Loading...
1990-02-27�!q ml, FD4N OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD FCGRUARY 27` 1920 AGEM0n - 7:0U F1 TOWN HALL 20 MZDDLE8US>( R0AG WAPPFALLS. WY I . A P P E AL #1O81, AT THE REQUEST DF SEEKI#G A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF ARTICLE IV SECTION 445 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGEK 2OMINC ORDINANCE. TO PERHZT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 232 DLU H0PEWELL ROAD, AND BEING PARCEL #8257-04-548351, IN THE TOWN OF WAP' P]hGER. ' 1. ArPEAL 41068 AT THE REQUEST OF SE[KING A H[ARING ON DECISION AND ORDER DATED DECEMBER 18° 190l, IN THAT THE APPi� CANT NOW HAS PROPER SURVEYS TO PRESENT TO THE ZONING BOARD DF APPEALS. i. xPPEAL #1082 AT THE REQUEST OF SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARlTCLE IV SECTION 412 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORD!N*NC[ TO CON' 6TRUCT AN INGRESS/EGRESS OVER THE FRONTAGE OF THIS VRDP[RTY WOULD BC AN ECONOMICAL AND AESTHETZCAL DETRIMENT TO THE SITE QECAUSE OF THE AMOUAl OF MATERIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE TO EXCAVATED TO GAIN AM INGRESQEGRESS ACCEPTABLE TO VDTX THE TOWN OF NAPPINGER AND NEW YORK STAIR DEPARTNENl OF TRANSPORTATION 3TANDARD3 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF RDUTT 9 BETWEEN MYER5 CORNERS ROAD ANb OLD HOPEWELL ROAD AND BEING PARCFi 1057-02-631859, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. 2. APPEAL #108] AT THE REQUEST DF SEEKING A VARIANCE F[ / UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 421 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPIh8ER RONJNG ORDINANCE F( PERMIT AN ATFACMED DECK THAT REQUIRES A SIDE YARD OF 25 FT,, ON PRCPEKT' L0[A7ED ON 308 NYERS CORNERS ROAD AND BEING PARCEL TOWN OF WAPPINGER, PARCEL 8358-01-1E3546, IN THE TOWN OF NAPPZNGER. 3. �PF[A L A 4T THE REQUEST OF 0ECIAL USE PERMIT TO 09[R04E A DAY CARE CENTER UNDER ARTZCLF IV DECTInN /`40 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPZNgER ZONING ARTICLE ORDINANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED O# ALL ANGELS HILL ROAD, AND BEING PARCEL 46250-01-491918, IN THE TOWN 0F WAPPIN&ER. IN THE FLEETWOOD C0ADO/S, AND CEING PARCFL 0156-01-56082C, IN THE 4 APPEAL 41085 AT THE REOUEST OF �l�' 5EEk[NG A nO[ZTAL USE PERMIT 10 ALLOW A HOME OCCUPATION NANUCURISl IN A R[SIDENT�Ai ARSA UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 420 a430 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINQER ZCNING ORDINANCE ON PRDPERTY LOCATED IN THE FLEETWOOD C0ADO/S, AND CEING PARCFL 0156-01-56082C, IN THE TOWN OF W4PPIMQER. n TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 27, 1990 MINUTES 1E TOWN HALL 20 MIDDLEBUSH RD. WAPP. FALLS, NY 1. APPEAL #1081, AT THE REQUEST OF DENNIS R. O'GORMAN SEEKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF ARTICLE IV SECTION 445 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE. TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY APARTMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 392 OLD HOPEWELL ROAD, AND BEING PARCEL #6257-04-646351, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. Mr. O'Gorman present. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Board you have a dated letter signed by my self dated 11/22 requesting an original survey. As of today we have not received any surveys. I recommend that this matter be held over one more time. Mr. Lehigh: Is Mr. O'Gorman aware of this? Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. I would like to ask the board to make a decision were they would reconsider the fact that I'm just changing what I call the name of the house to (mother/da►u t r), and that in 1979 I had an extension put on and there was no survey r tr*d they said I was far enough away, from the boarder area. I did look for out, but I don't have one. The other: thing is, I know the beard vests is iia *at it is going to look like when its finished. I had a draft draw up from my measurements from the markers. I had it veri'i*4 frois Dan DiCambio house, and on the other two sides is the boarder by the road. I do have with me...... a draftsmen copy of the measurements. I west up to the County and got a layout of my pro- perty, and all the measur to they had. Would the board consider this plan instead of getting a survey, which I was told it would cost me over $1,000 dollars, Mr. Tompkins: Do you already have this place as a mother/daughter apart- ment? Mr. O'Gorman: No, I'm looking to have it classified. Mr. Lehigh: Is it already built? Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. Mr. Tompkins: Is somebody living in there? Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. Mr. Tompkins: Then you are against the Zoning Ordinance, when we asked for a survey back in November you already went against the Zoning Ordinance, that already gives your two strikes against you before we even start. You already have something illegal and it has been for 11 years. M n -Z- In Mr. O'Gorman: well.... I had my children living in there, and when my daughter came to live here a year ago, that's when I decided to do this over. Mr. Tompkins: When did you put the kitchen in? Mr. O'Gorman: Around two years ago. Mr. Hirkala: You put the kitchen in? Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: Did you get a building permit. Mr. O'Gorman: No, I didn't get it. Mr. Hirkala: You renovated the place for a kitchen, and then you created a second apartment. Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: Are you prepare to swear in an affidavit notarize, that who ever has been living in that place, will be a blood relative. Mr. O'Gorman: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: How about the C.O.'s Herb, have they shown up on this apart- ment? Mr. Levenson: Yes, they did. Mr. O'Gorman: The C of O is not on the apartment your talking about, it's not on that section on the house. Mr. Lehigh: Do you have it with you? Mr. O'Gorman: No, I don't have it with me. Mr. Lehigh: That's one of the things we wanted a C.O. on. Also on the porch extension that you put over on the garage, what happened to that. Mr. O'Gorman: The Building Inspector came out and looked at it, the only thing he found wrong was that the garage did not have a sheet rock ceiling in it, and at this time it does have a sheet rock ceiling. Mr. Hirkala: Comments from the board. AWO Mr. Tompkins: How illegal is this document? M -3- n Mr. Hirkala: I have not seen it at all. Mr. Levenson: Is this the boundary line on the entire piece of property? Mr. O'Gorman: Yes, Line 122 to 184, 92 to 208, and 151 is on the property. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, I would recommend to the board if to accept the drawing, and not issue a Special Use Permit until the C.O. has been issued. Mr. Brooker: What puzzles me is that in 1979 he built it and he doesn't have a C.O. on it. Mr. Levenson: The obligation of requesting a C/O rest with the property owners. Mr. O'Gorman: The section of the house we are talking about has a CO. The section that doesn't have a C.O. is the front half and that was since 1979. The only excuse I'm giving is I had a builder do it, and he ran into a problem, I released the builder and finished it off myself. Mr. Levenson: There is a building permit since 1979, but there was never a4 call for an inspection from the building inspector. Mr. Hirkala: He's got a building permit, and C/O for the area in question?= The thing is that the C.O. and the building permit does not match what's there now, he did created a kitchen after the fact, he got a building permit, and put the additions on, and after that the kitchen, which created! a two family house, that's the violation. Mr. Tompkins: Has the Building Inspector been out to the house? Mr. Levenson: Yes, he has been out to the house and waited for the garage to be completed. Mr. O'Gorman will call him and he will go out and take care of the C.O. again I say I think the Board should adjourn this until such time as the violations have been removed as per your rules and the CO. has been issued. Mr. Tompkins: I'd like to make a motion to adjourned this public hearing until all violations on the property are cleared up, and the C.O.'s have been issued. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Mr. Lehigh: Do you think you can have this completed in another month? - 4 - Mr. O'Gorman: By the end of this week it will be finished. F` Mr. Tompkins: Are these the meets and bounds of your deed. Mr. O'Gorman: Mr. Tompkins: We have no way of knowing if this is true or not. Mr. O'Gorman: The draftsman that drew this up can verify the measurements.' Mr. Levenson: It's not acceptable under the Education Law. It has to be a licensed survey. f Mr. Hirkala: I think that it should be require to send a copy to the Zoning Administrator to review the deeds and drawings, and to see if the measurements are adequate. k Mr. Tompkins made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. e Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. 2. REQUEST FOR RE HEARING: 1. APPEAL #1069 AT THE REQUEST OF LOUIS AND JEAN BALDUCCI SEEKING A RE- HEARING ON DECISION AND ORDER DATED DECEMBER 18, 1989, IN THAT THE APPLICANT NOW HAS PROPER SURVEYS TO PRESENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. Mr. Levenson: The re -hearing was requested because Mr. Balducci came in within the time frame of the decision in order dismissing this case and present the proper survey that were requested from the board in the past. Mr. Levenson read the Decision & Order. Mr. Levenson: This was advertised on August 16, 1989, and the date of the public hearing was 8/22/89; 9/26/89, 11/26/89. Mr. Brooker, Mr. Tompkins, Mrs. Roe, and Mr. Lehigh was all present. The Findings of Fact states The subject premises is located in the R-40 District, with the following setback requirements; front 35' sides 20' rear 40' on Pye Lane, which is a Town road in a filed subdivision know as Edgehill 1. The applicants have installed an above ground pool. In addition, they have constructed a wood deck within the sideline setback of the R-40 zone without benefit of a variance or building permit. Also the Zoning Board of Appeals re- quested a survey of the above property, and the applicants failed to M -5- respond. This application appeared on the Zoning board of Appeals E agendas on September 26 and November 26, 1989, and the applicants made no appearance. Mr. Balducci appeared in my office on January 7, 1990 requesting a re -hearing on the above matter because I'm now able to supply the board with surveys that were completed by a surveyor on p December 12, 1989. I did not know I was supposed to appear on the workshop[ meetings. It was my understandings I was to appear only when I had the surveys. Respectfully submitted, Louis Balducci. Mr. Hirkala: Is there anyone here that has a concern with this plan? Mr. Levenson: For the record Mr. Chairman there is a letter dated September 21, 1989 from Mrs. Caroline McDonough, 74 Pye Lane. "I have no objection to issuing a variance" to Louis and Jean Balducci. Also there was a letter from Mrs. Jeanne Angel, 72 Pye Lane. As a property owner on Pye Lane and neighbor of Mr. & Mrs. Balducci, "I have no objection to the erection of the pool and deck where it is on the property." If anything, the way in which the pool and deck are located only serves to enhance the beauty of the neighborhood. Mr. Hirkala: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Balducci? Mr. Lehigh: The last time we were here, w were talking about a 20 foot easement. You seem to think it was going to give you more room. I see an easement of 20 feet in the front, and 24.9 in the back, it doesn't seem to give you anymore room then the line of your house. I'm talking about an easement that is not close to the property line. It looks like it is already there. It's not adding anything to the property that I can see. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Lehigh, the lot line is the black line and the broken line is the easement line. Mr. Hirkala: I think what he is referring to is it is to believe that the easement was on the other side of the line. Mr. Balducci: I know the easement is on my side, and it has been there since the day I build the house. Mr. Tompkins: What is the requirement Herb, 10 feet. Mr. Levenson: Well the pool is 10 feet, and the deck is attached to the building so then you are going to require the sides of 20 ft. Mr. Tompkins: You also have the shed on the other side of the property. Mr. Balducci: That is not my shed it is my neighbors. Mr. Hirkala: The deck requirements is 25 feet, in a R-40 zone. M n Mr. Levenson: This is in one of the Special districts. Mr. Lehigh: This deck isn't covered just the porch is? Mr. Balducci: Just the porch is covered. The deck is open. Mr. Hirkala: How far off the ground is it? Mr. Balducci: About 24 inches. Mr. Hirkala: So about 3 steps. Mr. Balducci: It has a low profile. Mr. Tompkins made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Tompkins made a motion for a negative declaration. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Mr. Tompkins made a motion to grant the variance, and that the deck will no be closed in. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. APPEAL #1082 AT THE REQUEST OF BGHKR REALTY, SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE IV SECTION 412 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE TO CON- STRUCT AN INGRESS/EGRESS OVER THE FRONTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE AN ECONOMICAL AND AESTHETICAL DETRIMENT TO THE SITE BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WHICH WOULD HAVE TO EXCAVATED TO GAIN AN INGRESS/EGRESS ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER AND NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON A THE EASTERN SIDE OF ROUTE 9 BETWEEN MYERS CORNERS ROAD AND OLD HOPEWELL ROAD AND BEING PARCEL #6157-02-631659, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. Mr. Jack Railing was present. O -7- Mr. Hirkala: For the record I will not take part in the vote and will notl take part in any way on this application because of a potential conflict of interest on this matter. I asked that the Vice -Chairman, Mr. Tompkins ` take my place of Chairman on this matter. Mr. Tompkins took over as Acting Chairman. Mr. Levenson: You have before you drawing received by my office this afternoon, which gives you a new layout of the driveway. Also, for the record you have a copy of my letter from the DOT dated 1-24-90, which states they don't have restrictions. Mr. Brooker: Has the Fire Prevention Bureau looked at these plans? Mr. Levenson: The Fire Prevention Bureau has not been able to reviewed this plans because they just came in. Mr. Tompkins: Do they have a copy for tonights meeting? Mr. Levenson: No, they came in after 4:00 this afternoon. Mr. Tompkins: I'd like to ask the secretary to deliver one of these maps, and ask them to review that, so we can have a report from them for the next meeting. Mr. Levenson: I'll forward one tomorrow. Mr. Tompkins: They are meeting now, they can review it at the end of their meeting. Mr. Levenson: I'd ask Mark but he said he wouldn't review it. Mr. Brooker: Personally I'm not going to act on this tonight until the Fire Prevention Bureaus sees it first. Mr. Levenson: You can't do anything until you heard from the state anyway. Mr. Tompkins: State your name for the records. Mr. Jack Railing I'm the Engineer for the project. Is everyone on the board familiar with the property. Board members answered yes. Mr. Railing: We are designing this particular property for an office building. We looked at the access point which does have frontage on Route 9, 175.7 feet on Route 9. However the elevation differs from Route 9, fortunately it is impossible to get access they would have to utilize the grade on half the property. The applicant opted to contact the parcel to the North and separate two assertions and obtain a right-of- way thru that entrance. The Ordinance in the Town of Wappinger which you are fully aware requirement under Section 412 that each and every property -8 - owners in the Town of Wappinger takes access for his property space for a Town Road. We felt that in our application this was a great deal of practical difficulty and that there was a better way to do that. From an Engineer's stand point it would certainly be much more attractive utilizing a distance entrance from a planning stand point,. The minutes from the Planning Board indicate that from a planning sense on additional access is on Route 9 is not a beneficial action. We also indicated that the action we are requesting is within the spirit of the Ordinance, because it did eliminate the egress and ingress on Route 9, and with the point that the county planner wrote a letter to the planning board indicating that they endorse the application with a single egress and ingress for both parcels. The reference problem that you have with the existing entrance that serves the existing two story office building to the North, we have developed the improvement to that particular entrance such that using architecturally graphics standards, that we will meet with those bounds. p What I will illustrate is that the light blue area is the existing entrance[ to that the additional dark blue areas are those areas that are going to be paved. You will also see two dotted lines which come from the right lane of Route 9 up and around this newly proposed entrance holding within the entrance way. The reason for the islands is DOT standards because they are so wide to for an entrance. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, the Planning Board received a letter on January 19 from Martin Dale who is the resident engineer with regard to this matter On April 3, 1986 the Department issued Highway Work Permit #8-86-0253 to Mr. William J. Leroy of Greentree Associates for the constructing of the existing driveway, as shown on the BGHKR site plan. This Permit remains open since the work has never been satis- factorily completed. Consequently, the driveway is an illegal access. We respectfully request that the poured -in-place concrete curbs be re- moved and reconstructed to New York State specifications prior to the Town granting any approvals for the expansion of the property. Upon the satisfactory completion of the curb work the Department will defer to the Town any approvals for the additional office building. Mr. Tompkins: Are you trying to say, what I think your trying to say, that they want you to fix the curb before they review it, and then you have to rip them out again. Mr. Railing: We have had many discussions with the DOT and we have agreed that those curbs are to be replaced. However, we also agreed that it will be done in conjunction with the addition of BGHKR Realty. The access is legal it is a bonded access they still have the bond they could be exer- cised in place of the curbs. Mr. Tompkins: Do we have to send the drawings to the DOT? n WC Mr. Railing: We are sending them with the application ourselves. The question that I'd like to put before the board is not how this access eventually is going to look, our questions is do we want that access, the other access on Route 9, that's really our only con- cern with the ZBA. Whatever stipulations you want to place on any action that you may take, in terms of the Northerly property is fine with us, if subject to the Planning Board approval or DOT that's fine. We need to go forward with the application, we want to know if the ZBA based on the information we presented to you in terms of the practical difficulty, difficulty in terms of hardship, in terms of the Planning sense on putting another access on Route 9. Whether it makes sense to you the board, that we should work on this entrance, and have the same problem if we were going to make an entrance there so the configuration problem and entrance problem is something that we both agree to, and it is a concern. However, do you agree with the Planning Board and with us? Do you agree with the practical difficulty that we should not have the entrance on this property? That's what we need to know. Mr. Lehigh: I would say. as for as my own opinion, I like this set up bet -1 ter, my problem is out of 125 feet, the shaded area is the whole thing on your map, from your center island until here. You got about 125 feet (approximately 12 seconds is inaudible), you get out of the road if somebody is coming down Route 9 doing 55 MPH and you can pull over and acceleration and come into that driveway, and I'm not sure if 125 feet would be enough. 150 feet is a lot better, before I vote OK I would like to see a proposal and approval back from the DoT for a deceleration lane and I would go one more and say acceleration laying the opposite end because you got 20-40-60 feet to accelerate out there. If you come out of here and stop and then your going to pick up to 55 mph, unless your 0-60 in a vehicle you have a problem. I would like to see a little longer distance in the acceleration lane, then I would have no problem with that. Mr. Railing: We send these maps to the DOT and then in a couple of months we get a map back from them and on it they draw the configuration they want, based on the concept. If I wanted to put a thousand feet of ingress lane, and they say I can only put in 200 in that's all I'm going to put in. I have no problem stipulating whatever DOT requires. Mr. Lehigh: Then I have no problem with that if your willing to go to the State DOT, and there willing to require a deceleration and acceleration lane. I've been to this building on business, and that parking lot is full, and there is a lot of travel in and out of there. Now we are going to double with another building, so that's going to be a busy intersection on that driveway. Mr. Levenson: I believe that's a Planning Board matter. The Fire Preven- tion Bureau put this on the bottom of their agenda, and will review it at the end of there meeting, and will pass their comments to me tomorrow. -10 - Mr. Lehigh: I would like to know what the State says..... Mr. Railing: The problem with the State is that you got six months from today to wait. Mr. Lehigh: The problem with me is that I would really strongly feel that you have to have an acceleration lane in there, and I don't want to see anybody down there. If your allowed to go ahead and build that with an acceleration I can't go against the State DOT because there the one's that have authority over that highway and the sides of it. Mr. Railing: The fortunate part is that there is a distance firm shoulder, that there working out of the existing two story office building. Mr. Tompkins: How many employees do you have in the 1st building? Mr. Railing: About 36. I Mr. Tompkins: There is the new proposed building with 71 parking spaces, there will be at least 50 people in there? Mr. Railing: Yes. Mr. Tompkins: Were talking about 80 cars in and out of the building everyday. Well I'm not going to make a decision without something from the DOT, unless DOT approves it. Mr. Railing: DOT uses the same standard for any commercial access regardless of whether or not it would come from the North property or the South property either way your going to have the same property coming out on Route 9. To wait six months to make a determination on whether or not it makes good planning since to establish that there is a practical difficulty here, I just don't understand. Were willing to make it subject to DOT, subject to the requirement, and if you want to add a minimum number to the turning in lane, that's fine to. Mr. Lehigh: What do you think about this Herb? Mr. Levenson: Well you have a letter here from Martin Dale that says upon the satisfactory completion of the curb work the department will defer to the Town any approvals for the additional office building. Mr. Hirkala: I don't wish to choose to influence the vote on any of the board members, but I have to say, the question before the board is practi- cal difficulty, don't forget, the question to the board is whether there is a practical difficulty on the lot in question, if there is no practical difficulty on the lot in question then the variance should be denied and the access to that lot should be over the frontage of that lot. -11 - The question is whether or not you really want that because either way there is going to be an access to this lot. It's either going to be a request of a variance or the present frontage on the lot. This is the question for the board. Whether or not there is enough practical difficulty on the frontage on the lot. i Mr. Levenson: I believe if you read the addendum of variances requested on the following reasons which submitted by the applicant, I believe it satis- fies the practical difficulty. From past experience, I don't think that thea DoT is going to give you another access at that point on Route 9. 1. Mr. Lehigh: He is already asking for a acceleration lane and he's will- ' ing to go along with that, it's merely a way were going to state it here. Mr. Levenson: I also think that we have a very limited engineering ability and, I would tell you there would be some real heavy blasting done. i Mr. Lehigh: With the other driveway? Mr. Levenson: Sure. Mr. Lehigh: I feel this is a practical and acceptable plan as long as there is... it has to have approval from the state, or you want be able to do it. Mr. Railing: That's correct. The Planning Board would not approve this project until we have an acceptable access, and that would mean DoT either way. Mr. Lehigh: Even if we give you an approval right now, I want words in there that tell me that your going to have an acceleration lane, that's what I want to know. Mr. Levenson: I don't think that's the question. The question is, is there a practical difficulty, and are you going to admit them to use the one driveway. Mr. Tompkins: Would anybody like to motion? Mr. Levenson: The Planning Board has referred this to you strictly as a regard for Section 412. Were you would approve the single access for both lots because of the hardship that exists pursuant to the appli- cant. Mr. Brooker: I want this referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau. IM -12- W" Mr. Railing. It's probably going thru a 6-12 month process to the Plannini Board and what you see here may or may not be approved. Again, the only thing were talking here is whatever shape access as for the Fire Prevention Bureau going to be on my property, front property line or is it ' going to be here. Whatever it is, whatever shape, this particular access takes the only question that we have is instead of putting it here, where we have all these problems, can't we just put it here, whatever shape that's going to be, and lets let the Fire Prevention Bureau do there thing come up and work with DOT , and just let them do there thing. Mr. Lehigh: I would say you have a practical difficulty, you were going toi postpone, I don't know whether that would be good or not idea. We would want to hear back from the DOT. We should have a letter stating a place- ment on a deceleration and acceleration lane into the Planning Board. F The Planning Board is going to tell them how to have the driveway put in, also the shape, grade and the acceleration and deceleration lane. Mr. Brooker: I think that the Fire Prevention Bureau should see it first. Mr. Lehigh: The Fire Prevention Bureau department could give their advise to the Planning Board as well as us. Mr. Levenson: The final decision with the configuration of the driveway and the piece of property is going to be with the Planning Board, the question here is, has the applicant proved a practical difficulty that he can't build a driveway on the South piece of property and are they going to try to get a variance to put the driveway on the North end of the drive- way. Mr. Railing: With the respect to the Fire Prevention Bureau, we feel that we have provided the minimal turning radius that's necessary for the vehicle to make it's approach on the right hand lane on Route 9 up to old Hopewell Road, now I know there was a concern with the fire lane. Mr. Brooker: If I had to go up there right now, I know there would be no way I could get my engine up there. Mr. Railing: My point is, in terms of the building having three sides... Mr. Brooker: Let's not concern ourselves with that. Mr. Tompkins: Do we have a motion for the public hearing to be closed. Mr. Levenson: Were going to Table? Mr. Tompkins: Do I have a second? There was no second. No vote carry. LJ -13- �J Mr. Levenson: A rendering decision will be made at the workshop meeting. Mr. Lehigh: I was going to render a decision right now. Mr. Levenson: Then do we have a motion to close? There was no second. No vote carry. Mr. Tompkins: This for the site plan BGHKR. I i Mr. Classey - Building Inspector - Are you going to make a ruling on this tonight? s Mr. Lehigh: Do you have any input on it now? Mr. Classey: Right now, we had concerns about the access into the site, and the congestion within the site from maneuverability for fire apparatus. Mr. Tompkins: We can only concern ourselves with whether the driveway is acceptable on that point or thru the property. Mr. Hirkala: The variance request is whether it can or can not be an access. Mr. Levenson: Were going to make certain that the Planning Board. Mr. Railing: Will deal with that during the site plan process. Mr. Tompkins: Can the Chairman be withheld to vote, and the vote will not count. Mr. Brooker: I said it before. I'm in favor of a workshop session. Mr. Levenson: Then can we close the public hearing.? Mr. Hirkala: Why do we have to hold it for two weeks for? Mr. Brooker: I want a report from the Fire Prevention Bureau. Mr. Levenson: But it doesn't effect it. The issue is will you approve the driveway on the North entrance. The Planning Board will review the notes from the Fire Prevention Bureau, there will be a public hearing and at that time will discuss the configuration. The question here is, are you going to allow BGHKR to use that one driveway for access on the property. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to hold BGHKR Realty until the workshop session on March 13, 1990. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. -14 - Vote: Mr. Lehigh - aye Mr. Brooker - aye Mr. Tompkins - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstain. Mrs. Roe - absent 2. APPEAL # 1083 AT THE REQUEST OF RENE ABRIL. SEEKING A VARIANCE OF 7 I FEET UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 421 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT AN ATTACHED DECK THAT REQUIRES A SIDE YARD OF 25 FT., ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON 308 MYERS CORNERS ROAD AND BEING PARCEL #6358-01-163546, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. Mrs. Abril present. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, we received these drawings on February 20, 1990, note that the maps are inadequate because it does not show the existence of the deck in question, I also have a letter from an abutting property owner recommending that the surveys be returned to the applicants and be correct to show the item in question. Mr. Tompkins: Where is there a deck located? Mr. Levenson: Between the garage and the house, there is a deck that does not appear. Mr. Lehigh: Is there a C of O on the garage? Mr. Levenson: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: The garage is legal, the problem is that the deck, is attached to the main structure. Mr. Tompkins: On the application I notice that #3 is circle, there has never been 25 foot side yard on here, do they really need 25 foot. Mr. Levenson: It's a 10 foot situation. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter here from an abutting property owner which is address to me,"We are writing this letter after talking to you this morning with reference to Appeal #1083, Rene Abril, it is our understanding that Mr. Abril has violated provisions of the Zoning Ordinance by building a deck without a building permit." Since this illegal action also violates the side- line restrictions required by law, we are against the issuance of a permit based on a variance, signed William and Eileen Ryan. Mr. Hirkala: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? Mr. Tompkins made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Mr. Levenson: I think of all our experiences in Zoning we find that some times people don't understand what the Zoning Ordinance really says, and people make honest mistakes, which I think this one was. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Q :M&"C Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. 3. APPEAL # 1084 AT THE REQUEST OF JASVIR NEERA AND INDRA BHALLA, SEEKINGi A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DAY CARE CENTER UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 440 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ALL ANGELS HILL ROAD, AND BEING PARCEL #6258-01-491918, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. Mrs. Neera, Mrs. Bhalla, and Mrs. Want present. Mr. Hirkala: Is this going to be a day care center with nobody living there or is there going to be somebody living on the premises. Mrs. Bhalla: No one will be living on the premises.. Mr. Tomkins: What is this zoned? Mr. Levenson: R-40 district. Mr. Tompkins: The area from the house to the fenced in play area is shown on the survey map, I assume exist. Mrs. Bhalla: It does exist. Mr. Tompkins: It's quite a ways from the house. Mrs. Bhalla: Right, but it was a nursery school before. Mr. Hirkala: It was a nursery school? Mrs. Bhalla: It was All Angels Nursery School. Mr. Hirkala: Is there a Special Use Permit on file? Mr. Levenson: Yes. Mr. Tompkins: This is a fairly busy area of the roadway. What I'm looking at in my mind right away is we have requested before of all nursery schools and day care centers , have a fenced in area from the house so kids can't run around and get lose, and run out in the street. Mrs. Bhalla: We are planning on bringing the fence in area right up to the house. Mr. Tompkins: OK Mr. Hirkala: So what you are saying is you can walk to the back door of the house and be fenced in. The fenced in area is going to be brought back to the house. We have to refer this back to the Planning Board and any question will be presented to the Planning Board. n -16- Mr. Lehigh: And the parking area. Mr. Brooker: How many children are you going to have? Mrs. Neera: We hope we can be licensed for 50 children. Mr. Lehigh: Is this a one or two story house. Mrs. Want: ItJs a raised ranched. Mr. Lehigh: On the map it calls for a one-story frame with a basement. Mr. Hirkala: The parking lot in reference with the children is getting them out of the cars, with the cars just pulling out of the lot. I don't know what the design of the parking lot is, but the drop off area is not good. Mrs. Bhalla: We would expect the parent to park their cars and walk there children in, they would not be dropping them off. They must be able to park. Mr. Tompkins: The building should be full fire proof safety. Mrs. Bhalla: Yes, we have been thru the inspections. We have a full fire alarm system. Mr. Brooker: Has the Town Fire and Building Inspectors been out. Mrs. Bhalla: Yes they have already been out and made their inspections and we also have heard from the State. Mr. Hirkala asked if anyone would like to speak for or against the appli- cant. Mr. Joseph Kavulich - 56 All Angels Hill Road What are the age of the children? Mrs. Bhalla: They are 8 weeks to 6 years. What time are the school hours? Mrs. Bhalla: They are from 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kavulich: All year, for 12 months? Mrs. Bhalla: Yes, except for a week off around Christmas time. Mr. Kavulich: The area in the back will be fenced in? 29 . . i O&M Mrs. Bhalla: The fenced in area will be all in the back. Mr. Kavulich: Is the playground area in the back? Mrs. Bhalla: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: Our primary concern for a Special Use Permit is making a determination what the impact would be over and above the normal use of the property, and make recommendations that would mitigate that impact. The Planning board will review the site plan and will give them site plan approval after that are only concern would be granting a Special Use Permit. Mr. Tompkins made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Mr. Brooker made a motion to refer the applicant to the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Mr. Tompkins made a motion for the. Planning Board be Lead Agency. Mr. Brooker seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. 4. APPEAL #1085 AT THE REQUEST OF CHRISTINE ANTONICELLI _ SEEKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A HOME OCCUPATION MANICURIST IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA UNDER ARTICLE IV SECTION 420 AND 430 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE FLEETWOOD CONDOS AND BEING PARCEL #6156-07-580826, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. Mr. Hirkala: We were notified from the Condo Associations that this is not a legal use in the condo, and I would request from the board a motion to dismiss without prejudice. Mr. Brooker made a motion to dismiss this case without prejudice. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Ln 2M -18- 9 Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Mr. Lehigh made the motion in view of the people not knowing that this was illegal, the Zoning Administrator can refund there money for $35.00. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Tompkins seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Li&aJ . Zoning Board Secretary 01