P.O. Box 700

Port Ewen, NY 12466

Zoning Board of Appeals


Fax 845-331-8634



                                TOWN OF ESOPUS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

                                    REVISED Minutes of the June 15, 2010 Meeting



Chairman, Don Cole, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.





Present:  Vic Barranca, Joe Guido, Rob Hare, Kathy Kiernan, Linda Smythe, Karl Wick, and Chairman, Don Cole



Vic made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 18, 2010 meeting as written.  Seconded by Rob.   All in favor.



Rob noted an error in addition on the voucher for secretarial work.  It was corrected and Karl made a motion to approve the corrected voucher.   Seconded by Vic.  All in favor.

No correction was needed – original voucher was correct.


Chairman Cole stated that he had signed the voucher for the Daily Freeman bill for Aberdeen-on-the-Hudson’s public hearing notice.



        1. Rifton Fire District

                                                              24 Maple Street                       Area Variance

                                                              71.30-2-36 & 37


Ray Rice, applicant, and George Heissenbuttel were present representing the Rifton Fire District.  

Applicant stated that they were requesting a variance of 15 feet on the rear setback which requires 30 feet.  They would like to put an addition onto their station 2 firehouse on Maple Street.  He explained that there is no other workable spot on the property to put the addition.

On the left hand side of the firehouse, there is an area available, but they would like to reserve this area for the future installation of a septic system.  He stated that, due to the topography of the property, this is the appropriate spot.


Karl asked applicant if he had stated the variance request as 15 feet because the paperwork states the variance as 12 feet.  He said the Notice of Disapproval and the map say 12 feet and if it needs

to be amended, they should do it right away.  Applicant replied that it should be 15 feet.  The reason for the discrepancy is that there is a three foot overhang on the building, so the 15 foot variance will accommodate that. 


Joe stated that he thought the overhang did not count and Chairman Cole said that it did.  Karl stated that he also thought the overhang did not count and that up to four feet was allowed into the required yard.  Chairman Cole disagreed and Karl offered to check on it for the next meeting.


Joe stated that if adjustments were going to be made for the distance of the variance, they should be made before the public hearing.  Chairman Cole said that they would do it now.  Joe stated that they may not need it, but it was agreed that changing the language of the request to fifteen feet would cover any need the applicant had and would not lose any time for this application.


Applicant suggested that the request be changed to 15 feet and stated that they were building a 12 foot addition on the building regardless of the overhang inclusion or exclusion.


Vic made a motion that the variance request language be changed from a 12 foot variance to a 15 foot variance.  Seconded by Linda.  All in favor.


Applicant commented that he was impressed that the Board could get a full complement of members out on a nice night and Chairman Cole replied that that is usually the case with this Board.  He dismissed applicant and Mr. Rice and Mr. Heissenbuttel left.



06-15-10-01                                     Neftali & Sibbie Lemus

                                                          295 Broadway                                     Area Variance



Dave Sember, Neftali and Sibbie Lemus were present.  The Lemus’ are owners of the Port Ewen Diner. 


Mr. Sember was spokesperson. He explained that he spoke with the building inspector to get suggestions on how to increase seating at the diner.  It was determined that any addition onto the building will need a variance.  Mr. Sember stated that the proposed addition will come out 14 feet on the east side of the building.   He added that it is 14 feet that they are encroaching into the required rear yard.


Joe asked Mr. Sember if he was sure where the boundaries are and Mr. Sember replied, “I’m positive where the boundaries are.”


Karl asked what the setback is supposed to be and Mr. Sember replied that it depends on which side of the building – they chose that to be the rear, which is a 50 foot setback.  It is 50 feet from the left rear corner of the building to the rear (east) property line and 51 feet from the right rear corner of the building to rear (east) property line.  It is a corner lot and applicants got to choose which yard was going to be the back side of the lot.  He further explained that when they put the kitchen addition on, they won’t have any question on that and won’t need any variances.  It was the extra seating inside the restaurant that they need the variance for. 


Rob asked if this variance was only for the rear setback and Mr. Sember agreed.

        1. Neftali & Sibbie Lemus

295 Broadway                                      Use Variance



Chairman Cole stated that this variance is for 7 cars – where parking for 40 is needed, applicants will only have 33. 


Joe asked how many spaces the addition called for and Mr. Sember replied that it can be figured two ways and they used the method which gave them the higher number.  Figured by occupancy, they would make the needed spaces, but by square footage of the building they could not;  it called for 40 and they can fit 33.  He repeated that they can physically fit 33 parking spaces on the lot.  Joe asked if they have the right amount of spaces before applicants build the addition.  Mr. Sember replied, “Before the addition it’s the same thing either way because the space isn’t utilized right now.  Right now it’s just a hump of dirt and a staircase on the one side and in the back he’s got the cooler and the staircase in the way, so it really doesn’t effect our parking one way or the other- it’s the same 33 spaces that we have now that we would have when we put the extra on.”


Karl asked if applicants have 33 spaces now and Mr. Sember agreed.  He stated that there are only 15 or 16 marked spaces up front.  “Its just where everybody parks around the building.”

Mr. Sember stated that the surveyor marked out 33 spaces on the plan. 


Rob asked if 33 is sufficient for the square footage of the building.  Mr. Sember replied that 33 is sufficient for the occupancy of building.  The square footage of the building calls for a higher amount.  “The code says that we have to go to whichever one is more; so the square footage method, because it calls for more, even though the occupancy is less, is requiring us the 40 spaces.”  Rob asked if the occupancy is based on the number of tables or is it based on the square footage of the building.   Mr. Sember stated he did not know.  The parking requirement is based on 1 parking space for every 3 seats or 100 sq.ft. of floor area, whichever is greater. 

Chairman Cole agreed and stated that the building was not full all the time.


Karl asked if there was any other place nearby where people could park if the diner’s lot gets filled up- for example, on Hudson View Terrace.  Mr. Sember replied, “No, their lot is all they have.”  He stated that he was told at a previous meeting that once the addition goes on, applicants would need to blacktop the parking lot and once that happens, the markings will be a lot better and people won’t park all over the place, as they do now; plus the markings will be directional as shown on the site plan.  He stated that right now they get 22 cars in there because once people get off the blacktop, they park wherever they want.  The blacktop and markings will bring more control to the parking situation. 


Karl asked what the drainage was in the rear right corner of the lot.  Mr. Sember replied that it was to manage rain water runoff.  Karl asked if additional parking could be put over the top of this drainage and Mr. Sember stated that it is H 20, so cars could go right on top of it.  Karl noted that there were no parking spaces there and that this might minimize the problem.   Mr. Sember   remarked that this is the route to get to the dumpster and oil tank and that is why there are no parking spaces there.


Kathy asked how many handicapped spots were required and Mr. Sember answered, “two.”

She asked if this was true even with the increase in parking.  Mr. Sember replied that he had gone over this matter with Tim (Building Inspector). 


Chairman Cole dismissed the applicants and stated that the public hearing will be July 20.


Chairman Cole asked the Board if they wanted to go to any of the upcoming seminars.


Karl asked if the Board could have an in-house session and Vic noted that Dennis Doyle, Ulster County Planning Board, had agreed to do that for us.


There was no other business.  Vic made a motion to adjourn.  Seconded by Karl.  All in favor.

Meeting adjourned 7:45 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,



Joan Boris, Secretary

Zoning Board of Appeals