[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6520799,"mediaKeyId","5118333-162d4bedbf959c2822acb155892b7085","parentId",5118333,"title","Zoning board approves Gotham Properties lot reconfiguration and two variances on Pulaski Highway","audioSeconds",1806,"startMs",3221000,"endMs",5027000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5118333-162d4bedbf959c2822acb155892b7085&start=3221&end=5027","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5118333-162d4bedbf959c2822acb155892b7085/thumbnail_3221000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6520799/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Zoning-board-approves-Gotham-Properties-lot-reconfiguration-and-two-variances-on-Pulaski-Highway","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520799-20bed635cceee5a5d088a222408450e9/orig.mp4?Expires=1770692015&Signature=WNypJnfYpVASkrgNDyoUlfzP0ozd5wmXkK4z8z3fsinLpfmIuKa8313D~1qyQnILcKbtWQKEPSqexAeZzGo741tJ7HhrCJR7hlXs7GIa1vmO8T8psx6Msn-v0pKidOSFtuLWoXW9FUpF-aDSsdt5qxq1HGSkh1Iqc6tl5kDPQTX~olZps1P2cjaqVc13ngOY5DYN6wDCoy9khSNO6DyJ~cTOdzQNkcxNl36-POhXCLldaHVn-HerniU~aGkrSKzGW3B5bwQd0x5OSBV2LfAcu1E1myUIa0NpuvWz1QAWOnFFxfKRyaPdr2gtqRm4dHgLwhqkSWmzXOkfJvAtnRMCvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Goshen, NY","date","2025-07-02T07:53:42.927Z","article","The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 granted variances tied to a lot‑line adjustment for Gotham Properties that will reconfigure four tax lots into three parcels on Pulaski Highway (County Route 6). The board approved a variance related to road‑frontage/lot configuration (section referred to by staff as “2‑88” in the record) and a front‑yard setback variance reducing the required 50‑foot setback to approximately 21 feet for an existing nonconforming structure. The board incorporated a staff reference to town code (Chapter 97.13, subsection f/c) into the record.

Applicant representative Vince Petersak described the reconfiguration as a clean‑up of an odd parcel pattern tied to an existing access arrangement: the site currently uses Sleepy Hollow Road (a private road) for operational access to a rear packing/industrial facility and an older airplane hangar. Petersak told the board the reconfiguration makes the largest, rear parcel the hangar parcel and keeps road frontage with the front parcel where appropriate.

Board members and staff questioned the proposal’s details, including whether the black‑dirt area and former runway would remain undeveloped and whether the private road configuration would limit future subdivision. Petersak and his team agreed to record a restriction that the orange parcels would not be separately subdivided without return to the board; the applicant said planning‑board review and standard site‑plan conditions will apply before any new building permits are issued.

Public comments included a request that the planning board and town engineer be consulted about floodplain and drainage conditions on Sleepy Hollow Road and adjacent lands. A resident who submitted photos said concern centers on standing water and potential future development of lots; the board noted those issues fall largely under planning‑board site‑plan review, stormwater rules and engineering review rather than the ZBA variance test alone.

During the vote the board found that (1) the requested lot‑line/road‑frontage variance would not produce an undesirable change in neighborhood character because the site’s functional access is via an existing private road, (2) the front‑yard setback variance, while substantial numerically, did not create an adverse environmental effect given the long‑standing nonconforming structures and would be subject to planning‑board conditions, and (3) self‑creation concerns were limited because many nonconformities predated current code enforcement. The ZBA approved the 2‑88 variance and the front‑yard setback variance; members announced conditions would include adherence to local and state building codes and any planning board conditions.

Town staff recorded the specific code reference discussed in the meeting as Chapter 97.13 (subsection f and related subparts) describing bulk regulations for nonresidential uses in the AI district, including a 50‑foot minimum front setback. The board noted that the tower/hangar on the rear parcel and the preexisting conditions informed its judgment.

The board’s approvals were conditioned on the applicant’s representations and subject to subsequent planning‑board/site‑plan review; the board consulted staff and recommended the planning board and town engineer review floodplain, access and drainage details before final building‑permit issuance. The ZBA indicated a formal decision and written record will be prepared for the file and that the planning‑board process will address engineering and stormwater controls before site construction or further subdivision.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Zoning Board Meeting. July 1, 2025.","oneSentenceSummary","The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 approved a lot‑line reconfiguration by Gotham Properties on Pulaski Highway and granted two variances, including a front‑yard setback reduction in the AI district, subject to planning‑board review and adherence to local building codes.","taxTitle","Goshen, Orange County, New York","taxId",55277,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6520803,"Goshen Zoning Board denies area variance for pavilion at 2 Jessica Court",2743,272000,3015000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5118333-162d4bedbf959c2822acb155892b7085&start=272&end=3015","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5118333-162d4bedbf959c2822acb155892b7085/thumbnail_272000.jpg","/articles/6520803/Goshen/Orange-County/New-York/Goshen-Zoning-Board-denies-area-variance-for-pavilion-at-2-Jessica-Court","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6520803-98adfa331a8c63d28d0335cdc053de24/orig.mp4?Expires=1770692015&Signature=ang7tWB7dYpkfh5dCr~nr4t85GxVucLd9ZuLaBxkBaQngerH3lfcheXgqruiJ186TWgsTM9Z5z4Qvwln7umg2FKa8zWnU9PfKM-35xQj90EKyECuCzRZvwcYPvjlJe-jVPE-Bqs04~1dCOZNQUR6SFgbqoUeWqy9oMqZ-jQFxw~02dFzSAb4DC1HfPO5trTX-hA98ik6~TwYSAOMj0W3vB1w5s3myBiRtpU1fqeYNY1iVnm2ETofdG6BaFgAT11wp7KbNxiAX5Fm8E4liVYsmqPwAlj02OHKLNiMD87Av6B7QSHeryyMZxZFuMxWo-KZTCpaEK6bFtK-nyzXtsEHmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 denied an after‑the‑fact area variance for a pavilion built at 2 Jessica Court, rejecting the applicant’s request to keep a permanent structure 10 feet from the side property line where the town code requires a 30-foot setback.

The board’s decision followed public testimony from neighbors and a lengthy discussion among members about precedent, permit history and whether the issue was self-created. The vote to deny the variance was 3–2. The board said a written decision explaining the rationale will be available within 30 days and the building department will follow up on next steps.

The variance request covered a 15‑by‑20-foot pavilion the homeowner built to replace an earlier, temporary gazebo. Neighbor Tim Ferraro, whose property abuts 2 Jessica Court, submitted a written objection saying the applicant “had no regard for the zoning regulations nor the permit process” and asking the board not to “rubber stamp the variance.” Another letter in the record from Darius Hunter supported the pavilion and said it “does not affect anyone in the complex.”

Applicant Mario Jimenez, who identified himself as the owner of 2 Jessica Court, told the board he is a first‑time homeowner and said he was not aware of the setback requirements when the previous, temporary structure was replaced by a more permanent timber pavilion. Jimenez said the work included removing debris, seeding the yard and installing a drainage trench he paid about $3,900 to install; he said he undertook that work to address what neighbors had described as a drainage problem. “It’s not that we violated knowingly,” Jimenez told the board. “Ignorance of me to know that towns had codes.”

Board members debated several technical points the applicant and neighbors raised. Staff said an earlier aluminum kit‑style gazebo had been permitted but that the newer, timber structure differed in size and construction and required fresh review. Board members also discussed a code threshold tied to accessory structures: the board noted that structures under 200 square feet can be treated differently (10-foot setback) while larger structures must meet the 30-foot side yard requirement; speakers disagreed on whether the permitted replacement exceeded that 200-square-foot threshold.

Several residents testified in support of the applicant, saying the pavilion is visually open and does not obstruct views. Chris Haley, who said he rode by the property, called the pavilion “beautifully done” and urged the board to approve the variance because the owners had already spent a substantial amount of money. Other neighbors and several board members raised precedent concerns — that granting this variance could encourage similar after‑the‑fact applications and reduce the protective buffer the setback rule was intended to provide.

In its deliberations the board considered the standard five‑factor area‑variance test (undesirable change to neighborhood character, alternative feasible options, substantiality of variance, adverse impacts on physical/environmental conditions, and self‑created hardship). Multiple members said the variance request appeared self‑created because the more permanent structure replaced a previously permitted but different accessory structure and because a hired professional (engineer/builder) should have flagged the issue earlier.

The board denied the requested area variance by a 3–2 vote. The chair said a written decision will be prepared and made available to the applicant; the building department will issue further correspondence about compliance or removal as needed. The board advised the applicant to follow up with the building department and the planning/building staff to clarify enforcement options and next steps.

The pavilion matter was one of two public hearings the board considered that evening. The zoning board recorded letters and testimony into the public record and allowed the applicant and others to offer additional documentation to the building department and board staff after the meeting.

What happens next: the written decision will set out the board’s findings and legal basis for denial. The building department will handle any enforcement or permitting follow‑up and will notify the owner of required actions or appeals options; those details were not specified at the meeting.","The Goshen Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7 denied an after‑the‑fact area variance request for a 15-by-20 pavilion at 2 Jessica Court, citing setback rules, precedent concerns and a self-created hardship. The board voted 3–2 to deny the variance; a written decision will be provided within 30 days.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Zoning board approves Gotham Properties lot reconfiguration and two variances on Pulaski Highway

Goshen Zoning Board denies area variance for pavilion at 2 Jessica Court