2016-07-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD JULY 12, 2016 Present: Bridget Gannon, Rachel DiGrazia, Heidi Murphy, Hilda Duque Absent: Allen Firstenberg and Frank Barresi Others Present: Gary Baright Jay Diesing Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. FOAM AND WASH, 1518-1520 ROUTE 9 First on the agenda was the continuation of a public hearing on the request of WF, LLC (Gary Baright), 7509 North Broadway, Red Hook, NY 12571 requesting the following area variances to be able to construct a new light industrial building on the existing Foam and Wash site at 1518-1520 Route 9: (1) Side yard setback (Table 2F of the Zoning Ordinance) – requiring 0’0” min./24’0” max and requested is 28’3” on the south side and 60’6” on the north side, (2) Front yard setback (Table 2F of the Zoning Ordinance) – requiring 2’0” min/12’0” max and requested is 442’11” on the west side and (3) Building Height (Table 2F of the Zoning Ordinance) requiring 72’0” (2 stories min./6 stories max.) and requested is one (1) story. Mr. Gary Baright, owner of the property and Mr. Jay Diesing, Architect were present. Mr. Diesing stated he had appeared before the ZBA at their March 8, 2016 meeting and gave his presentation. To recap – Mr. Baright is proposing an approximately 11,000 sq. ft. building in the ear of the existing building. They are currently in front of the Planning Board and at last week’s meeting they were granted a negative declaration for the project. They are seeking two side yard variances, a front line variance and height variance. The lot is so big that it does not fall into the context of what zoning is looking for. They are building a single story building but it will have the appearance of a two story building. Ms. Gannon asked if there were any additional questions from the Board and they answered no there were not. Mrs. Murphy made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Duque. Unanimously carried. Ms. Gannon then discussed the request. (1) Would an undesirable change be brought to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties if the variances are approved – no because the majority of the neighboring buildings are only one story structures with large setbacks similar to the request, (2) Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method other than an area variance – no – front yard setback cannot be eliminated due to locations of other existing buildings. Eliminating side yard setbacks would result in an undesirably large building. A two story building is not practical for a light industrial building and the additional height would not be desirable to the residential neighbors, (3) Is the requested variance substantial – the front yard setback is substantial but the building cannot be building on the lot without the variance because of the configuration of the land and the new zoning code, (4) Does it have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood – No because the general character of the community will not be affected by the proposed variance – adjoining properties in the immediate area are similar in character with various types of commercial uses and (5) Is the alleged hardship self created – No – The existing property was developed prior to the current zoning regulations. Mrs. Murphy made a