Loading...
1987-11-24ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL NOVEMBER 24TH, 1987 - 7:30 P.M. MIDDLEBUSH ROAD AGENDA WAPp. FALLS, N.Y. MINUTES: 1. Vote on the Minutes of the October 27th, 1987 Meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1013, at the request of D����_&_������_L��{����, seeking a variance of Article IV, S412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit on a lot which does not have legal road frontage on a Town Road on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-894596, in the Town of Wap- pinger. 2. 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #10121 at the request of M,D,, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S421, P5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to operate a medical office on property located on Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-532917, in the Town �� of Wappinger. THE3Ex81�WTESHAVENOTBEEN -- �0 OR SUBMITTED , �EV\���� � = ' wx �� DEC� � �� App��������E: "~~� OON\NGBOARD OF APPEALS MING BWD OF APPLALS n/ [ PLANNING BOARD "aw ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL"MMGBO�" TOWN HALL NOVEMBER 24TH, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. MIDDLEBUSH ROAD . FALLS, N.Y.APPMINUTES , The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 24th, 1987 at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Urciuoli, Chairman Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala Mr. Brooker Mrs. Roe OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mr. Tom Wood, Attorney to the Town The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M.. Mr. Urciuoli explained how the meeting would be conducted. Mr. Urciuoli stated that he would like to welcome Mr. Wood, the Attor- ney to the Town to the meeting. MINUTES: Mr. Urciuoli asked for a motion to accept the Minutes of the October 27th, 1987 meeting. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Brooker - aye Mrs. Roe - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mr. Urciuoli read the first item-.- Appeal tem:Appeal #1014, at the request of Steven _&_ Sail _Weber, seeking a variance of Article IV, S421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 foot variance where 10 foot 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. Steven Weber, 6 Flintrock Road was present. wAW Mr. Weber stated, I have brought with me several things, and I have made copies for the Board. First isa copy of a letter I sent to Mr. Saccurato who had expressed some concerns with the variance that I am seeking. (Letter on File) It is the neighbor not near the pool but it IWW -2--- is 2_ is the neighbor who had sent the letter and what I did was I submitted this letter to him along with a copy of the map so that he would see exactly what I was interested in doing and he was kind enough to send back his reply and retract any objections to my pool. I then reviewed the reasons that the variance could be granted and under an area var- iance along the line of practical difficulty presented by moving the pool to another location as was suggested I asked for a survey and this is from the pool people. Mr. Urciuoli asked that the letters be filed as follows: A. Letter to Mr. Saccurato from Mr. Weber dated 10/31/87 which is on file. B. Letter to Mr. Weber from Mr. Saccurato dated 10/31/87 which is on file. C. Letter from Fanta Sea Pool to Mr. Weber dated 11/5/87 which is on file. Mr. Weber continued, and the consideration of the objections raised by the pool company with regard to the rocks and roots and his concern for an improper installation should I place it in the upper level I request the variance be granted. Mr. Urciuoli stated, your letter from the pool company really doesn't state any of the particulars. He is merely saying that it appears that there is a considerable amount of rock. He doesn't no for a fact that there is. Mr. Weber stated, according to the requirements for area variance it states here that Appeals Board must grant relief if the applicant can demonstrate that strict compliance would cause practical difficulty and I think that it is his opinion that with the considerable rock and roots it is his opinion that if we put the pool there it would be an unnecessary expense and could result in improper installation and I feel that that meets the requirement. Mr. Cortellino stated, number one, it does not address whether there is rock in the location that you want it. Mr. Weber stated, he states that he feels that that original.... Mr. Hirkala stated, that does not meet requirement, that is his interpretation. Mr. Weber stated, let me just put it this way, if I don't meet the requirements and you people turn me down then you have to do that and then I will have to take whatever action I can do to put it where I want to put it. I feel that this meets the requirement. This is a very minimal variance I am asking for. It is for a 3 foot variance. I have no objections from my neighbors. It will have no impact on any- body in the entire neighborhood and it is a minimal variation that I am asking for. It will allow me to put the pool in the best location suited on my property. Now, I can't tell you people what to do, I just feel that I have met the requirements of the area variance with this letter from the pool installers. Now, if it doesn't meet your requi- rements you have to say so and then I have to take whatever action that is necessary to do what I want to do. I think it is very clear here that it instructs the Board to take into consideration how major a variance I am asking for. I am asking for a minimal variation of 3 feet which has no impact on any of my neighbors or the environment or anything else except my personal property. Mr. Cortellino stated, I probably think that a letter where someone states his opinion that it is not back up with soil borings or any- thing like that. Mr. Weber stated, if that is what you are going to require then you will have to turn me down and then when I have expenses I will do what I have to do. Mr. Hirkala stated, Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with this applicant interrupting a member of the Board talking. I would appreciate it if statements could be made. Mr. Cortel]ino stated, like I said, without soil borings this is an opinion. He is not a ground, if you wish to use the word "surveyor". I don't have my maps of Dutchess County with me that shows the strata but we have no evidence of what is that soil or that ground. If there is strata does it continue to where the pool is supposed to go. In addition, the fact that there is roots is not cause for a use variance. That is not, lets say a natural phenomenon that creates a great diffi- culty. Mr. Brooker stated, what seems to bother me is the law requires 10 foot and when you grant a variance of 3 foot you start to set a precedent upon precedent here granting 3 foot variances when it is not a hard- ship. Mr. Cortellino stated, in addition, there is the alternative of a smaller pool. He is not being deprived of a pool. The question becomes not whether he needs that bigger pool but would another pool be suitable. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the other issue that we have to talk about is there is an alternative site. I assume as far as the board is con- cerned, based on our site inspection, which is done I am sure at the same expertise that Mr. Sullivan did on walking on your property, there are alternative areas where we don't have to grant the variance for the pool being installed. Like Mr. Cortellino stated, a smaller pool, and I think the other point to is that we are talking about an above the ground pool so I don't know how much rock on the top is really that has to be an obstruction to the pool construction. Also, I have a note from the Zoning Administrator is that this applicant, this application is being made on the esthetic requirements of the applicant. I recom- mend it be placed in a place where no variance is required thus satis- fying the alternative requirement that if no other location is avail- able and no variance is required then that is where the swimming pool should go. (Letter on File) Mr. Hirkala stated, I haven't heard anything as far as the applicant being deprived of reasonable use of his property. There are many, many alternatives other than what he is asking for in the variance and I have seen no proof from the test of practical difficulty as stated in the law. Bob Ianelli, Attorney for the applicant. Mr. Ianelli stated, I have come a little late and I have just picked up a few of the comments that the Board has made relative to this appli- cation and I am not incorrect as being looked at some what unfavorably with respect to this setback. The basis here of the comments of the Board is that if I have this right that it is not an undo hardship to place this thing within the confines of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. Is that correct? Mr. Cortellino answered, under our definition of undo hardship. A ^w� legal definition of undo hardship not a personal feeling of undo hard- ship. Mr. Urciuoli stated, it may result in some additional cost because there may be trees or other, unless Mr. Weber can come in and give us some sort of documentation that says it is going to cost an additional "X" amount of dollars, I can't put a figure on what the Board would accept to remove the rock and to do all this other work, fine, but as far as we are concerned with the variance it seems to be a trivial point but it is a major point for the variance that there are other. We did do a site inspection on that property, the whole Board on a particular Saturday several months ago and the Board felt that there were other locations for the pool, granted that may be the best loca- tion but it requires a variance and that is really not what we are here to give. Mr. Ianelli stated, I had recommended to my client to contract Fanta Sea upon his recommendation make a presentation to the Board based on what he had said. I understand it to be that there is a problem or difficulty in locating it at that particular spot. Mr. Weber stated, he didn't give me cost he just felt that even with the cost it may result in improper installation because of rock and roots. Mr.difficulty Hirkala stated, if the contractor feels that there is a in placing the pool in the location that is in compliance with the ordinance then he has to come before this Board with engineering facts and figures and we are going to have the engineering facts and figures 4-M ..-5-- proven 5_ proven at the expense of the applicant and this is going to be the mode of operation of this Board as far as I am concerned. This is all within the laws of the State of New York. Mr. Cortellino stated, and that data would have to be turned over to our engineer for verification. Mr. Hirkala stated, and I have seen no significant economic injury presented here. All we are having is a man wishes to put a pool in his yard. Fine, I don't consider if a significant economic injury for him to put a pool that is 2 feet smaller. I don't think any court in the land that is going to see that as a significant economic injury either. Mr. Ianelli stated, based on that, based on the remarks of the Board I would just ask that this matter be placed, perhaps over one month to give me enough time to speak to my client relative to what action he wants to take and without having something final tonight. Is that possible? Can that be done? The Board stated that that would be alright. Mr. Weber asked, even if I get a engineering report on site and he tells me it is going to cost me $10,000, twice the cost of the pool if I put it in the upper section it is my understanding that you are not evening going to approve it because you would expect me then to just put a smaller pool in, is that correct? That seems to be the jest I am getting that if I go out and I spend $5,000 for a survey and he tells me that it would be another $5,000 to put it in the feeling I am getting is that it wouldn't make any difference in the world because you people would say then that I should put in a smaller pool, is that correct? Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is that you have brought your Attorney before this meeting tonight. It is up to your attorney to explain to you the meaning of significant economic injury as stated.... Mr. Weber stated, that is not the question. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is my answer. Mr. Weber stated, Mr. Chairman, may I have an answer from the Board on that question? Mr. Urciuoli answered, I don't feel that it is something that we should comment on prior to you presenting it to us because... Mr. Weber stated, so I should have the expense of having a survey... Mr. Uri cuoli stated, do you want me to finish answering the question or do you want to just assume the answer? Mr. Weber stated, I am trying to find out if I go to the expense, it is a very simple question, if I go to the expense of having a survey and they tell me that it is going to put double the cost of the pool, which I think everybody would admit would be a severe economic injury if I put the pool in the upper section my question is then would the Board consider me being able to get a variance. I am not saying would you grant it, but would it be considered or would you then feel that that doesn't matter because a smaller pool could be placed? Mr. Urciuoli asked, is the 3 feet worth it to you? Mr. Weber stated, the pool would have to go down about 8 feet so it is not a minimal change it is not like 3 feet for 3 feet. This company make pools a particular size. Mr. Hirkala stated, Mr. Chairman, this applicant specifically asked whether or not we would consider the application and we have to con- sider the application. It is his right. Mr. Urciuoli stated, to say our decision would be based on those facts I can't tell you now. Mr. Ianelli stated, I appreciate the Boards' consideration that you put it over to about 30 days and then I will have a chance to speak to my client and decide what course we should take. Mr. Urciuoli stated that the next meeting is December 22nd, 1987. Mr. Brooker made a motion to table this application until the meeting of December 22nd, 1987. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli called for a break. The break was called at 7:30 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 7:35 P.M.. Mr. Urciuoli read the next item: Appeal #1013, at the request of P9Yid_&_§9999A9Yit@% seeking a var- iance of Article IV, E412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit on a lot which does not AW 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. There was was no one present. Mr. Brooker stated, after looking this over, following the recommenda- tions laid out by the Zoning Administrator on this "C" point I would like to make this part of the motion. The Board referred to a letter from the Zoning Administrator dated 11/24/87 to the Zoning Board. Mr. Urciuoli stated, in view of his letter received and the comments that Mr. Levenson has made stating that there should be no variance granted of any type for the applicant until the following requirements are complied with. (Letter on File) Mr. Wood stated, if would be my impression on the deed of Russ to Wil- liford contains more than just that vacant property because it makes reference subject to a mortgage from Ulster Savings Bank for $23,648.11 which I don't think that Ulster would get into on a vacant lot of that amount in that year in 1975 so when we do check the metes and bounds it must include something else other than that property. Mr. Urciuoli asked, if we find, however it works out, that Miller owns both lots, they were merged together and now become, as far as Town Law or Ordinances concerned a single lot and not 2 separate lots anymore but has since sold off a lot. Mr. Wood answered, that is an illegal subdivision, therefore, you couldn't grant them any variance for that lot. Mr. Hirkala stated to Mr. Wood, I think what we need from you is to know whether or not there really is 2 lots. Search it out and see if there is really a separate lot. Next, 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 the variance we grant has to do with the drainage problems. Mr. Cortellino stated, and whether there is an easement. Mr. Wood stated, there appears to be from what he submitted. Mr. Urciuoli stated, but it only goes to the first lot. Mr. Hirkala stated, and there are other houses back there. Mr. Brooker made a motion to table the public hearing until the Decem- ber 22nd, 1987 meeting. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. �� Vote: All ayes The motion motion was carried. The Board asked that a copy of the memo from Mr. Levenson be sent to Mr. Levitan. Mr. Urciuoli read the next appeal: Appeal #1012 at the request of R�t��_J����g����_M�D�_�_St��[lh��[l_Ch��, seek- ing a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S421, P5 of the Town of Wap- pinger Zoning Ordinance to operate a medical office on property located on Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-532917, in the Town of Wap- pinger. There was no one present. Mr. Cortellino stated, there is no information to make a study judge- ment and I move that this be denied. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, ' ` � Y ( Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals lb