ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

May 15, 2007

The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Center courtroom. Chairman Dunne, Members Kish, Haug, Sullivan and Smith; Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley and City Attorney Pisanelli were in attendance. Members Munoz and Vakirtzis; and Alternate Members Worthy and Mathers were absent.

Mr. Dunne outlined the format of the Board's proceedings for the benefit of the public. The meeting was then opened on a motion by Mr. Kish, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dunne noted five members were present and four votes would be needed in order to grant a variance.

Mr. Dunne called for corrections/additions or a motion to approve the minutes of the April 17, 2007 meeting. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 17, 2007 meeting as submitted, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PAUL & HELEN NUCCITELLI, 156 DEPUYSTER AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-32-471859, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) TO CONVERT AN EXISTING OPEN DECK INTO AN ENCLOSED SUNROOM WITH A 12 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (15 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Paul & Helen Nuccitelli, 156 DePuyster Avenue, for relief from Section 223.17(c) to convert an existing open deck into an enclosed sunroom with a 12 ft. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Kish, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Helen and Paul Nuccitelli described their proposal to convert their existing open rear deck to an enclosed sunroom. A variance is required for the side yard setback because it is located 12 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. side yard setback is required. The sunroom will remain within the present configuration of the existing deck.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Kish made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Kish made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DEBORAH SCOFIELD, 1 GOODRICH STREET, TAX GRID NO. 6054-47-337549, R1-5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) TO REPLACE AND ENLARGE AN EXISTING FRONT PORCH WITH A 5.2 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Deborah Scofield, 1 Goodrich Street, for relief from Section 223.17(c) to replace and enlarge an existing front porch with a 5.2 ft. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Ms. Haug, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Deborah Scofield described her proposal to replace and enlarge a small metal covered porch on the front of her house at 1 Goodrich Street which will have a 5.4 ft. side yard setback where 10 ft. is required. The porch will be open construction with a simple railing and the front will continue uniform street frontage. She provided a letter of support from the neighbor who would be most affected. Mr. Dunne read the following letter into the record:

Dear Zoning Board of Appeals:

I support Deborah Scofield’s proposed enlargement of the front porch.

Thomas O’Leary

71 Robinson Street

Beacon, New York

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Haug made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY ROBERT CHURCHILL, 39 DENNINGS AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 5954-50-649611, RD-6 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR A 16 FT. X 16 FT. STORAGE SHED WITH TWO 10.5 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACKS (15 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Robert Churchill, 39 Dennings Avenue, for relief from Section 223.17(c) for a 16 ft. x 16 ft. storage shed with two 10.5 ft. side yard setbacks was opened on a motion made by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Robert Churchill explained his proposal to replace two small sheds (8 ft. x 10 ft. and 8 ft. x 12 ft.) with one 16 ft. x 16 ft. shed. The shed will be centered on the property and have two 10.5 ft. side yard setbacks where 15 ft. is required. The shed will be used to store equipment, i.e. snow blower, motorcycle, tools, lawn mower, etc.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Ms. Haug made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Smith made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY BRIAN SMITH, 21 ST. LUKE’S PLACE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-38-152660, R1-5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.26(C)(1) TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD

The public hearing on the application submitted by Brian Smith, 21 St. Luke’s Place, for relief from Section 223.26(c)(1) to allow parking in the required rear yard was opened on a motion made by Mr. Kish, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Brian Smith described his proposal to move the existing driveway further over and expand it to a width of 22 ft. The property is a corner lot with the front of the house facing St. Lukes Place and the side facing Churchill Street. A garage, located at the end of the driveway, was recently demolished because it was ready to fall down. The new driveway will be 10 ft. from the neighbor’s house and 5.2 ft. from the property line. Mr. Smith explained a 10 ft. x 12 ft. shed will be located in line with the driveway and square with the curb. He would rather not locate the shed near the house so they can have a larger yard area.

Daniel Morea, 16 Churchill Street, reported his home abuts the Smith family property. He and his wife reviewed the plans for the driveway and shed with Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They are very agreeable to their proposal and feels it will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Morea reported the Smith’s have proven to take great care and pride in their home. He requested the board to support their variance.

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Ms. Smith made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Kish made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PEDRONEL MASMELA, 170 NORTH WALNUT STREET, TAX GRID NO. 6055-69-030126, R1-7.5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) TO CONSTRUCT A 15 FT. X 20 FT. CARPORT WITH ZERO (0 FT.) SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Pedronel Masmela, 170 North Walnut Street, for relief from Section 223.17(c) to construct a 15 ft. x 20 ft. carport with zero (0 ft.) side yard set back was opened on a motion made by Ms. Haug, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Pedronel Masmela introduced Rasando Nunez, 7 Kelly Place, Fishkill, New York, to translate and speak on his behalf. Mr. Nunez described the proposal to install a 15 ft. x 20 ft. carport on his driveway with a zero side yard setback. He wants to protect his vehicles and provide his mother-in-law with easier access to a new door located on the side of the house. The carport will be exactly where driveway is now and remain in line with the front of the house.

Mr. Sullivan asked if the carport would remain open in the front and the back because he had concerns for egress to the rear yard. Mr. Nunez reported there will be no walls on the structure. Mr. Buckley explained the roof is what triggers the need for a variance because at any time walls could be installed and the structure closed in without a need to return to the Zoning Board of Appeals for approval. Ms. Smith asked if the board could stipulate that the carport remain open and at no time would walls be permitted. City Attorney Pisanelli reported the board has never come across this type of situation before. Mr. Buckley was unsure whether they could grant a variance for a carport because walls can be added. He explained that roofing is what triggers the setback requirement for a principal structure as opposed to an accessory structure. Mr. Masmela reported he has no plans to enclose the carport.

Henry Chaya, 146 North Walnut Street, objected to the request because the houses on this street are equally spaced apart – a layout which he feels adds to their property value. If that pattern of spacing is broken down by granting this variance, it would set a precedent for property owners to do the same in the future. He felt property values would be adversely affected. Mr. Chaya believed the purpose of the City’s zoning regulations should be well thought-out before changing them. He felt property owners should be critical of one another when changes to their property may affect the aesthetics of the entire neighborhood. He believed the City deems the current zoning regulations to be appropriate therefore should be upheld so it is not convenient to make changes. Lastly, Mr. Chaya said this street is unique to other neighborhoods where houses are located right on top of each other.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Kish made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Smith made a motion to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance denied; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO, OWNER OF 59 DEPUYSTER AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-40-397684, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE

The public hearing on the application submitted by David DeLeo, owner of 59 DePuyster Avenue, for a Use Variance to convert an existing single family house to a two-family dwelling in a single family zone was opened on a motion made by Ms. Haug, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Dave DeLeo presented a packet of information to members to familiarize them with the type of quality housing he has done in Beacon. He provided pictures of the building/apartment rehabilitation he did at 484 Main Street in the mid-90’s. He also presented a copy of the tax map highlighting multi-family houses located in the neighborhood of his properties on DePuyster Avenue. Mr. DeLeo explained the property, located in a single family zoning district, was divided into two parcels last year and it is surrounded by a series of 8 multi-family or two-family dwellings based on tax records. Mr. Buckley explained that as discussed at the Planning Board, the Assessor taxes properties based on their use, not necessarily legality. He was aware that one of the properties highlighted is an illegal two family with the remainder being either pre-existing or illegal. Mr. DeLeo recalled a few years ago the Building Department tried to focus on and correct illegal occupancies. He is simply trying to follow good planning procedures by seeking approval for similar uses that already exist in the neighborhood.

Mr. DeLeo presented a plan showing the property can be provided with driveways, turn around areas, parking and building setbacks that either meet or exceed the City’s requirements. He reported the parcels have the capacity to make larger apartments than the two bedroom units he is proposing. Mr. DeLeo reported he will construct a new architecturally appropriate house and enhance the existing brick structure by adding dormers in the front and rear. Mr. DeLeo explained he will build quality apartments that he would live in because he resided in one of his renovated apartments for three years to help bring back that part of Main Street. A variance also required for that project was granted and the project worked out well for him and the City.

Mr. DeLeo reported there is a great demand for two bedroom rental units. Prospective renters contact him all the time for his Main Street apartments but they are too small and/or they have a baby. Renters with children don’t want to be located on Main Street and people are going out to the larger apartment complexes in Fishkill or Wappingers Falls rather than Beacon. In turn, all the tax dollars and profit from these renters are not going into Beacon’s economy. Mr. Dunne countered that bringing four families with children would also increase the burden to the school system and asked Mr. DeLeo how his proposal would help the neighborhood. Mr. DeLeo stated it allows him to improve and develop the properties in a feasible manner. He added the existing house, built in 1952, needs new electrical wiring, plumbing, a new boiler, water heater, a new roof, new insulation to meet today’s energy codes, sheetrock and the bathrooms and kitchen renovations. Mr. Dunne felt density is an important issue and explained that although Beacon is about the same size as Poughkeepsie and Newburgh, it has half of the population. Mr. DeLeo said he would not propose this project if it were in a neighborhood that didn’t already have multi- and two-family dwellings, nor would he propose it on property with inadequate space. He feels Beacon will benefit from the apartments because they will be new and attractive to renters. Further, the City needs more higher-end apartments for new families with children under the age of five. Mr. DeLeo explained he is not creating large three bedroom apartments, reasoning that by the time a family has grown to that need, they usually have purchased their own home. This type of housing also targets senior citizens who have downsized or sold their homes. As a real estate broker, Mr. DeLeo reported every town falls short of adequate housing for 20 year olds and 60-70 year olds. He said most municipal master plans, including the recent draft done in Beacon, target and encourage this type of housing.

City Attorney Pisanelli reminded board members that this application is for a use variance which outlines very specific requirements. He listed the four criteria that must be considered: lack of reasonable return for the uses permitted under zoning regulations; proof that the hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; whether the requested use will alter the character of the neighborhood; and is the hardship self-created.

Mr. DeLeo provided an MLS listing price comparison of his proposal to what is available in the housing market. Based on similar square footage, bedroom count and lot area sizes, he would lose $50-60,000 considering the existing house needs to be brought up to today’s energy code and improved to meet today’s standards. Mr. DeLeo explained this gap creates a financial hardship. He explained if it were the peak of the market and the house did not need so much work, he would be in a position to make a profit. Mr. Dunne felt the applicant took a chance to turn a profit and was aware the property was in a single-family zoning district when he purchased it. Mr. DeLeo felt the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood because it is surrounded by eight multi-family properties.

Ms. Smith asked if the profit from subdividing and creating a parcel for a new single family house on the vacant lot would make the investment pay off. She felt the applicant would not be losing money because one property was split into two lots and the new single family house could be sold for a profit.

Mr. Sullivan noted the plan indicates the finished house would be 2,700 sq. ft. but the footprint is only 1,224 sq. ft. Mr. DeLeo explained he will be using some of the basement as habitable space for a playroom and finished laundry room.

Mr. Dunne read the following memorandum from the Planning Board into the record:

The Planning Board reviewed the applications submitted by Dave DeLeo for two 2-family dwellings on two adjacent parcels located at 59 & 65 DePuyster Avenue. The property that had an existing single-family dwelling was subdivided and a new building lot created – both lots will be accessed by a shared common driveway. Although two use variances are required before the board can consider the Special Use Permit applications, they allowed the applicant to state his position.

After discussing existing zoning and the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s recommendation to keep the area in a single family zoning district, the Board felt it appropriate to send an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board. As outlined in Section 223.58 of the City Code, the Planning Board voted to send a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for variances be denied.

As always, the final decision will be based on your review of the application but the Planning Board felt the aforementioned factors should be offered as an advisory viewpoint. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration.

Vincent Cervone, 77 DePuyster Avenue, reported he owns two adjoining parcels and although thankful for receiving notice of the variance request, questioned why he was not notified when the subdivision took place. The board secretary explained his mail was returned and the mailing address has been changed to correct the problem. Mr. Cervone felt the subdivision layout was inappropriate because the parcels will be sharing a driveway. He has owned one of the two-family houses highlighted by the applicant for nearly 20 years which had been converted into a two-family over 40 years ago so the owner’s grandmother could live there. The parcel adjacent to that was converted into a mother/daughter over 30 years ago. Mr. Cervone feels this project would ruin the whole neighborhood which is a close knit community. He reported people thought he was crazy for building a new house there eight years ago, but he lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. Mr. Cervone explained he had no desire to change his original house into a two family because it would not be right for the area. He explained the street cannot safely accommodate on-street parking and the average household has four cars. Mr. Cervone strongly objected to any change in zoning just for someone to make a profit.

John Morgan, 39 DePuyster Avenue located two parcels away from the property in question, reported his property is highlighted on Mr. DeLeo’s tax map as one of the multi-family houses. He informed the board that he purchased a legal single-family house, not a two-family dwelling as shown on the chart.

David Brammer, 40 and 32 VanKleeck Avenue, reported he has approximately five acres of land just behind this property. His property was rezoned after constructing his house to which he had no objection and felt it was good planning. He noted the City of Beacon has chosen to purchase the Hiddenbrooke property which is only 500 ft. from Mr. DeLeo’s property to maintain open space therefore so they must prefer to see less density in the area. Mr. Brammer supported single family housing and strongly objected to the proposal. He said Mr. DeLeo purchased the property knowing it was in a single family zoning district therefore he believes there is no justifiable hardship.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Kish made a motion to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance denied; 5-0.

ITEM NO. 7 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DAVID DELEO, OWNER OF 65 DEPUYSTER AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-40-401696, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN A SINGLE FAMILY ZONE

The application submitted by David DeLeo, owner of 65 DePuyster Avenue, for a use variance to construct a two-family dwelling in a single family zone was opened on a motion made by Mr. Kish, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. DeLeo announced this request is a repeat of the earlier item, however requested to be referred to the City Council because he was told that in order to get on the City Council agenda, the Zoning Board of Appeals would need to send them a referral. Mr. Dunne advised the applicant to independently contact the Mayor’s office regarding their agenda.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Dunne verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Smith made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Kish. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance denied; 5-0.

There were no further items to consider and the meeting was closed on a motion made by Mr. Kish, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.