Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies variance that would clear way for detached unit at 8 Kentucky Drive
Summary
The Town of Newburgh Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4–3 to deny an application to clear three area variances tied to a plan to use an existing accessory structure as a separate residence at 8 Kentucky Drive. Neighbors warned the decision could set an unwanted precedent; the applicant said the filing sought only area relief not a change of use.
The Town of Newburgh Zoning Board of Appeals on June 25 denied a request to regularize area variances on a 21,246‑square‑foot lot at 8 Kentucky Drive where current zoning requires 50,000 square feet, a deficit the board described as substantial.
Joseph Minuta of Minuta Architecture, representing the property owner, told the board the filing sought only area variances — lot area, lot width and rear‑yard setback — to document existing nonconformities and clear the record. “All we're looking for tonight is … area variances. Nothing else,” Minuta said, adding the rear yard measures roughly 10 feet 4 inches where 50 feet is required and that the buildings carry certificates of occupancy dating to 1988.
The board’s attorney, David Donovan, and several members pushed back that the practical effect of granting the relief would be to allow a second dwelling on a single lot. Neighbor Robert Clavin, who spoke during public comment, urged caution, saying the variance could create a precedent for converting small lots into multi‑household sites and produce parking and traffic pressures in the neighborhood.
Board members weighed the five statutory factors for area variances, repeatedly noting the large shortfall in lot area and concerns about changing neighborhood character. Chairman Darrin Scalzo and other members said the numerical gap — roughly half the required lot area missing — made the request “substantial.”
When the board put a motion to approve the variances to a roll‑call vote, the tally was four in favor and three opposed; the motion failed. Siobhan Jablesnik read the roll call: Banks (Yes), Eberhart (Yes), Hermance (No), Masten (Yes), Politi (No), Rein (No), Scalzo (No). The board therefore denied the application.
The applicant may return to the Planning Board with revised plans or seek other pathways; the ZBA’s denial left the property in its existing nonconforming status rather than granting the dimensional relief sought. The board reminded the public that it had up to 62 days to issue determinations on such matters and that parties may appeal final decisions in accordance with New York law.
