The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-04-12ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 12TH, 1988 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA ROLL CALL: TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, N.Y. MINUTES: 1.. 'Vote on the Minutes of the February 23rd, 1988 Meeting. 2. Vote on the Minutes of the March 8th, 1988 Special Meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #1023, at the request of Paul__Garrell, seeking a variance 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 property located on Wheeler Hill Road, and being Parcel #'s 6057-04-677284, 700267, 706292, & 684243, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #1032, at the request of Glenn_LaDue, 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% on property located on Smithtown Road, and being Parcel #6256-01-185810, in the Town of Wap- pinger. 3. Appeal #1033, at the request of the New Hackensack_ Re•formed_...Church, seeking a variance of Article IV, 5414.1 of the Town of Wappinger Zon- ing Ordinance where 35 feet is required and the applicant is asking for a 47 foot roof requiring a 12 foot variance and the maximum allowable height for a bell tower is 67 foot and the applicant is requesting 75 foot for the bell tower requiring an 8 foot variance on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel #6259-04-525535, in the Town of Wappinger. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1028, at the request of G,•__•S,._$c_Associates,, seeking a vari- ance of Article IV, 5422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 50 foot frontyard setback where 75 feet is required on property located on Route 82, and being Parcel #6357-03-255010, in the Town of Wappinger. 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 MacFarlane Road, and being Parcel #'s 6157-04-501344 & 828355, in the Town of Wappinger. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #987, Hopewell Junction Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Review and comment on Special Use Permit approval. 2. Appeal #1022, at the request of Dawn1M.1F1-yq!2., seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S 430, P17 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an accessory use to establish a real estate & brokerage office on property located on Dorothy Heights, and being Parcel #6158-04-614349r in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal #1034, at the request of Matthew -&_C._Theresa _Meltzer.,. seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S421, F` (a), (b), & (c), of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to operate an automobile driving school on property located on Dorothy Heights, and being Parcel #6158-04-707157, in the Town of Wappimger. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 12TH, 1988 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO, REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE: DPLAN '^^`^~4TJLEBUSH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, N.Y. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 12th, 1988 at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Brooker, Chairman Mr. Hirkala Mrs. Roe Mr. Lehigh Mr. Tompkins OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Berberich, qecretary Mr. Herbert Levenson, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Brooker explained how thekmeeting would be conducted. MINUTES: 1. Vote on the Minutes of the February 23rd, 1988 Meeting. Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the Minutes.- Mr. inutes�Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. 2. Vote on the Minutes of the March 8th, 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 first appeal: 1. Appeal #1023, at the request of pggl_QErpll, seeking a variance 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 property located on Wheeler Hill Road, and being Parcel #'s 6057-04-677284, 700267, 706292, & 684243, in the Town of Wappinger. �^ Mr. Levenson read his memo of April 12th, 1988. (Memo on File) -2 - Paul Garrell and Richard Mann, Attorney were present Mr. Hirkala stated, I specifically requested the applicant bring in the map that he was using as the map of the property of the subdivision. The 1943 map. Mr. Levenson asked Mr. Mann, I assume you understand my recommendation? Mr. Mann answered, yes. Obviously, I think the application is clear. It is not for an area or a use variance. It is for an exception to S412 of the Zoning Ordinance and S280 of the Town Law. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with this map, because this map specifically shows a ROW that is not on this map. That ROW is illegal and that map cannot be used at this meeting. Mr. Mann stated, that ROW is proposed. Mr. Levenson stated, we have to use the 1934 map for the variance. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is what I am trying to say. That ROW that he has on this map he created after the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Levenson stated, the decision and order will so state the 1934 map. Mr. Mann stated, one of the reasons why the proposed ROW was taken under consideration is that the present ROW is widening and to reach lots 4 & 5 the proposed ROW would be much safer for the public in gen- eral. Providing access for emergency vehicles, police, fire, etc.. The original ROW dates from the subdivision of 1934. Mr. Hirkala stated, if he is going to request another ROW then he might as well just subdivide under the present Subdivision Regulations just as every other land owner in the Town has to do. Mr. Mann stated, considering that there are only 2 lots involved and it is not a 100 lot subdivision it would certainly be inequitable to require him to that since some kind of benefit to the 2 lots and trying to benefit the public in general by eliminating a tortuous ROW. Mr. Hirkala stated, you are right in one sense, to benefit him. We are looking at the benefit of the whole Town and the benefit of the whole Town is why should he get it what no one else in the whole Town gets. We have not allowed building on property that does not front on Town Roads without legal established ROW's prior to Zoning. Anything after that they have to subdivide the property. What you are asking us to do is to go ahead and ignore the Zoning Ordinance, ignore Subdivision Regulations, ignore the fact that there has been zoning in this Town since 1960 and allow him to build without legal frontage. Mr. Mann stated, with all do respect sir, what you are saying is exac- tly contradictory to Section 280A of the Town Law. What you are saying then is this Town doesn't recognize Section 280A of the Town Law. Mr. Hirkala stated, I disagree. Mr. Mann stated, this Board has the power to recognize an access route to 2 lots which do not front on the street. Mr. Hirkala stated, we also have the power to say Section 280A should be used in the Town in one specific purpose but the Zoning Board should be used in the Town and 280A doesn't over ride the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Mann stated, in this situation 280A speaks directly. We are talk- ing about 2 lots with an access, 2 lots that do not have street fron- tage and there is absolutely no..... Mr. HIrkala stated, I hear your argument, but you are speaking for your applicant. In my argument is based on the fact that the Town has a Zoning Ordinance and the Town has Subdivision Regulations and legisla- tively if the Town Board wants us to ignore those they should say so and if they don't then it is my contention that this Board stay away from legislating the zoning in this Town and operate under the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that everything should be made more conforming, not less non-conforming. If we were to allow another ROW other than what is existing on the 1934 subdivision which allows these lots. If you want to ignore the ROW that is on the 1934 subdivision then we also can say that we ignore the subdivision and start all over again. Mr. Mann stated, our intent here is not to ignore the 1934 ROW. Obvi- ously the 1934 ROW has existed, it pre-dates the Planning Board, and it pre-dates the Zoning Ordinance which came in 1963. Because of that The ROW is accepted under S280A. A ROW can only be created one of about 3 ways, primarily, it can be created by reserving it in a deed, it can be created by agreeing upon it in a deed, or a ROW can be created by a ROW agreement. This Board has the power to recognize a ROW where it seeks to benefit 2 lots for the public safety have a very tortuous access route. I don't see how this can be characterized as, from what you said you are characterizing this as a subdivision. Mr. Hirkala answered, no, I am characterizing it as the rights the gentlemen has to build on his property and on the ROW as established on the 1934 map. Now you are asking us to change the map. That is a Planning Board function. Mr. Mann stated, no I am not. I didn't say that. All I am saying is we offer this as an alternative because it is a safer access to Lots 4 & 5. -4 - Mr. Hirkala stated, I suggest that the alternative is a Planning func- tion and it should be done by the Planning Board and if the Planning Board cannot deal with recognizing a ROW then he should have subdivi- sion. Mr. Mann stated, the Planning Board has already deferred to the Zoning Board. Mr. Hirkala stated, they haven't deferred to the Zoning Board, only as to that one particular lot and the legal ROW. Mr. Tompkins asked, are you asking if you have a legal ROW? You do have a legal ROW as this map shows, I don't think it is this Boards' power to give you a new ROW. All you came to us for is to see if this was a legal ROW. According to this map it says a legal ROW, so what else do you want out of us? Mr. Mann stated, that was only there because it was a proposed ROW in the event that this one proved to tortuous for access to lots 4 & 5. Mr. Tompkins stated, that is not our job, we can't do that. Mr. Mann stated, I think the main thing is this has to be recognized as a legal ROW. Mr. Tompkins stated, it is a legal ROW the way I look at it, you can use that because it shows on the 1933 map. Mr. Brooker stated, we can grant you a variance under 9280A, permitting the ROW is brought up to Town specs. We can't arbitrarily create a new ROW, that is not our function. Mr. Mann stated, the existing ROW is what we are really here for tonight. 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. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker asked for a motion on this appeal Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to grant the variance to build on those 3 lots, utilizing the ROW on the Filed Map of January 10th, 1934 map and bringing the ROW up to present Town specifications. I would also like to have one of the maps for the file on this variance. Also, the Zoning Administrator will perform his usual inspections with the Engineer to the Town to determine the specifications that the roads and the building lots are up to specifications for the present ordinance. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker stated, I would like to call your attention at this time, in case there is anyone in the audience here for Appeal #1022, Dawn Flynn, I would like to recommend that this matter should be adjourned one more time, there has been no complete plot plans submitted to the office so this will be carried over to the May 24th, 1988 meeting. Mrs. Lehigh stated that she would make that motion. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker read the next item: 2. Appeal #1032, at the request of Glppp_QPgp, seeking a variance of Article %V, S477.2 of the Town of Wappimger Zoning Ordinance where the requirement is not to exceed 25% 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 #6256-01-185810, in the Town of Wap- pinger. Glenn LaDue was present. Mr. Levenson read a letter from the Fire Prevention Bureau dated March 3rd, 1988. (Letter on File) Mr. Levenson read a letter from the Zoning Administrator dated April 12th, 1988. (Letter on File) Mr. Brooker asked, are there any questions from the Board? Mr. Hirkala asked, did you take another look at that to see if you could net it below 18% without any hassles? Mr. LaDue stated, I hoped to get it down as close to 15 as possible -6 - Mr. Hirkala stated, you said that before but I just wanted to know if you took another look at it if there was any chance of doing it. Mr. LaDue stated, there is a good chance of improving on the driveway grade. I would make every effort just for my own benefit really. Mr. Lehigh asked, have you submitted a drawing of the sprinkler system to the Fire Prevention Bureau (FPB)? Mr. LaDue answer=d, no I have not. My understanding is it is going to be subject to their approval. Mr. Levenson stated, the building permit will not be issued until such time as the FPB approved the sprinkler system. Mr. Lehigh stated, I really would like to see a copy of that. Mr. Levenson stated, a copy will be submitted to the Zoning Board as well as the Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Tompkins asked, how big of a tank do you plan to put in your residence? - Mr. LaDue stated, right now I have done some preliminary investigations to the National Fire Council in Mass. and I have literature and my engineer is going to use that and follow their recommendations for a residential sprinkler system. Mr. Levenson stated, the record should state whether Mr. LaDue agrees with the FPB request. Mr. Brooker asked Mr. LaDue, due you agree with the FPB's request. Mr. LaDue answered, yes. Mr. Brooker asked, what about putting a 500 foot blacktop parking area at your home? Mr. Levenson stated, a 500 foot apron. Mr. LaDue answered, yes, okay. Mr. Hirkala stated, the only question I have is on the Paggi & Martin letter dated January 15th, 1988 letter should be addressed. (Letter on File) Mr. LaDue stated, subsequent to that letter from Mr. Paggi my engineer has another plan that Mr. Paggi has recommended approval because there was problems with the initial plan that that letter was referring to. -7 - Mr. Tompkins stated, just for the record, you ought to be aware that you are not in a unique situation. It is happening elsewhere, basi- cally if you want to build on top of a mountain nobody can really stop you but you have to do something to protect your property because the Fire Departments aren't going to be able to get there. You have to understand that. Mr. Brooker asked if there were any further comments from the audience or the Board. There were none. Mr. Tompkins made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Tompkins made a motion to declare a negative declaration. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Tompkins stated, I make a motion to grant the appeal with the con- ditions of a sprinkler system being approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau and the Building Inspector and copies of the approved plan for- warded to this Board and also, the 500 foot blacktop apron. Mr. Hirkala asked, can I amend that motion that all concerns of the Engineer to the Town be fully completed prior to the issuance of a Cer- tificate of Occupancy. Mr. Tompkins agreed to the amendment to his motion. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker read the next item: -8- 3. Appeal #1033, at the request of the seeking a variance of Article IV, S414.1 of the Town of Wappinger Zon- ing Ordinance where 35 feet is required and the applicant is asking for a 47 foot roof requiring a 12 foot variance and the maximum allowable height for a bell tower is 67 foot and the applicant is requesting 75 foot for the bell tower requiring an 8 foot variance on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel #6259-04-525535, in the Town of Wappinger. James Kruhly, Architect for the church were present. Mr. Tompkins stated, not anywhere on this plan does it show a building height anywhere. Mr. Kruhly stated, these are presentation drawings we did for the congregation and we have mentioned these are preliminary drawings. We are working on the project, that is our intention, I think our inten- tions are pretty clear and the dimensions we have set for a variance are really for the sanctuary, the other buildings do not require and sort of variance, they are well within the height limit. Mr. Lehigh asked, are you aware that the church is located well within the flight pattern? Mr. Kruhly answered, yes. Mr. Lehigh asked, have you contacted the FAA and asked for their opin- ion on this? Mr. Kruhly answered, the notice of construction was sent. Mr. Lehigh asked, have you received anything back? Mr. Kruhly answered, no. In conversation with the aviation commissioner the new building is not in the flight pattern of the airport. Mr. Lehigh stated, you are close to one. Mr. Kruhly answered, he assured us that it was no problem. He said it would be safe for us to file the forms. Mr. Lehigh asked, do you have anything in writing? Mr. Kruhly answered, no, nothing in writing. Mr. Hirkala stated, this Board should have something on record. Mr. Levenson stated, I think the Board should also wait for the Fire Prevention Bureau for comments. My memo is very self explanatory. The reason why it is before you, although it is exempt from ..... of the _9_ Town Code I felt it should be brought to the Board and then forwarded to the Fire Prevention Bureau for their comments because of the fire problem in case there is a fire. Mr. Tompkins stated, I am assuming, according to State Code you are going to have to put a fire alarm system, smoke and heat detectors throughout. My concern is the bell tower. I was thinking about some kind of protection for the tower itself since it is not a useable space. Mr. Lehigh stated, the Town Ordinance states that we shall also look for the health, safety, and welfare of the public in the Town of Wap- pinger. You are constructing a building with a very high tower on it right near the airport and I would hate to be one of the fireman that responds to that building that there is an airplane crash at 10:00 on Sunday morning. The FAA has cut trees down there, I know they have tried to remove alot of obstacles. I really think to grant a variance on this just on the safety aspect I would definitely like to hear from the FAA and see what their ideas are on this. It kind of bothers me a little bit. � I- have just come from 2 meetings with the County, one last night and one the week before over permanent easement that they are involved with, topping trees that are less height than this building is going to be, or the bell tower is going to be and I feel they are moving the church now and one of the major reasons are because of the height and because it is in the path of the runway. This new location is only a matter of a couple hundred feet from the landing pattern that comes across New Hackensack Road. Mr. Lehigh stated, that is the Southeast runway. Mr. Bazley stated, it is only a matter of 4 or 500 feet from that run- way and I live there and I love me. I am all for church, I attend this church but I am afraid of the height of that tower. This is my opin- ion, nothing professional. Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak. There was no one present. James Kruhly stated, I understand your concern of the FAA and cer- tainly, I think if they have any problem with the congregation it would certainly not proceed with having anything that would not be considered safe by the FAA so we would certainly refer to them. I think assuming that they, and they are professionals that deal with this all the time, assuming that they don't have any problem with it, quite frankly I think it is more an issue at that point of asthetics and I would just point out that the variance that we are asking for is actually only -10- for 8 feet and I would really find it hard to believe that somebody would really make a case for the fact that a tower 8 foot taller than that required would really be any kind of a hazard, present any kind of a hazard. We are doing it because in fact we are trying to have a graceful church, a church that stands proudly on that site and the design that we have done that would really enable us to get the height we need inside and to provide the light into the church that we are trying to provide from the top, and also to rebuild the bell, remove the bell from the existing church and put it back into this new facil- ity and I really think that people should keep in mind it is 8 feet that we are really asking for, it is not really for permission to build the bell tower. Mrs. Roe stated, I would like to ask something, have you been in that area of that church for any length of time? Mr. Kruhly answered, no. Mrs. Roe stated, I was in a meeting at the Woronock House when a plane came down on Route 376 not to far from you church, the current church, it probably just missed your bell tower at that point. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to echo Mr. Lehigh's concerns about the FAA because it is in the general area of the airport and there is nothing that says that the airport is going to be in the flight path on the approach, mistakes have been none to be made by aircrafts also that is why I would like to get some input from them at least for the record. Also, I have a concern with not so much the bell tower height but the fact of the overall height of the building of 47 feet where it is obvious that the fire department doesn't have anything to take care of that height of roof. Mr. Lehigh stated, I would like to see something from the Fire Preven- tion Bureau and something from the FAA, that is not being unreasonable. Mr. Kruhly stated, I think it is not being unreasonable, but it will certainly stop our project and our desire to build our church and start construction in the summer. We would have to redesign the building to drop all those heights. Mr. Lehigh asked, wouldn't it be harder on you if the FAA came out with a Federal Law that said that you could not build that building and you have laid the foundation and had to re-draw your plans and start con- struction over again. Wouldn't you be in a much more serious problem then? Mr. Kruhly stated, once we had approval and the law is changed and we have to design to what exists today and today, our understanding is we have made a preliminary assessment of it and we have not problem. -11 - Mr. Hirkala stated, this gentlemen, I don't know if he is familiar with N.Y. State Law but he is asking us to grant a variance on ifs and maybes. If we grant a variance to this particular building and prop- erty that stays there, that is locked in. Mr. Kruhly stated, yes, but the procedure normally is you can grant a variance based on getting approval from the appropriate agencies. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a contingency variance that we try to stay away from. Mr. Kruhly stated, I as a professional would not second guess profes- sionals like the FAA, I think the council should really take it upon themselves to make an evaluation. Mr. Brooker stated, all I hear now is heresy. I don't see anything in writing before this Board that verifies what the FAA says. If we can see something in writing from the FAA I would be satisfied with that. I would still like to see a report from the FPB on this before I act on it. �� Mr. Hirkala stated I make a motion to buck it out to the Fire Preven- �� . , tion Bureau and to get some correspondence from the FAA. Another problem I have is there is nothing that shows the heights or anything on here. Mr. Kruhly stated, I would just like to make a statement that I think by doing this, by delaying the process you really would be delaying the congregation. Mr. Tompkins asked, when you made up these plans for the church did you check into the Zoning Laws of this Town? Mr. Kruhly answered, I certainly did. Mr. Tompkins stated, it says that the roofs cannot be higher than 35 feet, exception churches with their spears. Your roof is 47 feet above grade, that is 12 foot over the maximum limit of any building in this Town, that is number one. The bell tower is 75 feet from the ground. What you are asking us to do is to stick our necks out, because it is a church, and god strike me dead if I say something bad about a church, but you are putting us in a bad position. You understand what I am saying? Mr. Kruhly answered, no I don't. Mr. Tompkins stated you are asking us to change the laws of this Town N� . ^ ' �� to grant you a 12 foot variance on the height of a building, and that is any height of any building in the Town, and one of the things they look at is there is not fire protection to go higher than that, I am sure you could have designed something within the realms of the Zoning -12 - Law and we would have never had a problem here, I am sure. Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone else to speak. A representative from the church stated, we must have misunderstood the Zoning Law. My understanding was that it was the roof height that did not apply to churches, that the additional 12 feet was not applicable to churches and I think that is why when you look at the design it is not much taller than the present building as far as height is con- cerned. It is only a few feet taller than the present sanctuary. Mr. Hirkala stated, you are asking for a variance in 2 directions. What you are asking is to go, is to have the roof of the church higher than the Fire Dept. that covers that building can handle which is a major concern, aside from the proximity to the airport and the height. I would like to take exception to the fact that we are put in a posi- tion where we are holding you up ....... (changed tape) Mr. Lehigh stated, lets not point the finger at anybody. Lets say that we are asking you for a review from the Fire Prevention Dept. and we are asking you to contact the FAA and if for no other reason than �—` safety of your parishioner who will be in the church at the time. I -- think that should be a prime consideration of all of you that are here and especially the people who sit on this Board. Mr. Kruhly stated, if I might just say as a licensed professional I find that the height of 47 versus 35 means absolutely nothing in terms of the safety of the people in the building to feel one way or another. The ability to empty people from a 35 foot space versus a 47 is really the same and in terms of the fire ladders, its true, that is a problem. However, the concern with most fire codes that I am aware of is the residents if they should be at that level. Nobody will be at a level except a ground level so that we have a tall space in there and there is a concern about property damage and concern for the firemen but there is no added, I think any added danger to people in that congre- gation if the roof is 47 versus 45. Mr. Hirkala stated, the Zoning Ordinance says 35 feet, if you have a problem with 35 feet take it to the legislative body which is the Town Board. You are asking for a variance from the 35 feet, I take excep- tion to the fact that the gentlemen is telling us that we have a prob- lem with the.... Mr. Tompkins made a motion to adjourn the public hearing until such a time as the Board has a report back from the Fire Prevention Bureau and something in writing from the FAA. Mrs. Roe seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes -13 - The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker announced that the Board will take a 5 minutes break. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1028, at the request of G,Q_[_Agggqiates, seeking a var- iance of Article IV, S422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 50 foot frontyard setback where 75 is required on property located on Route 82, and being Parcel #6357-03-255010, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Greenberg was present. Mr. Levenson read his memo of April 12th, 1988. (Memo on File) Mr. Levenson stated, the memo is self-explanatory. The N.Y.S. Depart- ment of Transportation has this document in their possession for approximately 8 weeks and there have been numerous telephone calls and several letters written by my office and the applicant calling the Deputy Director of the DOT and we cannot get any answers. I recommend that the Board grant a conditional variance subject to receiving the DOT's recommendations and there will be no permits issued until the conditions are met. Mr. Hirkala asked, did the applicant make any calls to the DOT? Mr. Greenberg answered, yes. Mr. Levenson stated, what you would be doing by granting the condi- tional variance is allowing the process to go to the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to declare a negative declaration. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Hirkala stated, I was the one who asked for the comments from the DOT I will move the motion that the conditional variance be granted just to move this on even though I don't think it is a good idea to grant conditional variances. Mr. Levenson stated, not permits will be issued until this is addressed. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would certainly like to know what the conditions would be set. One of my problems with conditionals is if the DOT comes down with some conditions they have to come back here that changes -14 - some thinqs as the way we look at them then there is a problem. Mr. Levenson stated, if the DOT comes back with some conditions we will refer it back to you. Mr. Greenberg stated, this has been going on for, I believe in an excess of 2 months. Because of the extreme effort that we have gone through to reach this stage it would seem that if there is a major objection it would have emerged by this time. Mr. Hirkala stated, not necessarily. I am not concerned about a major objection. What I am concerned about is the state making recommend- ations that should be considered by the Board in granting the variance. Mr. Greenberg stated, we have to have site plan approval from the Plan- ning Board. It would seem fair to have this subject to site plan approval and also the driveway permit. Those seem to be the major things. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is why I made the motion to grant the variance conditional on the comments from the State being positive comments. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker read the next item: 2. Appeal #1027, at the request of-�i�_Sgk�l, 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 Wappinger. John & Patricia Sokol were present. Mr. Levenson read his memo of April 12th, 1988. (Memo on File) Mr. Levenson stated, the memo is self-explanatory. I had a conversa- tion with Mr. Croshier the Highway Superintendent and we feel that there are no problems. Mr. Brooker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this appeal. There was no one present. Mr. Hirkala stated, the question that came up is whether or not he had a vested financial interest in getting the variance. In other words whether or not he had initiated, financially, made some moves finan- -15- cially to get the approval for the 3 lot subdivision prior to the change being made in the Zoning Ordinance from a 25 foot road frontage to a 50 foot road frontage, that was the question that came up. In my view it is a matter of whether or not he has the right to the variance because there is no hardship so I have requested some proof of a vested financial interest. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to declare a negative declaration. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Tompkins stated, I make a motion that this be granted because they had a financial vested interest before the Zoning change was made allowing them to have the 25 feet. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Brooker read the next item: 1. Appeal #987, at the request of review and comment on Special Use Permit approval. Ron Wood and Robert Lang were present. Mr. Levenson stated, to give you the history on this, this original site plan was approved on 16 plus acres and at this point this office would recommend that you permit an amended site plan to allow the operation of this church on 8.362 acres and Mr. Wood addressed the reasons for it, and I believe it is a reason of finances with the church. Mr. Wood stated, Michael was at the Planning Board meeting and one of the concerns was the buffer. What we are going to do is put in some nice pine trees and we are going to try to keep it at the 20 foot buf- fer and we are just going to run it up along the property. In fact it is going to curve right along with the Power Authority's ROW so there will be a nice buffer between that and the adjoining lots. The con- gregation needs the money very badly. Mr. Hirkala asked are you still looking at 135 foot frontage for the �. . . , residential lots? - Mr. Wood answered, yes. 2M -16- Mr. Hirkala asked, has the Planning Boards' concerns on screening and the parking been addressed? Mr. Levenson answered, no, that is a matter that has been referred back to the applicant for consideration and this will be before the Planning Board at the next meeting. Both subdivisions were done simultaneously and the Planning Board felt that the original presentation should have a buffer. Mr. Hirkala made a motion to declare a negative declaration. Mrs. Roe seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Hirkala stated, the only question before us is whether it effects the Special Use Permit enough for us to make any further considerations of the Special Use Permit. The only concern I would have would be the ' same as the Planning Board which is the screening. I would make a �~ motion that the Special Use Permit review, the only comment that we -~ should recommend would be to pay particular attention to the screening next to the residential property. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Brooker read the next item: 3. #1O34, at the request of Matthew C�_T�leres�-Melt�e�, seek - Appeal ing a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S421, F` (a), (b), 8^ (c) of the Town of kVappinger Zoning Ordinance to operate an automotive driving school on property located on Dorothy Heights, and being Parcel #6158-04-707157, in the Town of Wappinger. Matthew Meltzer were present. Mr. Hirkala stated, the normal procedure is to take the Special Use Permit and refer it to the Planning Board. Mr. Levenson stated, at this time the Zoning Administrator will request that you refer this to the Planning Board for site plan approval for it to come back for approval of the Special Use Permit. kMr. Tompkins asked, you are running a business there now right? Mr. Meltzer answered, yes I am. -17- Mr. Tompkins asked, how long have you been there? Mr. Meltzer answered, 4 and a half years with the verbal approval of the previous Zoning Administrator by the name of Hans Gunderud. Mr. Tompkins asked, is there anything in our records that show that? I don't believe sir that there is anything in any law that states that there is verbal approval for anything. Mr. Meltzer stated, that I realize sir. I was speaking with the gent- lemen and I say I am looking at moving my office in my house, is there going to be any problems? Obviously this is heresy at this point from me only, and he said you are going to need a couple of extra parking spaces. I told him that I had that available on my lot, he said okay, then there is nothing to worry about and that is all he said. He didn't say anything about coming before any Boards or anything else. I Just got notified that there is a situation that I should be aware of. Mr. Tompkins stated, can I ask how many people come to your home in the course of a day? J' Mr. Meltzer answered, in the course of a day I have a Secretary that drives in and parks her car and comes inside and works approximately 4 hours a day and once awhile, at this point over the summer it will be more often I will have an instructor come and pick up a school car and go out and teach the driving or another instructor, possibly 2 total come and pick up cars and leave. Nobody stays at the residence for any purpose other than that. Mr. Lehigh asked, you pick up most of your customers on the road? Mr. Meltzer answered, I pick up all of the customers at their resi- dence, place of business. Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is none of your customers come to your house and leave their car and go? Mr. Meltzer answered, none of that occurs. Mr. Hirkala asked, so what you are saying is that the impact on the neighborhood should be minimal because your instructors leave with the car and go to the customer, is that what you are saying? Mr. Meltzer answered, exactly. The only extra cars that people might see coming to my house would be birthday parties for my kids, would be myself operating a cub scout den and people dropping off their kids, or my wife operating a girl scout den and people dropping off their kids, 4 you might have a bundle of cars at various times - �� ^ As far as the driv ing school is concerned, I leave and I come back. There are times where I might stop in on a lesson and therefore, a student drives on my road just as a student may drive on any other road at which time they ill -18- pull into my driveway, I stop inside to get a message, grab a bite to eat very quickly or whatever that might be, at which point we pull out on to the road and leave. Mr. Lehigh stated, what we are really interested in is your number of employees that would be coming to that house. Mr. Meltzer answered, one to stay. Mr. Lehigh asked, for 4 hours? Mr. Meltzer answered, that is all she is doing at this point. Over the summer maybe she will stay for 6 or 8 hours. Mr. Roe asked, there still is only one? Mr. Meltzer answered, there is still only one. I personally don't know if this necessarily comes under the SUP, that would be up to you. I believe the SUP necessity, according to S4219 P1 (a) says that such an office or occupation is incidental, it is; not more than 2 resident employees associated as assistants employed on the premises, which is the case; the parking -and access drive shall be located and designed and screened so to minimize disturbances to adjoining properties and shall be subject to site plan review for such purposes. The driveway that was there was put in before I moved into the house, I didn't change any of that. Since that time, over the summer I did add addi- tional macadam as is noted, not necessarily as additional so you know what was previous but the driveway is as noted on the survey. For that purpose I don't know necessarily whether it comes up in this jurisdic- tion. Mr. Lehigh stated, anytime you conduct a business from a private residence you need a SUP. Mr. Meltzer stated, so therefore, according to this, in my eye, it would be up to the Board of course, in my eyes it would be a permitted accessory use and that is why I am asking for the Special Use Permit. Mr. Hirkala stated, well I guess the determination of that is just what is occupation, such office or occupation is incidental to the residen- tial use of the premises. That is your sole means of support? Mr. Meltzer answered, that is right. Mr. HIrkala stated, I think it is a little more than incidental use of your residence then. _~ Mr. Meltzer answered, it is incidental in the fact that the office is -~~ operated there but all of the actual driving instruction is out on the road. I don't give a classroom instruction in the house. n -19- Mr. Hirkala stated, my problem would be students coming to your pre- ^ getting in a car, driving away, coming back mises, leaving their car, ge ng , , and getting in their car and leave. Mr. Lehigh stated, if they had a car they wouldn't be coming to him for lessons. Mr. Meltzer stated, I will admit because it can be found that of the 30^` students that I have a year there might be one or two, possibly as i many as three, possibly one percentmight live totally out of the area and it is very awkward for me to schedule them and therefore a father may drive them to a mutual agreed upon meeting place which could be McDonalds, it could be someplace in the City of Poughkeepsie, or it might be right at my residence. So I would say given the 3 options maybe once a year somebody would actually come to the residence and be driven away in my vehicle. Jg� ing�� Do you par your cars on - k the driveway in the evening? Mr. Meltzer stated, at the moment I have 2 driving school cars, and both of the cars are parked directly in front of the house in 2 spaces. Mr. Incoronato asked, they have signs on them, do they not? Mr. Meltzer answered, yes, they have signs on them. Mr. Incoronato stated, one of the provisions is (d)that no display of goods or signs or other methods of such occupations outside the build- ing, which it is located, and except one identification sign as pro- vided in Section 460.3. Your sign is on the car bigger than 2 square feet. Mr. Meltzer answered, the signs are bigger than 2 square feet and I guess I presumed that this would come under the same situation where somebody operates, whether carpentry or otherwise business and the side of their van has a nice big sign on it saying so and so construction company, that is a sign even though it is a part of the van. Mr. Incoronato stated, a carpenter doesn't have an office in his home. He may park a truck in his driveway with a sign but he doesn't mount signs on his roof and he doesn't ask for a Special Use Permit where one of the provision is that thou shall not have a sign more than 2 square feet sticking outside of the center of the house. That is what your driveway contains, several signs of 20 or 30 square feet. I think you also have to rule on that. He apparently may be in violation of that. _ Mr. Hirkala stated, what we have to look at is each lot in this Town is permitted one principle use and it specifically states in the ordinance on principle use. Is he using 2 principle uses in this residence or not. Is he using it for a residence and his business? Is it one principle use, is it a use incidental to his residence. It is not commercial property so it is residential property so is it a permitted principle use, yes, residential is a permitted principle use, it is not, in my view, the use of permitted accessory uses to a residential use is not necessarily the prime business that you are in. I can understand somebody being in the business, like you were saying carpen- ter. The guys prime operation isn't in his house. He doesn't have people come to his house, have a Secretary working in his house. This is what I have a problem with. Mr. Meltzer stated, in the case of a carpenter I would think he would normally have his home phone listed if he is not working out of some office because he has a big business, and therefore his home phone is listed, his wife maybe the Secretary, possibly he has somebody coming in, parking in the driveway and working, I don't know. I can't give an example. I don't really think that the primary business is anywhere near what is run out of a household. His primary business is out on the road. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is the question we have to determine whether or not this is principle uses of a residence. Mr. Brooker stated, he does have an office and a Secretary. Mr. Hirkala asked, does that constitute a principle use? My feeling is that this should be referred to the Planning Board for their comments and we could discuss some of the things that we have been talking about, think about them and come back at the next meeting. Mrs. Roe asked, you have just 2 cars that you use? Meltzer answered, yes. Mrs. Roe asked, they have just a strip sign across the top? Mr. Meltzer answered, no, my cars have a sign on the roof, triangular with a sign on either of the 3 sides and that sign is possibly 12 x 36 inches, so which face is 3 square inch. Mr. Lehigh asked, no problem with removing those? Mr. Meltzer stated, it is a technicality. They can be removed and put inside each evening if necessary. Mrs. Roe stated, you have parking space one and two, and I was think- ing, if house cars were backed into the parking space the only sign that would show would be that one on the roof. Mr. Meltzer stated, when I say they are triangular signs what we are ' talking about is the sign sitting on the roof like such, triangular in nature, and the entire triangle is on the roof. -21 - Mr. Brooker asked if there were any other comments. E�t�lI�_Z�k - Dg�gthl(_H�ight� I just want --- to know, the new driveway that he has put in, access or, exit, whatever it is, is that Dorothy Heights there or is that a pri- vate road. Mr. Meltzer answered, according to the gentlemen that did the survey of the property he was concerned about that also. He reviewed and accor- ding to the plot plan or according to the liber files in the City of Poughkeepsie, or the County files I believe, that exits onto the Pike driveway. Mrs. Zak stated, that is a private drive. Do you have permission to do that? Mr. Meltzer answered, yes I do, as a matter of fact he recommended that 3 years ago that I open it up. Mrs. Zak stated, I don't know if that is a consideration, shouldn't � that be in writing? He got a verbal okay from a neighbor to open up that road, or his driveway to their private drive? Also, I think there are other residents here that would like to address the safety issue. They live close to Mr. Meltzer and I think they should be heard.You heard his story, and there might be contradictions about it, can't you hear the other side? Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem with hearing other people, but the fact of the matter is that this is not a public hearing, and the public hearing is coming up. Mr. Brooker stated, if anybody wants to be heard tonight or wait till the public hearing. I will gladly hear anybody if you come forward and state your name. My T�t�g� JES_DOCgth�_��iOht� - - I am representing my father who is away in Florida right now, he lives on 41 Dorothy Heights. His primary concern was that Dorothy Heights is zoned residential and he believes that it should be left residential. This was done once before about 15 years ago for a person on the road. They ran a greenhouse. Now he does not want to see this happen to the whole entire street. If you grant it to one, grant it to another, it will just escalate and so forth, and so on. Mr. Meltzer should put a little bit more forethought into buying this property knowing that he was going to have to apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP). Mr. Meltzer stated, I would like to comment on that. When I bought the �~ property 9 years ago I was doing some business in this field with my father. I did not own a driving school at the time. At no point when I bought the property did I feel that I would be opening up a driving �� - -22- school, opening one in my house. Mr. Lehigh stated, we are not hear to take a speech and rebuttal. Lets ^ t at a time and anybody that has anything that just hear the comments one have to they want to say, but they must realize that they are going to come to the public hearing and speak. up-Aggrgontg Just food for thought in general. rM. HIrkala make a very valid point. There can only be a single principle use, a residents of a property. Here you are talking about an established business that was in a com- mercial area on Main Street in the Village of Wappingers Falls and now that business apparently has been taken to a residence and the issuance of a SUP is clearly stated as being subject to an incidental use of the premises. You take a principle business and move it into a residence that is not an incidental use. So these two things you ought to bear in mind and it is food for thought between now and the time you enter- tain it again. One principle use and an incidental use in the home. Incidental, not a primary source or soul source of your income as I believe the property is. � �NV My objection is the road is not that wide. ny objection is that we are not zoned for business. When we bought our home, I am a retired senior citizen, we were told that nothing could be on our road because, we couldn't have animals, we couldn't have anything, that was right in our deed. Now, can anybody come on our road an open up a business? This is what I am against. We are a small road with a dead end and it is not that wide. When the school bus came through we all had to jump back. Twice my sister has been out and tried to get mail and she has had to move back. Our road isn't that wide, that is my objection, for the safety. We have children on the road, that is my only objection, the safety part. It is dangerous because our road is not that wide. EliKAWCg�t��ll9 I did call when I saw the sign on his house and I walked the children sign down and I saw a bigi on his house and I did call Mr. Levenson and he told me he was going to look into it and he told me that he did not need a permit to have this and I said, when I walked the children down to get on the bus, one day I came back and he stopped with a driver, he had a driver in the car and he did stop to let me go by. He had a young boy in the car with him. Sundays there is so much traffic there that we never had before. I don't think it is really safe. I have nothing against a neighbor having a business but I just think a little road like that should stay for our homes out there. We have no lights. I just don't think it is an area for a driving area. Mr. Meltzer has -. brought his students down there. L �Mr Levenson stated, my office received a complaint on March 17th and I investigated it and sent a letter to Mr. Meltzer on March 17th telling him what the conditions were and h - e had to satisfy the application pro %—' -23- � cedure by April 15th, and his application was filed in full on March 22nd with my office stopping any enforcement by the Administrator. Mr. Tompkins asked, Mr. Incoronato brought up a point that you had an ^ office on Main Street and you moved to the house, fill me in on the details. Mr. Meltzer answered, my father owned the business before I did. He ^ i was in the process of being very sick and I and another individual ended up taking over the business at that established Main Street Office. Mr. Tompkins asked, so when did you move it into your house? Mr. Meltzer answered, my father died and that building had to be sold and we moved into an office next to the Dairy Queen and 4 and a half years ago we decided that my partner would operate a business out of his house across the river and I would operate a, lets say a duplicate business or a partnership business out of my house and it has been operating for the past 4 and a half years as such up until the point of � approximately one year ago when I took over a good portion of the ' Anybusiness also. So for 4 and a half years I have been operating my ' ; �driving school from my residence. Mr. Tompkins stated, I have to ask your neighbors back there, 4 and a half years he has been there? Mrs. COstello stated, well I didn't see any sign up, I didn't see all that going to 4 and a half years. I didn't see a sign on the house. Mr. Lehigh asked, the sign was the only thing that let you know he was in business? Mrs. Costello answered, yes, I saw a big sign on the house. Mr. Lehigh asked, was there ever any cars there? Mr. Costello answered, he had cars coming and going (changed the tape) Mr. Meltzer stated, ....that is what she is seeing. It wasn't nailed up to the house or glued up or tacked up or anything else. It was placed there. Mrs. Costello asked, what was holding it up? Mr. Meltzer answered, it was sitting just like it sits on the roof of -- my cars and strapped on. It was sitting up there but not strapped down^ Mrs. Costello stated, it was right up on your house. -24- M Mr. and the Meltzer stated c I an bring it ground in front the one that is over the door was a roof sign and in and show it to you if you wish, it is sitting on of my house at this point. I never once had a sign on my walls. Mr. Tompkins asked, are the signs on your car strapped down? Mr. Meltzer answered, they are strapped down, yes. Mr. Tompkins asked, in other words you can remove them at night? Mr. Meltzer stated, it takes me approximately.... Mr. Tompkins asked, you can remove them? Mr. Meltzer answered, absolutely, no problem. They can be removed. Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that this be referred to the Plan- ning Board for review. Mrs. Roe seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mrs. Roe made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.. lb Respectfully submitted, Oind�,Berber ich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals