Loading...
1987-12-22ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL DECEMBER 22ND, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. M%DDLEBUSH ROAD AGENDA WAPP^ FALLS, N.Y. ^ MINUTES: 1. Vote on the Minutes of the November 24th, 1987 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Appeal #1018, at the request of F����i�_&_J������_S���[k���, seeking a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a carport which will require an 8 foot variance where 20 feet is required on property located on Old Hopewell Road, and being Parcel #6157-04-968456, in the Town of Wappinger. ki i 2. Appeal #1017, at the request of C����ll�_K[���[n��[� see ng a var ance of Article IV, S470 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to a1low a variance from the 50 foot driveway requirement on property located on 28 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6259-03-475065, in the Town of Wappinger. OLD BUSINESS: 1' Appeal #1014, at the request of t����_&_G�il_Weber, Tc- .... a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 foot variance where 10 feet is required for an above ground pool on property located on 6 Flintrock Road, and being Parcel #6256-02-639756, in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal #1013, at the request of David_&_Sus@n_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 - NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1019, at �i� the request of p�t�[_T���, seeka ing �peczal Use Permit of Article IV, S422, P6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an automotive repair business as was in existence by the prior owner on property located on 15 Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-549955, in the Town of Wappinger. on ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 22ND, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES THESENH|NUr�� -*vENOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO, REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE: WZONING BOARD OF APPEAM 11 PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, N.Y. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 22nd, 1987 at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr, Urciuoli, Chairman Mr. Cortellino Mr. Brooker Mr. Hirkala Mrs. Roe OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mr. Herbert Levenson, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. MINUTES: Mr. Urciuoli read the first item: to, Urciuoli asked for a motion on the Minutes of the November 24th~ 19G7 Meeting. vow Mr. Brooker made a motion to accept the Minutes as read. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli explained how the meeting would be conducted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Urciuoli read the first item: Appeal 41018, at the request of F[gPW_&_J99999_0909y, seeking a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a carport which will require an 8 foot variance where 20 feet is required on property located on Old Hopewell Road, and being Parcel #6157-04-968456, in the Town of Wappinger. Francis Sharkey, Old Hopewell Road was present. Mr. (Wciuoli asked the Secretary if all the green cards had been returned. Ms. Berberich replied that they had. Mr. Urciuoli asked, is the carport attached? Mr. Sharkey answered, it is going to be attached, yes. -2- Cortellino asked, this is on Old Hopewell Road, is it a new house? Mr. Sharkey answered, no it is an old house. The house has been there for about 30 years. Mr. Urciuoli asked, you have about an acre and a quarter? Mr. Sharkey answered, yes. Mr' Hirkala asked, what is the purpose of the carport because you have a 2 car garage in the house now, right? Mr. Sharkey answered, yes. Because I park on the side of the house, either in the front or on the side it doesn't matter where I park I have the spruce trees and the pitch keeps falling on my cars and the cars are constantly full of..... Mr. Cortellino stated, the question I think that Mr. Hirkala had was you have a 2 car garage, you are not utilizing the 2 car garage right now. Mr. Hirkala asked, how many cars do you have? Mr. Sharkey answered, we had 3 up until this present, now we have 2 cars, but I use one side of the garage I have my workbench and one side we use. You might just say it is a one car garage because I won't have room for my lawnmowers and all my other stuff if I, and it would be convenient and it would keep my car out of the weather. I have been parning on the side of the house since I live there. Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is the distance on the other side of the house? Mr. Sharkey answered, there is alot of distance but I can't get there. I would have to cross my leach fields. Mr' Hirkala asked, how about in the back? Mr. Sharkey answered, you get all that runoff from the hill. It would be inconvenient in the back. Mr. Urciuoli asked, is this carport for 2 cars? Mr. Sharkey answered, it will be the whole side of the house because... Mr. Uricuoli stated, that is the depth. What is the width of the car- port? Mr. Sharkey answered, between 14 and 16 feet. Mr. Hirkala asked, can't you make it any smaller than that? Mr. Sharkey answered, if I make it any smaller, the purpose of it is I want to make sure my car gets covered. I don't want to put a half of carport. If I am only going to stick it out 3 or 4 feet I don't need it. I spoke to my neighbors and they have no problem with it. Mr. Hirkala asked, how wide is a car, 6 or 8 feet? Mr. Urciuoli stated, a parking space is 10 foot wide, 10 x 20. Mr. Hirkala stated, you are asking for 14 feet when a normal parking space is 10 feet. Mr. Urciuoli stated, it looks like you are looking to put up a 2 car carport, whether it is 2 car or one car, the thing is if you had a one car carport you wouldn't need a variance. One goes in the garage and one goes in the carport. Mr. Sharkey stated, if you are going to tie into the house, into the rafters that are coming off the house, you are not going to make my house look like a sore eye to the public so it would have to be the whole length of the house or none at all. 1r. Urciuoli stated, what we are talking about is what is the width from here out? Mr. Sharkey answered, I had a carpenter, there is a tree standing up on the side, we were not going to go beyond that tree. It could be 14 feet, 12 feet, somewhere in that area. Mr. Urciuoli stated, we need to know, is it 12 or 14 feet? Mr. Sharkey stated, it is not going to be beyond what I am asking for. It would probably be less. Mr. Urciouli stated, maybe what you should do is get more definite plans or something for us to look at. You are not sure whether the width... Mr. Sharkey stated, the width would probably be 12 or 14 feet for sure. Mr. Urciuoli stated, if it is 12 or 14 feet that is going to change the amount of the variance that you are asking for. Mr. Sharkey stated, no it won't because if I went out 16 feet, I was asking for an 8 foot variance and that is all I need. Mr. Urciuoli asked, so what you are doing is you are going out 16 feet from the house? Mr' Sharkey stated, after the carport is built I don't have 20 feet between my line and the property line, I have 12 feet. -4- Mr. Hirkala asked, and how big is the carport? Mr. Sharkey answered, it is going to be whatever I had on this origi- nal. Mr. Hirkala asked, so what you are saying is if you build it out 14 feet you will have 12 feet left over. If you build it out 10 feet you will have 16 feet left to the sidelot and that is why I asked you why you are going out 14 feet. Mr. Sharkey stated, well maybe I don't have to go 14 feet. Mr. Cortellino stated, there is something wrong with the numbers. On my drawing it says the width of the carport is 16 and the distance from the carport to the line is 12 which makes a total of 28 feet. So, if a single car is going in or going in railroad style, bumper to bumper, that extension could be 9 feet, or 10 feet and it would be a minimum variance. The numbers are not adding up. Is it 16 or 12, is it 28 feet from the side of the house to the lot line, that is what I don't know. W%WMr. Urciuoli asked, do you have a survey? Mr. Sharkey answered, I don't know if there is one home or not. My wife is going to be here shortly. Is there someone else that could go ahead of me? Mr. Urciuoli stated, what I would like to know is if it is really 12 feet. What is the dimension from the house to the sideline? Mr. Sharkey stated, it is more than 12 feet from my house to the side- line, yes. I told you I need, after my carport is up I need, I am asking for an 8 foot variance because I only have 12 feet from my car- port to the border line. I have 12 foot after it is built. Mr. Brooker made a motion to set this appeal aside until the end of the meeting. Mr' Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli read the next appeal: Appeal #1017, at the request of C��ill�_K������, seeking a variance of Article IV, S470 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a MW variance from the 50 foot driveway requirement on property located on 28 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6259-03-475065, in the Town of Wappinger. Camille Kraemer, 26 Virginia Avenue was present. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the question that I have is there was a problem with the mailing cards? Mrs. Kraemer answered, there are only 4 people I had to mail to and 2 came back. The other property which is across the street has been on the market and has been recently sold, that person has moved out of Town but I know that the property has been sold recently and I don't know who is supposed to speak for that. The other person was the owner of B & D Contracting property, that was mailed to a New York City address. I got the 2 local ones back, but I didn't get the other 2. Mr. Hirkala stated, suppose the people never pick up their mail? Ms. Berberich stated, she has the white receipts showing that they were sent. Mr. Cortellino stated, when something goes in the mail it is presumed delivered. VAW Mr. Hirkala stated, I think an honest effort has been made to notify the abutting property owners. Mr. Cortellino asked, did you have a lawyer representing you when you bought this property? Mrs. Kraemer answered, I had Pat Campanella representing me during the closing. Mr. Cortellino asked, did you explained what you wished to do with that property to her? Mrs. Kraemer answered, no, not really. Mr. Cortellino stated, I think you may have a problem because what you are doing, I am not concerned so much with the 50 foot, 25 foot vari- ance. What you are doing is creating a 3 lot subdivision without put- ting in a Town Road., Mrs. Kraemer stated, no, I don't want 3 lots. I had come before the Board before for a 3 lot subdivision and found that, Herb must have had the old map, all I am asking for now is to divide it in 2 and have one driveway. Mr. Cortellino stated, it is still a subdivision without a Town Road. Mrs. Kraemer stated, we want to leave one cut on All Angels Road, a shared driveway and have one driveway go off the other people. -6 - Mr. Cortellino stated, there is only one frontage for one house and what you are doing is subdividing. Mr. Kraemer stated, that is what I am appealing. I have 75 feet on Al]-. Angels Road. Mr. Cortellino stated, you are appealing the 50 foot frontage. Mr. Kraemer stated, technically I have 75 feet. It was my understand when I bought this that it was a 25 foot requirement for frontage so, originally I thought I could subdivide it into 3 lots because I had well over 3 acres but then I found that you couldn't do that because we needed a road, this road that you are talking about. So, then I thought was the least I could do, because I have spent a great deal of money on this house and the only way I can recoup it is cutting off a lot is by just having one cut and just having it divided into the house and an acre and a half and the other lot. Mr. Hirkala asked, what was the date of the Zoning Ordinance change? I think it was the fall of 1986. I am suspecting that the Zoning Ordi- nance change took place, if I am not mistaken some time in August or. September of 1986 which leads me to the point where she is stating that her understanding was 25 foot frontage, she went into contract November 1986 which means there is a conflict there because the thing would have been changed prior to that. Mrs. Kraemer stated, l had a copy of the Zoning Book and it said 25 feet and that is what prompted me to buy the property. Mr. Hirkala stated, there was a revision in the mean time. Mrs. Kraemer stated, I wasn't aware of the revision. Mr. Hirkala stated, the Zoning Book is dated March 10th, 1980, that doesn't mean that everything in there since 1980 hasn't changed. The change took place prior to when you went into contract. What I am trying to do is come up with either establishing, or completely nigat- ing any attempt of a vested right. Mr. Cortellino stated, I am not concerned so much about that as the legality of subdividing without putting in a road. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with that myself. Mrs. Kraemer stated, why would you need a road? Mr. Cortellino answered, because the Town requires, anytime there is a subdivision for a road to be put in up to Town specs. Mrs. Kraemer asked, you can't subdivide your own piece of property .-7--- without 7- without putting in a road? What if you have the required road frontage then what? Mr. Cortellino answered, you would still need a road unless all the houses had the frontage. Mr. Urciuoli asked, when does a driveway become a road? Mr. Cortellino stated, you are allowed to put a house, which is facing a public road and naturally there is a driveway that connects the garage or the house to the road. If you have 2 houses then you would need, lets say, 2 driveways going to a public road. If you don't do that, take a development, forget whether it has 100 houses or 50 houses, they have a main road coming out to a public highway, public road, right, but there are roads within that development where the houses or driveways connect to a road. Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is the length of the driveway? Mrs. Kraemer answered, probably about 600 feet. It is quite far off the road. Mrs. Kraemer stated, we are right next to the subdivision Marge Godbout and company are preparing for the other parcel. The quickest and easiest way for us to go would be to buy 50 feet from her and connect to the proposed road that she has there but she is not interested and we have tried that. We have tried everything as far as getting this second house and nobody is willing to bend. Now we have a house that is not really worth anything sitting on 3 and a half acres of land. Mr. Urciuoli asked, if becomes a matter of whether you can pick up another 25 feet of property to have 2 - 50 foot. Mrs. Kraemer answered, in order to get the legal frontage and I have tried' I have tried both people on either side of me and for whatever reason nobody wants to SHE, Mr. Hirkala asked, is there a house on the lot in front of you? Mrs. Kraemer answered, there is nothing in front of us. B & D is over here and then there is us and then there is a big field. The driveway really has to be widened but like I said, we put so much money into this we can't afford to do anymore. There is enough there vacant if they wanted to sell it. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I am just wondering, maybe not in an asthetic point of view, it is the only way to look at it but is it better to have 2 - 600 foot driveways running parallel or a common driveway. 1%V Mr. Hirkala stated, 1 don't think it makes a difference. I don't think ~OW -8- we can aliow, the variance we could allow we be from the 50 foot Zoning Ordinance requirement. We can't, the fact of one driveway would be another question. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I am saying that if she was able to pick up the extra 25 feet where she wouldn't need a variance and have 2 driveways running parallel 600 feet. Mr. Hirkala stated, she still have to have it. We would have to vary the 50 foot requirement on a Town Road. Mr. Urciuoli stated, she wouldn't need it. She has 75 feet now. If she had another 25 feet she would have 100 foot. Mr. Hirkala stated, she is asking for 2 lots. Mr. Uricuoli stated, right, and each lot would have 50 foot frontage. Mr. Hirkala stated, but she is asking for 2 lots variance off of 50 foot would be to split the 75 in half. 30 and 35, whatever you want. Mr. Urciuoli stated, assuming she had the 75 feet, which she has, if she was able to pick up another 25 feet from one of the neighbors on either side she would have combined 100 foot frontage and then if she *Now came in for a subdivision into 2 lots each lot would have 50 foot road frontage, therefore she wouldn't need, as far as the road frontage goes, each lot would have its own 50 foot frontage. Mr. Hirkala stated, and there will be 2 driveways, and if we grant the variance there still would be 2 driveways because there is a provision in the ordinance that says one driveway per lot. We can't grant a variance to have, off the 50 foot road frontage and the driveway also, that is a whole other question. Mr. Urciuoli stated, there would be no need for a variance other than, she wouldn't even need a variance. Mr. Cortellino stated, it is my contention, say there is 100 foot frontage here, that is on the 3 acres. If you subdivide you can't put in just a driveway, you have to put in a road through the area up to Town specs. Mr. Hirkala stated, she can do that now. Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't think she wishes to do that. Mr. Hirkala stated, but the point is that she can do that now. It just doesn't pay for 2 lots. *&W Mr. Urciuoli asked Mr. Levenson, when does a driveway become a road or is there such a determination? This driveway right now is 600 feet %*W Lona to the one lot which we are trying to subdivide into 2 lots Mr. Levenson stated, I would say that under the ordinance, the way it is written now that this would have to become a road. It would have to be brought up to road standards. Mr. Urciuoli asked, what would happen if she had that initial driveway coming in, the 600 feet as a private road? Mrs. Kraemer added, and a cul de sac at the end. The could I get 3 lots? Mr. Hirkala stated, if you did that you probably should build a Town Road that long. Mr. Levenson stated, you can have driveways off of the cul de sac, I have no problem with that. A private road up to the standards is no problem here. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to know the legalities for doing that. Mr. Levenson stated, somebody would have to certify to us that this ~w, road would be able to support either the New Hackensack Fire Dept. tanker or the Hughsonville truck if there was a mutual aid call. Mrs. Kraemer asked, whats existing or a new one? W. Urciuoli stated, if you feel that what is existing can support it.... Mr. Hirkala stated, my saying is that what you would have to do, pro- bably° would be to bring it almost up to the Town Road specs. If you had to do that you might be better off just going ahead and creating a Town Road there and get the 3 lots. Mr. Levenson stated, we have enough time between now and the next meeting. When I come back I will structure a meeting with Mr. Croshier and let him look at it. He could tell very quickly. Mr. Brooker stated, if you are going to subdivide 2 pieces of property I would like to see how it is going to be done. Mr. Levenson stated, I just don't want the applicant to spend anymore money until we have sufficient evidence that that egress will be suit- able to, not to the Highway Superintendent, but suitable so that we will know that there will be fire protection and medical protection. Mr. Hirkala stated, can I talk from a Planning philosophical standpoint as to whether or not the Town, legislatively wants to have private roads feeding building lots. -10 - Mr. Levenson stated, that would have to go to the Planning Board. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a very serious question in my head as to whether or not this is something that we should be taking a hard look at. There is a pretty good possibility that the Town, in its planning concept, which would be legislatively from the Town Board and to the Planning Board as to whether or not the want to see private roads feed- ing subdivisions. Mr. Levenson stated, I will set up a meeting with Mr. Croshier to find out if he thinks the road is acceptable and then I will set up..... Mr. Brooker stated, before you find out from Ken you should go to the Planning Board first to see if they are going to allow this. Mr. Hirkala stated, if we grant a variance on this particular site we are going to have to have good reasons to grant it otherwise we are going to be locking ourselves into a situation where everyone is going to be asking for the same favor. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this item subject to hearing from Planning Board and Ken Croshier. Mrs. Roe seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli stated, what I would like to do is take a minute, this is the last meeting that I am serving as Chairman of the Zoning Board and what I would like to do is to thank the other Board members for sup- porting me the past year, and helping me out with various appeals and I would like to thank Linda who has been the Secretary to the Zoning Board and myself for helping me out through the course of the past year, you have been a great help, and especially Herb, who has had to feel alot of my questions, some sensible and some totally non -sensible and I thank him for his patience and time. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Urciuoli read the next item: (1)Appeal #1014, at the request of St����_&_G��il_W�b��, seeking a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 foot variance where 10 feet is required for an above ground pool on property located on 6 Flintrock Road, and being Parcel #6256-02-639756, in the Town of Wappinger. There was no one present. 11%nW Mr. Urciuoli asked the Secretary the status of this appea] Ms. Berberich replied, I am pretty sure at the last meeting the Attor- ney asked this to be tabled until the next meeting so he could meet with his client. Mr. Cortellino stated, they are not here. I believe that our Attorney even questioned the fact that we gave an extension and I believe the Minutes show that the appellant presumes that we are going to deny him the variance which he may be right in my case and he indicated that he wished to go to court. The Minutes showed implied threats or implies court action so I see no reason to carry it on our calendar, I move that it be denied. There were plenty of areas, the pool could have been changed, there were other situations. The Board had gone out to examine the property and he has determined, for perhaps asthetic rea- sons, or whatever reasons it will go in that spot regardless of what we wish. Mr. Brooker stated, there seems to be no undo hardship, I will second that. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino stated, it was the lawyer who asked for the extension so he should be aware that it was on the calendar. Mr. Urciuoli read the next appeal: (2)Appeal 01013, at the request of D�><id_&_S����_L��i����, seeking a var- iance 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. Levitan read a letter into the Minutes that he prepared. (Letter on file). Mr. Urciouli stated, I think in the past we had demonstrated to you, and had some dialogue as to our concern about the drainage in particu- ]ar on the property. Mr. Hirka]a stated, I think we pretty much made it clear that there is a sympathy on this Board for the right of someone to utilize their property and I think the discussion in the past of this Board is not necessarily is not whether or not this property has the right to be built on but the method by which you can build on this property. That has been the discussion in the past on this particular situation and I think that is the direction that it should go and if after all is said and done its a determination by the owner that it wouldn't pay to build 05 on this property that has to do with the conditions of the property, that is a buyer beware situation. We have to be concerned about the fact that somebody buys his property and has a problem they are going to be back in here screaming at us Mr. Urciuoli stated, the other problem that I think that we had as far- as aras we could tell that I believe when Mr. Wood was here that the ROW only goes to the corner of the property. There is no way that you have access up into the property. It just hit the corner, it does not go any further than the corner. One of the points that we brought out at the last meeting was the ownership, when Mr. Wood was here, of Miller owning both lots. Once he owned both lots they then merged together as one lot and now cannot be separated back into 2 lots. Mr. Wood ans- wered at that time that it is an illegal subdivision, therefore, based on the illegal subdivision we cannot grant any variance of any kind on that. I am even wondering why this is back on the agenda from that point of view. Mr. Levitan stated, that is not correct because even though it was on the same deed it still has always been a separate property. Here is a copy of the deed (on file) which shows parcel 1 and Parcel 2. There was never a merger. Mr. Urciuoli stated, when the same persons owns both of the lots it is automatically, it becomes one lot. Mrs. Levitan asked, the how can a person sell it? Mr. Urciuoli stated, that is what our Attorney told us at the last meeting. It was an illegal subdivision and should not have been sold as a separate lot. Mr. Levitan stated, when I spoke to the Zoning Administrator he didn't bring un any question about that. NO. Urciuoli stated, the Zoning Administrator is not going to have that information privy to him, he is not going to know. Mr. Levenson stated, it is not the Zoning Administrators purview to interpret deeds. Mr. Urciuoli stated, exactly, that is one of the reasons you hired your attorney in buying a piece of property and a title company. Mr. Levitan stated, neither my Attorney or the title company brought up anything that suggested that this constituted an illegal subdivision. *ftw Mr. Cortellino stated, when Ms. Kraemer was here earlier, my first question to her was, did you tell your lawyer what you wished to do with the property. It is the lawyers duty to look into restrictions, obstacles, and the Zoning Ordinance that you could do whatever you do. In her case, for her to subdivide she needs a road up to Town specs. You don't need it, I am bringing it up as an example of what the Attorney's should review. Mr. Levitan asked, are you trying to tell me that if I buy 2 lots right next to each other automatically they become one lot? Mr. Urciuoli stated, if they are non -conforming then they become one lot and these were non -conforming lots. Mr. Cortellino stated, if you are the owner of 2 - 3/4 acre lots in a one acre zone you are the owner of a 1 1/2 acre lot. Mr. Urciuoli added, and if you have 2 deeds on it. Mrs. Levitan stated, what he was saying before is that we had a right to build on it and it sounds like what you are saying is we don't. Mr. Urciuoli stated, when we found out with our Attorney here at the last meeting, and maybe Dave you got a little worked up and you didn't.-. quite hear what the Attorney was saying and never let us quite finish when we were talking, I gave you the courtesy of reading your letter, just let me finish, we will see what we can do to help work it out for you but some of this stuff is beyond our control at this point. If you have non -conforming lots and the same party owns them both, as Mr. Cortellino stated, they become a single lot and what Mr. Wood stated that if that is the case in which he felt in reading the deed was the case that it was an illegal subdivision and we can't grant any variance of any type. What we also asked, and this is a little part that I am trying to get through is that Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Wood that we wanted to know if in fact these were 2 lots or not. We asked him to search it out and see if there is really a separate lot or a single lot meaning both lots being a single lot. Next we asked him to give us some direction as to what our position would be. The access to the lot, water, and where we stand as to whether or not a variance could be granted and the problem of the drainage and that is what we asked Mr. Wood to input to us for this meeting and that is what I thought we were going to see something and I guess we don't have anything. I am read- ing from the minutes of the last meeting. Mr. Levitan stated, what happened was I was confused or I didn't understand that I was on the agenda for the last meeting and I wasn't here. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it is extremely important for us to get the input from the Attorney as to where we stand because we can't act at lw� all if we are going to act illegally. %Wpw -14- Mr. Levenson asked, was Mr. Wood asked or was it transmitted to him all the deeds that we in question? Mr. Urciuoli stated, we had the file here, we went through the file with him. Mr. Levenson stated, I think you have another question, Mr. Chairman, to address is I have a letter in our file from Mr. Ruff who is the public health engineer that there was supposed to be a meeting on November 12th with regards to this lot that was rescinded of the Health Dept. approval. We have no answer as to what happened at that meeting. Also, in my notes to you on November 24th I asked 3 questions which is the normal 3 ouestions that and Zoning Administrator would ask before we can go any further. Mr. Urciuoli stated, we read those into the Minutes and that is a matter of record of the last months file. The second letter regarding the Health Dept. I don't have a copy of that. Mr. Levitan asked, so what you are saying is this constitutes a flaw in the title and I don't really have title for this property? %= Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not saying that. Mr. Levitan stated, an illegal subdivision doesn't that constitute a flaw in the title? Mr. Hirkala stated, this Board can't make a determination that your title is wrong. Mr. Levenson stated, my suggestion is that we get something in writing from Mr. Wood and my comment with regard to the title company is the title companies have been known to make errors. I think we should wait for Mr. Wood's letter to come in and have Mr. Levitan talk to his law- yer and discuss Mr. Wood's opinion. Mrs. Levitan stated, as far as the Board of Health approval we have reached an agreement. As long as we do certain things. Mr. Levitan stated, at that meeting that Mr. Levenson was talking about my engineer and the Towns' engineer sort of came up with an idea of a plan and asked to do some more work to finish it but I would like to get this matter resolved before I spend that money. Mr. Levenson stated, I will talk to Mr. Wood tomorrow, I have a noon time appointment with him and I will ask him to immediately address this and send us a letter and then I will send a copy to Mr. Levitan as soon as we get it. Mr. Levitan stated, what you are telling me is either my lawyer made a mistake or that the title company made a mistake and that if the lawyer 11MW -15- made the mistake then I would have to sue my lawyer and if it is the title company then I would have to sue the title company? Mr. Cortellino answered, we are not sure that is why we are going to our lawyer. Mr. Urciuoli stated, quite frankly we wouldn't be able to tell you and I wouldn't recommend that you go an sue anybody on our say so. Mr. Cortellino stated, when our Attorney advises us, if our attorney says that we cannot consider this because it was an illegal sale and we deny you for that then you can take action against which ever party you feel is at fault. We don't know if it is legal or not and that is why we are going to our attorney for an interpretation. Mr. Levitan stated, so what you are telling me is what the 3 possibil- ities are, you are going to grant me the variance, or that my lawyer was at fault, or that the title company is at fault. Mr. Cortellino stated, we may also deny you the variance. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't know the rules and the guidelines as to what the title company is actually searching, some people tell me the title companies search just to find out if there are leans on the property and that is all they do. They are not actually searching the boundaries and to certify that it is buildable, they are not certifying that it is a legal lot. They are just certifying the fact of, you would have to read your title contract from them to see what services they are actually providing for you. The only statement that we can make to you is according to what Mr. Wood our Attorney told us at the last meeting when he read through the deeds that we provided, and maybe he didn't have every page of every deed that he looked at 2 non- conforming lots that were owned by the same persons which makes it one lot, therefore, one of the lots cannot be sold off. If that possibil- ity exists then we cannot grant you a variance, irregardless of what the reasons are for wanting the variance. Our hands are tied. What your recourse is of that matter I would have to tell you to consult another attorney or your attorney. I couldn't tell you what to do at that point. The first thing we would need to know is whether or not it is a legal lot so that we can go to our next step. We also had the point of addressing being in the water district, there were alot of other concerns that we were addressing at that time when we got thrown a curve by our attorney. Mr. Levenson stated, I recommend that this matter be held over for a legal opinion from the Town Attorney of the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino made that motion. %Iftr Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried,, NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Ur"c::!.uo.l.i read the next i'i.:.em (I)Appeal #1019, at the request of Fet_er_••Tomasi,c., seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S422, P6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordi- nance to allow an automotive repair business as was in existence by the prior owner on property located on 15 Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-549955, in the Town of Wappinger. f , present. Peter r�f..:li�1:::t Sii: :l. C:: .1 t )l::i C�I .I. C.I Hopewell C:).a FSi'!°d .I. F'l C]r�C� t•J....S No,r:_ t ! '' �asked, : a CHerb, my understanding was that there ,as ' Special M•.",. I....eVr_.;,nson answered, yes there was a SUP and it was granted to Schwing America. They moved out of tI'1at. building :i3.nd r_f'rl'I".ed the buil ... ding ne;;t. door. We looked at: the site plan approval on that: from t:.he;:' Planning . k 7 cr cand we find there -ita been n n changes in , h wcu iirr - g :�a.t: all and it was feeling i. ng t:ha..: we could use this mai.. because ..t,E:::•r-e .. our t r-• � F� r..a 7 c. •i- c_ i .� c c.. i" � were no changes. What we :=dr -e trying. basicall`r to do is save t: he':::te good people some money. MI.. +...ir-c i. uc.:?l i. stated, it is my understanding that. like a variance a SUPruns�:..ai. h the 1. :and and not. with the r_7wner-•... stated,I1r. Levenson a SUP will run with the lessee or the owner of the mraperty. in this case the lessee. Mr. i..., i r" I a I. Ea. stated, c., C:: h a v n g got. a SUP and they left so it is over. Mr. Levenson stated, :=f .a SUP does not go on forever and i -ver., It ends. The i e:•? (. j n . y thing thatgoes o n for ever is a land variance. Mr. Ur'C: ]. ! ro 1. i asked, was this s f.•: ve?r operated as an automotive? shop',' Mr. n t.:{r"L'oR•;e:?1'' stated, it !°da?:i %.7. e:? c".tr"' . Mr. Levenson stated, what: you l"1c:1ve really is a. lessen sen off• environmental. problems here. Mr:.. Hirk;_a.la stated, 1 would 11.ke to see s1ome improvements as to t:he:..,:, I don't see anything here for oil storage. ra r,.. n .!_ r-, m a s ;. c::: stated, t: want to store in 2 - • ,... gallon tank::::, above the ground or in the ground. `wMr. Hirkala stated, this will be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Brooker asked, how about if he washes down the area after he does a job he has gas and oil on the floor what is going to happen to the drainage? Mr. Levitan stated, we will make it so it goes into the oil drain pit. Mr. Hirkala stated, and I might also point out that the fact that I just recently found out that the injection into ground water is con- trolled by the EPA. Mr. Levenson stated, the Planning Board would take the EPA standard and put it in their granting of the site. Mr. Tomasic stated, if we get a spill on the floor we use the speedy. Mr. Hirkala stated, when you wash a vehicle the ..... Mr. Tomasic stated, we will not wash vehicles. Mr. Hirkala asked, you are not going to wash the floor? Mr. Tomasic answered, no, we are going to sweep the floor. Mr. Levenson stated, the EPA rules that if he uses the absorbent he doesn't have to wash the floor. Mr. Hirkala stated, my primary concern is ground water contamination. Mr. Tomasic stated, I have worked in the automobile industry for 15 years and we never washed the floor. We used the sorbo, we sweep everyday. Mrs. Roe asked, where do you get rid of the sweepings? Mr. Hirkala asked, so what you are saying is you never wash any vehicles inside? Mr. Tomasic answered, no, absolutely not. It is not a car wash. You want to wash the car you go some place and wash the car. Strictly repair, tires, shocks, brakes. Mr. Brooker asked, how about if you have to steam clean an engine? Mr. Tomasic answered, I will not do that. I will not clean engines. Mr. Levenson stated, his comment to me was that he would not steam clean engines and he would take that as a condition. Mr. Brooker asked, if a guy comes into you with a dirty engine, say it is 5 or 6 years old and he has an oil leak you have to clean that engine down to find where the leak is coming from don't you? -18 - Mr. Tomasic answered, no, I will not get into that. Mr. Hirkala asked, what are you going to do with your spare parts, the used parts? Mr. Tomasic answered, all the old parts, if I need a water pump or shocks or anything I will take the old one to the junk yard, someone will pick it up. l will arrange with the people to pick it up. Mr. Hirkala stated, the used tires are going to have to be stored inside somewhere. Mr. Tomasic answered, the used tires will be picked up once a week, once every two weeks, however I arrange with the people. There will be no cars outside. I will only take as much work I can take a day. Mr. Hirkala stated, this is going to be referred to the Planning Board for a SUP review and site plan review. I am not sure they are going to want to take this plan, that is up to them. But, what I would like from you, personally, is in writing to deal with some of the questions that have been brought up. Submit to the Board for our final review, before we grant a SUP how you propose to deal with the oil with the floors, the used parts, and put that in as part of your application to us and that will be a part of the SUP when it is granted. This way if there are any violations you said you were going to do this. Mr. Tomasic stated, I will be operating from 8 in the morning to 6 in the evening, 6 days a week, and on Saturday from 8 to 5. Mr. Urciuoli asked, you will be the only one working in the shop? Mr. Tomasic answered, I will have 4 or 5 people. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to refer this application to the Planning Board. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli stated that they will not go back to Appeal 01018 at the request of Francis & Jeanne Sharkey. Francis & Jeanne Sharkey was present. NOW Mr. Uricuoli asked Mr. Levenson, the question that we had earlier, the primary concern is the lack of a detailed drawing to know exactly where the sideline setback lies, what the dimensions are, rearyard, sideyard, -19 - whether the width of the garage is 16 feet or 14 feet. Mr. Levenson stated, that will come out in the building permit. The variance requested is an 8 foot variance. Mr. Hirkala stated, I disagree with that, I think he could do less. The thing I have in front of me says, one says 14 x 32 and the other says 16 feet. Mr. Urciuoli stated, what I asked is whether there is a survey of the property. I asked him if he had one. Mrs. Sharkey stated, it was surveyed when the person who owned this, all the lots are now subdivided. Mr. Levenson stated, say that you decided to grant a variance, you could grant a variance subject to the garage being no closer to the lot line than 12 feet, the carport. Mr. Hirkala stated, this short EAF says the amount of land effected is 16 x 30. That is another dimension. Mr. Brooker stated, you do have a 2 car garage even though you use it to store your mowers in and everything else. Mrs. Sharkey stated, we can only use one. I guess the fireplace comes in part of the garage. Mr. Sharkey stated, they call it a 2 car garage but I have a big Chevy and if I put the car in I wouldn't be able to shut the door because there is that much sticks out. Mrs. Sharkey stated, there is a room on the other side Mr. Sharkey stated, when they put the fireplace in the house it sticks into the garage so actually they call it a 2 car garage so I use one side to store my lawnmowers because you can't put 2 cars in there. to, Urciuoli stated, if you put up a carport for a one car carport there wouldn't be a need for a variance. Mr. Levenson stated, you have the right to discuss alternatives. Mr. Urciuoli stated, my concern was that when you operate with a survey you know what your sideyard setbacks are. Mr. Cortellino asked, how deep is your house? Mr. Sharkey answered, 32 feet, the garage is 32 feet long on the side of my house. But there is a den in the back of the house. -20 - Mr. Urciuoli stated, in that room that is behind the garage there is a fireplace, the fireplace sticks out into the garage, therefore, the cars in one sense don't fit in. Mr. Cortellino stated, since there is 32 feet, that is alot of dis- tance. They could play railroad. Give just enough width for one car and it could run the length of the house. Mr. Sharkey stated, I want it wide enough to cover my car. Mr. Hirkala stated, anywhere where you go in this Town the ordinance specifically states there will be a 10 foot parking space. If we go to a minimum variance how do we know it is enough. We can say, well he wants 8 feet so we can say, well we are going to give you 4 feet, we are going to chop 4 feet off your request. That might put you down to the point where you have 8 foot because we don't know the exact dis- tance from your property line to the house. Mrs. Roe asked, from the side of your house to the property line do you know the exact distance? Ow Mr. Sharkey answered, 28 feet there now. By the time I put my carport up I had 12 feet to the property line. Mr. Hirkala asked, with the carport being how big? Mr. Sharkey answered, 16 feet. Mr. Levenson stated, the statute says that each parking spaces shall be 10 foot wide, unenclosed. If that is the case then if he wants to put a carport up then he can put a carport up and the width should be 12 or 13 feet. 12 foot gives you a 6 foot variance. Mr. Hirkala stated, 12 foot you are lookinq at a 4 foot variance. Mr. Sharkey stated, my property runs, one side is longer than the other. It sits on an angle. Mr. Levenson stated, I think you are safe in saying that Mr. Sharkey could build the carport not closer than 16 feet. Mr. Jrciuoli asked, but how does he still know where his property line is? Mr. Hirkala stated, that is why I asked if the Building Inspector will require a survey because he can build that thing out 12 feet. *4W Mr. Levenson stated, when he puts the pipes in we can go out and mea- sure it. Mr. Hirkala asked, how are you going to know where the line is unless ou shoot ii Mr. Sharkey stated, there are pipes in the ground in the back of the house and there is a pipe in the ground in the front of the house. Mr. Levenson asked, are there any other makers that you know of? Mr. Sharkey answered, all the trees are marked in white on the property iine. Mr. Hirkala asked, have you actually stretched that from pipe to pipe and measured it out? Mr. Sharkey answered, yes, I put a string through there. Mr. Hirkala asked, and what is the closest point? Mr. Sharkey answered, he said it would be better to shoot for an 8 foot variance because he doesn't think we will need 8 but it is better to have more than you need. Mr. Hirkala stated, we can't grant variances that way. W. Levenson asked, are you telling me that there are 2 pipe marks on either end of the lot? Mr. Sharkey answered, yes. Mr. Hirkala asked, how is 4 feet? According to his figures that would give him s 12 foot carport. Mr. Levenson asked, in other words the overhang cannot be any wider than l2 feet? Mr. Cortellino stated, that is correct. Mr. Hirkala stated, I will make a motion for a variance of 4 feet with an unenclosed, forever, carport. The overhang will not be any closer than 12 feet to the property line. Mr. Cortellino stated, and make the overhang 12 feet. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close this appeal. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. cm Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, Linda Berberich, Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals