to make money. Approximately one quarter of an acre will be affected.
Leland Eaton asked the applicant’s what the building would be assessed for when completed? The applicant’s had no idea of the value when completed.
Chairman Hendrickson advised the applicant’s that if the proposed building was being built for monetary return, and the Board granted this variance, they would be setting a precedence. John Maylie noted that the idea of the Town Code is to protect the neighbor’s property.   Bob Hendrickson advised that it is not the size of the building but the use and density of the building.
Denise Pitcher asked it they could accomplish the same thing with fewer units? Sandra Petersen advised that someone could but she was not sure if they could afford it.
Fred Greitzer advised that it was not the job of the Zoning Board to write new Town Code’s; the Board’s job is only to grant a variance. Also the other point was that the applicant’s are looking for 100% relief.
Ron Parenti advised that he owns the property to the rear of the proposed building. Is there going to be any kind of buffer or fence behind the parking lot? The applicant advised that if approved they would talk to Mr. Parenti to see what could be done to prevent headlights shining onto his property when entering the parking lot.
John Maylie made a motion to close the public hearing at 8:14 PM. Leland Eaton seconded the motion.
Roll Vote: Robert Hendrickson, Yes  Denise Pitcher, Yes
   Leland Eaton, Yes   Ron Parenti, Yes
   John Maylie, Yes
Motion Carried.