Source: http://www.pawling.org/Pages/PawlingNY_ZBAMin/2008%20ZBA%20Minutes/S0209E6F8
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 14:01:38
Document Index: 47324135

Matched Legal Cases: ['§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215', '§215']

Town of Pawling, NY - ZBA Minutes 05/27/08
ZBA Minutes 05/27/08
TOWN OF PAWLING May 27, 2008
PRESENT: William Blessey, Chairman
Charles Stewart, excused
Larry Cyganovich
CONTENTS: Thomas & Alice Shay
Daniel & Kate Nolan
Tom Llanes, Building Inspector
THOMAS AND ALICE SHAY Area 08-11
Mr. Thomas Shay was present
Chairman Blessey said the property is located at 20 Mountain View Road, Holmes, N.Y. in an R-1 zone. Chairman Blessey said the applicant is before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a §215.33 (D) and §215.16 for a one and half story addition with a porch on the end of the building. Chairman Blessey read the public notice. Chairman Blessey said this is a Type II action according to SEQRA; therefore no action is necessary by the Board. He read the response from Dutchess County Planning & Development, which indicated this is a matter of local concern. The Zoning Board of Appeals performed a site inspection. Mr. Shay said the new addition is 32’ x 32’ set at a slight angle with 8’foot porch on the end. The structure shall be 1 ½ story with attic space.
Mr. Cyganovich said the applicant combined his two lots, therefore resulting in no neighbors on the side yard. Chairman Blessey opened the meeting to the public.
Chairman Blessey closed the meeting to the public.
Mrs. Utter went over the factors the Board must weigh in determining whether or not to grant the variance. The first factor is whether granting the variance would result in an undesirable change in character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties.
Mrs. Utter said the addition would enhance the neighborhood.
Mrs. Utter read the second factor whether the benefit sought could be achieved by some other feasible method? Mrs. Utter said she does not believe it is possible to achieve the desired goals without the variance. Mrs. Utter asked is the variance a substantial variance? Chairman Blessey said the overall variance is minimal. Mrs. Utter read the fourth factor whether there would be an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Chairman Blessey felt by the addition to Mr. Shay residence there would be no adverse impact in the neighborhood or district. Mrs. Utter continued with the last factor, was the alleged difficulty self created?
Chairman Blessey replied, no. The applicant has combined his two lots therefore the Zoning Board of Appeals only has to review front and rear yard setbacks.
Following discussion, weighing all the factors, the consensus of the Board was to grant the variance. Motion by Mrs. Cooney to grant a variance on tax parcel #11-6856-05-180810-0000 for §215-16 in an R-1 zone. The front yard setbacks, where 50 feet is required, 44 feet is available, a variance of 6 feet. For the rear yard setbacks where 50 feet is required, 20 feet is available. A variance of 30 feet was granted.
Second by Mr. Cyganovich. All were in favor and the motion carried.
Motion by Mrs. Cooney to grant a variance for §215-33 (D) conforming uses with dimensionally non-conforming buildings. A non-conforming building with a conforming use shall not to be enlarged, reconstructed, or structurally altered or moved, unless such structure alternatives cause the building to becoming conforming.
Second by Mr. Cyganovich. All were in favor and the motioned carried.
DANIEL AND KATE NOLAN Area 08-12
Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Nolan were present.
Chairman Blessey said the property is located at 50 Tory Lane in Deerfield Ponds. Chairman Blessey said the applicant is before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a §215-21 D. (5) (a) (3) bulk dimension requirements for open space subdivision. . Chairman Blessey read the public notice. Chairman Blessey said this is a Type II action according to SEQRA; therefore no action is necessary by the Board. He read the response from Dutchess County Planning & Development, which indicated they have no jurisdiction. The Zoning Board of Appeals performed a site inspection. Originally when the applicants had their house built, the porch was supposed to be 16’ x 6’. One of the mistakes Cambridge Builders made was that they did not center/align the basement windows
beneath the first and second floor windows. The applicant’s believe this occurred because one side of the house was extended by 3 feet and never was accounted for when the foundation was poured. In other words the Builder made the foundation three feet longer in length but never repositioned/ realigned the basement windows to account for the length change. To address this problem, the porch was extended the entire length of the house and widened, making it 39 feet in length and 7 feet 2 inches in width. This extension resulted in a portion of the left side of the porch being outside the specified building envelope. Chairman Blessey opened the meeting to the public.
Mrs. Utter said by the granting of the variance there would no change in character or detriment would result to nearby properties.
Mrs. Utter read the second factor whether the benefit sought could be achieved by some other feasible method? Chairman Blessey said the porch is pre-existing, a variance is requested in order to resolve the applicant’s porch being outside the building envelope. Mrs. Utter asked is the variance a substantial variance? Chairman Blessey said the variance is minimal. Mrs. Utter read the fourth factor whether there would be an adverse affect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Chairman Blessey said no. Mrs. Utter continued with the last factor, was the alleged difficulty self created?
Mrs. Utter said no, the applicants found one of the mistakes Cambridge Builders made was that they did not center/align the basement windows beneath the first and second floor windows. The applicant’s believe this occurred because one side of the house was extended by 3 feet and never was accounted for when the foundation was poured. This was not the Mr. and Mrs. Daniel fault; they merely are trying to correct the problem.
Following discussion, weighing all the factors, the consensus of the Board was to grant the variance. Motion by Mrs. Cooney to grant a variance to tax parcel #11-6957-02-697973-0000 for (local Law) §215-21.D (5) (a) (3) bulk dimensions requirements for open space subdivision. The Bulk dimensional requirements for cluster subdivision are set by the Planning Board. For this porch a width of 6 feet was allowed, a width of 7 feet 2 inches is requested, so a variance of 1 foot 2 inches was granted.
NATURAL STATE RESEARCH Area 08-13
Mr. Barry Rice, Architect, and Dr. Sarker, Vice President, from Natural State Research was present.
Chairman Blessey said the Natural State Research is making a presentation for a tax parcel #11-7056-00-470136-0000 located at 191 NYS Route 22. The applicants are looking for an Interpretation pursuant to §215-15 A Town code. Chairman Blessey read the public notice. Chairman Blessey said this is a Type II action according to SEQRA; therefore no action is necessary by the Board. He read the response from Dutchess County Planning & Development, which indicated they have “No Authority”. The Zoning Board of Appeals performed a site inspection. Mr. Rice presented a site Plan illustrating the layout design of the manufacturing facilities and office buildings. The main research objective is based upon recycling plastic material and converting energy by product-of gasoline, without any increase in pollution. The proposal is for a pilot plant, temporary life facility. The parcel is located at 191 NYS Route 22. At the present time there are two automotive businesses on the premises.
Chairman Blessey said the applicant was before the Planning Board and has been referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals is reviewing the Town Code for an interpretation of the “Highway Business” zone. The Natural State Research proposal is to manufacturing the High Octane Fuel product as the research was done in Stamford Connecticut. Mr. Rice said Natural State Research plans to take over the front left side section of the building for office and construct temporary outside modular structures located on the parcel. Mr. Rice said the drawings demonstrate the line of modular’s that house the equipment to process plastic bottles into petroleum. There are several steps to processing clear plastic bottles. The first step is to load them into cubicle #1 which cuts up and cleans. The material is shredded through a burning process with very few emissions, ending in a fine petroleum product. There is no stockpiling of the finished product, only a certain quantity is to be stored in a tank on the property. There is no by product. The research has ended and the applicant
wants to move forward by producing smaller quantities of High Octane Fuel. Their goal is to sell the technology by setting up a miniature manufacturing showcase, to bring in investors to market the technology. Natural State Research would only store 30 to 60 gallons of fuel per day. The technology has been patented. The High Octane fuel would be utilized for NSR to generate electricity and can be used as fuel for a variety of transportation modes that currently use fossil fuels.
Chairman Blessey said this manufacturing is not an allowable use in the “HB” district. What is the name of the fuel processed?
Dr. Sarker said High Octane fuel; he spoke in technical terms stating the fuel is flammable material. Chairman Blessey said by the illustrated drawing presented there is a series of outside modular buildings to complete the technology of turning plastic products into fuel, how much tonnage of plastic would be brought onsite per day.
Dr. Sarker said 1 ton shall make 8 barrels per day.
Chairman Blessey asked how does the applicant plan to store High Octane Fuel?
Mr. Rice said there is an existing storage tank onsite; the applicant has no desire to store large quantities of fuel on site. Chairman Blessey asked what is the particular reason the applicant chose the Town of Pawling? Dr. Sarker said the area is green and beautiful, this make an attractive presentation to bring in potential investors.
Chairman Blessey stated the Town of Pawling takes pride in our beautiful green community.
Mr. Cyganovich said the applicant is actually going to receive deliveries of large amounts of plastic material per day, and then it goes through the manufacturing process. When does the NSR plan to have investors come into the facility? Mr. Rice said the site is very accessible through Interstates driving out of New York City to bring in potential investor from the U.N. etc…. they choose to market at a national scale level. There would not be a lot of traffic coming and going or extra vehicles on site.
Chairman Blessey said at the present we have a company closing down operation in our “I” Industrial area. The proposed NSR fits the Town code for “I” Industrial use, not “HB” Highway Business, for the Town of Pawling. Mr. Rice said that is not the point of the proposed application, the applicant likes the parcel presented at 191 NYS Route 22. There are many attributes that the NSR based their decision as the area is beautiful and close to highway for accessibility. The NSR chooses to showcase their product presented by a reduced model to bring in investors. The fuel can be used in cars, and generates electricity.
Chairman Blessey said if the Natural State Research is producing the product in a laboratory, located in Stamford Connecticut, why is it necessary to showcase the finished product. Mr. Rice said the quantity developed in a laboratory is very minimal, the NSR requires a larger facility to demonstrate how a system would be set up for potential investors. Dr. Sarker said NSR plans to sell the High Octane Fuel all over the world. He has invited the Planning Board to the Stamford Connecticut laboratory.
Chairman Blessey said because the NSR is setting up a showcase facility to demonstrate the process, the applicant is showing potential clients or customers how this product can be manufactured. Chairman Blessey said by manufacturing the High Octane Fuel in larger amounts, he asked what would the applicant do with the excess product? Chairman Blessey felt producing the High Octane Fuel is manufacturing, as the research for this product has been performed in Stamford Connecticut. He continued by saying after a review pursuant to Town Code manufacturing is not a permitted, Principal Use or a Special Permitted Use in the HB zone and accessory structures are only permitted for incidental use associated with a permitted use.
Mr. Rice said the synopsis of the application was Principal Use is office, business, professional and research Special Use for continuing use of existing gasoline storage tanks subject to Town code §215-41 Accessory Use for temporary cabins. The process proposed is not a true reading of the word manufacturing; the process is the same as prepared in the Stamford Connecticut Laboratory. Chairman Blessey said Natural State Research website only consist of photos, there is no informational material explaining the technology and emissions for the process to Conversion of Waste Products to Fuel( Renewable Source of Energy). Chairman Blessey asked if the applicant could submit the patent to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Dr. Sarker said the information is available for submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Cyganovich said the Conversion of Waste products to Fuel sounds like a fabulous idea; however, there are many variables and unanswered questions.
Chairman Blessey said the Zoning Board of Appeals prefers permanent businesses to the Town of Pawling. The applicant is proposing temporary structures, modular’s with no tax benefit or employment opportunities to the community. The applicant is asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine if the business operation is manufacturing or not manufacturing, this is not the full scope of the application. If the ZBA was to interpret that the proposed application is not manufacturing, and an allowable use in the Highway Business district then the applicant would revisit the ZBA, as there are at least 15 individual variances required. There are major hurdles to overcome throughout this entire parcel. The proposed outside modular’s whether there temporary or not
don't meet setbacks, which would require a variance. The parcel is located in the New York City Department of Environmental Protection and a MS4 regulated area. The application requires contact with New York State Department of Conservation as the parcels abut wetland and wetland buffers. There is a bathroom facility designed into the end of the modular’s manufacturing facility, how does the applicant plan to address (SSDS) septic system? Mr. Rice disagrees with Chairman Blessey about the variances required for setbacks, the applicants have no problem moving the modular’s to another location on the property to meet setback requirements. The Natural State Research plans to work with New York City Department of Environmental Protection. The tricky part is they are here today and the applicant can not move forward without an interpretation of the Town code.
Following discussion by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the consensus of the Board is not prepared to make a decision this evening.
Mr. Rice said the applicant would be happy to provide any information requested for the ZBA to check the ferocity of what the NSR says their going to do to follow those guidelines set by the ZBA. The applicant is very flexible to the Zoning Board of Appeals setting up specific amounts of fuel storage on the property. Their looking for a window of opportunity to demonstrate the product for one to three years and then move out of the Town of Pawling. The reason NSR is here is because the 191 NYS Route 22 parcel is beautiful, and the Town of Pawling is a successful community.
Chairman Blessey said the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is to discuss this matter with the Town Attorney, Lewis Stadler Esq. pursuant to Town code §215-3 Definitions and §215-15 A Schedule Permitted uses. Chairman Blessey said the Zoning Board of Appeals needs to verify showcasing of manufacturing “Conversion of Waste Plastics to Fuel” meets “HB” Highway Business zoning. The proposed Conversion of Waste Plastics to Fuel” Schedule Permitted Use in actuality falls into a category of “I” Industrial zone, the Town of Pawling has an “I” Industrial zone. The Zoning Board of Appeals is not looking to lock the applicant out of the Town of Pawling; it is a nice beautiful Town. The Town of Pawling always welcomes Industry when it falls within Schedule Permitted Uses, as well as looking for permanent Industry that creates employment opportunity and economic growth. Chairman Blessey opened the public hearing.
Chairman Blessey closed the public hearing.
Dr. Sarker said if an investor purchases the manufacturing process and opens a business in the Town of Pawling then the Town would acquire a permanent business. Chairman Blessey said the Zoning Board of Appeals decision is to discuss this matter with the Town Attorney, Lewis Stadler Esq. pursuant to Town code §215-3 Definitions and §215-15 A Schedule Permitted uses. Chairman Blessey felt the ZBA should contact the Fire Marshall, Ron Gallagher to discuss the project.
Motion by Mrs. Utter to postpone a decision until the June 28, 2008 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall speak with Fire Marshall, Ron Gallagher and Town Attorney, Lewis Stadler Esq. pursuant to Town Code §215-3 and §215-15A A Schedule Permitted Use.
Dr Sarker said he can supply the name and number of the Fire Marshall in Stamford, Connecticut.
Motion by Mrs. Utter to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2008 as read.
Second by Mrs. Cooney. All were in favor and the motion carried.
Motion by Mrs. Utter to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2008 as read.
On a motion and second to adjourn the meeting, all in favor the meeting was adjourned.