Applicant asks board to reduce lot-size requirement for 349 Maple Avenue; public hearing continued to April 1

An applicant seeking an area variance for property at 349 Maple Avenue asked the board to allow a truck-terminal use on a 2.8-acre site currently zoned to require a 5-acre minimum.

The request matters because the town’s zoning requires a minimum lot size for truck terminals when an existing building exceeds certain sizes; the applicant asked the board to limit on-site vehicle counts as a condition of relief instead of enlarging the parcel.

John Cappello, an attorney with J and G Law representing the applicant, said the property was bought by Tom Walsafer of Renew LLC in February 2021 and contains an existing building and approximately 2.8 acres. Cappello said Walsafer operates a small trucking and delivery business and currently stores and repairs six vehicles there. Cappello asked the board to grant an area variance reducing the minimum lot size from 5 acres to 2.8 acres on the condition the site be limited to a maximum of eight vehicles. Cappello said the existing building dates to the 1960s and that no substantial new disturbance or construction is proposed.

Mike Sandor, the project engineer accompanying the application, told the board he will pursue a flood-plain development permit from the planning board because the property lies partially in a flood plain; he said the applicant does not propose expanding the building footprint. Residents and board members asked whether neighboring parcels were available to increase acreage and how lot size and building size interact with vehicle-count limits in the code. Cappello said the zoning’s lot-size threshold is driven in part by the size of the building and that without relief the use is technically nonconforming.

Chris Healy, a Goshen resident, testified in support of the variance. “I really hate variances, and I think everybody here knows that I do. In this particular instance, isn’t this exactly what a variance is for? This property is incongruent because the size of the building doesn’t match the acreage of the property,” Healy said, adding that the site historically hosted vehicle- and equipment-related uses.

Board members and staff noted that the county’s review required under General Municipal Law 239 (the GML 239 referral) had not yet been received. Town counsel and staff advised the board it could not close the public hearing or vote on the five statutory variance factors until the GML 239 comment period had expired or the county returned a response. The board moved, seconded and voted to continue the public hearing to April 1 at 7:30 p.m.; the motion passed.

The matter will return to the board after the county referral period and any required planning-board flood-plain review. The applicant and members of the public were told they will be notified when the county’s comments are received and when the hearing will reconvene.