TOWN OF ROSENDALE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Minutes of the May 15, 2007 Meeting
(Draft)

 

Chairman Robert Hendrickson called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM at the Rosendale Community Center with the pledge to the flag.

 

I. ROLL CALL:  
 Ron Parenti, Present    John Maylie, Present
 Chairman, Robert Hendrickson, Present Leland Eaton, Present
 Denise Pitcher, Present

 

 Also Present, Fred Greitzer, Planning Board Liaison
             Billy Liggan, Planning Board Chairman

 

II. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING, April 17, 2007
A motion was made by John Maylie to approve the minutes as written.  The motion was seconded by Robert Hendrickson.
 Roll Vote: Bob Hendrickson, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
   Denise Pitcher, Yes  Ron Parenti, Yes
   John Maylie, Yes
 Motion Carried.

 

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:  None

 

IV. OLD BUSINESS:  William Jobsis/Sandra Petersen, 363 Main St., Rosendale.
Tax Map #62.82-4-28. 
Based on the information received from the public hearing for the request for new commercial/residential building, John Maylie put together a pros and cons analysis by criteria for this request which was distributed to all board members.  Mr. Maylie felt that this would be a good basis for the decision of the board.  #1 Would an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties by granting this variance?  The improved lot would add businesses to Rosendale, improve property values and hamlet ambiance.  As currently proposed, it would also reduce neighbors view.  The submitted plot plan indicates that the proposed building juts out further than immediate neighbors buildings, reduces frontal green space and increases parking problems in the hamlet.   #2 Results achieved by any other means?  The only way would be to expand the size of the lot or reduce the development size.  #3 Is Variance substantial?  Yes, the request is more than 100% variance or double what the town code allows for the desired use.  #4 Is there a physical or environmental impact?  Possibly, the proposal would provide a large percentage of impervious surfaces close to the Rondout Creek could cause serious storm water problems and #5 the hardship is self-created.   
Mr. Maylie also felt that there would be a parking problem especially during the winter months. It was mentioned that there is a municipal parking area nearby. Fred Greitzer noted that the Planning Board requires onsite parking and also considers the distance from the municipal lot.
Lee Eaton felt that granting the variance would set a precedence due to the amount of relief that was requested. 
Chairman Hendrickson felt that the relief request was too great and the applicant may be looking for a monetary gain. 
A positive recommendation was received from the Planning Board. 

 

Ron Parenti likes the idea of the pros and cons spelled out, however, felt that it should be on Town letterhead and be signed by the person submitting it.  Mr. Parenti was informed that this was a guideline and was for only the Board’s discussion.  Mr. Parenti also made note that since the applicant’s were going to be his neighbors he was not going to vote on this request.  He was not sure that the proposed building would jut out further than the existing buildings and also didn’t feel that it would be reducing the front green space.  Mr. Parenti also agreed that the amount of parking on the street may be increased, however, did not agree on the parking problem. 
John Maylie warned Ron that his participation is putting the town at risk.  Ron was warned in both meetings that his participation is a conflict of interest.
Mr. Parenti advised that after speaking with the applicant’s, he did not feel that they were in this for just a monetary gain, nor did he feel they have any intention of relooking at or rehiring a architect.  It was noted that part of the Master Plan is the revitalization of Main Street.  Other than Bill Brook’s new building, no new building has been built on Main Street in over 100 years.  Ron did not feel that it was proven that an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood.  It also was unknown if the proposed variance would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and felt that there should be an objective point of view.  He felt that the precedence that would be set would only affect about 4 or 5 properties on Main Street.
Mr. Parenti felt that the Board needs to have consistent reasoning when variances are granted. 
John Maylie made a suggestion that the Zoning Board only look at the criteria presented before the Board, any other information should have no impact on the Board’s decision.
Denise Pitcher questioned Mr. Parenti on how he would get around the 100% relief the applicant is requesting.  Mr. Parenti felt that the revitalization of Main Street is important and felt that there were legitimate arguments on 2 of the 5 criteria for the application that have not been fully looked at. 
John Maylie felt that if the Board needs to look further than the 5 criteria, then the applicant needs to provide further information for the Board. 
John Maylie made a motion to prepare a decision to deny the application based on the request for 100% relief is too extensive and significant.  The motion was seconded by Robert Hendrickson.
 Roll Vote: John Maylie, Yes Robert Hendrickson, Yes
   Denise Pitcher, Yes Leland Eaton, Yes
   Ron Parenti, Abstain
 Motion Carried.
The decision would be prepared and signed at the next meeting scheduled for June 19, 2007.

 

Denise Pitcher felt that the Board Members all were for the revitalization of the Town, specifically Main Street.  However, felt that overlooking the fact that they are asking for a 100% relief, in  granting the variance.  The Board does not know that the applicant will not come back with another proposal and the Board would then grant their request which would be a win-win situation.  This is part of the procedure. 
Denise also felt that the Board should also look into the parking situation.

 

 

 

V. NEW BUSINESS:  William & Kathleen McGahan, 213 Binnewater Road.  Existing addition (Built 7 years ago) in non-conforming with regard to front yard setback.
Mr. And Mrs. McGahan purchased this property as the result of a bank sale with the intent to refurbish the building so that their son could obtain a mortgage.  When the applicant’s went to Town Building Inspector, Tom Fiore, their request for a building permit was denied as the previous owner had added an addition to the main house without a proper building permit and this addition does not meet the front yard setback requirements.  The addition is four feet closer to the road than the main house.  Mr. McGahan was told by Mr. Fiore that the previous owner did not have a certificate of occupancy.  Mr. McGahan was asked to provide the tax map number as it was not provided on the application. 
John Maylie made a motion to schedule a public hearing for the next meeting, June 19, 1007.  Denise Pitcher seconded the motion.
 Roll Vote: John Maylie, Yes  Denise Pitcher, Yes
   Leland Eaton, Yes  Ron Parenti, Yes
   Robert Hendrickson, Yes
 Motion Carried.
Mr. Maylie advised the applicant to provide more detail to the application questions.
The Board requested that Building Inspector, Tom Fiore, be present at the Public Hearing. 

 

VI. CORRESPONDENCE:
*Ulster County Planning Board response to Jobsis/Peterson Variance Request
*Letter from James Tully of DeGraff, Foy, Kunz & Devine, LLP regarding Susan Diamond property
*Recommendation from Rosendale Planning Board regarding Jobsis/Peterson variance request
*Town of New Paltz - local law to amend the code of the Town of New Paltz - local law to amend the code of The Town of New Paltz, Chapter 140, “Zoning” to add a new article XVI entitled public hearings
*Zoning Bulletin, Volume 1, No. 4, February 15, 2007
*Zoning Bulletin, Volume 1, No. 5, March 1, 2007

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Judy Lenz
Recording Clerk