Loading...
1988-03-08� ~ ZONING ����� �� APPEALS �� wm TOWN HALL MARCH STH, 1988 - 7:00 P.M.MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WORKSHOP AGENDA WAPP , FALLS, N.Y. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1026, at the request of Mario_Leone, seeking an interpre- tation of Article IV, S404.21 & 404.22 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. 2. Appeal #1027, at the request of John_�� Patricia_Sokol, seeking a variance of Article IV, S470 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a variance of 25 feet where 50 foot driveways are required on property located on McFarlane Road, and being Parcel #'s 6157-04-501344 & 828355, in the Town of Wappinger. WORKSHOP AGENDA: 1. Appeal #1023, at the request of 0r._Paul_Garrell, seeking a vari- ance of Article IV, S412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of building permits and a right of way on pro- perty located on Wheeler Hill Road, and being Parcel #'s 6057-04-677284, 700267,706292, & 684243, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #1030, at the request of Gerald _T._Jackson, seeking a var- iance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 6 foot rearyard variance where 30 foot is required in the -- "Quiet Acres Subdivision" on property located on 6 Helen Drive, and � being PArcel #6157-02-743800, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal #1031, at the request of Paul_��_Jody_ggj@m�o, seeking a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance where 50 foot frontage is required and the applicant is requesting a 20 foot variance and where the sideyard requirement is 25 feet and the applicant is requesting a 12.33 foot variance on property located on Old Ketchamtown Road, and being Parcel #6157-01-324995, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal #1032, at the request of Glenn-LaDue. seeking a re -hearing 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 applicant has a small section of the driveway at 18% on property located on Smithtown Road, and being Parcel #6256-01-185810, in the Town of Wappinger. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH BTH, 1988 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES The Special meeting of the Zoning March 8th, 19889 at the Town Hall, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brooker, Chairman Mr. Hirkala Mr. Lehigh` ` THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO, REVIEWED OR VZO OVED BY THE: N|NG BOARD OF APPEALS 0PLAmNING BOARD TOWN HALL MI0DLEBUBH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, W.Y. Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, Mr. Tompkins Mrs. Roe OTHERS Ms. Andrea BQdettoj Acting Secretary Mr. Herb LevenAmn Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Brooker explained how the meeting would be conducted. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1026, at the request of MgEi9_Q999, seeking an interpre- tation of Article IV, S404.32 & 4{)4.22 of the Town of Wapping**r Zoning Ordinance. Gerald Vergilis, Attorney for the applicant and Mr. Leone were present. Mr. Levenson stated, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Board the drawings were received March 7th. Mr. Vergilis sent them in the mail and as you note now you have a proper drawing before you with a proper lot line separating the 2 lots and a withdrawal of the dark blue line that was on the original drawing. I would refer you to Tom Wood with regards to this. As you can see it is up to you gentlemen. As you remember we had part of the parking for Lot #1 on Lot #2 and it is now moved over properly and that line denoting 1,2,3 from the far right has been withdrawn and you know have the real true 2 lots. Mr. Brooker stated, I have a copy of the letter. Have you read the letter? Mr. Vergilis answered, yes. Again, it is really a unique situation because we are decreasing the non -conformity on one lot and simulta- neously by doing that we are decreasing the non -conformity of the other lot because it is undersized, so we are bring 2 conformities about but in so doing we are also putting the fourth building on a lot that already has 3 buildings. So, it is really a situation that is not absolutely addressed in the code. It doesn't prevent what we are try- ing to do. Mr. Levenson asked, Mr. Vergilis, did you know when these 3 were built? Mr. Vergilis answered, I can only tell you that when we purchased these properties, in doing the title search there was a check here with a -2 - letter stating that they are all non -conforming. That they pre -date zoning. Mr. Brooker stated, I bought a house in the Town in 1964 and that house was there when I bought my house. Mr. Levenson stated, that is a consideration in your decision that these pre -dated the zoning. Mr. Vergilis stated, we are not intending to change the use. Mr. Brooker asked, how come you started work on it before we even granted a variance? Mr. Levenson stated, they did some grading work. Mr. Vergilis stated, if you look at the topo which you wanted...... � Mr. Levenson stated, I ride by that thing 8 or 10 times a day and there � has been some movement. 't � �N�'� Mr. Vergilis stated, we contacted DEC about extending, the prior owner ! �- had � put some pipe in but he never completed the pipe as we thought he , should. Mr. Hirkala stated, the back end of that whole property has been cleared and there were never any permits, they never came to the Town and in this Town, anytime you do something, you can't put blade in the ground without a permit. Mr. Levenson asked, is there an outstanding DEC permit on that place? Mr. Vergilis stated, we have a letter. Mr. Hirkala stated, we might created another problem here. I am look- ing at the location of that parking lot and I don't know if that park- ing lot can handle that particular use of the property of the building that is there. Mr. Tompkins stated, that is up to the Planning Board. Mr. Hirkala stated, yes and no. If we grant the right then they would have to come down and take part of the building down. / Mr. Levenson stated no I believe also that the only request you have \ . , , at this time before you from Mr. Vergilis by way of his client is a ' discussion about the non -conformity. � Mr. Hirkala stated, but that could add to the non -conformity. ` Mr. Brooker stated, the problem if we grant an interpretation that allows him to do what he wants to on it it is going to have to go before the Planning Board anyway. Mr. Hirkala stated, the point I am bring up is we are looking at a question of conformity or non -conformity of what we are doing or of what he wants to do and whether or not our interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance is such that it would or would not require a variance and if we look at that, if that piece of property that he wants to create lot 1 out of is not capable of handling the ordinance requirements for parking for that building. Mr. Tompkins stated, it is a 2 acre site. Mr. Vergilis stated, then I don't get anything. Mr. Levenson stated, if you say you interpret this to be in order he has to go to the Planning Board and has to satisfy the parking require- ments. Mr. Brooker referred to Section 404.33 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Brooker stated, they are using that place right now, it was used in � -- the past as a catering service and I am certain there is not going to � be that many cars as when the catering service was there. Mr. Levenson stated, my question to you Mr. Vergilis aside from the Ulster Savings Bank, how many offices are going in there? Mr. Vergilis answered, as far as I know the Ulster Savings Bank is going to occupy the whole thing. Mr. Levenson asked Mr. Leone the square footage of the building. Mr. Leone answered, 4,200 square foot. Mr. Levenson stated, you need less than 30. We have enough parking space. Mr. Lehigh asked, these 3 houses that are going to be in that Lot #2, 4 houses, ..... Mr. Tompkins asked, if this was granted can we make conditions that the houses be, that no further additions be made to the houses. Either leave them as is or tear them down. � Mr. Levenson stated, they can't do anything to those buildings without ' coming back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Tompkins asked, but make it part of the condition that they can't � ever do anything to those 4 houses. -4 - Mr. Levenson asked, Mr. Vergilis, will you accept that in the inter- pretation? Mr. Vergilis answered, absolutely. Mr. Levenson stated, you have a non -conformity here and the non- conformity will remain with the Zoning Board of Appeals forever. If Mr. Leone decides he wants to do something to those buildings he will have to come back here. Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is that in my interpretation is such that he doesn't require a variance I would still like to see some pro- mises on that Lot #2. Mr. Levenson stated, stipulate that no changes can be made without permission of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Brooker asked if there were any further questions. Mr. Lehigh stated, I had one comment. I hate to see too many stipula- tions placed upon them other than he should come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals because he may have a plan in the future that would benefit the Town and so forth. Mr. Hirkala stated, in the long term that section of Route 9, the Town has been trying to make an effort to create a situation whereby there would eventually be a service road along Route 9 and that has been put into the site plans of Sprint, another one was put in there. I would hate to see the Town get stuck with having to go in there and end up in a law suit because the building is in the way and it is non -conforming and the way it stands right now the use that lot could be put to is extremely minimal in the long term. In other words, if nothing is changed on that particular lot the use is extremely limited. If the interpretation that we give grants them the right to utilize that property under HB -2A zone without any further look from us and without and stipulations to what happens to those non -conforming buildings in the long term we have no control over anything. Mr. Lehigh stated, but if you put the stipulation that they must come back here if they decide to do anything other than what you have done there and what you have and your non -conforming lot and that stipula- tion is in our variance then they have to come back here. Mr. Brooker stated, it is not a variance. ' Mr. Hirkala stated, the only time a variance comes into play is if our � interpretation is such that he requires a variance and he is asking us right now whether or not our interpretation of the ordinance is such that he requires a variance. If we say no, we don't require a variance / he is off scott free. kb� -5--- Mr._ Mr. Levenson stated, in the interpretation we can also state that if there are any changes ...... The Town has a position that they want to be able to look at, there is much conversation about widening. Mr. Hirkala stated, not widening, alleviate the access, the ingress and egress at Route 9 so you have every lot has an ingress and egress on Route 9 in that section. SO what is happening is all the properties North of him are presently in the planning stage of the Planning Board have a service road eventually put through there. Each site plan, for each one of those properties is designed so that each owner of each property will eliminate the driveways curb cut and curb cut will be off the service road. There will be one curb cut. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is the Planning Departments problem and how it can handle that is between them and the State DOT but that is a stipu- lation. If you have a use for now for Lot #1 and you come in for site plan approval to the Planning Board that is what is going to happen. There will be a stipulation drawn in that site plan that that lot line will be at the beginning, there will eventually be a service road in there connecting with the northern service road. Mr. Vergilis stated, I would think that whoever is, Ulster Savings Bank in this situation, that if they understand that and when they come - in with their site plan they will then incorporate that. Mr. Hirkala asked, what about Lot #2? Mr. Vergilis stated, we would also say that the same time when..... Mr. HIrkala stated, there is a building there. Mr. Vergilis stated, I would assume that..... Mr. Hirkala stated, I place great credence on S44.31. The one says that every effort will be made to make everything as conforming as possible. Mr. Vergilis answered, well that is what we are talking about. What we are talking about in the future here is that if there is a potential use for Lot #2, lets say another office building, then obviously all the buildings that are now on there will have to come down because we cannot have a residential. � Mr. HIrkala stated, my problem is this, why couldn't those buildings � that are presently existing be incorporated in any new structure that � is put in? � Mr. Vergilis answered, they can't be. \ Mr. Hirkala stated, if we create that lot with our interpretation those � building= are legal. Mr. Vergilis answered, I don't think so. Not if they are going to be changing the use because they would probably violate all of the setback requirements. Mr. Hirkala stated, they probably would, but the fact that all the building exist. Mr. Vergilis stated, they exist for residential. Mr. Hirkala stated, if you would be willing, in the interest of speak- ing for your applicant as your client, to have that part of your application. Mr. Vergilis asked, how would you word that? Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't know. Mr. Levenson asked, would you agree that the building, the alleged non -conforming building will remain non -conforming and will always remain as dwelling living units? ' Mr. HIrkala stated, that is not what he is saying. What he is saying elk is that it is his opinion that if the use changes those buildings will ` have to come down. 1 � Mr. Vergilis stated, that is my opinion. � Mr. Levenson stated no sir. Are you telling me that 9 months down the | . , . road when the Town of Wappinger, if they ever do it, makes a Zoning ' � Ordinance change that the Town of Wappinger has the right to confiscate � that property and say that you are....... Mr. Vergilis stated, I don't think we are talking about the same thing. What I am saying here is that as long as the owner of Lot #2 uses Lot 2 only for the residences that are there then nobody has a problem. Once someone says I want to put another office, Ulster Savings Bank, all of a sudden they are doing a bang up business and would like to put another office building on Lot #2 they have to come to the Planning Board. Mr. HIrkala stated, but those buildings are there legally. Mr. Levenson stated, if Mr. Leone takes that lot and sells it to Ulster Savings Bank and Ulster Savings Bank says.... Mr. Hirkala stated, then the lot line is erased. � Mr. Levenson stated, no, before the lot line is erased. They go to the Planning Board and they say, leave Ulster out, lets say ZYX comes to � Mr. Leone and says I will give you $275,000 for that lot. I want to � put another office on there, they go to the Planning Board and they get a eviction proceeding against all of the people that are there and then they take over it is their property. They take the building down and they build their office. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is fine, but suppose the plan of the new own- ers, not him, the new owners specifies using those buildings that are in there. Mr. Levenson stated, they will always remain residential. The stipu- lation in the interpretation will be that those buildings will always remain residences, period, and then nothing can happen. Mr. Hirkala stated, you can't do that. Mr. Levenson asked, why can't you do that? Mr. HIrkala asked, how can we tell the owner of that property what he is going to use those buildings for? Mr. Lehigh stated, I don't think you can do that. Mr. Hirkala stated, what we can do is stipulate that as long as they are residences they will be unchanged. But once they are no longer residences they will come down and become conforming. Mr. Brooker stated, they would have to come before the Planning Board anyway. Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am trying to get out of these people is a stipulation voluntarily from them that that is what will happen. Mr. Vergilis stated, I have no problem saying that whatever we do with respect to those buildings that change the use, in other words changing from residential to commercial, that we would come back to the Planning Board, Zoning Board, whatever. Mr. HIrkala stated, what I would like to see is an agreement from the applicant that those buildings will be gone if the use changes. If the use changes from residential, you are not going to use those buildings for residential purposes anymore they will, anything that remains on that property will be conforming to the zone. Mr. Vergilis asked Mr. Leone if he had a problem with that. Mr. Leone answered, no. Mr. HIrkala stated, as long as we get an agreement from the applicant along those lines.... �� Mr. Brooker asked, why don't you put that in a form of a motion? am Mr. Vergilis asked, may I just say something. The only, as far as I am concerned, the only one that could possibly remain for addition and extension is that one that is shown for the.... Mr. Hirkala stated, that is conforming. Mr. Vergilis stated, the other three, they come down. You couldn't really.incorporate them without bringing them up to code. Mr. Hir stated, then we are clear. The applicant, if the use changes, �"rees to remove those 3 non -conforming buildings? Mr. Vergiliso Mr. Leone, if the use of this parcel changes from residen to commercial these 3 buildings will come down. Mr. Leone state o problem. Mr. Brooker asked if there were any further questions on the hearing. There were none. Mr. HIrkala made a motion to close the public hearing. l Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. HIrkala stated, I make a motion that the interpretation be that the moving of the lot line to create Lot #1 & Lot #2 as presented on the map dated received March 7th by the Zoning Administrator, its not requiring a variance with the stipulation that those 3 non -conforming buildings come down when the use changes, voluntarily removed by the owner. Mr. HIrkala stated, the reason for my motion is my interpretation that that will make the property less non -conforming. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Hirkala made a motion for a negative declaration. Mrs. Roe seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes -..9-- Mr. 9_ The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker read the next item: 2. Appeal 01027, at the request of John_&_Patricia_Sgko1.A seeking a variance of Article IV, S470 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a variance of 25 feet where 50 foot driveways are required on property located on MacFarlane Road, and being Parcel #'s 6157-04-501344 & 828355, in the Town of Wauppinger. There was no one present. Mr. Levenson stated, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you adjourn this public hearing to the March 22nd, 1988 meeting. Mr. HIrkala made a motion to adjourn this public hearing until the March 22nd, 1988 meeting. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. %001 Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the special meeting and go into the workshop session. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, ` Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals