1988-02-23`
F\
ZONING BOARD OF ArP9ALS
FEBRUARY 23RD, 19813- 7z00 P.��. .
-'
AGENDA
ROLL CALL: �
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
MINUTES:
1. Vote on the Minutes of the December 22nd, 1987 Meeting. ~^'
2. Vote on the Minutes of the January 26th, 1988 Meeting.
IV� HEARINGS:
-- l #102� t th est of ���� 0A ������ Appea , a e requ �, seeking a variance
of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance where 20
lL`feet is required and the applicant has only 10 feet requiring 10 foot
[� /variance because the garage isattached to the houseby way ofa
��1breezeway on property located on 28 Caroline -Drive, and being Parcel
/60 6-03-207344, in the Town a+ Wappinger.
Appeal #1024, at the request of Glenn Lapgg, seeking a variance of
Article IV, S 477.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance where the
requirement is not to exceed 15% for the driveway grade and the appli
cant has a small section of the driveway at 18% on property located on
Smithtown Road,.and being Parcel #6256-01
LAI
'W Appeal #1025, at the request of Francis C.0
ance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
equest a 7.2 +cot sideyard variance to erect an attached g rage where
k40 feet is required on property located on 18 Daisy Lane, and being -
56-02-889905, in the Town of Wappinger.
Appeal #1026, at the request of Mario -Leone, seeking an interpre
o
ation of Article IV, S404.21 & 404.22 of the Town of Wappinger Z
king a
7 ppeal #1027, at the request of John & Patr,
variance of Article IV, S470 of the Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to allow a variance of 25 feet where 50 +cot driveways are required
Aon property located on McFarlane Road, and being Parcel #'s
157-04-501344 & 628355, in the Town of W a p p i n g e r . VX
Appeal #1028, at the request of G_S & Associates.1 seeking a vari
V, S4'22 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
allow a 50 +cot +rontyard setback where 75 feet is required an property
-01-255010, in the Town of
01��located on Route E32, and being Parcel #6457
VAppeal #1029, at the request of CorpgEegl_pgyglgpMgnt.--C-gE:Pm., seek
-1 the Town of Wappinger Zoning
ing a variance of Article IV, S421 of
Ordinance to allow a 4 +cot sideyard variance where 225 feet is required
-on property located an 232 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel
#-2�058-04 745052, in the Town of Wappinger.,
\
\�
J
-2-
OI D BUSINESS:
1/ Appeal #1013, at the request of David_&_SuL
san_ev_itan, seeking a
variance of Article IV, 5412 of the Town errmiJtponnaelotZoning
whichOrdinance
a building p not
to allow for the issuance of
a Town Road on property located on Myers
have legal road frontage on
Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-894596, in the Town of Wap-
pinger. 1 C1 VJLo -
NEW BUSINESS:
jf Appeal #122, at the request of Dawn_M_ Flynn, seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, S430,F'1 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance to permit an accessory use to establish a real estate g<
d on New Hackensack
brokerage office on property locate
Hackensack Road, and being
Parcel #6158-04-614+49, in the Town of Wappinger.
W a
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
'
FEBRUARY ��R� 1988 - 7:08 P.M.
MINUTES
THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN
SUBMITTED TO, REVIEWED OR
APPROVED BY THE:
G&NIMGBOARD OF APPEALS
0PLANN|y0G BOARD
TQhAW HALL
M%DDLEBUGH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, N.Y.
The
regular meeting
of
the
Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday,
February
23rd, 1988
at
the
Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls,
New
York beginning
at 7:00
P.M..
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Brooker, Chairman Mr. Hirkala
Mr. Tompkins Mrs. Roe
Mr. Lehigh
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Mr. Herb Levenson, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M..
MINUTES:
1. Vote on the Minutes of the December 22nd, 1987 Meeting.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the Minutes.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
2. Vote on the Minutes of the January 26th, 1988 Meeting.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the Minutes.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
1. Appeal #1020, at the request of John_W._Thomas, seeking a variance
of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappimger Zoning Ordinance where 20
feet is required and the applicant has only 80 feet requiring a 10 foot
variance because the garage is attached to the house by way of a
breezeway on property located on 28 Caroline Drive, and being Parcel
#6056-03-207344, in the Town of Wappimger.
John W. Thomas was present.
Mr. Brooker read a letter into the record from Mike Usifer dated
2/10/88. (Letter on file)
Mr. Brooker read a letter into the record from John W. Thomas dated
2/11/88. (Letter on File)
Mr. Tompkins asked, if I read your letter right you are going to have 6
feet to the garage, right?
Mr. Thomas answered, correct.
Mr. Tompkins asked, can I ask you why you don't take it on the breeze-
way side and then it wouldn't effect your variance at all?
Mr. Thomas answered, because the breezeway is a cement breezeway built
up, it is not ground level and I believe there are oil tanks underneath
it, I am not positive, but I think there are. It is a cement and
concrete block breezeway.
Mr. Brooker asked, you have an existing garage now, correct? Why do
you want to put another garage there, to park 2 more cars right?
Mr. Thomas answered, because we don't have the parking on the street
for one thing.
Mr. Brooker asked, you are a 2 car family?
Mr. Thomas answered, yes.
Mr. Brooker asked, and as you say the breezeway is built up from the
house?
Mr. Thomas answered, we have to go down from the breezeway into the
garage.
Mrs. Roe asked, actually, what you are asking for is not a complete
width, for instance a second garage, but merely to widen this one that
will take 2 cars.
Mr. Thomas answered, yes.
Mr. Brooker asked, in other words you are going to widen it to accommo-
date 2 cars?
Mr. Thomas answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, 'you are already encroaching on the setback now
aren't you?
Mr. Thomas answered, it was that way when we bought the house last
year.
Mr. Lehigh asked, what year was the house built?
Mr. Thomas answered, 1957.
Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or
against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many people are in the house?
Mr. Thomas answered, 2.
Mr. HIrkala asked, how many cars?
Mr. Thomas answered, 2.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many bedrooms does the house have?
Mr. Thomas answered, 4. Actually 2 bedrooms and 2 dens.
Mr. Levenson stated, I request, Mr. Chairman, that before you close the
public hearing you move on the EAF.
i Mr. Hirkala asked, how many feet from the road to the point of the
\ ! garage" approximately? NN��
� Mr. Thomas answered, I have no idea.
|
( Mr. HIrkala asked, it is not far enough?
Mr. Thomas answered, no, you can just get a car off the road, that is
it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you have enough room in the driveway for one car?
Mr. Thomas answered, 2 if I pull one over to the side.
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to move a negative declaration.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mrs. Roe seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
+
Mr. Hirkala Hirkala asked, how long have you owned this house, one year?
Mr. Thomas answered, just one year.
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to grant the requested variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I seconded the motion, and as a finding of fact, on
the second of the motion I think the practical difficulty in that the
location of the buildings on the lot are odd ball. There is really no
other way to go with this thing. If the house was setback further on
the property I would say that he would have room for the cars in the
garage.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
2. Appeal #1024, at the request of Glq99_Q_P99, seeking a variance of
Article IV, S477.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance where the
requirement is not to exceed 15% for the driveway grade and the appli-
cant has a small section of the driveway at 18}C on property located on
Smithtown Road, and being Parcel #6256-01-185818, in the Town of Wap-
pinger.
Glenn LaDue was present.
Mr. Tompkins stated, we asked for the Fire Prevention Bureau's com-
ments, did we get them?
Mr. Levenson stated, Mr. Paggi called me this afternoon, the letter is
in the mail to you, he re -reviewed this on a site inspection and Mr.
LaDue agreed to backfill so there will be no runoff and Mr. Paggi's
recommendation to the Board, if you wish, as far as engineering in
concerned, you can grant the variance if you wish. He is satisfied
engineering wise that everything will be in order.
Mr. Lehigh asked, Mr. Paggi's engineering report, was that strictly
motor vehicle?
Mr. Levenson answered, Mr. Paggi said to me that it would accommodate
the apparatus.
Mr. Hirkala asked, it is not strictly an engineering report then?
Mr. Levenson answered, there is a drawing, and Mr. LaDue had it redrawn
and an engineer is going to certify to Mr. Paggi that once the job is
done that it is safe and sound, and satisfactory.
Mr. Tompkins stated, I think we should wait for the report.
Mr. Brooker stated, I could say that we got a verbal call from Mr.
Paggi and that the letter is in the mail saying that Mr. Paggi has no
objection to it.
Mr. Brooker then asked if there was anyone else in the audience to
speak for or against this appeal.
I have received a registered letter from Mr. LaDue. I telephoned Mr.
LaDue this evening and he told me first that he would be here at a
quarter of seven. We had talked before on the phone and at that time I
told Mr. LaDue that my parcel had the lines corrected to agree with an
1833 survey because the County had been surveying from the road up and
they had made mince meat out of what I had. At that time I had men-
tioned to you, I don't know if you recall, I had been advised that it
is possible that I have I have an access across your property and the
road that you are putting here, from what I can see looks like.....
There was some discussion between Mr. LaDue and Mr. Stuart.
Mr. Brooker asked, what is your objection, if any?
� Mr. Stuart stated, if I have access across the lands and if he is going
to set himself up to unchangeably, or without change and we find I have
! access it would be easier to settle the thing now. See if we can't
! come to an agreement.
Mr. Brooker stated, I think, Mr. Stuart, that this would be a civil
matter, not the problem of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Stuart stated, as long as he is not putting in a grade that will
hurt, drain off anything up there I have no quarrel.
Mr. Hirkala asked, where is your property?
Mr. Stuart answered, the opposite end.
Mr. Hirkala asked, are you landlocked?
Mr. Stuart answered, no. Not if I have access across his land.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is there a ROW?
Mr. Stuart answered, there should be.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in your deed, is there a ROW?
Mr. Stuart answered, no, its a tax sale, and they don't spell out
anything of that nature. But, if it existed at one time you agree that
it is still there?
-6-
Mr. Hirkala answered, I don't agree to anything. I am just one members
^
sitting here on a Board d w ith one vote on a request for a variance. All
I am trying to do is get clear of what your problem is. It sounds to
me that you have a problem with Mr. LaDue that you have to work out
with Mr. LaDue.
Mr. Stuart stated, I am inclined to agree with you.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think that what you are saying has anything
to do with the request before us.
Mr. Stuart stated, I am only saying that if he wants to put a road in
go right ahead but please don't forget that I might have rights to that
thing.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is not a road, it is a driveway request that he
is making.
Mr. Brooker stated, that is not our problem. That is you problem with
a civil matter.
Mr. Stuart stated, then disregard what I have said.
Mr. Brooker stated, we can't really disregard what you said Mr. Stuart
because it is a matter of public record now.
Mr. Stuart stated, all right then we are going to have to go to court
because I don't quite follow the procedure.
Mr. Levenson stated, the procedure is that this is a Board of remedial
review. Mr. LaDue has come here to ask for a variance from the Zoning
Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum of 15% grade and he
is asking for an 18% grade. That is the only thing that this Board can
address because of public notice, and further, any disagreements
between adjoining property owners with regards to ROW's are civil
matters and they can't be adjudicated by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
They have to be adjudicated between the lawyers or in the courts.
Mr. Stuart asked, may I withdraw?
Mr. Brooker answered, you certainly may.
Mr. Brooker then stated, can I entertain a motion that we move on the
EAF.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you brought up the question before of whether we
have heard from any of the Fire Prevention Bureau as to what their
� feeling is on the 18% grade. The Zoning Administrator says verbally
that the Engineer talked to the fact that there shouldn't be any prob-
lem with the grade but.....
Mr. Brooker stated, we have nothing from the Fire Prevention Bureau
about the grade? Frankly, I would like to see something. We could
grant the variance subject to the approval by the Fire Prevention
Bureau. They are meeting right now so we can ask them.
Mr. Hirkala stated, another question I would have was whether there is
an alternative to granting the variance. Rather than granting an 18%
grade, whether there is a way that is not unreasonable to get closer to
15%. I don't know if there engineering is speaking of that.
Mr. LaDue stated, I met with Jay Paggi yesterday and he didn't have any
problem with the grade, he was more concerned with the fill section to
see that it was properly done.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he is more concerned with the engineering and not
the grades.
Mr. LaDue stated, he said he didn't like to see much more than 18%
grade.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the Zoning Ordinance says 15%, I would imagine it
was put there for a reason. If it is possible to get 15% or less than
0#60 18%.
Mr. LaDue stated, there is a possibility, but there is a rock situa-
tion.
Mr. Levenson stated, the Fire Prevention Bureau is reviewing the plans.
Mr. Tompkins stated, can I ask you the length of the driveway?
Mr. LaDue answered, about 1,400 feet.
Mr. Tompkins stated, there is a section of the Zoning Ordinance that
says that your road has to be up to Town specs, up to within 150 feet
of the house, you realize that?
Mr. LaDue answered, yes. There is another access to this parcel. This
property shares a small mountain and on the other side of the hill
there is a driveway top the top to another house. There are three
other driveways that lead up to the top of the hill. On the South side
coming up the hill is an approved driveway by the Zoning Board of
Appeals in 1986.
Mr. Lehigh asked, that also has access to your property without going
across the lawn or anything else?
Mr. LaDue answered, well, that is adjacent to the property. It would
be difficult to fight a fire from it.
Mr. Brooker asked, it has to be 10 foot wide, the driveway.
Mr. Levenson answered, no, 15 foot wide. It has to be 15 foot wide and
it can't be more than 1,500 foot long according to the Town regula-
tions. He is 1,400 feet and my original conversation with Mr. LaDue
was that 150 feet from the house would be graded so that the equipment
could get in.
Mr. Hirkala stated, Mr. LaDue just told us that Mr. Paggi didn't
approach the fact that the grade, he approached the fact of the engi-
neering so that there wouldn't be any adverse drainage. That is what
his prime concern is.
Mr. Brooker stated, our concern is the grade.
Mr. Tompkins stated, I would like to see something from the Town Engi-
neer and the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Mr. Brooker stated, I will hold the public hearing on this appeal over
until the end of the agenda tonight.
Mr. Brooker asked for a 5 minute break to talk to the Fire Prevention
B
ureau.
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to carry this appeal over until the end of
the meeting.
Mrs. Roe seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
3.. Appeal #1025, at the request of Francis C. seeking sv�i-
ance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
request a 7.2 foot sideyard variance to erect an attached garage where
20 feet is required on property located on 18 Daisy Lame~ and being
Parcel #6158-()2-089905, in the Town of h@eppinger.
Doug & Francis Brown were present.
Mr. Brooker read a letter from Robert & Rosemarie Campbell, 16 Daisy
Lane into the record. (Letter on File)
Mr. Brown stated, basically, I delivered my case on the attached sheet.
Basically what we would like to do is out a 2 car garage on the prop-
erty which currently supports a one car garage. We don't have addi-
�W ' tional space to increase the width of the driveway to pull out, access
�
fro the car under the garage.
Mr. Brooker asked, you currently have a garage now?
Mr. Brown answered, yes.
Mr. Brooker asked, and how many cars can you put in it right now?
Mr. Brown answered, one.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what are you going to do with the garage when you
put the other one up if you get approval?
Mr. Brown answered, I am going to close in that garage and move the
driveway. Put in a steel security door on that side of the house.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what you are going to do is create another room?
Mr. Brown answered, we are going to expand the basement.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so you are going to expand the living space in the
house?
Mr. Brown answered, we don't really call it living space.
Mr. Tompkins stated, according to this map, if I am reading it right,
you have 28 feet from your property line to your house?
Mr. Brown answered, yes.
Mr. Tompkins asked, And you can't jockey one car in, 2 cars in 28 feet?
Mr. Brown answered, no, from the edge of the driveway to the house is
uphill. From the back of the driveway where the 28 feet exists also
slopes uphill and the septic system is back in that area. I have no
way to push another car out of the way to get another car in the
garage. It takes that full turning radius to get that car out.
Mrs. Roe stated, I went out the other day and looked at that and you
have to every bit as much space as I have to park another car in the
driveway and I have got more than plenty.
Mr. Brown stated, I can park 2 cars in the driveway, yes, and once I
park the second one in the driveway I can't get the first one out of
the driveway.
Mrs. Roe stated, well you play musical cars, that is what we all do.
Mr. Brown stated, I am the property at 16 Daisy Lane, and I am the only
property on the street that has this problem.
�
��
—' Mr. Lehigh stated, sir, that is not an excuse. That is not a reason to
grant you the variance. That is the first thing I looked at.
Mr. Brown Brown stated, when you asked for a unique hardship, in the sense
we are unique in the fact that we cannot, on our street we are unique
that we can't get one car out without moving the other cars.
Mr. Lehigh asked, how long have you lived there?
Mrs. Brown answered, 10 years. I bought the house when I was single.
Mr. Lehigh asked, what is going to happen when you get 4 or 5 kids and
they all have cars.
Mrs. Brown answered, we have one now and I am 38 so I don't plan to
have another one.
Mrs. Roe stated, it would destroy a great deal of you planting on the
other side of your house.
Mrs. Brown stated, we realize we would have to take the trees down,
yes.
Mr. Brown stated, but if you don't swear to the ordinance we have been
told that we can build a 20 foot, 2 car garage on the side proposed,
una,
ttached and still meet the 10 foot property line requirements for
0� / an unattached structure.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then why are you here.
Mr. Brown answered, we feel that by pushing it back near the house
maintains the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hirkala stated, put a one car garage in, that will give you 2 cars.
One under the house and one on top.
Mr. Brown stated, we can't put a 2 car garage and leave 2 feet. We can
leave 2 feet between the house and put a 2 car garage and do it, and we
feel that we can save the 2 feet by pushing it to the house.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is the way the ordinance reads. Your argument
is valid as far as you are concerned, as far as the Board is concerned,
that argument, if everybody in this Town had the same situation and
came before this Board we would have to grant the variance, which
means, why do we site here.
Mrs. Brown stated, we are talking about destroying the character of the
neighborhood and I don't see that this is a reason to deny the vari-
ance.
Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or
�-. against this appeal.
There was no one.
�% ^ -1 Sol
P -
%
Mrs. Roe asked, how about making a second one along the side of the
first one under the house in the first place, the space is there.
Mr. Brown answered, the only basement to the house is under the living
area. The other part, the second section of the house, if you look at
the floor plan half of the house is concrete slab, the other half is
separated between the basement area and the garage currently my heating
system resides in that other half of the garage. I have no way to put
another garage door under the house.
Mr. Brooker stated, we have a letter from your neighbor who kind of
strongly objects to it also.
Mr. Brown stated, the problem with that is I have been told that I can
move the garage 2 foot closer to the property line and build it.
Mr. Brooker asked, why didn't you propose this in the first place?
Mr. Brown answered, I would rather increase the fire base between the
house. If I have a 2 car unattached garage it would be the only one in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mrs. Roe seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mrs. Roe made a motion to move a negative declaration.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to deny the requested variance.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
4. Appeal #1028, at the request of MgQp_LqpDq, seeking an interpre-
tation of Article IV, S404.21 & S404.22 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
'-
Ordinance, in the Town of Wappimger.
�
0��
- -12-
Mario Leone and Gerald Vergilis, Attorney were present.
Mr. Vergilis stated, we were here the last time and just briefly
introduced this matter to them members of the board and I believe at
that time we were waiting to get an opinion from the Attorney to the
Town, I don't know if he has written to this Board?
Mr. Brooker stated, we have no correspondence as of this time?
Mr. Levenson stated, I think the records should stated that Mr. Wood is
on vacation and will return on Monday. The only that that he feels
that the Board has to determine is whether the pre -structures can
remain on the one lot.
Mr. Tompkins asked, there are really 4 structures.
Mr. Vergilis stated, there will be 4 structures. That are 3 on one of
these small parcel now, and in order to bring the area into conformity,
that is to meet the minimum 2 acre requirement of the zone of which we
are, that would of course necessitate moving the line, which would put
_ the fourth building on that same property. If i may I would like to go
through a presentation. I believe each of you have a map and I have
! �N� gone through the sections of the Zoning Ordinance and there is really
|
' nothing that is directly...I believe that one of the reasons that we
! are here is to determine if any of these sections really control the
` issue and unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of
| view, the Planning Board has said before they go further with the sub---
division
ub-
division application that we have presented they want to hear something
/
from the Zoning Board of Appeals concerning this matter. Now if I may,
� the relative sections, apparently the sections in the code that seems
�
' to, in one way apply and do not apply are the ones that I have
addressed within my application. I believe that in my conversations
� with Mr. Wood he has also confirmed with me these are the relevant sec-
tions. They are the only sections of the code that seem to deal with
the issue that is presented. They all have to do basically with non -
conformities. Now, if I will, I would like to tell you that the first
� parcel that we have here is 3.63 acres, that is the one on your map
� that is outlined in the heavy marking. My client also owns that
{
" lighter parcel which is a total of .4 acres. Now, what we proposed to
�
� do it to put the 4 acres with the 3.63 acres and that would give us 4
� acres whatever it is. Then what we would do is go to the Planning
< Board and subdivide so that we would have 2 conforming lots. What we
have now are 2 non -conforming lots. There are actually, presently, 3
� non -conformities. One is that the heavy darkened lot, the 3.6 acre lot
/ presently has 2 buildings on it. That is a non -conformity under the
� existing statute. The little parcel is non -conforming in size, it is
' only a half an acre and it is in the 2 acre zone. In addition, it has
3 buildings, so it has 2 non -conformities. The end result of what we
will do here would be if we have the affirmative interpretation that we
are asking this Board to give us, and the Planning Board approves,
� would be to eliminate 2 of the non -conformities. If you look at what
-13 -
will be the proposed Lot #1, that is the 2.059 acre parcel, it will
have one building on it. It will be 2 acres, and it will fully conform
with the existing statute. Lot #2, when it is put together, will take
us all the way down to Smithtown Road, and that will wind up to have
about 2.1 acres, and that will also be fully conforming in size, 2
acres. The only difference that you will wind up with here is that the
proposed Lot #2, instead of having 3 buildings on it, it will have a
fourth building on it, but, I ask the Board if there is any difference
then what is presently existing there in that we have the same owner
that owns all 5 buildings. I looked at the statute and there is really
nothing in the statute that says that you cannot do this.
Mr. Hirkala asked, that you cannot do this.
Mr. Vergilis answered, that you cannot increase a non -conformity, you
increase a non -conforming use.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you cannot subdivide illegally.
Mr. Vergilis answered, we are not subdividing illegally.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are erasing a line.
Mr. Vergilis answered, no, we are not erasing a line. The statute says
that we are allowed to borrow from other lands that we have.
Mr. Hirkala stated, by you still have to erase the line to create a
lot. You have 3 lots right now.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I have 2 lots right now, sir. '
Mr. Levenson stated, the dark blue line is one lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what he is looking to do is erase this line.
Even if he doesn't draw a line, if he erases that line it is a subdi-
vision, it comes under the subdivision regulations. Don't say it
doesn't come under the statute. The statute says that you can't subdi-
vide.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I didn't say it didn't come under a statute.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you said that you can do that.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I didn't say that I didn't have to go to the
Planning Board to get the subdivision. I am there, I am presently at
the Planning Board stage with this subdivision. What I said was there
is nothing in the statute that directly prevents me from taking this
line, that is the heavy dark line as long as I own the adjacent prop-
erty.
N I
-14-
Mr. Hirkala stated, your wrong, because these lots right here, the
buildings are non -conforming, if you move that line all you are doing
is creating a different size lot that is still non -conforming.
Mr. Vergilis stated, it is still non -conforming, that is the point.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but you can't increase a non -conformity.
Mr. Vergilis stated, you can, you can increase the non -conforming use
up to half.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no, that is only a retail use.
Mr. Tompkins stated, I am not a lawyer, you are a lawyer and we are
waiting for our lawyer's opinion. You also asked for a variance
besides the interpretation. A variance on what.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I am asking only for an interpretation.
Mr. Tompkins stated, this appeal says a variance also.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I am looking at the statute. If I need a variance
to have 4 non -conforming buildings on one lot instead of 3 on one lot,
if that requires a variance I am asking for a variance.
Mr. Brooker stated, only tonight it is the interpretation.
Mr. Vergilis stated, that came up last week, it was I believe Mr. Lev-
enson or Mr. Woods.
Mr. Levenson stated, Mr. Wood's opinion also. We recently had an
interpretation where we granted a decision. There was a decision wri-
tten. The Lawrence Farms interpretation granted a variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no, I would say I disagree. Lawrence Farms
interpretation didn't grant a variance. It eliminated a road block.
The interpretation opened it up for him to be able to do what he wanted
to do. That wasn't a variance. There was no variance required.
Mr. Vergilis stated, that is just it. I don't know that I need a var-
iance either. Mr. Client now owns all this property and he owns all 5
buildings.
Mr. Tompkins asked, once if you got approval and subdivision what are
you going to do with the 4 buildings.
1~ ~ Mr. Vergilis answered, presently there is no plans to do anything with
`~ respect to those 4 buildings. Nothing what so ever. The one building,
I have already made public, would be turned into an office building.
The others, actually no intentions to do anything current at this time.
Mr. Lehigh asked, if you are not going to do anything with them why are
you requesting a change?
Mr. Vergilis answered, because I can't get my subdivision to bring Lot
#1 into existence unless I come here and say this is what I have to do
gentlemen. This is what the Planning Board has told me.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what are you going to do with Lot #1?
Mr. Vergilis answered, Lot #1 is going to be sold and become an office
building. Depending on site plan approval with the Planning Board
etc...
Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words that is going to be converted to an
office building and Lot #2 is going to be also for speculation?
Mr. Vergilis asked, what do you mean speculation?
Mr. Levenson stated, I think Mr. Leone will tell you it is not a secret
what is happening. Mr. Leone can tell you, the Ulster Bank is going in
there.
Mr. Lehigh asked, what are you going to do with the 4 buildings, what
do you have planned?
Mr. Vergilis answered, nothing.
Mr. Lehigh stated, it really has to tie into with everything, with our
decision, you understand? If you are going to wipe them out.
Mr. Vergilis stated, if we were going to wipe them out I wouldn't even
be here. Right now there is people living in there.
Mr. Lehigh stated, I see 2 of them empty, right?
Mr. Vergilis answered, no.
Mr. Leone stated, one is empty, it is for rent. There is a sign up
there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, as I see the question, the question is whether or
not, first and fore most our interpretation of the non -conforming sec-
tion of statute is whether or not he needs a variance in order to do
what he wants to do. If we make a determination that he doesn't need a
variance then he goes about his business. If we make the determination
that he does need the variance then we can say, okay, you need a var-
iance. He would have to come back in and make an application for a
variance and then we would have to set conditions on that variance
based on his request.
-16-
Mr. Vergilis stated, I don't believe that I have to come back here sir.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says here, public hearing for the interpretation
of Article IV, S404.21 & S404.229 that is the public hearing.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I understand that, but if you remember I was here
2 or 3 weeks ago and asked, I said I could amend that notice before it
went out because I to said that it says interpretation and I don't
believe that I need a variance if you give me the interpretation.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if we give you the interpretation that says you
don't need the variance you go about your business.
Mr. Vergilis stated, if you say I need a variance you are going to have
to tell me what variance I need and why I need the variance. Then you
are going to have to give me what section to come in here under.
Mr. Hirkala stated, of course, and then you would have to come back in
for a variance.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I don't believe I have to come back in, I really
don't. I will ask you to ask your Town Attorney.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I disagree with you.
Mr. Lehigh stated, we are really wasting our time. We really can't do
anything without our Town Attorney's opinion.
Mr. Brooker stated, I would like to just carry this over to this meet-
ing pending a decision by the Town Attorney on this interpretation.
Mr. Levenson stated, I would also ask, just for the record so that the
Zoning Board record is in strict compliance with the Planning Board
that we see drawings. The Planning Board has asked that the parking
for Lot #1 be on Lot 1 and not be on the alleged new Lot 2. I would
ask that new drawings be presented.
Mr. Hirkala stated, Section 44.5 - Non -conforming, read it. Are you
talking about the fact of the use of the property or the fact of the
building setbacks. The fact of the use of the property is residential.
That is allowed in an HB zone, so it is not non -conforming. #21 the
building location, the setbacks could be a problem. As I see it, the
determination would have to be made as to whether or not we would be
increasing the non -conformity by moving that line. The use of the
property is residential, now, those units, whether they pre -dated zon-
ing or not, I don't know. If they pre -dated zoning they are a legally
non -conforming use. There are 2 questions here, whether or not the use
in the multiple residential on the lot is one question, the setbacks
are another question.
Mr. Vergilis asked, why would the setbacks be a question?
-17 -
Mr. Hirkala answered, because I see a setback over here on a one story
frame building off of the property line on the front that is awful
close.
Mr. Vergilis stated, but that is an existing building.
Mr. Hirkala answered, I know, but we can't increase the non -conformity.
Mr. Vergilis asked, how am I increasing it?
Mr. Hirkala answered, that is the determination that we have to make.
All I am doing is pointing out the section under which you should be
looking.
Mr. Vergilis stated, but you are raising a point that may have to be
addressed. I would like to address it now at the public hearing.
What are you saying when you say I might be in violation of the set-
backs when I have an existing building. I am not asking to move it, to
add to it, to extend on it?
Mr. Hirkala answered, I don't know, that is what I am saying. It is a
' point I am bring up to you is the fact that this is something that we
as a Board have to consider. I am not saying that you might be in
violation. You might not be in violation on that setback.
Mr. Vergilis asked, why am I missing the issue? What is it when you
say I might be.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are requesting under sections other than the
one that I pointed out to you.
Mr. Vergilis stated, that one I say doesn't apply.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I say it might.
Mr. Vergilis stated, it says that no permit shall be issued. A permit
for what?
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a good point.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I am not here asking for a building permit to
expand it, I am not asking for a permit to change the use of it, that
only deals with permits and I am not looking for a permit.
Mr. Brooker stated, until at such a time this Board has a decision from
the Town Attorney in writing we cannot in all fairness act upon this.
Whether it is verbal, it has to be written to us. Therefore, I would
�^^ like unless there are further comments Mr. Levenson, we do not have
��� , ,
that letter from Mr. Wood right?
Mr. Levenson answered, no sir.
Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to
speak for or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Brooker stated, so I would like to adjourn this public hearing at
this time until such a time as I can get a letter from Mr. Wood stating
his opinion on this. I can make you a special meeting at the workshop
session.
Mr. Vergilis stated, I have one other request. If, as Mr. Hirkala
believes, if he is correct that we also need a variance, and interpre-
tation and a variance can be told before hand so that I could send out
the letter to property owners?
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to adjourn the public hearing until a legal
opinion is received from the Attorney to the Town. Also, put this item
on as a special meeting before the workshop on March 8th, 1988.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
5. Appeal #1027, at the request ofi��_S����, seeking a
variance of Article IV, S470 of the Own of Weppinger �oning Ordinance
to allow a variance of 25 feet where 50 foot is required on property
located on MacFarlane Road, and being Parcel #'s 6157-04-501344 &
828355, in the Town of Wappimger.
John & Patricia Sokol were present.
Mr. Sokol stated, we are here seeking a variance for a 25 foot driveway
to a lot at the rear of our property. We feel that when we started
getting the wheels in motion we thought that Mr. Gunderud, I think it
was late in 1986 or early 1987. We secured Eric Gardell, we gave him a
retainer, he said he would put it on his agenda and start working on
it and in the meantime, the zoning was changed on 25 foot frontage to
50 foot.
Mr. Brooker stated, the only thing that concerns me, Mr. Sokol, is I
was over there Saturday morning. You proposed exit went onto MacFar-
lane Road, I almost got hit there on that corner right in front of your
proposed driveway right there. It seems like MacFarlane Road is get -
y^^ ting alot of exits, there are alot of blind driveways over there right
�
now and its getting to be a bit of a hazard sometimes. Adding one more
driveway to the exits out there.
-19-
Mr. Hirkala stated, he is adding 2 driveways, not one. He has one
driveway now and he is going to end up with 3 in the same area, within
189 feet.
Mr. Brooker stated, you also have the ambulance exit there, it is down
the
^ road from you but it is still there, but that creates a problem to.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it seems to me that Mr. Sokol is making the request
based on the fact that he had originally planned on going in there.
You talked to Hans and you didn't know that the change was taking
place.
Mr. Sokol answered, at the time it was....
Mr. HIrkala stated, I don't know if you realize it but prior to you
using that argument I would have to see proof of the fact that you have
a vested investment in that plan. �
Mr. Sokol answered, I can show you a receipt as a retainer.
Mr. HIrkala stated, everything would have to coincide with the resolu-
N�. tion reading from the Town Board for the prqposed change to the Zoning
Ordinance would all have to coincide timing wise. As far as I am con-
cerned that would be the only reason to grant the variance, whether or
not there would be a vested financial interest in it. In other words,
whether you had made an investment based on the fact that there were 25
foot of frontage, requirement in the Zoning Ordinance and it was
changed in the meantime to 50 foot.
Mr. SOkol stated, I may be wrong, I have lived there 17 years, there
didn't seem to be any dire emergency. I was told, maybe Hans should
have said to me I had to speed this up a little bit because they are
going to change the ordinance. I feel that I have been there 17 years
and it was permissible up to a very short time ago and because I wasn't
astute enough to read every public notice in the newspaper....
Mr. Lehigh asked, when was it changed exactly?
Mr. Hirkala answered, 1986. It was proposed I believe in August. We
went through another variance on the same subject and the same situa-
tion and the people proved the vested financial interest prior to the
resolution being read.
Mr. Lehigh asked, do you have anything to show us proof of when you
went to have this work done?
Mr. Sokol stated, we would have to look it up.
��
��
~- Mr. Brooker stated, I can't really see us acting on this tonight with-
out proof of vested interest into it. We could possibly, since we have
on the agenda, we can carry him over to the workshop session.
-20 -
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the March
8th, 1988 agenda.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
6. Appeal #1028, at the request of G�_�_��_�����i����, seeking a var-
iance of Article IV, S422 of the Town of hdappinger Zoning Ordinance to
allow a 50 foot frontyard setback where 75 feet is required on property
located on Route 02, and being Parcel #6457-01-255010' in the Town of
Wappinger.
Joel Greenburgh was present.
Mr. Greenburgh stated, this property is located just off the intersec-
tion of All Angels Hill Road & Route 82. Presently the lavender col-
ored are the existing buildings that are along 82 in the vicinity.
Just beyond this, to the North of this is the property, there are no
buildings at all, no structures. This is the parcel we are discussing
and what we are proposing is an office building. The requirement at
the present time is 75 feet. As we said in our application, obviously
if we provided the 75 feet the building would be way back here and have
a non -conforming rear setback and would not be able to provide the
parking that is required. By providing 50 foot setback we can get all
our parking off street, provide the landscaping, etc. that we discussed
at the Planning Board and yet, in relationship to the existing build-
ings around us we are still far in excess of the setback. The build-
ings across the street are approximately 3 feet from the property line,
26 feet, and 14 feet. Even though we are not in strict conformance
with the 75 foot requirement, we are keeping in the spirit of the
ordinance. These other buildings are rather old and do not provide any
off street parking for their commercial customers. This particular
parcel will do that. At the present time this building has just been
remodeled and fixed up, just next to it, off All Angels Hill Road there
is a fairly new building, gas station and a convenient store. I think
with the introduction of this new building it will round out the area.
That is basically our position to conform to the ordinance would be a
hardship because then basically the property could not be developed. To
provide setback for the rearyard we would wind up with a.........
Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or
against this appeal.
Martin Leskow - surround the property
I sold this property to Mr. Maley way back in the fifties prior to
zoning and planning. Now the intent of that property was sold to
Mr. Maley, he had the Brass Bell across the street which was .....as a
matter of fact he enfringed on State property by 4 feet but the State never did anything about b t it. He didn't have any parking lot because it
was so close to -the road and he begged me to sell him a half an acre of land so he can have some parking here for his customers and that was
really the intent of selling the property for the parking area. Now
since then there was one fellow that was in that parking area and he
got out of it, he got killed, because according to this here picture
you have is definitely not the picture of the road and the highway.
There is a curve that comes down here and this is from the South side
When the traffic is coming this is actually a blind spot of the road.
The other thing is according to the deed that was written I have a ROW
on this property to get back to my field and I don't see that listed
nowhere. As far as this map is concerned it is not the map that I
had that looks like this parcel at all and I would like to bring that
to the Board and show you a copy, I will get you a copy of the deed
from the County building where it stipulates, according to that lot
that I have to have a ROW going to my property. I don't see that any-
place. And then of course what is going to happen, I don't know if any
of you gentlemen have moved this lot, how far is it moved in? What
happens with the border all around, are you going to build a wall or is
the dirt going to wash down onto the property. Besides, this is all
flood land. Last year in May we had 3 foot of water all around this
property. In 1958 there was 5 foot of water in that lot.
Mr. Levenson stated, it does not appear on the U.S. Floodplain map.
Mr. Leskow stated, go to the Conservation Dept., they have it.
Mr. Greenburgh stated, that is one of the issues that was brought up by
the Planning Board and we obtained a copy of the flood map for the area
and basically according to the flood map that elevation 427 of the 100
year flood and basically this line here which is darken in, but this is
the 100 year flood that is just beyond the borders of this property.
It is outside the flood area.
Mr. HIrkala stated, I hear what you are saying, and what the map says,
but I would hate to be standing in that spot when a flood came. I have
been there and I would have to agree with Mr. Leskow.
Mr. Leskow stated, in 1958 the engineering department for the DOT was
there and the bridge that crosses the Sprout Creek, the water was 6
inches underneath the level of the bridge and the engineers were there
that if it would have gone any higher they would have stopped traffic
completely on both sides. DO you have a ROW of way there for me? I
don't think this is a copy, there is a curvature of this road, where is
it? This is shown straight, I have never seen it that way in my life.
�
Mr. '
Greenburgh stated this is a map, this is the survey, in fact it
says revised Lands of Martin Leskow from Mr. Maley and this was done by
Anthony Rowan and engineer form Glenham, New York. As you can see,
this is the metes and bound survey and does not show any ROW through
In
-22-
the property.
Mr. Brooker stated, this a civil matter, whether there is a ROW or not.
Mr. Greenburgh stated, with regard to the other question, the curvature
of the road, if you look very closely here, you can see that directly
in front of this property the road is straight but as you can see when
You start to the North it does start curving away and Mr. Leskow is
correct, once you get near All Angels Road it does start curving. As
far as the site distance. Obviously there are other avenues and other
agencies that will review this as far as the entrance and the exit and
basically we are here tonight just to discuss the setback variance.
This still has to get a permit from the N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation.
We are in the process now of getting our approvals from the Dept. of
Health. There are several processes that have to be attended to and
approve this before a building permit and Planning Board approval is
granted. Basically, the Planning Board has reviewed this, reviewed the
map that you see here tonight and is basically concurrence with the
concept, the landscaping and the layout but they will not process it
until the variance has been addressed. If there are things that we are
unaware of in the deed...
Mr. Brooker stated, the purpose of the Board tonight is whether to deny
or grant a variance, not to discuss anything else.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can I ask the square footage of the building?
Mr. Greenburgh answered, the total square footage of the building would
4,216 consisting of 1,908 on the first floor and 2,232 on the second
floor. Also, in keeping with the residential character of the neigh-
borhood it will be basically looking as a residential type building.
This will not be out of character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Leskow asked, can I request you, so that I can be prepared to bring
in the proper data to the Board?
Mr. Levenson stated, that is not a matter that this Board has to
decide. You have to take that to the Planning Board.
Mr. Brooker stated, we are only here tonight to either grant or deny a
variance as stated in the appeal. We are not going to get into other
issues on this.
Mr. Lehigh asked, there is no way you could purchase more land and
extend that building back?
Mr. Greenburgh answered, no. It would just bring us right into the
flood plain.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to hear something from the State on
this. I have no problem with the concept. It is a State Highway and
you are requesting a variance on a setback on a State Highway and the
State has said that they would like to see it.
Mr. Brooker stated, we could also grant the variance subject to their
approval.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the State could come back and say, well we would
like to see this.
Mrs. Roe made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see what the State has to say.
They might have nothing to say.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to table this until the March meeting
and tell the State that this is being held up for a simple comment from
� them.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: Al ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker stated that the Board would recess for a 10 minute break.
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
7. Appeal #1029, at the request of Corpqr@Al_ g�����_Cgrp..seeking
a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning 8rdi-
nance to allow a 4 foot sideyard variance where 25 feet is required on
property located on 232 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel
#6258-04-745052, in the Town of hdappinger.
Brian Engles was present.
Mr. Engles stated, this is an application for a setback variance of 4
feet to accommodate a 20 foot wide residential structure on this piece
of property.
Mr. Levenson stated, this is in a water and sewer district.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we requested at the workshop that the applicant
�check with the Health Dept^ and find out if they are going to have a
problem getting a sewer hookup, did you do that?
_
-
^ --24-
%0
M
4 -
Mr. Levenson stated, the procedure with the Health Dept. is that you
can't go there until you have some basic fact from the Town. Mr. Paggi
preliminary plot plan to us was he required DCHD approval with sewer
transfer required.
Mr. Engles stated, at the Health Dept. they referred me back to the
Town saying it is really their position to take a position on this as
they are not the ones granting a hook up. It is actually the Town
Engineer that grants me the hook up.
Mr. Levenson stated, and Mr. Paggi then has struck from his preliminary
plot plan approval, he has struck that and said that he would have no
trouble hooking up to the sewer as far as the Town is concerned. There
are 2 other items that his, Mr. Gardell can correct showing water main,
show the..... minimum slope of 4 inch CIP and show the grading around.
Once Mr. Engles gets this to me I will forward it back to Mr. Paggi and
he will renew his rejection from the plot plan. Actually what you have
here is a simple request for a sideyard.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in other words, in our consideration of the vari-
ance we would have no trouble granting and he would go right ahead and
start building?
Mr. Levenson answered, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala stated, another question I have, I don't know if the rest
of the Board took an opportunity to look this up on the tax maps, all
the other lots in the area had 90 foot widths. The other question I
have is did the other lots have variances.
Mr. Brooker read a letter into the record from James Kucewicz & Patri-
cia Sarno, 230 All Angels Hill Road. (Letter on File)
Patricia_Sarn.g.
We misunderstood. We thought by the wording of the letter that it said
they wanted to request from 25 feet to 4 feet. In the newspaper
article, the way it was worded that is what it looked like. They
wanted 4 feet and that was the reason of my protest in that letter is
under the misunderstanding. We don't object. We own the house next
door, 230 All Angels Hill we do not object in lieu of the fact that the
house would then have to be built sideways and then it would look
funny. All their windows would face our house instead of one little
window. We would rather, in our opinion, grant it if there is no
problem with sewage or anything that would effect our property. I only
wrote that letter so strongly because of the way it was worded it
implied that they wanted to go 4 feet from our property which we of
course would not want.
Mr. Levenson stated, the decision and order will state that they must
maintain the 21 feet and it goes to the Building Inspector for a
permit.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the variance is 4 feet, in other words he is look-
ing
^ to vary the requirement 4 feet from the 25 foot requirement.
Mr. Kucewicz asked, if I wanted to build a terrace now, a deck on the
^
side of my property that it would be on this side of it now, this mans
house.
Mr. Levenson stated, the width of the lot is the same width. I believe
the width of the lots are all 90 feet.
Mr. Kucewicz asked, would I have a problem then with this house going
Mr. Levenson stated, you would have to make application to the Building
Inspector and it is referred to the Zoning Administrator who will
review it. I would advise you if you are going to put a deck on put it
on the rear not on the side.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can I ask how wide your house is, how long your
house is?
Mr. Kucewicz answered, I am not sure. I just bought it in September.
Mr. Levenson stated, why don't you come in one day and we will look at
the survey.
Mr. Kucewicz stated, because I am saying the house isn't there I pro-
bably would be granted and then now if the house goes up....
Mr. Levenson stated, the lot lines are the determining factors with
regards to any structure that is going up.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't know if anybody bothered to check this out,
I looked at the tax map and every lot there is 90 feet. Why? Now, how
many other variance are there, if there are no variances on that strip
we would be hard pressed to grant him a variance. Especially, as these
people just stated, they are talking about a deck, if he gets a vari-
ance for the house they come in with a deck and they want 5 feet from
the line, we just gave it to them why can't we give it to them.
Mr. Levenson stated, each request stands on its own.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and I guess what I am saying is I want to know the
reason why 90, the reason why they would need a variance. Is the house
wider or are all the other ones all the same way. If it conforms with
the rest of the neighborhood then I don't see where we would have any
�
�W kind of a problem granting a variance.
-26-
Mr. Engels stated, to the best of my knowledge the majority of the
houses do come in about 48 feet wide. It was my understanding that a
it f those houses were built under previous ordinance that had
majority o ose ous
^- �- requirements at the point in time when they were built.
reduced setbackrequ r
It is our intention to remain consistent with the other homes in the
neighborhood in both the placement and the size of the house.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't know if that is true as far as a revised
setback. If that property had been zoned R-20 to R-40 maybe so. If it
was upzoned from R-20 to R-40 ..... 25 foot was the setback on R-20
before in the old ordinance. The only thing it would be is it was
upzoned. If it was upzoned it is a legally no -conforming lot.
Ms. Berberich stated, this is section 2, Ye Olde Apple Orchard, as
filed Map #3552.
Mr. Levenson stated, you might have a special consideration on this to.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there might have been a lot averaging situation.
The setbacks still have to remain constant with the zone. If the ori-
ginal site plan said that you can drop it down, fine, if you go to
average half acre setbacks then he wouldn't even need a variance.
Mr. Levenson stated that they would get the filed map.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they had a density bonus affect in the 70's and I
am wondering if this didn't come under that density bonus.
Mr. Levenson stated, they are all 90's. From 54 back to 65 they are all
90's.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this is a density bonus subdivision. This is in
the R-40 but due to the provision by the developer of the public or
community water or sewer facilities meeting the requirements of DCHD
they granted a density bonus to build at 20,000 because they were in
the sewer district. He doesn't need a variance.
Mr. Levenson told Mr. Engles that he would refund his money.
Mr. Levenson stated, with the permission of the Board I will move to
refund the fee and I will take Mr. Engels through the process.
Mrs. Roe made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
^~
-27-
Mr. Brooker stated, since this is in accordance with the Zoning Ordi-
nance
this property the gentlemen
nance and there is no variance requiredon
has the right to have his fee refunded if the Board will so move.
Mr. Lehigh made a motion to have Mr. Engles money refunded.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
OLD BUSINESS:
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
1. Appeal #1013, at the request of David _&_Susan_Levitan, seeking a
variance of Article IV, S412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to allow for the issuance of a building permit on a lot which does not
have legal road frontage on a Town Road on property located on Myers
Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-894596' in the Town of Wap-
pinger.
David & Susan Levitan were present.
�^
Mr. Levenson stated, I spoke to Mr. Wood this morning and he said that
he had his documents before him and he is writing a letter to the
Board.
Mr. Brooker asked, and Mr. Levitan was so informed by the tape machine.
Linda, you so informed them that we couldn't do anything at tonights
meeting?
Ms. Berberich replied, yes.
Mr. Levitan stated, right, I realize that, I mostly wanted to come
because I am on the agenda and I am bringing up a point....
Mr. Levenson stated, there can be no points brought up until the Attor-
ney files his letter.
Mr. Brooker stated, I going to not act on this tonight. It will be
carried over until the next meeting.
Mr. Levitan asked, I can't bring up about a precedent?
Mr. Levenson stated, each appeal stands on its own.
Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn this item until the March meeting.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
-28 -
The motion was carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
Mr. Brooker read the next item:
1. Appeal #1022, at the request of Pgv9_%._QY9% seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, S430, P1 of the Town of Wappimger Zoning
Ordinance to permit an accessory use to establish a real estate office
& brokerage office on property located on New Hackensack Road, and
being Parcel #6258-04-614394, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone to speak for or against Dawn
Flynn.
QVlA_Zah.
In looking at this, I wouldn't—this is in my neighborhood, but I hap-
pened to see the sign, "Flynn Real Estate" in the window and I am
assume that this is on the corner of Dorothy Heights and New Hackensack
Road?
Mr. Brooker answered, that is where it lies.
Mrs. Zak stated, they are already advertising then without the use.
Mr. Levenson stated, I will check it in the morning.
Mrs. Zak stated, the house is vacant right now, it was a residential
use as long as I have been living there, 34 years. This says to permit
an accessory use. I think they bought that house with the sole inten-
tions of converting it to a real estate office.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the can't convert to real estate, they have to live
in there.
Mrs. Zak stated, they certainly did. Did they have a building permit
to gut the place?
Mr. Levenson stated, Mrs. Zak, when we use the word "accessory use" if
the permit is going to be granted it is going to be granted as an
accessory use. Mrs. Flynn statement to the Planning Board was that she
was going to reside there. If she is not going to reside there then
the Special Use Permit that is granted is revokable by the Zoning
Administrator on the spot.
Mrs. Zak stated, also, I think they do not have access to New Hacken-
sack Road. There is no driveway. The driveway is on Dorothy Heights.
Mr. Hirkala answered, so.
�
�v Mrs. Zak stated, well, wait a minute, the people who lived in there
before used to call me up and ask if they could park their companies
car in my driveway because they couldn't park it in front of the house.
-29-
The house is on the curve and when you are coming from New Hackensack
Road from the end of our road you can't see what is there until you
come upon it. Parking would be a big consideration, a big factor in
granting this. I am certainly not about to let them use my driveway to
park for business purposes.
Mr. Levenson asked, I believe you were notified?
Mrs. Zak answered, no I was not notified.
Mr. Levenson asked, are you an adjoining property owner?
Ms. Berberich replied, it is not a public hearing yet.
Mrs. Zak stated, yes, but I think people should be aware of this on our
street when it comes up.
Mr. Levenson stated, the office has properly complied to the law in
notifying all the adjoining property owners as described in the State
Legislative Law. The proposal before the Planning Board has not been
approved yet is they propose to put 5 parking spaces in there.
Mrs. Zak asked, where are they going to put 5 parking spaces?
Mr. Levenson stated, don't argue with me, I am telling you what is
before the Planning Board. You will have to watch the agenda of the
Planning Board. If you are not an adjoining property owner then come
in at that time.
Mrs. Zak stated, well, wait a minute, I thought a Special Use Permit is
supposed to be granted for hardship cases only.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no.
Mrs. Zak stated, that is what it states in your Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Roe stated, no, not Special Use.
Mrs. Zak stated, I have a copy of it home.
Mr. Levenson stated, a Special Use Permit is granted to an applicant
for the purpose or granting a use so designated in the ordinance as a
Special Use Permit and in the Ordinance....
Mrs. Zak stated, I have a copy home and I have been.....
Mr. Levenson stated, I don't want to challenge you, I work with this
I^ ordinance about 18 hours a day and I pretty much know what the ordi-
�
nance says
� and all the items that are asterisked here are Special Use
Permits that can be granted after a public hearing by the Planning
-30 -
Board, with the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals with the
approval of the Planning Board
Mrs. Zak asked, can I just say one more thing?
Mr. Brooker stated, this is just, this is not formally a public hearing
tonight. This is just New Business, this is not a public hearing where
we decide upon what is going to be done or not. This will be done
probably at the next months meeting. It has to go to the Planning
Board and then it has to come back to use, we are just reading it off
as New Business. The comments that we make tonight, a copy of this
goes to the Planning Board.
Ms. Berberich stated, there is no one present so it would have to come
back at the your next meeting.
Mr. Levenson stated, you have to adjourn it over until the next meet-
ing.
Mr. Brooker stated, I would like to adjourn this item over until the
next meeting. Unless you want to make further comments onto it but it
is really not going to do much good here tonight because it has to go
before the Planning Board.
Mrs. Zak stated, I don't understand because we have been at the Zoning
Board of Appeals meetings before and we were able to express our opin-
ions and......
Mr. Hirkala stated, at the public hearing. This is not the public
hearing on the application.
Mr. Levenson stated, the Zoning Board of Appeals has no authority to
receive any comments unless the applicant is before them.
Mrs. Zak stated, that is true but I just happened to be here tonight
and saw it.
Mr. HIrkala stated, that is not the point. The point is this is not a
public hearing.
Mrs. Zak stated, I understand, but I have been at Zoning Board meet-
ings before where I have seen you people turn down a Special Use Permit
because of certain....
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you recall a couple years ago we were sued and
we lost. A Special Use Permit is the right of the applicant. You
can't turn down an Special Use Permit. You can set conditions on a
Special Use Permit, but you can't say no because it says in here that
they have a right to it.
Mrs. Zak stated, but I have been at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting
where the Board turned down a Special Use Permit because it did not
-31 -
create a hardship.
Mr. Brooker stated, this is just new business. It is not a public
hearing.
Mrs. Zak stated, the last time I attended.
Mr. Levenson stated, it would have had to have been a public hearing if it was denied. d i d. The Zoning Board of Appeals, I am 17 years sitting on
the Zoning Board....
Mrs. Zak stated, not in Wappinger.
Mr. Levenson stated, I am 30 years as an administrator ma'am.
Mrs. Zak stated, you were not present at this particular meeting.
Mr. Hirkala asked, when was this meeting that you say we turned down a
Special Use Permit? When?
Mrs. Zak answered, not to long ago.
-
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are wrong Estelle because it had to be a var
iance and not a Special Use Permit.
Mrs. Zak stated, it was a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are wrong.
Mr. Levenson stated, you can't deny it. You don't understand, you
can't deny a Special Use Permit because it is the right of the appli-
cant in the ordinance it says it is the right of the applicant provid-
inthey meet the requirements of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Zak asked, why was Mr. Redl denied a Special Use Permit?
Mr. Levenson answered, Mr. Redl was not denied a Special Use Permit.
He was granted a Special Use Permit and he was denied a variance at one
time.
Mrs. Zak stated, I beg to differ with you.
Mr. Tompkins stated, I would like to make a comment. I don't think it
is fair if the person is not present that we take any comments pro or
con. He is not here to defend himself, we shouldn't even discuss this
subject. It should be tabled immediately.
Mr. Brooker stated, I would like a motion, this is new business, not a
J' public hearing, I would like a motion, therefore, right now since we
�~ are getting nowhere.
01
-32-
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to adjourn action on this appeal
until the next meeting.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker stated that he would like to go back to Appeal #1024, Glenn
Mr. LaDue was present.
'Mr. Classey from the Fire Prevention Bureau presented the Board with a
letter which Mr. Levenson read into the record. (Letter on File)
Mr. Classey asked, the grades shown are the existing grades, not the
proposed?
Mr. LaDue answered, that is correct.
Mr. Classey stated, that is what we came up with.
Mr. Levenson read the letter from the Fire Prevention Bureau again:
If the grade exceeds 15% we cannot be responsible for fire protection.
Mr. LaDue stated, well I guess first of all I know it is steep and it
is a small section of the driveway that is involved. I mention just
for informative purposes only that not the present Zoning Board of
Appeals but some members on the Zoning Board of Appeals did approve a
driveway in excess of 15% that comes, right adjacent to this property
and Mr. Classey knows the property and it is rough, however, that is
why I pursued this and one other area that I wanted to mention, I
didn't mention Mr. Levenson because I didn't think it was important.
I will just mention it for your consideration, back several years ago
when Hans Gunderud was the Zoning Administrator I was before the Board
for the same piece of property and it was denied because I didn't have
adequate drawings and since then I wasn't in a position financially to
pursue it and it is on the record that I was here before for the same
matter. I don't know if that has anything to do with it or not.
Mr. Hirkala stated, as I see the situation if the Fire Prevention
Bureau is on record as recommending that they cannot be responsible for
fire prevention if the grade is above 15% and we grant the variance
unless he is willing to sign off for insurance purposes, we are stuck,
we can't grant it because we are in trouble. The only out here would
be whether or not he would be willing to......
Mr. LaDue stated, I would hope it could be. Looking at something on
paper.
Mr Levenson stated, the question is if you grant the 15% then I can
take it to Mr. Paggi and then it is not the Boards' problem anymore.
Mr. Brooker stated, Mr. Classey, let me ask you a question. You will
accept 15% which is the requirement.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he wouldn't even be here if he had 15%.
Mr. Lehigh stated, I realize fill is an expensive item but, there are
^
ways of getting around it at times. If you get a hold of the County
when they are grading roads and so forth you might be able to get some
of your fill a little bit cheaper.
Mr. Classey stated, the house location is about 200 feet above the
road.
Mr. Lehigh stated, but if he can fill it in from 15 to 18 on the grade
with used fill then he could do it cheaper.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think that we have any choice. I make a
motion to deny based on the recommendation from the Fire Prevention
Bureau.
Mr. Brooker stated, before we do that is there anyone else to speak for
/ of against?
There was no one present.
Mr. Tompkins made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker stated, in view of the fact of the recommendation from the
Fire Prevention Bureau stated before I see we have no alternative but
to deny this variance and I would entertain a motion.
Mr. Lehigh made a motion to deny the motion based on the recommendation
from the Fire Prevention bureau.
Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
Mr. Brooker stated, I would like to have a Vice -Chairman in case of my
^ h d 2 others k
absence. I have already approached ers and I would like to ase o
�
-34-
Mr. Tompkins if he will accept the position.
Mr. Tompkins accepted.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes
The motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
�
8 ^
Linda Berberich, Secretary -
Zoning Board of Appeals