After four months of review and public hearings, the Plattekill Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] last week, by a unanimous vote, denied a request for an area variance from Anthony Dirago and Tina Bucci to build a 30 ft. by 1300 ft drag strip at 153 Freetown Road in Plattekill. The property consists of two contiguous vacant lots totaling approximately 46 acres and is in the BD 60 light business zoning district.

At the July 8 ZBA meeting ZBA attorney Richard Hoyt summarized the board’s record on this application, noting that last spring the town’s Code Enforcement Officer issued a determination that the proposed use fell under the Outdoor Amusement and Recreation of the town code but a set back variance would be required from the ZBA and a Special Use permit should be sought from the Planning Board. The determination is being challenged and will be reviewed at the June 22nd ZBA meeting.

The code requires that setbacks in this zone not be less than 150 feet from all property lines, “unless a greater setback is required under the particular circumstances.” In this case Dirago wanted a 35 foot setback at the northern end of his property, resulting in his request for a 115 ft area variance from the ZBA.

Hoyt noted that the Ulster County Planning Board reviewed the proposal on May 5, 2021, which contained two binding comments; “the variance should not be granted in the absence of fact-based answers to the area variance test and the SEQRA [environmental] review should be coordinated with the town Planning Board.”

The ZBA received a number of letters from objecting residents and letters from attorney Ken Stenger, who represents applicants Dirago and Bucci.

Hoyt said there is a five part test for granting any area variance, which is required by the town code and by NYS law; Is there going to be an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties?; Can the applicant achieve its goals by some other feasible method that wouldn’t require a variance?; Is the required variance substantial?; Will there be adverse impacts on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood? And Is the alleged difficulty self-created?

The ZBA found that drag strip racing is an inherently loud activity and there are several residences in the area that are less than 1,000 ft from the proposed site. The 150 ft setback requirement is, in part, a way to mitigate this impact upon the neighbors.

The board reviewed the sound report and found that the closest neighbor is 420 feet from the proposed site and will experience a maximum of 94 decibels of sound on their property. This level is 16 times the 54 decibel maximum that was measured during a rush hour period. It was noted that the applicant has proposed erecting berms on three sides of the property as a sound mitigating measure.

The ZBA determined that granting the variance for the drag strip will negatively impact the neighboring home owners. They also acknowledged there are certain constraints of the property, such as obtaining additional property to the north as well as the wetlands on the property, “but the owner could have done more due diligence before he bought the properties in 2017 and 2018. The Department of Environmental Conservation [DEC] had listed a substantial portion of the land as a “check zone” on the environmental map, which should have led the applicants to more investigation before they purchased the properties.”

The ZBA found that the requested area variance totaling 76% is substantial, “and that percentage would increase if it were to be determined that the setback greater than 150 feet would be required for this specific use.”

The ZBA stated that the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood will be adversely impacted if the variance were granted. It was noted that a drag strip of this length may also impact the wetlands due to spilled fuels, burning or leaching rubber and other contaminants associated from this type of activity. The ZBA noted that the applicants failed to submit a drainage plan to address these types of environmental issues during the four months that this proposal has been before the board. In denying the area variance, the ZBA determined that the difficulties are self created by the applicants and that the benefits sought by the applicants do not outweigh the burden to the community.

Hoyt acknowledged receiving a July 1 letter from attorney Ken Stenger, pointing out that in 2003 a set back variance was granted to the Hudson Valley Flyers to operate, “in Mr. Stenger’s words, an airport in a nearby but different site.” The ZBA determined that this is an entirely different matter because the Flyers club does not operate an airport and its use is intermittent and does not involve ‘extraordinarily loud aircraft. Hoyt noted that no present member of the ZBA was involved in the airport issue 18 years ago and that variance was granted under a different section of the code, which has been amended several times since 2003.

Hoyt said because the area variance has been denied there is no need to coordinate the environmental SEQRA review with the Planning Board.