Meeting Schedules Agendas & Minutes
(Time Noted: 7:00PM)
March 23, 2006
EILEEN REGGERO
CHAIRPERSON CARDONE: I would like to call our meeting to order. Before we begin our public hearings I would like to observe a moment of silence in Memory of Michael Maher. Mike was a valuable member of this community who devoted his time in many areas to improve the Town. He faithfully served on this Board for over ten years and he will be greatly missed.
Moment of Silence Observed.
Chairperson Cardone: We will start this meeting with our Roll Call.
Betty Gennarelli: OK
ROLL CALL TAKEN
PRESENT ARE:
GRACE CARDONE
JOHN MC KELVEY
RUTH EATON
RON HUGHES
ROBERT KUNKEL
ABSENT:
JAMES MANLEY
Chairperson Cardone: The first order of business is the public hearing scheduled for today. The procedure of the Board is that the applicant will be asked to step forward and state their request. The Board may then ask questions of the applicant. Members of the public are then invited to make comments or ask questions which should be directed to the Board. We will try to make a decision this evening. However we have up to 62 days to make a decision.
EILEEN REGGERO 485 LITTLE BRITAIN ROAD
(97-3-20) ZONE 3-O
Applicant is seeking variances to erect front and rear decks on their residence.
Area variances for side yard set back and for yards on County Roads are required.
Side yard will be 12’, required 15/30’ and 185-18-C-4-B yards on County Roads require 60’, 55’8” existing, requesting 45’.
Chairperson Cardone: Our first applicant this evening is Eileen Reggero. First have you given your mailing receipts to the Secretary?
Ms. Regger Yes
Ms. Gennarelli: All mailings were in order.
Chairperson Cardone: Thank you.
Ms. Gennarelli: We are using the microphone tonight.
Chairperson Cardone: Would you step to the microphone?
Ms. Regger Is it OK, if he (Willi Williams) speaks for me?
Chairperson Cardone: It doesn’t matter. That’s fine.
Ms. Regger Eileen Reggero, and what I would like to do is build a back deck, in the back of my house and in the front yard, put a porch on the house.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have questions from the Board?
Ms. Eaton: You tearing that back porch off that’s there presently?
Ms. Regger Correct.
Ms. Eaton: And, just an open deck will be put there?
Ms. Regger In that area, a covered deck.
Mr. Williams: A covered deck.
Ms. Eaton: A covered deck, this is in the back?
EILEEN REGGERO
Ms. Regger The back.
Chairperson Cardone: I do have the report from the Orange County Department of Planning and their comments … the reason for this review is because this is located within 500 ft of a State Highway, which is 207. In determining whether to grant the requested area variance consideration should be given to the added benefit afforded an applicant if the variance is granted versus the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community or neighborhood by such an approval. And the County is recommending Local Determination.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have other questions from the Board?
Chairperson Cardone: The front deck that you are talking about …
Mr. Williams: The front porch?
Chairperson Cardone: The front porch, yes, what were the dimensions on that?
Mr. Williams: It’s 6 feet deep and the width of the house, which is 34 feet.
Chairperson Cardone: OK. Any other questions from the Board?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Any questions or comments from the public? If so, please stand and state your name and address.
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: They’re being none I declare this part of hearing closed. Thank you.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
(Time Noted: 7:05 PM)
EILEEN REGGERO
(Resumption for decision: 7:55 P.M.)
Chairperson Cardone: The Board is resuming its regular meeting. On our first application of Eileen Reggero at 485 Little Britain Road seeking a variance for a side yard deck. This is a Type II action under SEQRA. Do we have any discussion on this application?
Ms. Eaton: I think its definitely going to improve the appearance of the house and it’s an asset to the neighborhood.
Mr. McKelvey: The property is well kept.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a motion for approval on this application?
Mr. Kunkel: I’ll move for approval.
Chairperson Cardone: Second?
Mr. McKelvey: I’ll second.
Chairperson Cardone: All those in favor, please say Aye.
Ms. Eaton – Aye
Mr. Hughes – Aye
Chairperson Cardone – Aye
Mr. Kunkel – Aye
Mr. McKelvey – Aye
Chairperson Cardone: Opposed?
No Response
Chairperson Cardone: The motion is carried.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
(Time Noted: 7:57 P.M.)
(Time Noted: 7:05PM)
March 23, 2006
WILLIAM PATTERSON
154 NORTH PLANK ROAD
(41-2-15.2) ZONE B
Applicant is seeking to erect freestanding sign.
A variance is requested to increase the signage allotment, has 9’ of usable signage left; freestanding sign has 150 total feet. Variance required is for 141 ft.
One mailing address was received incomplete from the Assessor’s Office. The applicant’s representative was contacted by our office and notified of the error.
The applicant’s representative, contacted personally and faxed the notice of hearing to the omitted property owner. They also brought in the notarized notice for our file. With this, all mailings were in order.
Chairperson Cardone: Our next applicant William Patterson.
Mr. Raab: My name is Jim Raab; I am with the Engineering firm of Vincent J. Doce Associates. I am here representing Mr. Patterson for the sign variance. He had previously applied to this Board and was denied for a sign variance of 500 sq ft. That was reduced to 250 sq ft of which 100 ft doesn’t need a variance because those are the signs on the building.
Mr. McKelvey: those signs on the building?
Mr. Raab: It amounted to 100 sq ft, he was allowed 109. So, really the variance tonight is really only for the freestanding sign, which is now down to 150 sq ft. The existing sign that is there now is 166.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have questions from the Board?
Mr. Hughes: Yes I have some.
Chairperson Cardone: Yes
WILLIAM PATTERSON
Mr. Hughes: You referenced some signs that are on the building at present?
Mr. Raab: I referenced the signs that were on the building before.
Mr. Hughes: There is nothing on them now?
Mr. Raab: Nothing on them now.
Mr. Hughes: Is the sign that exists there now going to remain there?
Mr. Raab: No. The freestanding sign is what we are here for before the Board for tonight.
Mr. Hughes: So, you are talking about a new freestanding sign to replace the old one in total.
Mr. Raab: In total, yes.
Mr. Hughes: OK, but you still have big numbers here. Why?
Mr. Raab: Because you have to total them so you know what the amount is. The total is a hundred; right now I think it’s two hundred
Mr. Hughes: It’s 250 I have here; here is the chart if you want it.
Mr. Raab: There were 290 sq ft with all the signage that was on the building, but, now there is only 250. The building signs account for 100 sq ft and the freestanding sign will be 150 sq ft, counting both signs.
Mr. Hughes: We never got a detail of what’s going to be on the sign in our package or at least I didn’t. Did any of the other members?
Mr. McKelvey: Not on the building.
Chairperson Cardone: This
Mr. Hughes: No I never got that.
Chairperson Cardone: You never got this?
Mr. McKelvey: Oh no, here we got
Mr. Hughes: I got a sheet with that’s empty
Mr. McKelvey: I apologize, I didn’t realize
WILLIAM PATTERSON
Mr. Raab: I apologize for you getting one.
Mr. Hughes: No, I can see it now.
Mr. Raab: I apologize.
Mr. Hughes: All right, so there should be no further signs on the building itself, everything is going to be on the freestanding.
Mr. Raab: No. What it is, is that the building signs don’t need a variance anymore. OK?
You only allowed 109 by zoning. OK, It’s only 100 sq ft in building signs. He wants to replace 166 sq ft freestanding sign with 150 sq ft freestanding sign. The signage will now total 250 sq ft. It was 290 before he took all the signs off the façade.
Mr. Hughes: OK
Ms. Eaton: I notice on the freestanding sign it says Nu-Glass.
Mr. Raab: Yes
Ms. Eaton: Where is that in the building?
Mr. Raab: Nu-Glass is in the back. They have a back entrance over here. They don’t have a front sign at all.
Ms. Eaton: OK, thank you.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have any more questions from the Board?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have any questions or comments from the public?
No Response.
If not, I declare this part of the hearing closed. Thank you.
(Time Noted: 7:09PM)
WILLIAM PATTERSON
(Resumption for decision: 7:58 P.M.)
Chairperson Cardone: On the application of William Patterson, 154 North Plank Road seeking a variance to erect a freestanding sign. This is a Type II action under SEQRA. Do we have discussion on this application?
Mr. McKelvey: I think since his last appearance before us where there was a great amount of signs, it was up around 500 ft, something like that.
Chairperson Cardone: That’s right, exactly. Yes, it’s been cut in half.
Mr. McKelvey: And he has cut it back to 250? I see no problem with it now. The freestanding sign looks all right.
Mr. Hughes: I would just like to clarify one thing that there is going to be the freestanding sign of those square footages that you described and no signs on the building?
Mr. Raab: Well, it’s again.
Mr. Hughes: You are going to have signs on the building?
Mr. Raab: There are going to be signs on the building, but they don’t need a variance.
Mr. Hughes: OK. I wanted that clarified for the record. Thank you.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a motion to approve this application?
Mr. McKelvey: I’ll make a motion we approve.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a second?
Ms. Eaton: I’ll second.
Chairperson Cardone: All those in favor, please say Aye.
Mr. Kunkel – Aye
Ms. Eaton – Aye
Mr. McKelvey – Aye
Chairperson Cardone – Aye
WILLIAM PATTERSON
Chairperson Cardone: Opposed?
Mr. Hughes – No
Chairperson Cardone: We have one opposed. The motion is carried.
(Time Noted – 8:00 P.M.)
(Time Noted: 7:10PM)
March 23, 2006
BERTA ASSOCIATES (DR. MOHAMMAD KAHN)
STEWART AVENUE
(99-2-16.1) ZONE R-3
Applicant is seeking to construct a 3 Bedroom house.
Area variances for lot area, depth, front and rear yard set backs, lot building coverage and lot surface coverage are required.
The proposed lot area 4850’, existing 7650’, required 12,500’; lot depth 15’, existing 85’, required 100’; front yard 18.5’, existing 21.5’, required 40’; rear yard 20’, existing 20’, required 40’; lot building coverage 7%/533 SF, existing 22%/1700 SF, required 15%/1147 SF; lot surface coverage 4%/305 SF, existing 34%/2600 SF and required is 30%/2295 SF.
All mailings were in order.
Chairperson Cardone: Our next applicant is Berta Association.
Mr. Raab: This is a parcel of property roughly 90. Oh, by the way, for the record, I am still Jim Raab here representing Berta Associates and Aaron Taub in this area variance for a piece of property that is 90x85 on Stewart Avenue. And, we are looking for a, according the denial, the Building Department’s denials, we are looking for a lot area, front yard and rear yard variances and also lot building coverage and lot surface coverage. As displayed here on this drawing, I have got most of the buildings that are closest to the proximity of the property. There is basically no difference, as no different lot coverage, no different rear yard or side yards than most of the properties that are in the close proximity to this. In fact, we have a bigger rear yard than the two closest properties to us. The front yard, of course, we are the same front yard as this house, as I have shown in the packets that I gave you. The satellite photo shows how close all the rest of the properties are along the side over here. But it’s really in conformance with the way the neighborhood is and it’s a water and sewer lot and I think it will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
BERTA ASSOCIATES (DR. MOHAMMAD KAHN)
Ms. Eaton: Is the applicant going to live there?
Mr. Raab: No. The applicant is the builder.
Chairperson Cardone: So there are six variances that you need all together.
Mr. Raab: I think there is, but I am questioning the lot area.
Chairperson Cardone: Lot area, lot depth, front yard, rear yard, lot building coverage and lot surface coverage.
Mr. Raab: I’d say there, but I think we may have asked for an interpretation on the lot area because under 185-18 it’s an undersized. Just because it’s undersized it doesn’t mean it needs a lot area variance. Any lot in the Town of Newburgh should be able to get a building permit as long as they meet all the rest of the codes. But a, at any rate, let’s just say there are six variances.
Mr. McKelvey: This has water and sewer, right?
Mr. Raab: Yes.
Chairperson Cardone: Questions?
Mr. Hughes: Yeah, I have some. I have several issues with this and I believe there are 7 (seven) variances we are looking for. You overlooked the width problem. That’s not as nearly as significant as the rest of it. That’s only 5 feet. You are almost 5000 sq ft shy for the lot and proposal to begin with and that’s quite a bit of land taken out of that and I believe that this lot wasn’t approved as a building lot, it was residual as a left over from what went on around it.
Mr. Raab: Yes, basically they took 15 feet off the backside of it. (Inaudible.)
Mr. Hughes: And apparently, whether it’s a spec building or whatever the contractor has in mind I don’t go along with trying to build on stuff that’s very deficient. If it was a guy that had the property for a long time and he was going to build on it and then live there for a long time it would be another story. But, you have over 5000 sq ft on the lot alone before you get to the other 6 (six) things that you are shy on. So, that’s all I have to say about that.
Chairperson Cardone: Any other comments or questions from the Board?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Any questions or comments from the public?
BERTA ASSOCIATES (DR. MOHAMMAD KAHN)
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: None? I declare this part of the hearing closed. Thank you.
(Time Noted: 7:13PM)
BERTA ASSOCIATES (DR. MOHAMMAD KAHN)
(Resumption for decision: 8:00 P.M.)
Chairperson Cardone: On the application of Berta Association on Stewart Avenue seeking a variance to construct a 3 Bedroom house with a total of 6 variances. Do we have discussion on this application?
Mr. Hughes: I would just like to recap what we discussed during the first session. I think there is way too many things here, it wasn’t like someone had the property for a long time, and then decided to build on it. They knew when they bought it, the restrictions that existed and I think it’s way too much.
Chairperson Cardone: I agree with you as I went to look at the property I couldn’t imagine that lot being built on as being proposed.
Mr. Hughes: Yeah, it’s just way too much.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have any other discussion on this application?
Mr. Kahn: I have one comment, can I make it now? I came late to this.
Chairperson Cardone: The public hearing is closed, however, I will let you make one comment quickly.
BERTA ASSOCIATES (DR. MOHAMMAD KAHN)
Mr. Kahn: This (inaudible) Originally these were three (3) lots and each could have been built as a house. But, we had to decide that they were too small, like (inaudible) type of houses, to combine 3 lots, sometimes 4 but it was to make it big. So this type of thing could have gone for three houses there.
Chairperson Cardone: Thank you. Any other discussion by the Board? Do we have a motion to approve this application?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a motion for disapproval on this application?
Mr. Hughes: I’ll move
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a second?
Mr. Kunkel: I’ll second.
Chairperson Cardone: We have the motion for second for disapproval on this application. All those in favor of disapproval please say Aye.
Chairperson Cardone – Aye
Mr. McKelvey – Aye
Ms. Eaton – Aye
Mr. Hughes – Aye
Mr. Kunkel – Aye
Chairperson Cardone: Opposed?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Motion for disapproval is carried.
(Time Noted – 8:03 P.M.)
(Time Noted: 7:14PM)
March 23, 2006
NORTH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC/
STORM KING BUILDING CO.
FLEETWOOD DR & ROUTE 17K
(88-1-16) ZONE R-1 (PREVIOUSLY R-3)
Applicant is seeking to construct a single-family residence with a 2-car garage.
Area variances for lot area existing 7700’, required 12,500’; lot depth existing 70’, requesting 30’, required 100’; front yard (x2) existing 25’, requesting 15’ on each front yard, 40’ required; lot building coverage existing 1440’, over 15%, required 1155’; 185-18-C-4-B – 60’ required from State Highways; 185-18-C-4-C – Landscaping required on projects along Rte 17K.
All mailings were in order.
Chairperson Cardone: Our next applicant is North Development Company/Storm King Building Company.
(Note: Jim Raab also representing North Development Co LLC/Storm King Building Co)
Mr. Raab: This is a partial property that sits on the corner of Fleetwood Drive and 17K.
Again, it’s got the same number of variances as the last one had. The deficiency here with the lot area is quite a bit different because this is going to change to an R-1 Zone as of Monday. But it’s the same size lot as all the rest of the lots that are in the subdivision. And it is the front yard on Fleetwood Drive is deeper than all the front yards on of all the houses that run down Fleetwood Drive. The concern here is with 17K and what we propose to do is to help screen out 17K. We would like to plant 10 evergreens, 5 or 6 feet in height to screen out the building from Route 17K. I have one question as far as the, one of the variances that was in the denial about new development. This is not a new development; so, I don’t really believe it needs a variance to the landscaping …
Chairperson Cardone: If I could just make a comment, I have here a letter from Mark Taylor saying, please be advised that the Secretary of State acknowledged receipt of the above referenced law amending the Town Zoning Map on March the 8th, accordingly the
NORTH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC/ STORM KING BUILDING CO.
Local Law was effective as of that date and compliance with the amended zoning is required.
Mr. Raab: Right, let me just, Andy told me it would absolutely official as of Monday, but I … When I made this application I knew the zoning was changing, so that’s why I have it on the zoning chart 40,000 sq ft. And basically the thing here is the front yards and the lot area that is the case with most of these homes. Again, as far as the conformance with the rest of the buildings that are on Fleetwood Drive, it’s got probably 5, 6 feet more front yard than any other house on that side of Fleetwood Drive.
Mr. McKelvey: The house is going to face 17K?
Mr. Raab: Yes, it is.
Mr. McKelvey: With a driveway off of Fleetwood?
Mr. Raab: Yes.
Chairperson Cardone: I have here the report from the Orange County Department of Planning … in determining whether to grant the requested area variance consideration should be given to the added benefit affording an applicant if the variance is granted versus the potential detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community or neighborhood by such an approval. In this case if the 5 variances were granted for the eventual construction of the proposed house it would not significantly alter the character of the neighborhood as the photos and the planning departments aerial imaging software depicts. The smaller lot size is actually encouraged, as it is located within the county’s priority growth area, a designated area for development within Orange County. The driveway curb cut needs to be located on Fleetwood Drive as opposed to Route 17K to lessen traffic impacts on State Highways. And the County recommendation was approval. I don’t know that the thinking is the same as the thinking of the Town though. Any questions or comments from the Board?
Mr. Hughes: It’s about the same as the last proposal, the same kind of deficiencies exist here. It worsens as the law was changed, of course, and that is something that we can’t control.
Chairperson Cardone: Correct
Mr. Hughes: But even the way it was to begin with it is deficient. I have nothing further.
Mr. McKelvey: This is another spec?
Mr. Raab: No, this is going to be lived in by the applicant, Storm King.
NORTH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC/ STORM KING BUILDING CO.
Mr. Hughes: Is this going to be an office?
Mr. Raab: No. Then I would be here for another variance, wouldn’t I?
Mr. McKelvey: Yeah, I was going to say that, but Storm King? Storm King is going to live there?
Mr. Raab: A Storm King relative is going to live there.
Mr. McKelvey: Oh, OK, I mean you said Storm King.
Mr. Raab: I’ll correct myself. (Inaudible)
Chairperson Cardone: Any other questions from the Board?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Any questions or comments from the public?
The neighbors expressed their concerns about the proposed building, the many variances asked for, placement of the house, driveway, drainage, encroachment, privacy issues, trees blocking sight line for traffic coming in and out of Fleetwood and 17K, accidents and near accidents the neighbors had themselves, the safety of the proposed homeowner should an accident send a car or truck into the house itself, increasing traffic congestion, the eventual widening of Rte 17K, parking for the proposed homeowners and any of their visitors, parking is only allowed on one side of Fleetwood and the combined negative impacts that it would have on their quality of life, street and the value of their homes and property.
Chairperson Cardone: Thank you. Any other comments? Any other comments from the Board? If not, I declare this part of the hearing closed. Thank you.
Chairperson Cardone: Before proceeding the Board will take a short adjournment to confer with counsel regarding legal questions that have arisen from tonight’s applications. I know that there are a lot of people here and I hate to ask you this, but if I could ask you just to step out into the hallway while we consult with counsel. We will call you back in, in no more than 5 minutes.
(Time Noted – 7:45PM)
NORTH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC/ STORM KING BUILDING CO.
(Resumption for decision: 8:04 P.M.)
Chairperson Cardone: On the application of North Development Co. on Fleetwood Drive and Route 17K to construct a single family home, this is a Type II action under SEQRA. Do we have discussion on this application?
Mr. McKelvey: I think we have the same situation we have on this property that as the one before. It’s just not a good situation.
Chairperson Cardone: Many of the items that were brought up by the neighbors tonight are some of the same concerns I had as I looked at the property. I am certainly concerned with the widening of 17K, which is always a possibility and the amount of traffic on 17K. As I said, many of those concerns they have, are concerns that I also had. Any other discussion on this application?
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a motion for approval on this application?
No Response
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a motion for disapproval on this application?
Mr. McKelvey: I’ll make a motion we disapprove.
Chairperson Cardone: Do we have a second?
Mr. Hughes: Second.
Chairperson Cardone: On the motion for disapproval, all those in favor of disapproval please say Aye.
Mr. Kunkel – Aye
Ms. Eaton – Aye
Mr. McKelvey – Aye
Chairperson Cardone – Aye
Mr. Hughes – Aye
NORTH DEVELOPMENT CO LLC/ STORM KING BUILDING CO.
Chairperson Cardone: Opposed?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: Motion for disapproval is carried.
(Time Noted – 8:09 P.M.)
OTHER BOARD BUSINESS
(Time Noted – 8:09 P.M.)
March 23, 2006
The Board had a discussion of the extension request for Thomas & Danine Giorgianni and will address it again at the April 27, 2006 ZBA meeting.
Also the Board discussed attending the May 1 & 8 Course for Zoning Board of Appeals Law.
Chairperson Cardone: Another order of business this evening, the minutes from last month. The only correction that I saw in that is on the Root application, page 2; the fifth word should be Board and not Town. Did anyone else see any other corrections? Do I have a motion to approve the minutes with that correction?
Mr. McKelvey: I make a motion to approve with that correction.
Mr. Hughes: Second.
Chairperson Cardone: All those in favor please say Aye.
Mr. Kunkel – Aye
Mr. McKelvey – Aye
Ms. Eaton – Aye
Chairperson Cardone - Aye
Mr. Hughes – Aye
Chairperson Cardone: Opposed?
No Response.
Chairperson Cardone: OK, is there anything else? If not, I declare the meeting closed until next month.
(Time Noted – 8:17 P.M.)
Betty Gennarelli, Secretary – Zoning Board of Appeals