ALTAMONT — A majority of the Altamont Zoning Board of Appeals says variances should be given for Stewart’s Shops to expand its gas station, allowing the project to move on to the village’s planning board. 

The zoning board tentatively granted three variances for the Altamont Boulevard location after two-and-half hours of deliberation (click here for a full recording of the meeting). They were: 

— Allowing the company to build its new shop 30 feet closer to the adjacent residential property than the zoning code allows.

With a gasoline-service-station designation, the village code says the only structure on a site that can be closer than 50 feet to an adjacent residential lot is a fence. As proposed, the back of the new building will sit approximately 20 feet from the property line of the adjacent 111 Helderberg Ave.;

—  An approval to let Stewart’s build its new store farther from Altamont Boulevard than what is currently authorized by code.

In the Central Business District, according to code, the maximum distance from Altamont Boulevard that the new shop could be built is 10 feet. Stewart’s proposed to place its new store 104 feet from the road; and

— Permitting Stewart’s to build its new shop and gas canopy on a smaller lot than what code says is needed.

Village code states that gasoline service stations are permitted only on lots of 40,000 square feet or more. The proposed Altamont Boulevard parcel has an area of about 34,000 square feet.

The zoning board only arrived at a consensus during its March 10 meeting, the actual decision first has to be drafted by the village attorney; the board will vote to adopt its final determination at a special meeting on Tuesday, March 31, at 7 p.m.

The Altamont Board of Trustees in November 2019, for the second time in less than a year, voted to rezone from residential to commercial the Stewart’s-owned property at 107-109 Helderberg Ave., a now-empty turn-of-the-last-century duplex.

Stewart’s then went before the zoning board a month later seeking three variances that the company said it needed because building a code-compliant project was not possible. The board declined to set a public hearing for its January meeting, citing potential problems with properly notifying the public about the hearing due to the impending holiday season. At its February meeting, the board listened to the public’s comments about requests made by Stewart’s but took no action and extended the public hearing.

Each variance request, to be granted, had to pass five criteria used by the zoning board: 

— Whether the variance request would create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or cause detriment to nearby properties;

— Whether there are ways for an applicant to achieve the same level of benefit without having to seek an area variance;

— Whether the requested variance is substantial;

— Whether the proposed variance would adversely affect a neighborhood or district’s physical or environmental conditions; and

— Whether “the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.”

The zoning board, using each of the five factors, then undertook a balancing test at its March 10 meeting, “weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the area variance is granted.”

As the board began to discuss Stewart’s requests and weighing each variance against each of the five criterion of the balancing test, a pattern emerged among the members. 

By and large, Tresa Matulewicz, Danny Ramirez, and Sal Tassone came down on the side of granting Stewart’s the variances it was seeking, while Kathryn Provencher and board chair Maurice McCormick were in disagreement with their fellow board members.

For the first request, 30 feet of relief from 111 Helderberg Ave., Tresa Matulewicz, Danny Ramirez, and Sal Tassone said that granting the variance would not create an undesirable change in neighborhood character or cause detriment to nearby properties (criterion one), while Kathryn Provencher and the board’s chair Maurice McCormick dissented. 

On criterion two, the board was unanimous that there was no other way for Stewart’s achieve the same level of benefit without receiving the 30 feet of relief.

The board was also unanimous that the request of 30 feet of relief was substantial (criterion three).

As to whether granting 30 feet of relief would adversely affect the area’s physical or environmental conditions (criterion four), a majority of the board —  Matulewicz, Ramirez, and Tassone — said it would not.

On criterion five, Tassone was the lone board who said Stewart’s “alleged difficulty” hadn’t been “self-created.”

For the second request, a setback variance of about 94 feet from Altamont Boulevard for the new shop, the board voted on each of the criterion this way:

— Criterion one, 3 to 2, Matulewicz, Ramirez, and Tassone said granting 94 feet of relief would not not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood, McCormick and Provencher diagreed;

— Criterion two, 5 to 0, the board was unanimous that there wasn’t another way for Stewart’s to achieve the same level of benefit without receiving the 94-foot variance;

— Criterion three, 5 to 0, again the board was unanimous that the request of 94 feet of relief was substantial;

— Criterion four, 3 to 2, Matulewicz, Ramirez, and Tassone said that granting the 94-foot variance would not adversely affect the area’s physical or environmental conditions — McCormick and Provencher said that it would;

— Criterion five, 4 to 1, Tassone was again the lone board who said Stewart’s “alleged difficulty” hadn’t been “self-created.”

And on the 6,000-square-foot area variance request board voted his way:

— Criterion one, 4 to 1, only Provencher said granting the variance would have created an undesirable change in neighborhood character or caused detriment to nearby properties;

— Criterion two, 5 to 0, the board agreed there was no other way for Stewart’s to achieve the same level of benefit without the variance;

— Criterion three, 5 to 0, the board was unanimous that granting what amounted to a 15-percent variance for minimum allowable lot size was determined to be not substantial.

— Criterion four, 3 to 2, Matulewicz, Ramirez, and Tassone said that granting the the 6,000-square-foot area variance would not adversely affect environmental conditions — McCormick and Provencher diagreed; and

— Criterion five, 3 to 2, McCormick, Provencher, and Ramirez said that Stewart’s difficulty was self-created, Matulewicz and Tassone said it wasn’t. ​