Gasland at ZBA Meeting

The September 13 ZBA meeting had two public hearings on the agenda, addressing resident's requests

Request for a front yard fence on Old Hopewell Road of 6 feet. Since the property is below the grade of the road, this was granted with the provision that no grading (additional dirt) be added to the front yard.

A request for a variance to the set-back requirements to enable a front porch on Macintosh Lane was granted.

A Discussion then followed by a resident on Smith Crossing Road for a variance on set back requirements for a shed with a porch. A public hearing was set for October 10.

Here's the link to the video for the Gasland/Hughsonville discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD4bpUZ-Cco

Then we got to the discussion to "remand from Supreme Court (NY), to revist the ZBA's determination on "Convenience Items". The ZBA chair asked each party to do a summary of the submitted documents. Please see these documents at the 9/26/23 Agenda files at this link https://wappinger.wpengine.com/zoning-board-minutes-agendas/#

Mr. Ken Stenger then presented an overview of the situation, after thanking the members of the ZBA for their volunteer efforts. Mr. Stenger stated that Judge Hayes understands his power, but also understands judicial restraint, so is asking the ZBA, who is charged with making decisions, to revisit the record, and to provide details of their reasoning in accepting that a large building, with 22 parking spaces, in addition to the 10 parking spaces for gasoline business could be characterized as an "accessory use". Mr. Stenger emphasized the term Accessory (vs. Principal Use). Mr. Stenger explained how the Judge provided guidance to the ZBA on what information they can use, and what information they cannot use in making their decision. Industry Standards, developer assertions cannot be used - but rather the Town Code is to be used. Mr. Stenger also pointed out that the court record for the Temporary Restraining Order, has the developer of Gasland explaining that they expect $30,000 of revenue a month from the Convenience Store - comparable to the amount of revenue from selling gas, so asking in that amount of revenue from "a general store for the hamlet" is an accessory use. (The attorney representing the developer later quoted the $30,000/month as Profit - not Revenue).

Mr. Michael Caruso presented a summary of his letter to the ZBA - Judge Hayes is asking the ZBA to determine what the principal use of the property is, and that a property can't have two principal uses and that a definition of "convenience" can't be created where it doesn't exist in the code. Mr. Caruso pointed to the Town of LaGrange Zoning Code to use as an example of how the code can direct providing a definition, while allowing flexibility to the developer.

Ms. Carina Zupa representing the Developer, Gasland, then presented a summary of her client's points - basically that the Judge was not questioning the decision of the ZBA and that one can use generally accepted definitions when interpreting the meaning of "convenience" and "accessory". She pointed to the Department of Agriculture definition and that since the Town has allowed other convenience stores with a broad range of products in the Town that a precedence has been set. She pointed to the property owned by the developer on Route 376. She claimed that revenue, size of the building etc. cannot be limited and is not a determination of what is accessory use. She stated that the Board has no reason to overturn the decision and the court is just asking for reasoning.

The Chair of the Board then stated that the next board meeting agenda is full (Alpine Commons) - so they will defer their decision to the October 24th meeting.

Ms. Zupa reminded everyone that the Court expects an answer by October 20 - Mr. Stenger stated he will send a note to the court the following day, explaining the decision made at this meeting.