Village of Otisville
Zoning Board of Appeals
Public Hearing Minutes
January 6th, 2021
Meeting Called to Order: Maureen Coppola, ZBA Chairwoman, 7:10pm
Present: Chairwoman Maureen Coppola, Board Members: Kathy Coppola, Joe Fornera
Present Remotely: Board Members: MaryAnn McDonough, Angelo Pagano
Guests: Unison Projects Representative: Ben Smith, Project Engineer: John Fuller,
P.E.P.C., Unison Project LLC’ s Attorney: William Onofry
Members of the community: Marybeth Horzepa, V.M. Coppola, J.Porter, A.Hernandez,
Diane Loeven, Sam Smith, Denise Billings, Sherman Mann, Andrew Ulon, R.Lang, Ken
Coppola, Colleen Coppola
Public Hearing: Unison Project, LLC: 36 Seybolt Ave 106-4-24.21
Application for Lot Width Variance
Chairwoman Coppola opened the Public Hearing with the Pledge of Allegiance. She
directed the group’s attention to the emergency exits. Chairwoman Coppola introduced
the member’s of the board in attendance to include those attending remotely, and the
board’s secretary. She then introduced Mr. John Fuller, P.E., P.C., Unison Project LLC’s
engineer, Mr. William Onofry, Legal Council for Unison Project LLC, and Mr. Ben Smith,
representative, and one of the owners of Unison Project LLC. Ms.Coppola explained the
order of operation of the meeting, that Mr.Fuller would start by introducing the project
and his client’s purpose to meet before the board and public, at which point the floor
would be open to questions by the public and board members, allowing the project
representatives to respond, followed by general comments/concerns from the public.
Mr. John Fuller took the floor by introducing himself as the project engineer for 36
Seybolt Ave, introducing Mr.Ben Fuller as a part owner of the Unison Project LLC, and
Mr.William Onofry as the attorney representing the applicant. Mr. Fuller had an easel
set with maps and site plans of 36 Seybolt Ave to allow the public an enlarged look at
the plans for the 3 lot subdivision. He started his presentation by introducing the
property at 36 Seybolt Ave as a single family residential lot a little larger than an acre in
the Village of Otisville. The lot has existing frontage on Harding St., Orchard St. and
Seybolt Ave, with the current structure’s drive onto Seybolt Ave. It is the intention of
Unison Project LLC to take the current lot and divide it into 3 single family lots, 2 lots
having frontage on Orchard St, and the third lot having frontage on Harding. In order to
achieve this they would demolish the existing structure and driveway, which would
remove the outlet from a county road. As currently engineered the two lots with frontage
on Orchard St. are conforming to the Village’s current zoning laws. The lot with frontage
on Harding St. meets area and dimensional requirements but does not meet the width
requirement of 100ft.. The lot is currently 88 ft. wide. Again, Mr.Fuller reiterated, they
are proposing a 3 lot subdivision with 2 houses frontage on Orchard St. and one on
Harding St. The request for a lot width variance on 88ft. applying to the house with
frontage on Harding St. All three lots would use municipal water. The applicant has
already completed water testing for the septic systems that would be inplace, which
would be handled by the Village’s planning board. Mr.Fuller also presented renderings
of the lots and structures showing that they would conform with the current historical
structures of the surrounding properties. He then opened the floor for Mr.Onofry.
Mr. Willam Onofry greeted the room and introduced himself as the attorney for the
applicant, Unison Project LLC. He explained to the members of the board and the public
that it’s his job to hit on the 5 points of review that the board will have to consider in
making their decision to issue a variance. The first points of review being: Is the request
going to yield an undesirable change, and will it be out of place. It is his argument his
client tried to maximize the number of lots while conforming to Village zoning, and they
only need a width variance for one of the lots. At this time Mr. Onofry presented to the
board members an area map of non-conforming lots within this section and adjoining
sections of the tax map to show pre-exisiting non conforming lots, and how they are
numerous. For this reason they do not feel that this change would be “undesirable”.
Next Mr. Onofry asked “Is it substantial?” They feel that asking for 12 ft or 12% width
variance is not substantial. He asks “Is there an impact on the environment?” They do
not believe so. The existing lot is already zoned residential . They feel developing the lot
will not impact the environment as a whole. The use of municipal water and individual
septic will not impact the environment. Lastly, he asks “ Is this a self created difficulty?”
He responds that yes it is, because it requires a variance and they are the ones asking
for it. At this point, Mr. Onofry turns the floor back to the ZBA.
Chairwoman Coppola now opens the floor to the members of the board, and the public,
and asks if anyone has any questions. Board member MaryAnn McDonough has a
question for Attorney Onofry. She asks him if he is an attorney, to which he replies, yes.
Ms. McDonough then asks who the applicants are, to which Mr.Onofry responds,
UNISON Projects LLC. There is a brief moment of confusion between Mr.Onofry and
Ms.McDonough in trying to clarify the name of the applicant as she is attending the
meeting remotely. She asks if they are a corporation, the response is yes. She asks
when they purchased the property. Mr. Fuller, Mr.Onofry and Mr.Smith all agree that the
property was purchased a little over a year ago in late 2019. Ms. McDonough wants to
know if UNISON Projects LLC was aware when they purchased the property that there
could only be two conforming lots based upon the lot’s dimension. Mr.Onofry’s response
is that the property was not engineered prior to it’s acquisition. Ms.McDonough
continued, did they know their purchase would yield a maximum return on the
investment? Mr. Onofry responded “that is irrelevant.”. Board member McDonough is
finished with her questions at this time.
Community member Sherman Mann stood to speak. He resides at 6 Harding St. and is
a neighbor to the property. He states that the map clearly shows based upon its
dimensions two legal lots. He would like to know where the septics are and the
driveways because they would both affect him. He asks if he can come forward to the
site plan to look at it. Mr.Fuller tells him yes. Mr.Mann states that his septic is in the
south west corner of his property and depending on where the new lot’s driveways are
installed, they would greatly affect his septic. He states that it seems that the driveways
as drawn are 6ft. away from his property. He was then seated.
Mrs. Colleen Filippone a community member residing at 4 Prospect St. stood to address
the room. She read a letter on behalf of herself, her mother Gladys Loeven, and her
siblings Kathleen Samuelian, James Loeven and Daniel Loeven Sr. They own 3 parcels
that front along Orchard and Prospect St’s near the parcel under consideration. They
implore the ZBA to deny the request for the width variance as they feel the proposed
project would create a non-conformity and be incompatible with the existing community.
They feel zoning law was put in place to be respected and enforced. They feel the
denial would not result in the applicant’s inability to build on the lot all together. She
provided copies of the letter for the board and the record.
Mr.Andrew Ulon, residing at 41 Orchard St. stood to address the room. He seconds
Mrs. Fillipone’s notion that the board should deny the variance. He stated he did not
have anything prepared so he wished not to ramble, but feels that we should respect
Zoning Ordinances as they were put in place for a reason. He reiterated that he is not in
favor of the variance, or a 3 lot subdivision on that parcel.
Chairwoman Maureen Coppola then addressed the room and read two letters the board
received prior to the public hearing from members of the community who wished their
opinions to be heard, but were uncomfortable attending the meeting given the current
state of the COVID-19 epidemic. The first letter was submitted via email from Arlene
Delloro and Larry C. Bobb residing at 17 Prospect St. They have been members of the
community for 16 years, moving to Otisville initially because of the small community
feeling of the Village. Although they understand that communities need change, they
wish to voice their deep opposition to this variance. Although they would be happy to
see the “eye sore” of the current house being destroyed, they feel that 3 more houses in
it’s place would be a bigger eye sore. They feel that three new houses would not blend
into the character of the village. The second letter read was submitted by Richard and
Donna Baker residing at 16 Seybolt Ave. The Baker’s voice their concern that the 3 lot
subdivision at 36 Seybolt Ave would require a lot width variance to be built. They feel
that zoning regulations are in place to ensure everyone complies with them unless
extenuating circumstances won’t allow it. It is their opinion that this subdivision is not an
extenuating circumstance and that it would create a non conformance. They feel the
point of zoning is so that development meets the laws the village has adopted. They are
aware that many of the existing lots do not meet the zoning requirements of today, but
these lots were developed long before the zoning laws were put in place. They wrote
this letter to voice their objection to the proposed 3 lots as it would create a
non-conforming lot. Copies of both letters were provided for members of the board and
the file.
Once Chairwoman Coppola finished reading the letters, Board member MaryAnn
McDonough had a question for Attorney Onofry. She would like to know if the ZBA has
a right to know who the principals are as a part of the corporation. Mr.Onofry is unaware
of any law that allows the ZBA to know who the principals are. Ms.McDonough is
concerned about the players of the project. At this time, Mr.Ben Smith stood to address
the room, and asked for the record that it be noted he is one of the owner’s of UNISON
Project LLC, and he has been present at all meetings regarding this project with the
Village. Board member Joe Fornera posed the question, Do the builders want to live in
the houses? Mr. Onofry replied, No, the houses are built for others. Generally, the
houses are new construction and are occupied by families, not owners of the
corporation.
Community member Mr.Sherman Mann addresses the board, that the ZBA had
requested information from the DEC with regard to the project, to which Chairwoman
Coppola responded that the ZBA did receive a letter from the DEC that the stream that
runs through the property is intermittent and is not under the jurisdiction of the DEC.
She reminded those in the room that the ZBA does not decide on whether to issue the
variance on the DEC’s findings. Information given by the DEC would go back to the
planning board and the building department to handle any regulations issued/ required
by the DEC. The ZBA is only there to determine whether a lot width variance is to be
issued to allow the applicant a 2 or 3 lot subdivision. Regardless of the number of
houses to be built the ZBA does not deal with issues of the DEC.
Community member Diane Loeven, residing at 17 Lewis St. stood to address the board.
She asked, when the DEC was contacted, was that by the applicant or the ZBA?
Chairwoman Coppola responded that the ZBA contacted the DEC. Ms.Loeven then
asked the applicant if the houses are being developed for resale. Attorney Onofry
responded that the houses are built to suit, and they are not spec homes. Typically, the
buyers are not sought after the build. The intent is for owner occupied homes, not
rentals. Board member Joe Fornera asked to be shown the sketch of the proposed
houses again. He asked what the market value of the homes is. Mr.Ben Smith replied,
they are between 350, and 450 thousand for new construction. Chairwoman Coppola
then asked if there were any more questions or comments. Board member McDonough
asked again how to spell the name of the applicant. Attorney Onofry replies”
U.N.I.S.O.N.” She asked if they have done other projects with Mr.Onofry. He responded
yes, in Mt.Hope, Deerpark and Wallkill. Board member Fornera asked if those projects
were for single or multi family units. Engineer Fuller responded they are single family
homes.
At this time Chairwoman Maureen Coppola made a motion to close the meeting.
A Motion was made:
Maureen Coppola made a motion to close the meeting
Kathy Coppola 2nd the motion
All in favor, Aye
None opposed
Chairwoman Coppola thanked everyone for coming.
Meeting closed at 7:46pm.
