ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

June 19, 2007

The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 at 7:45 p.m. in the Municipal Center courtroom. Chairman Dunne, Members Vakirtzis, Smith and Sullivan; Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley and City Attorney Pisanelli were in attendance. Member Kish was excused; Members Haug and Munoz, 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. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Dunne noted four 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 May 15, 2007 meeting. Mr. Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 15, 2007 meeting as submitted, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY GLEN WILLOW PROPERTIES, FOR A USE VARIANCE TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USE ON PROPERTY PRESENTLY ZONED "LI" (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF THE FORMER "TUCK TAPE" INDUSTRIAL SITE ON TIORONDA AVENUE (TAX PARCEL 130200-5954-16-993482)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Glen Willow Properties, for a use variance to allow residential use on property presently zoned "LI" (Light Industrial), was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Jennifery VanTuyl, Cuddy & Feder, on behalf of her client, thanked members who were in attendance and apologized to anyone from the public who came to speak on this application. Because of the importance of the application, she respectfully requested that the hearing be deferred until the July meeting.

ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY REBECCA & CLARK GEBMAN, 348 LIBERTY STREET, TAX GRID NO. 6054-24-446939, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A 10-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING:

Required Proposed

Area 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.

Width 86 ft. 45 ft.

Depth 100 ft. 100 ft.

Side 15 ft. (minimum) 40 ft. (total) 11.25 – 22.5 ft.

Front 35 ft. 24 ft.*

Rear 35 ft. 16 ft.

* based on previously established setback (pronounced uniformity in neighborhood)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Rebecca & Clark Gebman, 348 Liberty Street, for a 10-lot residential subdivision with the listed variance requests was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Clark Gebman described his proposal to subdivide a parcel of land located on Liberty Street which is situated in the R1-10 zoning district. The proposal would reduce the formal density from 10,000 sq. ft. per dwelling unit to 5,000 sq. ft. as shown on the plan. Mr. Gebman reported the property, located along Fishkill Creek, has riparian rights to the center of the creek and is classified as non-navigatable because it sits between a dam and waterfall. He explained this application is being made for the practical purpose of retaining the condition of the site. Mr. Gebman reported Liberty Street is supported by a wall located on his property and the wall is in a severe advanced state of collapse. He estimated it would cost the City $1-$2 million to reinforce the wall and reconstruct the street. As a property owner (vendee) Mr. Gebman said he wants to create a situation where the street will be supported by constructing concrete structures along the lot line. He reported zoning allows underground basements to be within three feet of another structure, therefore he would construct separate structures to hold back the force of the street. Mr. Gebman explained the purpose of the proposed density is not to be a blight or problem to community; the purpose is to place concrete structures close enough to help support the street. He reported a study of land uses in the area was done when he originally subdivided this parcel from the Bender’s house which was a two-family dwelling. Mr. Gebman said on this particular block there are several 2-family houses and two 4-family dwellings; the average density on the block is 1.66 dwelling units per lot. He explained this proposal will reinforce the street as well as straighten out and widen a very dangerous curve in the road. Mr. Gebman reported that although a portion of the property is located in the flood plain, approximately 2/3 of it is not more than 18-inches under water at maximum. He said it is technically permissible under Federal law to construct buildings with the “floodway fringe”. Also, the property is located 10-14 ft. below the street which presents a unique opportunity to bring the vista from street level down. Mr. Gebman explained parking will be at street level, there will be adequate sight distance and only five curb cuts will be needed. He said the units will be somewhere around 3,000 sq. ft. including finished and unfinished space. Mr. Gebman explained the trade off for this particular proposal is that twice as many families will be able to enjoy the creek. Additionally, Mr. Gebman said in return he would be open to considering allocating half of the houses for workforce affordable housing by helping purchasers with closing costs and down payments. He felt this would be an excellent opportunity to create housing opportunities for middle class workers, i.e. nurses, teachers, etc. In summation, Mr. Gebman explained this proposal is based on the need to support the street by constructing a massive concrete structure. He explained this project can be done in one of two ways – constructing “McMansions” with junior (accessory) apartments or with more houses for the middle class workforce. Mr. Gebman reviewed objectives set forth in the City Zoning Code, Section 223.1(A-J), in terms of how his project would accomplish each goal.

A. To guide the future growth and development of the City in accordance with a comprehensive plan of land use and population density that represents the most beneficial and convenient relationships among the residential, nonresidential and public areas within the City, considering the suitability of each area for such uses, as indicated by existing conditions, trends in population and mode of living and, having regard for the use of land, building development and economic activity, considering such conditions and trends both within the City and with respect to the relation of the City to areas outside thereof. Mr. Gebman reported this project is the most beneficial and convenient because existing conditions indicate that a solution like this would be the most practical and in the best interest of the City.

B. To provide adequate light, air and privacy; to secure safety from fire and other danger; and to prevent overcrowding of the land and undue congestion of the population. Mr. Gebman reported this project is consistent in that it does not create undue congestion of the population because it is not out of the norm of the existing houses in the neighborhood. The 2-family and multi-family houses are prevalent throughout the neighborhood.

C. To protect the character and the social and economic stability of all parts of the City and to encourage the orderly and beneficial development of all parts of the City. Mr. Gebman reported this project encourages orderly and beneficial development of the City because it is solving a clear and present danger currently and is clearly is a benefit to the taxpayers of the City.

D. To protect and conserve the value of land and buildings appropriate to the various districts established by this chapter. Mr. Gebman reported this project is consistent in that it will appropriately protect and serve the value of land because they will be approximately $400,000 structures.

E. To bring about the gradual conformity of the uses of land and buildings throughout the City through the comprehensive zoning plan set forth in this chapter and to minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and buildings. Mr. Gebman reported this project does not conflict with existing uses of land because it is precisely what the neighborhood currently consists.

F. To promote the most beneficial relation between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the City, having particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the streets and the provision of safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements appropriate to the various uses of land and buildings throughout the City. Mr. Gebman reported there are two multi-family houses across the street with four units in each (as evidenced by four electrical meters). Similarly there are multiple and 2-family structures sprinkled throughout the neighborhood. Opposite this lot, multi-family units exist in Ryan’s Court and that area. This project will help solve the circulation of traffic throughout the City pertaining to the bend in the road.

G. To provide a guide for public policy and action in the efficient provision of public facilities and services and for private enterprise in building development, investment and other economic activity relating to uses of land and buildings throughout the City. Mr. Gebman reported this project provides for private enterprise through building development and helps public employees and services with regard to the retaining wall.

H. To limit development to an amount equal to the availability and capacity of public facilities and services. Mr. Gebman reported this project has adequate access to public facilities; water and sewer are readily available.

I. To prevent the pollution of watercourses and wetlands; to avoid hazardous conditions and excessive damage resulting from stormwater runoff and flooding; and to encourage the appropriate use and sound management of natural resources throughout the City. Mr. Gebman reported this project will prevent pollution of water and wetlands in that Liberty Street slopes toward his property. As a result, all the storm water runoff from the higher terrain is dumped onto his land, right where the retaining wall failed. There are ways to prevent storm water from going into the creek and this project could easily incorporate that aspect to pollution prevention.

J. To preserve the natural beauty of the physiography of the City; to protect the City against unsightly, obtrusive and obnoxious land uses and operations; to enhance the aesthetic aspect of the natural and man-made elements of the City; and to ensure appropriate development with regard to those elements. Mr. Gebman believes this project will enhance the aesthetic aspects of the natural aspects of the City because it is a well thought out solution to an existing problem. It is rational and reasonable in terms of structures that exist in the neighborhood and well within the need of the marketplace for housing. Mr. Gebman reported the subject of housing, i.e. conferences, newspaper editorials, and general discussion throughout the community, is the need for building single family houses on smaller lots to create more affordable housing for middle class residents and children of this City.

Mr. Dunne asked Mr. Gebman why he had not considered constructing five houses because most neighboring houses, whether single-family, multi-family, two-family, legal or grandfathered-in, all have larger lots. This will be ten houses on very small lots.

Mr. Gebman reported most lots throughout the City are similar or smaller in size. These lots are actually larger than the average lot when considering the entire block. Mr. Dunne felt this would change the character of the neighborhood by increasing density based on his impression of other houses up and down the block. Mr. Gebman pointed out several lots do not conform to the R1-10 zoning and Mr. Dunne explained they are pre-existing and grandfathered-in from previous zoning. Mr. Gebman reported the majority of lots in the neighborhood are non-conforming and was willing to accept that no one wants this project to move forward. Mr. Gebman said he will not make less money because he will revise the plan to five single-family houses with accessory apartments in each. McMansions with transient housing can be created but that will not provide the same stability of this proposal. Mr. Gebman felt his project will provide for long term 20-year home ownership where alternatives do not.

Ms. Smith asked if they would be sold as multi- or single-family houses. Mr. Gebman confirmed they would be sold as single-family houses.

Mr. Sullivan questioned Mr. Gebman’s statement that Federal law would allow construction on land 18-inches deep with water. Mr. Gebman clarified that in general terms, allowable depths range from 9-inches up to 18-inches. He explained the actual flood way ripples and roars with water, alternately water lays dead in the flood way fringe. The law permits one to displace the water and raise the terrain by one foot based on flood map velocity calculations. He reported the flood study assumes both sides are equal however property on the other side of the creek is lower. The new structures will be raised 4-5 ft. above the current level. Mr. Gebman reported he has film footage and City employees monitored the site during the flooding in April. He added although FEMA hasn’t published statistics yet, the general perception is the April flooding was like a “300-year flood”.

Several questions regarding engineering for the project were raised and Mr. Buckley explained this board is primarily concerned with variances, not the engineering details of the project. With regard to engineering issues, no one on the board can either validate or dispute engineering issues. Those discussions will take place with the City Engineer through the Planning Board process.

Mr. Gebman said there is no practical purpose for the 16 ft. rear yard setback so he had no objection to restoring it to the required 35 ft. He feels that measurement was innocently misinterpreted by City of Beacon staff. He said the real question is whether the City would like to embark on an effort to moderate the cost of housing by establishing a program to reduce the cost of middle class housing.

Steve Gold, 46 Pleasant View Avenue and a member of the Beacon City Council, was against approval of this project. He made clear that he is opposed to the application, not the applicant. Mr. Gold reported he has been involved in at least 20 Comprehensive Plan committee meetings over the last year and a half, and during those meetings public input and discussions took place regarding areas of density and land use. Meetings took place with experts, the City Council and the public, specifically regarding Fishkill Creek and density. The committee put together a draft comprehensive plan that will soon be going to the public and although recommendations compiled in that plan are not law yet, there has been a tremendous amount of consent to the information provided in the draft. Mr. Gold said the plan is in favor of developing and increasing density on Main Street and encourages density within and adjacent to the central business district where public transportation is available. They want to preserve the existing character of established neighborhoods and no where does it talk about increasing density in any other location. Mr. Gold reported the City Council, over the last ten years, has consistently believed that density should decrease as it reaches beyond Main Street. They have also taken steps to prevent two-family conversions because their concern was that the quality of life in established neighborhoods could be ruined or harmed by increased density. Mr. Gold said although other 2-family homes exist in the area, the Council stopped 2-family conversions to prevent higher density from occurring. Mr. Gold felt the City Council would more than likely accept current zoning standards which may only allow five homes on this property. He felt this proposal is in opposition to what will be adopted by the City Council as the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gold said if the ten future homeowners want to create accessory apartments it would double density from ten to twenty. On the other hand, five future homeowners may not want an accessory apartment. In conclusion, Mr. Gold said he respected the applicant’s effort to try to accomplish his goal but felt the City has a responsibility to look at an entire neighborhood and approval of this density would be a detriment to the neighbors’ quality of life.

Don Pomarico, 349 Liberty Street, said the condition of Liberty Street did not start to sink until recently. He lived across the street for 45 years and the road did not start to undermine until Mr. Gebman cut down trees along the edge of the road in order to truck and dump fill on the property. Since that time, the road started sinking therefore he believed Mr. Gebman started the problem. He asked about possible adverse affects to the environment and expressed concern about adequate support for the structures. Mr. Dunne explained the applicant must go to the Planning Board process where engineering aspects will be addressed.

Moe Baxter, 7 Ryan’s Avenue, said he has lived in Beacon for 52 years and is familiar with the Fishkill Creek from Glenham to the Hudson River. He wondered how the other side of Liberty Street would be affected by the proposed construction. He expressed concern about additional traffic over the single lane bridge because both projects will add at least 50 cars to the neighborhood. Mr. Baxter recalled it took two weeks for the water to recede after the last flood. He felt Mr. Gebman has not been around long enough to understand the workings of the creek, especially when water comes out of Jessen Pond.

James McCollum, 266 Liberty Street, read the following comments:

My name is James McCollum. My wife, Donna, and I reside at 266 Liberty St. which is in close proximity to both of the properties in question.

• There was a considerable amount of discussion concerning the original application to build ONE unit at 348 Liberty St. – now we are back reviewing a proposal for TEN UNITS!

• In spite of quite a bit of data acquired from the DEC, Conservation Advisory Committee, FEMA and local homeowners concerning this first proposal for a single family unit that Mr. Gebman was going to construct for his own residence, the Planning Board somehow found it acceptable to grant their permission to this project.

• Now we are looking at a proposal for a TEN UNIT subdivision on Liberty St. and a FOURTEEN UNIT subdivision on Stone St. requiring relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

• Since the time of the original proposal, back in 2004, the property at 348 Liberty St. has been twice affected by the flood waters of the Fishkill Creek during storm events in October 2005, and most recently and notably in April 2007. During this latest occurrence the property in question was COMPLETELY underwater for at least a couple of days! A considerable amount of water, in fact, until the creek receded somewhat many days later.

• The draft of the City’s just completed Comprehensive Plan makes no recommendation to increase the zoning density in these areas.
• Other major concerns include:

o Environmental impact of which we have many concerns, but we won’t go into them at this time.

o Increased traffic patterns along a very narrow one lane bridge (which was just recently rehabilitated) and roadway.

o Run off into the creek and adjoining stream from proposed housing.

o Further loss of the city’s “open space.” Isn’t it the policy and goals of the present Mayor and City Council to preserve what little open space there is left in the city?

We, ask you, if in fact, ANY home is built on said property – isn’t it our responsibility as taxpayers to protect the interest of the prospective buyer for their LIVES and their HOMES as well as any possible future LIABILITIES to this city?

In closing, I would just like to go on record as such:

During the first discussions concerning the original proposal of Mr. Gebman’s at 348 Liberty St, I precluded myself from any of the proceedings.

As I am employed by the City of Beacon and am responsible, as well as obligated, to protect the interest of all the city’s taxpayers, I did not want my position to be construed in any way that would influence any decisions made by any other city agency or board.

But, it is Mr. Gebman, himself, who continues to refer to my family’s residence on Liberty St. as “a city official’s home” and “the home of the Water Superintendent” in his various commentaries.

I would like to clarify that my wife, Donna, and I are here exercising our rights as city homeowners and taxpayers and that my position on these issues should be viewed in that context.

Thank you.

Fred Antalek, 75 Knevels Avenue, explained he came to this meeting for the first item on the agenda however stayed to hear this item. He was appalled that anyone would try to build on this property’s “fish bowl”. Having been in the City for 70 years, he witnessed flooding on that property many, many times and questioned how water could be prevented from coming into the property. Mr. Antalek reported he is a former Council member and agreed with the presentation made by his former colleague Mr. Gold. He felt the proposal to build in a “fish bowl” was absolutely ludicrous.

Theresa Kraft, 315 Liberty Street, lives in the house directly across the street from the subject property which Mr. Gebman referenced as a multi-family dwelling. She confirmed that it is a single family home and not an apartment building. She provided several pictures of flooding on Liberty and Stone Street, FEMA flood plain maps with descriptions, a proposed land use plan provided by the Comprehensive Planning Committee, documents relating to land use and zoning, and a list of her concerns. Ms. Kraft collected 142 signatures of residents who do not support the proposed development. She reported Liberty Street is starting to bank because vegetation, trees and brush are being removed. Ms. Kraft spoke to Scenic Hudson who recommended it remain a wild, wetland preserve.

Nancy Musacchio, 319 Liberty Street, said she lives directly across from the proposed development and objected to the variance request because it is too dense for the neighborhood. The property is beautiful and harbors a great deal of wildlife but it is always wet. Ms. Musacchio was not sure how the property could support the proposed structures. She feels the houses would be bought and sold continually due to the wet conditions.

Florencio Salcedo, 313 Liberty Street, said Beacon is a beautiful city with a great deal of character. He felt this project would be a detriment to the area and to the city. Mr. Salcedo felt it will be an engineering feat to prevent the lots from flooding.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, recalled the original subdivision and noted the City Engineer at the time advised the applicant to check the sanitary service line to see if it could accommodate one more house. He asked if the applicant had checked the capacity of that line. Mr. Pavelock had concern for young children falling into the creek. He wondered how a structure could be built in the flood plain and recommended a plant life study be completed.

Craig Wolf, 307-309 Liberty Street, reviewed the four showings that must be made to establish an unnecessary hardship. He feels the applicant has a large burden to prove the following points:

1. Can’t earn a reasonable return on initial investment. Mr. Wolf didn’t think Mr. Gebman paid a fortune for the property and as raised earlier, why not create five lots in conformance with zoning.
2. Property is unique or affected by uncommon circumstances. Mr. Wolf countered that the unusual circumstance argues against a variance – the presence of the creek and amount of water running through a “dry brook” which is rarely dry.
3. Variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Wolf believed the character would be altered because there is not a similar development in the immediate neighborhood. He explained the applicant makes a point about non-conforming uses in an attempt to argue that the existence of non-conforming is the reason why there should be more. Mr. Wolf felt the laws were not constructed to serve that purpose.

4. Must show that the hardship was not self-created. Mr. Wolf felt comments made earlier about trees being removed should be examined because the problem could be self-created.

City Attorney Pisanelli announced the applicant is seeking area variances and the list outlined by Mr. Wolf is criteria required for a “use” variance. Mr. Dunne made affirmation that the board will apply criteria required for an area variance, not a use variance.

Mr. Gebman rebutted that no one likes change and he understands. He reported a wetland study was performed and this property is not wetlands as accepted by the City during the original subdivision application process. As for the presence of water, Mr. Gebman reported the City took pictures of the property on the day after the April flooding. He said trees were cut down in the presence of a City of Beacon employee. Mr. Gebman reported he cut dead trees as a safety measure to protect people from injury. Lastly, Mr. Gebman said the statements regarding his responsibility for the street are nothing short of balderdash.

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

Mr. Vakirtzis made a motion to deny the variances as requested, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variances denied; 4-0.

ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY REBECCA & CLARK GEBMAN, 2 WILSON STREET (PROPERTY FRONTING STONE STREET), TAX GRID NO. 6054-24-448993, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A 14-LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITH THE FOLLOWING:

Required Proposed

Area 10,000 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft.

Width 85 ft. 45 ft.

Depth 100 ft. 100 ft. (+)

Side 15 ft. (minimum) 40 ft. (total) 11.25 – 22.5 ft.

Front 35 ft. 24 ft.

Rear 35 ft. 30 ft.

The application submitted by Rebecca & Clark Gebman, 2 Wilson Street (property fronting Stone Street), Tax Grid No. 6054-24-448993, R1-10 Zoning District, for a 14-lot residential subdivision with the listed variance requests was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Gebman announced that this is a hobby to him; the subject of land use is a passion and this process is a sport, adding that he could care less whether his application is approved or disapproved. Mr. Gebman said this is an exercise in political belief and in courage. He said one does not have to breathe too much smoke on the streets of New York City on 9/11 to realize that our nation faces a terrible situation with regard to its urban and suburban areas, and how to protect its long term economic entities. He recalled Mr. Gold made a point to suggest some legitimacy to the idea that the Planning Board wanted to recommend his land become park land. Mr. Gebman claimed that process is something born out of greed and filth. City Attorney Pisanelli asked Mr. Gebman to stick to the issue of the application. Mr. Gebman advised the City Attorney that he was in receipt of a letter outlining choices the City can make. City Attorney Pisanelli hand delivered his written response to Mr. Gebman’s letter and told him it was also sent in the mail. Mr. Gebman said he honestly believes that he is doing good work. Mr. Dunne felt density under the current zoning regulations should be upheld except under extreme circumstances. Mr. Dunne asked Mr. Gebman to get to the issue of why this application should be approved based on the area, not beliefs; he explained the Zoning Board of Appeals is not here to discuss national efforts, etc. Mr. Gebman explained the City is well aware that a fair portion of the mountain, including Jessen Park, is draining illegally onto his property. He said a lien could be placed on every house in Jessen Park tomorrow and he could litigate with the City to rehash the 40 years of corruption that has existed. Mr. Gebman said the City has an engineering problem and a choice – either figure out how to solve it as he has been trying to do for a year with City Attorney Pisanelli, or go through a process, be rejected and end up in Federal court anyway. Mr. Dunne explained the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot address any problem Mr. Gebman has with the City; they are strictly here to consider an area variance for this application. Mr. Gebman believed the power and purpose of the board has a lot to do with exactly what he is saying. Mr. Gebman claimed the board is pretending the nature and geography of his application is unaffected by conditions that rightfully and legislatively are precisely why this board exists; in theory the geography, topography and natural conditions that prohibit his right to proceed. Mr. Gebman explained this proposal is similar to the Liberty Street application in terms of street frontage however the rear of the land is different. He proposes to relocate the water flow and provide an easement directly to Jessen Pond in exchange for the right to create this development he will not pursue litigation. Mr. Gebman announced he will go through the process and then take everyone to court.

Theresa Kraft, 315 Liberty Street, said the house abuts Federal wetlands. She said the MacDonald family lived where Mr. Gebman resides now and they tried to subdivide the land for their son but couldn’t because it was all wetland. They then sold the house and property to Mr. Gebman. Ms. Kraft had pictures showing property flooding. She felt no one should be permitted to subdivide the land and asked that the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan be followed.

Fred Antalek, 75 Knevels Avenue, recalled fishing in the creek where it now runs as a small trickle. He felt Mr. Gebman was aware of the property’s condition when he purchased it because it has been that way since time began.

Dennis Pavelock, 34 Judson Street, stated his opposition to this proposal. He recommended Mr. Gebman build an ark and sail away.

James McCollum, 266 Liberty Street, stated this process is not a hobby for him. He is here to protect the quality of life in the City where he was born. He was thankful for board members who volunteer their time to uphold that quality of life. He opposed this request for a variance based on the same criteria outlined in his statement on Liberty Street.

Nancy Musacchio, 319 Liberty Street, was also familiar with the MacDonald’s who at one time petitioned the City to subdivide the property to build another home for their son. They were turned down because the property was considered wetlands. She drives by the property all the time and could not see how the water flow could ever be diverted. She stressed her opposition to the proposal.

Steve Gold, 46 Pleasant View Avenue, felt the homeowner knew the property had problems when he purchased and now wants to make drastic changes. He reiterated doubling the density goes against the draft of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gold felt the project would decrease the quality of life for residents in that area.

Moe Baxter, 7 Ryan’s Avenue, explained the back of his house faces this property and he passes by it every day. He expressed concern that driveways on street level will stop traffic and create more congestion with school buses. He asked if there were any fire hydrants and whether fire trucks could adequately access water. Mr. Baxter feels residents’ quality of life will be affected because there is not enough square footage on the property to handle the number of houses proposed.

Patty Ann Laveglia, 11 Stone Street, explained her property is directly across from the subject parcel. She applauded the board for tolerating the comments presented by Mr. Gebman. She objected to the proposal because this process is not a hobby to her. Ms. Laveglia said she works very hard to keep her property nice and this would be a detriment.

Craig Wolf, 307-309 Liberty Street, reported his property is downstream from the subject parcel and his back yard floods under existing conditions. Fortunately his house is on the upper portion but the lower part is frequently under water. During the last flood, it was one contiguous wide stream. He reported for the first time since he lived there, the water actually stopped flowing because the level of Fishkill Creek rose to the point of the Liberty Street Bridge and the stream actually stopped flowing. The creek level rose onto his property as he’s never seen before. Mr. Wolf said it was called “dry brook” before development occurred but now it ranges from a trickle to a raging torrent. He felt that any increase in density would work against Mother Nature.

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

Planning Board Advisory Opinion: Subdivision Applications

Liberty Street – 10 residential lots Stone Street – 14 residential

The Planning Board held an initial consultation for two applications for subdivision approval as submitted by Clark Gebman – one for a 10-lot subdivision on Liberty Street and one for a 14-lot subdivision on Stone Street. Although several area variances are required before the board can consider the Subdivision applications, they allowed the applicant to state his position.

After reviewing the applications and considering existing zoning, the Board felt it appropriate to send an advisory opinion to the Zoning Board as outlined in Section 223.58 of the City Code. Based on a review of the Comprehensive Plan Committee’s recommendation to maintain existing zoning in that area, the applicant’s request to nearly double what existing zoning permits and considering no valid reason was presented for an increase over what current zoning allows, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the requested variances for subdivisions on Liberty Street and Stone Street as submitted.

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.

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

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to deny the variances as requested, seconded by Mr. Vakirtzis. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variances denied; 4-0.

ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY FRANKLIN HERBER, 63 BEACON STREET, TAX GRID NO. 5954-35-805840, R1-5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.26(C)(1) TO ALLOW PARKING IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD (enlarge existing driveway)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Franklin Herber, 63 Beacon Street, for relief from Section 223.26(c)(1) to allow parking in the required front yard was opened on a motion made by Ms. Smith, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Frank Herber, 63 Beacon Street, purchased his house in 1970 and it has one dirt/gravel driveway. He owns 2-3 vehicles and for years he must juggle vehicles around the yard to get in and out. Visitors must park in the street and Beacon Street is not very wide. He has seen vehicles get hit while parked on the street, and witnessed a hit and run after the fact. Mr. Herber worries that damage may happen to his guest’s vehicles because they can’t park on his property. Therefore, he requested approval to create a double wide driveway in the middle of his property beyond the 5 ft. side yard setback area. He then could provide space for several cars on his property to accommodate visitors and the oil delivery truck that must now park in the street. Mr. Herber also requested permission to blacktop the dirt/gravel driveway that is located on the property line along the side of his house.

Mr. Buckley explained the driveway cannot be blacktopped without a variance because it must have a five foot setback. Mr. Herber thought this request was part of his application. Mr. Buckley advised Mr. Herber to submit an application specific to that request.

Mr. Dunne explained many houses in Beacon predate cars and there is a growing need for additional driveway space throughout the City. He expressed concern that driveway expansions take away a portion of the yard which changes the character of a neighborhood. Mr. Herber explained he has three vehicles and when it snows he is forced to park one of them in the yard. He felt that expanding the driveway would be the practical thing to do.

Mr. Vakirtzis asked for clarification on the dimensions of the proposed parking area. Mr. Buckley explained it would be 30 ft. wide, not including the existing dirt/gravel driveway.

The following letter of support was submitted:

We are unable to attend the 19 June public hearing regarding Mr. Herber’s application for relief from Section 223.26(c)(1) to allow parking in the required front yard (enlarge existing driveway). We would, however, like to voice our support for Mr. Herber to improve his property as he sees fit.

Insun Kim & John Maffucci

62 Beacon Street, Beacon, NY

There were no comments from the public and Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Vakirtzis made a motion to deny the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance denied; 4-0.

ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY BERNARDO VALENTIN, 16 SOUTH ELM STREET, TAX GRID NO. 5954-27-836884, PB ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A SECOND STORY REAR ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING FIRST FLOOR WITH A 3.9 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Bernardo Valentin, 16 South Elm Street, for a second story rear addition over the existing first floor with a 3.9 ft. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Vakirtzis. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Bernard Valentin, 10 Larch Street, explained he recently purchased the house at 16 South Elm Street. The second floor of the small two-story house has two bedrooms but one is only 5 ft. x 7 ft. Mr. Valentin described his proposal expand the second floor to square it over the first floor kitchen to enlarge the small bedroom. The addition will not extend beyond the first floor however only a 3.9 ft. side yard setback currently exists.

Mr. Buckley explained a variance is required anytime a pre-existing non-conforming situation is enlarged or expanded.

Carmen Quintana, representing his parents Manuel and Carmine Quintana of 14 South Elm Street, reported they have no objection to the proposed second story addition.

The following letter of support was submitted:

We are unable to attend the 19 June public hearing regarding Mr. Valentin’s application for relief from Section 223.176(c) for a second story rear addition over the existing first floor with a 3.9 ft. side yard setback (10 ft. required). We would, however, like to voice our support for Mr. Herber to complete his second story rear addition as it will have no adverse effect on the aesthetic quality of the structure and will result in the overall improvement in appearance and value to his home.

Insun Kim & John Maffucci

62 Beacon Street, Beacon, NY

There were no further comments from the public and Ms. Smith made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Smith made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 4-0.

ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MARY RIVERA, 502 HARBOR VIEW COURT, TAX GRID NO. 5954-42-691708, LB ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR AN 18 FT. ABOVE GROUND POOL WITH 1 (ONE) FT. REAR YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required).

The public hearing on the application submitted by Mary Rivera, 502 Harbor View Court, for relief from Section 223.17(c) for an 18 ft. above ground pool with 1 (one) ft. rear yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Vakirtzis. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mary Rivera, 502 Harbor View Court, explained she wants to install an 18 ft. round above ground pool in the back yard for her two young children. A 20 ft. wide drainage easement runs through the rear yard so in order to stay away from that area the pool must be located 1 ft. from the property line. Ms. Rivera submitted 15 signatures from neighbors on the immediate block who support her variance request.

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

Mr. Vakirtzis made a motion to grant the variance as requested, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 4-0.

ITEM NO. 7 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY DEMING & VIRGINIA YAUN, 29 MAPLE STREET, TAX GRID NO. 6054-21-112950, R1-5 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR AN 8 FT. X 8 FT. TWO STORY ADDITION WITH 10 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK (30 ft. required) and 5 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (10 ft. required); AND AN 8 FT. X 13 FT. COVERED FRONT PORCH WITH A 10 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK (30 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Deming & Virginia Yaun, 29 Maple Street, for relief from Section 223.17(c) for an 8 ft. x 8 ft. two story addition with 10 ft. front yard setback and 5 ft. side yard setback; and an 8 ft. x 13 ft. covered front porch with a 10 ft. front yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Deming and Virginia Yaun described their proposal to enclose and slightly enlarge the existing front porch area, install open air porch alongside and enclose the second floor area above the foyer space to create a walk-in closet for the master bedroom.

Mr. Dunne explained the houses on that particular street have virtually the same layout and an addition on top of the porch would break the uniformity that currently exists. Ms. Smith asked if they had a drawing of how the proposed addition and porch would look when completed. They did not have an elevation drawing but offered to provide one if necessary. Two letters of support were submitted. After some discussion, the applicants asked to adjourn the hearing until the July meeting so they can provide a drawing of the proposed changes. The hearing will be reopened at the July meeting.

ITEM NO. 8 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JUNUS & DAWN SELA, 4 BELLEFORD LANE, TAX GRID NO. 5955-04-638200, R1-20 ZONING DISTRICT, FOR RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(C) FOR A TWO-STORY GARAGE ADDITION WITH 16 FT. SIDE YARD SETBACK (20 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Junus & Dawn Sela,

4 Belleford Lane, for relief from Section 223.17(c) for a two-story garage addition with 16 ft. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Junus and Dawn Sela described their proposal to construct a two-story garage that will extend 4-6 ft. into the 20 ft. side yard setback required by zoning. Their architect has not completed the design therefore it is unclear exactly where the end of the structure will be located. As a result, they are applying for a 10 ft. variance to allow the architect some flexibility in his design. The structure must be designed so an existing concrete patio and brick pillars are not disturbed.

Mr. Buckley explained the variance request must be specific therefore he measured the distance from the garage to the property line shown on the survey which revealed a 16 ft. side yard setback. Although an architectural drawing is not required for the application, the exact number of feet being requested must be provided. After some discussion, Ms. Sela advised the board that they would design the garage so that it is located 16 ft. from the property line. The second story of the garage will be used as a home office, an accessory use to the single family house as permitted by zoning.

Karen Capolino-King, 35 Monell Place, owner of the adjacent property, had no opposition to the garage except for the privacy of her pool and one bedroom. She had concern that windows on the second floor of the garage may compromise her privacy therefore asked if windows could be eliminated or placed above eye level. Mr. Buckley explained that without seeing elevation drawings or floor plans, it may be impossible to make that a condition because many building code issues must be considered.

The applicants were willing to create a design that would afford their neighbor an appropriate level of privacy and several possible solutions were debated. After a lengthy discussion, the applicants agreed to adjourn the hearing until the month of July in order to provide time to work out an amicable and agreeable solution with their neighbor. The hearing will be reopened at the July meeting.

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 9:40 p.m.