The URL can be used to link to this page

1987-10-27ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 27TH, 1987 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPP. FALLS, N.Y. MINUTEA 1. Vote on the Minutes of the September 22nd, 1987 meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #1013, at the request of D��id_&_S��_L��t��, 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�i�_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. UNFINISHED_BUSINEW. 1. Appeal 01010, at the request of John Vorndran, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, S430 & 450 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning 400 Ordinance to allow for an extension of the time between construction on a lot which has had a Special Use Permit on property located on Old Al� Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6257-02-950772, in the Town of Wap' pinger. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #1012, at the request of Ritarmit_J�-of Ch@p,1M,D,, seeking a Special Use PeArticle IV, S421, P5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to operate a medical office on prop- erty located on Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-532917, in the Town of Wappinger. In ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 27TH, 1987 — 7:00 P.M. MINUTES THESE MINUTES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO, REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE: &(ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 0 PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPp. FALLS, N.Y. The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 27th, 1987, at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, N.Y., beginning at 7:30 P.M.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. George Urciouli Mr. Michael Hirkala MEMBERS ABSENT: Mrs. Alberta Roe OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mr. Charles Cortellino Mr. James Brooker The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Urciuoli explained how the meeting would be conducted. MINUTES: Vote on the Minutes of the September 22nd, 1987 Meeting. Mr. Brooker made a motion to accept the Minutes. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes The motion was carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Mr. Urciouli read the first item: David Levitan and Ed Murtaugh, Attorney were present. Mr. Urciuoli asked if all the cards had been returned and Ms. Berberich answered that they all were. Mr. Levitan presented the Board with a map with the topo of the ROW. Mr. Cortellino asked, didn't we ask who owned the other lots. Mr. Levitan stated that he had the names. Mr. Cortellino stated that they wanted to know who the owners were. L cm -2- Mr. Hirkala asked, what you are saying is 931655 has a house on it? Mr. Levitan answered, yes it does. Mr. Murtaugh stated, the next one is 901643 which is owned by Alvares which also has a house on it which also uses the ROW. The one below that is Galletti and he owns the ones across from it, and then the next one down is 596 is the one in question, Levitan. The one in front is Miller, that is the 573. Mr. Hirkala stated, what I would like to see on file with this appli- cation for a variance, which is what I asked for at the workshop ses- sion, a map presented to the Town Board that has the names of the People who own the pieces of property. The reason I want that is so that whatever happens with this particular application and anytime in the future we know that any property has changed hands in there because what we don't want to see is speculation to the point where people are speculating with lots on private roads. Mr. Cortellino asked, is there a house on that first lot which uses the side road? Mr. Levitan answered, yes there is. Mr. Murtaugh stated, in the chain of title the ROW that we are discus- sing was created in 1952. Mr. Cortellino asked, by whom? Mr. Murtaugh answered, Dorothy Dunbar Walker, also know as Dorothy Dun- bar Bromley. That was October 10th, 1952. Mr. Cortellino asked, what I am interested in is what Mr. Hirkala is interested in. In other words, if it occurred in 1952 that Bromley and/or Walker was subdivided, that was legal at that time but we don't know what occurred since 1963 when these other lots would be sold. For- instance, orinstance, Galletti has these 3 acres and I presume that is acre zoning so he can come in for a 3 acre subdivision. Mr. Levitan stated, when I was about to buy the property and I spoke to the Zoning Administrator at that time, Mr. Gunderud, and he told me that Galletti had wanted to subdivide that and basically he told him that if he wanted to subdivide that he would have to put in an approved road. Then he told me on this property, I bought the Miller's he told me that there should be no problem in getting a use variance on this property. Mr. Murtaugh stated, this was not created recently, it was created in 1952 and prior to the time of zoning ordinance. Mr. Hirkala asked, that ROW goes all the way up here and to the left? Mr. Murtauqh answered, yes Mr. Levitan stated, this is why Galletti issued a different ROW to clarify it. Mr. Hirkala asked, what do you mean. Mr. Murtaugh answered, metes and bounds description. Mr. Hirkala asked, so what we are talking about is in the back past your lot there are 2 houses presently? Mr. Levitan answered, yes. Mr. Cortellino asked, I don't doubt that the ROW exists, I just can't figure it out from this. There is no latitude or longitude shown, but, the thing that interests me is, perhaps that .99 acres refers to the easement. Mr. Murtaugh stated, no, the .99 acres...... Mr. Cortellino stated. refers to the land that Bromley owned? Mr. Murtaugh answered, yes, at that time she did and she conveyed it and that ultimately became this particular parcel. Mr. Cortellino stated, now the part that becomes confusing is I don't see how this ROW goes all the way up. Let say she owned the Miller lot, it says 1.2 acres, and that is the ROW, now how did the ROW get extended? I don't see an easement. Mr. Murtaugh stated, well, if you look at this it goes well up into this parcel. Mr. Urciuoli stated, just because they use it doesn't mean that the ROW exists. Mr. Murtaugh stated, well I suspect that it is if they have been using it all these years. Mr. Hirkala asked, do you have any idea when those were built on? Mr. Murtaugh answered, no. Mr. Levitan stated, they are not new houses, put it that way. Mr. Urciuoli stated, it sounds like the ROW just goes to the Southern tip of your property as explained in the deed. I%W Mr. Murtaugh stated, there is one instrument here from Galletti giving a ROW to Miller 484 feet which in turn Miller gave to Levitan which went, 484 feet would go way up the end of his property. -4 - Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not about to put ourselves in the position where we are justifying something that doesn't exist now. Mr. Murtaugh stated, it exists. Mr. Cortellino stated, I understand what this says about the 484 feet, what I don't understand is how Miller could give the easements. Mr. Murtaugh stated, Miller got it from Galletti here. Mr. Cortellino stated, this date of December 1986 is when Galletti conveyed an easement to Miller, that is the illegal part. Mr. Murtaugh stated, first of all he has the one in 1952. Mr. Cortellino stated, that is the first inch. We agreed that the easement came up to the corner of 596. Now you presented the other paper from Galletti to Miller saying they have an easement of 400 feet and I am saying that that easement is dated 1986 which is after our zoning and therefore, they cannot give the easement. Mr. Murtaugh stated, he could give the easement to go over it, he still would have the problem of coming before you, if it is after Zoning, to get permission to use it. Mr. Cortellino stated, what Galletti is doing, there are house there already, with that 3 acres there with no house, and that one acre with no house, and giving that easement he is potentially subdividing that property without going through with a Town Road. Mr, Hirkala asked, I would like to know what year these lines were drawn. Mr. Cortellino answered, in 1986 he gave the easement to go up 400 feet, Galletti did. Mr. Levitan stated that for his property they were drawn in 1952. Mr. Murtaugh stated, the others, I don't know when they got it but they have been using it for some time. Those houses are not new houses. Mr. Urciuoli stated, we are not sure that there is a legal easement all the way up through the property. Mr. Murtaugh stated, that I don't know either, but we didn't think that was really crucial for this application because we do know there is an easement for his parcel from 1952. *"W Mr. Urciuoli stated, we want to know where the easement goes. Mr. Hirkala stated, these tax numbers are all higher than the ones on -5 - Lor Mare Court, yet, Lor Mare Court was just subdivided a couple years ago. Mr. Murtaugh read the ROW description from 1952. Mr. Hirkala stated, if you put a house in a normal subdivision that driveway has to be according to the code. Mr. Urciuoli stated, what we are looking at, whatever you want to call it, the ROW up to driveway specifications which has to support fire aparatus. The point is that in order for you to get to your property you are going from Myers Corners Road up to your ROW. You are going to have to convince the people in the front property that that road that they have been using, and they can use from now until whenever, in other words you are going to have a driveway that is in excess of 187 feet. All the people along that road, to the North that have already been using that driveway for a number of years are going to ride over the same road that you are going to have to bring up to Town specs. Mr. Levitan asked, first off you are assuming it won't meet Town specs the way it is, which I am not so sure is the case. Mr. Urciuoli answered, we don't know that I am just letting you know. Mr. Murtaugh stated, getting back to your first statement that the strict enforcement of the Zoning Law would prevent the use of this property. Mr. Urciuoli stated, all you have to do is bring it up to specs. Mr. Hirkala asked, who said strict enforcement of the code would pre- vent use of the property? Mr. Urciuoli stated, my opening statement. (Mr. Brooker had to leave the meeting.) Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not saying that he can't use the property. Mr. Murtaugh stated, no, if you strictly enforce the zoning law then you would be restricting his use of the property pretty drastically. Mr. Cortellino asked, by saying the driveway has to be up to Town specs? Mr. Murtaugh answered, no, I didn't say that. If that is the require- ment that is no problem. I am just talking about very strict enforce- ment of the zoning law would prevent him from using that. If you want him to bring it up to the standards for driveways, fine. Mr. Cortellino stated, we may consider the private road up to his lot -6 - as a driveway since it is not a Town Road it is a driveway. Mr. Urciuoli asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this application. First thing I would like to tell you was the Miller house is no longer owned by Miller it is Mrs. Shrinkle right here in the front row. I made some notes, I have a couple very strong concerns on not building that and my primary reason is the water. That lot is covered with water, any kind of rain it just holds it, it is swampy. I don't want that water backing up on my property because what is going to happen is my septic and leach fields are not going to work. We moved in June of 1985 and in the fall of 1986 Miller used to own that lot and they had some engineering work done on it and the engineer's name was Mr. Bar - dell and he did several tests and surveys and I talked to him on sev- eral occasions and one of the tests he did was he dug a hole, drilled a hole more or less and I looked back there and the hole was filled with water to the top. As soon as I saw that I asked Mr. Gardell, how can you build a house back here and his response was we are going to have to bring 5 feet of fill in to bring it up as high as yours. You are going to do that, what is that going to do to the water. You are going to push it back in my yard. He said, you are going to have to get some fill to. I just put $2,000 worth of dirt in that yard, not top soil, top fill and I am still not done. I still haven't seeded my whole yard. As soon as I heard that fact that I was going to be required to put fill because someone was going to build a house back there I called the Zoning Board, and I believe the guy I spoke to was Hans, Zoning Administrator, Mr. Urciouli asked, when did this happen? Mr. Greagor answered, last year, fall of 1986. Hans referred me to Jay Paggi so I called him up and I explained the situation, I said this guy wants to build a house back there. He has to put 5 feet of fill and it is going to push the water in my yard, he says they cannot do that. He told me that there was some kind of ordinance, they were not going to allow lots where fill was required, at least for that year. 2 houses down from me on that same side, he moved in the same year and just this spring of this year he had to re -dig his septic system because of the water problem and this is 2 years that that septic system went bad. It cost him $5,000. There was a discussion on the Lor Mare subdivision plat. Mr. Greagor stated, my concern is the water. If you look at the fifth house, when we first looked at that there was a small stream running through the back and that was our primary reason for not buying it. Also, in the spring of this year down to the end of this Lor Mare Court on the same side of the road the road washed out. There is alot of water that comes down from the back there. haww -7--- Mr. /_ Mr. Hirkala stated, in my opinion what has to be done is the engineer has to look at this and if the guy has a legal lot we have a hard time saying he can't build on it without buying it, but the problem is is that the engineer might want to look at this prior to us granting approval to build on it where some of what might have to be put into this lot to make it worth while building on it is....... Mr. Murtaugh stated, the issue before this Board is whether or not you are going to grant a variance for building a house on a private road. His question comes up in a different form. This is not the question that is before you. Mr. Levitan stated, this is a copy of the septic plan which has been to the Board of Health which has to be approved by the Town Engineer. It does call for 2 feet of fill, not 5 feet of fill. Mr. Hirkala stated, the State of New York specifically states, this is State Law specifically states that one person cannot drain water onto other persons property. If this property in its natural course is draining water on you, the Town in its subdivision approval for the Lor Mare should have handled that. Now, if it is not in its natural course draining water on you and something he does drains water on your pro- perty you have recourse and civil action against him. Mr. Cortellino stated, he has the right to build a house on his piece of property. Mr. Urciuoli stated, you can't stop him from putting a house on the property. If it costs him $20,000 more because of what the Board of Health requirements are today or the engineering requirements..... Mr. Greagor stated, I realize this but I want to make sure it is done properly because it is going to cost me money if it is not. Mr. Cortellino read from the Lor Mare Subdivision Map, "All lots in this development have the right to drain surface water over and through any other lot in this development." Mr. Cortellino stated to Mr. Greagor, any house in your development can put water across your property. Mr. Greagor stated, well, my house is the highest one, but what about the houses going behind me? They are not part of the subdivision. He has no right to drain water on my property. The other thing is, in order to get a C.O. on our house, it is no secret that this is a low spot and there is water back there, Reiger was required to dump running bank gravel to fill that back in, at least on our yard. Also, I know now I made a good dollar on my house but when I first bought it I thought it was a high price and I paid top dollar for it and what I was paying for also was a subdivision with a paved road and storm sewers which is the way it really should be done, now if you are going to let somebody build right behind me with a lesser requirement that doesn't sound right right to me. Mr. Cortellino stated, they had these lots before zoning came into effect. Mr. Hirkala stated, you explain to us how we can take 15 people and get them all together and say put all your property together and conform to the laws. It is impossible. It is against the law, we can't do that. These people have, there is a lot there that existed prior to zoning in the Town of Wappinger. Now if that lot existed prior to you buying it and you didn't know about it that is between you and your attorney. I am not trying to be nasty, I am just trying to explain the facts. This lot exists and these people have the right to use it, they have been paying taxes, whoever owns the lot, they have been paying taxes on it and they have a right to use it. Now what we can do in granting the variance set any conditions on the use of the lot and what we want to hear from you is if there is any impacts on you from that lot that maybe we could set a condition on there that might mitigate some of the impacts. That is the information that we want to get from the public. Mr. Greagor asked, has Board of Health approval been granted yet? Mr. Urciuoli answered, that is after this application. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is something that we have no control over. Mr. Urciouli stated, if your subdivision came before the Planning Board now, this was done 12 years ago, this whole subdivision would probably be handled alot differently today. His subdivision was done in 1952, that whole thing would have been handled alot differently. So, every- thing, we can't go back and say to the people who developed Lor Mare anymore than we can go back to the Millers or whoever who originally did this, it is something that the Town is stuck with it. He will have to meet the engineering requirements of today standards and the Board of Health standards. He may have to do some additional fill after perk tests and what not. On this easement that goes through the Miller property or whatever your names are now, are there any utilities over there? Mr. Levitan answered, yes. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I want to know if that easement that you have is a natural easement or a utility easement. I don't know how you can have a utility easement to allow, what kind of utility easement is it. Mr. Murtaugh answered, Central Hudson, Telephone Company. Mr. Hirkala stated, you are talking about a guy who have 1.2 acres and wants to put a house on it versus somebody who comes in with 100 acres or 50 acres and says, lets subdivide. That is a whole different ball game. Mr. Greagor stated, you can't reach that lot. Everytime somebody goes back there to engineer or survey it what they do is they park out in front of my house and knock on my door. Up to now I have always said yes. If I say no he is going to get there anyway. He parks out in the street in front of my house. Mr. Hirkala asked, why doesn't he use the ROW? Mr. Greagor answered, because that road is only about 9 feet wide. Number 2, you say it is dry, I tell you it is muddy because during the winter .... You couldn't fit a fire truck back there. Mr. Urciuoli stated, the Town Engineer is going to make sure that that road is brought up to Town specs. Mr. Cortellino stated, to the driveway specs, not the Town Road specs. Mr. Urciuoli asked if there was anyone else to wished to speak. Mr. Greagor asked, but what about the fact that it is a one lane road. You are going to have people coming in and out when more homes go back there. Mr. ||irkala stated, if it existed prior to zoning it is legal. That is the key. Mr. Greagor asked Mr. Levitan, are you planning on living in this house? Mr. Levitan answered, I was originally planning on building it to live in the house. We decided we are going to move so I am not planning on it. There seems to be alot of bearing on when the lot was subdivided. When I purchased that house in the front this piece of land in question was subdivided from my piece of land. It was divided in half. I got a survey dated 1982 which didn't show the subdivision. The lot in front that faces Myers Corners. Mr. Hirkala asked, when did you buy that property? Mr. Gchrinkel answered, in June of 1987. I had a survey, I got a copy of the survey from Peter Hustis that did not show this subdivision line dated 1982 and it seemed that Home Equity hadn't caught up with it either because they sold me the entire 2 and a half acres. I am saying it was subdivided after 1982 by Miller. It was redone again and sub- divided after 1982. Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words what you are saying is in 1982 this was over 2 and a half acres and you bought this in 1986 and it was -10 - subdivided after. Mr. Schrinkel stated, it was subdivided around December of 1986 as far as I can tell because Home Equity had sold me the house with the 2 and a half acres and then of course if I wanted to take them to court, fine. So I backed down and went with the 1 and a quarter acres. In my sales contract there was a verbal description of the entire boundaries of the 2 and a half acres, also not showing the subdivision. Mr. Cortellino stated, what he is saying is that that other lot was created after he bought his house. Mr. Schrinkel stated, and not in 1952. Mr. Murtaugh stated, I think I can tell you simply what happened. When Miller bought it in 1984 there were 2 parcels, parcel 1 and parcel 2 and then they had a survey description which put it all together and that was what he is talking about. It says it is further described by more recent survey as follow, and that included 2 and a half acres. So what happened was it was always 2 parcels, but for some reason when Miller bought it, now the banks require a survey, it was surveyed and whoever surveyed it put it all as one parcel for description for the mortgage purposes. Mr. HIrkala stated, I make a motion we move this over to the Attorney for verification from him that there is a legal lot there. Mr. Urciuoli suggested it be moved to the workshop. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal until the next scheduled workshop and request the Attorney to the Town to be there. Mr. Urciouli seconded the motion. Vote-, Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. HIrkala - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. The Board asked for the Zoning Administrator to go out and do a site- inspection iteinspection of the road to see what the condition is. Mr. HirkaIa stated, I move to adjourn the public hearing until the next meeting. Mr. Urciouli seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Brooker - aye -11 - The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli read the next item: Ap.pe!;�lA1014�_��t_tbg_[qqqest_ofSteven _&_GaiJ_Webe[.,_!ipqking_L�_y�!ri- ��pqe_gf_Ar.ti�I.e_IV,_S421_gf_the_Tgwn_gf_WappinggE:_3going_Ordinance_to a! lgw_a_3_fgot _yar.ia[lqe_whe[e_�0_f eet-As...reqUired_for_an_above_grgund Qggl_gp_prgQq[ty_located _gn_6_Flintrgck_Rgad_,_��d_��ing_Parcel _#6256_�� 02-639756�_ip_the_Town _of_Wappi[lgg!:.L Steven Weber was present. Mr. Weber stated, I spoke to Mr. Levenson and he had put a stake in where he felt appropriate for the pool. The only issue that I wanted to clarify and I called him about it, whether there was some confusion with 2 property maps that I was given by the same surveyor which you have copies of both. Basically, the problem that I ran into was that the original plan showed 23 feet from the corner of my house to the edge of my property and the fence which you saw up was put up by a fence builder using those specs. However, with the updated survey when I re -financed and they use a computerized measuring system it shows that I only have 20.2 feet from the edge of my house to the edge of the property. Mr. Urciouli stated, which means you put a fence up for your neighbor. Mr. Weber answered, right. The surveyor was kind enough to note that as well. He added another clause to the survey which says proximity of fence is depending to lot lines not shown to cover himself because I s�oke to him and explained that it is a computerized system now and is supposed to be more ae ccurate. The bottom line being that I would like to put the pool up to where the stake is which would be a great place. Mr. Hirkala stated, you have to tell us, and show us why you want the pool in that particular location. Mr. Weber stated, the reason I want to do that, I hope it was visibIe on the site survey we made was that the property have a low level sec- tion where I would like to put the pool which is a grassy area and I Ur: -,Cd it for a vegetable garden and there is a natural tree line and a raised area and roughage to the property which is left in its natural state and the only place I can put the pool is either to destroy all that natural tree line and cut into the property, which I really feel would destroy the asthetics as well as the water problem. I had seri- ous water problems, I had to have the whole house waterproofed and I t�ink by chopping into that whole upper tier I am going to one, destroy the asthetics which we have enjoyed, giving us alot of privacy on the property, and I think I am also going to end up with an even more seri- ous water problems because the natural line of the property is to put the pool in that flatarea. When we bought the house that was kind of our plan. So that is why 1 feel that is the only useable place to -12 - put the pool. Mr. Hirkala asked, when did you have this surveyed? Mr. Weber answered, the original survey was done when I bought the house. The updated survey was done when I put the extension on the house. Mr. Hirkala asked, how come you gave the Town the original and not the updated? Mr. Weber answered, I didn't have it at the time. I was given it but I couldn't locate it. When I did the pool sketch I just did it on the one that was in my file, but when I was able to locate the right one I didn't even realize what the problem was. The reason I originally requested the variance was to put the pool a little farther from the house. Not so much that I needed to go, because of the fence, but when I reviewed both surveys then I realized that the fence was not on my property I realized I had no choice. If I wanted to put the pool there I needed a 3 foot variance. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think I should have mentioned before I called your application up is that because we are 2 members short on the Board right now, in order for your variance to be approved you need a unani- mous vote. So, it is your option, I am just obligated to tell you that you can either move to have your variance tabled until we have one or two of our other members here or go with trying to get a unanimous vote. Mr. Weber answered, I will go with the flow. Mr. Urciouli asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this application. There was no one present. Mr. Urciuoli read the memo from Herb Levenson to Zoning Board. Letter- on etteron file. Mr. Urciuoli read a letter from Frank Saccurato, an abutting property owner into the record. Letter on file. Mr. Weber stated, he requests a recent survey and a survey was just done so that should eleviate this concern. I would also point out that the pool will be very, very far from his property with the placement that I will put it on. If I put it up into the roughed area, which is where his house is bordered on my property. The only house that is anywhere near where the pool will go is the Adala family who had no objections. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I forget what it is we measured when we were out there. Mr. Weber Weber stated, the stake you put in was 10 feet from the fence. Now the fence was supposed to be on this line, now that is the property line. I believe what the fence man did was just measure out 23 feet perpendicular to my house and that is where he situated the fence. Mr. Urciuoli stated, but I think we realized by moving the pool 3 feet below the patio. Mr. Weber stated, if you move it over 3 feet it will go into the patio. Mr. Hirkala stated, our measurements came 10 feet off the fence, 36 feet out, and we were 3 and a half feet off the concrete edge of the corner. If you bring the pool 3 feet over. Mr. Weber stated, I don't want to bring it 3 feet over, you are right, then it would be into the patio. Mr. Hirkala stated, it would be right at the edge of the concrete walk there at the side of the back edge. Mr. Weber stated, the deck is a raised deck off the pool. What happens is is when you came out that door and go up along there you have a very narrow little pathway to get by. That patio, as it runs along the %W laundry room is only 2 feet wide. Mr. Hirkala stated, you told up the pool was 32 feet total. Mr. Weber stated, no. The pool is 16 x 32 with 2 feet of depth, the catwalk around it. So it is 20 x 36 for the pool itself and then I have taken this deck off and added that "L" shaped deck as you can see in my diagram. So the pool itself, without any deck, is 20 x 36. So you are going to put me right at that very corner of that patio if I don't have the variance which means I have a 2 foot walkway only between the house and the pool. Mr. Cortellino stated, I would say that he better wait for the 5 member Board because right now I will tell you my feeling. I am not inclined to give a variance. It is an asthetic thing. It is not one of the grounds of the 3 -way test. He has flat land for instance, he can go to a smaller pool. We don't give variances for asthetics or for conve- nience. Mr. Hirkala asked, has anyone given you any indications of what vari- ance are for, reasons why people give variances? Mr. Weber answered no. Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think the bottom line is your pool can be put in up above the retaining wall. Mr. Weber stated, if I take down that whole tree line. -14 - Mr. Urciuoli stated, that is an asthetic call. We can't necessarily grant variances based on pure asthetics. Mr. Weber stated, I feel, because of the water problem I have I am not looking forward to creating more problems. I can show you documentation if that is necessary about the water problem I have. Mr. Hirkala stated, putting the pool in is a luxury. Now, if you fix the water problem, with the thought in mind of putting a pool in that was in the wrong place. Mr. Weber stated, I had to fix the water problem because I had no choice. My basement was flooded. Mr. Hirkala stated, the next step would be if you wanted to put a pool in you would make sure that who puts the pool in doesn't disturb the water problem. That doesn't necessarily mean a variance is required. The variance is required because you want the pool in a certain spot. Mr. Weber answered, that is correct. Mr. Hirkala stated, that by law is not a reason. If there were other mitigating circumstances, but you haven't come up with any. Mr. Weber stated, so what you are saying is that I have no legal right Uo request a variance? Mr. Hirkala stated, no, you have a legal right. Mr. Weber asked, but you have no legal grounds to grant it, is that correct? Mr. Hirkala stated, you haven't given up any legal grounds to grant the variance. Mr. Weber stated, okay, then let me get an attorney and let me come back to you next meeting. Mr. Cortellino stated, and get the guidelines as to how we can grant a variance. Mr. HIrkala asked, in other words you are asking us to table this until the next meeting? Mr. Weber answered, I would appreciate it. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal until the next meet- ing. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. on -15---- Vote- Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Mr. Urciuoli read the next item: John Vorndran was present. answered, no. Mr. Hirkala asked, based on what is written here, did the Planning Board say anything else? answered, exactly the same. Mr. Vorndran answered, no. asked, in other words this approval that the Planning Board Mr. Hirkala asked, how much time did you spend before the Planning Board? Vorndran answered, yes. Mr. Vorndran answered, 15 minutes. asked, do you have a sure fire sale on this thing? Mr. Hirkala asked, so they just reviewed the plan? Is there anything additional in here that is over and above the last approval had? Mr. Vorndran answered, no. Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words this is the same? Mr. Vorndran answered, exactly the same. Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words this approval that the Planning Board has given us is exactly the same as what you had before? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes. Mr. Hirkala asked, do you have a sure fire sale on this thing? Mr. Vorndran answered, yes, I have a binder on it. I have money on it, and he is anxious to close. Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that we grant the Special Use Per- mit for 90 days. I would also put, as a part of the motion that this will be the last extension. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. -16---- Vote- Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time vote The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli read the next appeal: There was no one present. Mr. Hirkala stated, in view of the fact that nobody is here and we haven't received no further information on this other than this appli- cation I would like to make a motion that we table this for one time until the next meeting. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote,- Mr. ote:Mr. Urciuoli - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Brooker - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M.. -17 - Respectfully submitted, aj X ( Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals NOW