Loading...
2003-01-22 (2) . ~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 28, 2003 Revised January 22, 2003 ~ Agenda Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MEETING DATE: January 28,2003 TIME: 7:30 PM Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY Approve Site Minutes for January 15, 2003. ....... Adjourned Public Hearing: Appeal No. 02-7150 Wappint:er Falls Toyota-Subaru -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-23 of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District. Where the code states, no alare bevond the DroDerty line in excess of 0.5 foot-candles is reauired, the applicant is proDosina a ranae between .1 and 2.7 foot-candles alona the Route 9 DroDerty line, thus reauestina a variance on the lightina Dlan as set forth on the Dhotometric maD. The property is located at 1349 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-02- 585606 in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal No. 02-7144 Phil & Vicki Grillot -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R- 40 Zoning District. Where a frontat:e of 50 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a frontat:e of 20.28 feet, thus requestint: a variance of 29.72 feet. The property is located on Diddell Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6359-02-630650 in the Town of Wappinger. Public Hearing: Appeal No. 02-7153 Performance Motors -Seeking a area variance of Section 240-23 of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District for the following: ~ 1 ........ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 28,2003 Where the code states, no glare bevond the DrODertv line in excess of 0.5 foot-candles is reauired, the applicant is DroDosina a ranae maximum of 1.4 foot-candles along the DroDertv line, thus reauestina a variance of .9 foot- candles over the maximum Dermitted. -Seeking a area variance of Section 240-96 (B)(1) of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District for the following: Where an aisle width of 26 feet is required for 18 foot deep parking spaces, the applicant is proposin~ an aisle width of 25 feet. thus requestin~ a variance of 1 foot for the aisle width. The property is located at 1401 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157- 02-598733/597715 in the Town of Wappinger. ....... Appeal No. 02-7152 Stephen Thone -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R- 15 Zoning District. Where a side yard of 15 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 10 feet for a 15 X 18 foot pool deck, thus requestin~ a variance of 5 feet. - Where a rear yard setback of 30 is required, the applicant is proposing ~ rear yard setback of 26 feet for a 15 x 18 foot pool deck, thus requestin~ a variance of 4 feet. The property is located on 8 Malstrome Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-02-983535 in the Town of Wappinger. Discussions: Appeal No. 03-7154 Stear Subdivision-Lots 1 and 2 -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-20 of District Regulations in an R- 40 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing access from the rear of the property, utilizing an adjacent paper road. The property is located on Pine Rid~e Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6256-02-767947/784956 in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal No. 02-7155 Ron & Alyson Chu~erman -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R- 40 Zoning District. '-"" 2 ........... ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS January 28, 2003 - Where a rear yard setback of 50 is required, the applicant is proposing ~ rear yard setback of 24.2 feet for an addition with a deck, thus requestinl: a variance of 25.8 feet. The property is located on 3 Sten2er Court and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6056-01-388895 in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal No. 02-7156 Jeff Hunt -Seeking an area variance ofChapter133-l6(a) of the Code of the Town of Wappinger. The code requires that any Residential Structure in a AE flood zone have the lowest floor elevated to or above the Base Flood Level. The applicant's basement is at 260.7 feet, where it should have been placed at the flood level of 264 feet elevation. The property is located on 1061 Route 376 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6358-03-414490 in the Town of Wappinger. ....... -- 3 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 Minutes of January 22, 2003 MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals January 22, 2003 Summarized Minutes Town of Wappinger T own Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Members Present: Mr. Lehigh, Mr. Prager, Mr. diPierno, Mr. Warren, Mr. Fanuele, Chairman Vice-Chairman Member Member Member ,- r : .., .... ~ r.... ~.c.'.. r r~- ('f~n") \ ltJi,;~ Others Present: Mr. Al Roberts, Town Attorney Mr. Dan Wery, Town Planner Mrs. Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Roberti, Secretary SUMMARY Special Meeting Regardin2 Lighting Mr. Fanuele: Can we write a neg. dec. that rejects Wappinger Toyota's lighting plan? I don't like this statement in here about 89% improvement. This rewards the guy for ignoring the Town Code. Mr. Wery: It will be dark when he is done, that's my concern. We asked him to match the lighting levels of the other guys. Even ifhe could hold .5 at the property line, the overall intensity is that the place glows. Right now its like 40 foot-candles. If you look at the new ones that the Page 2 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ........ Mr. Prager: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. diPierno: Mr. Wery: Mr. diPierno: Mr. Wery: ~ Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. diPierno: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. Lehigh: "-" Minutes of January 22, 2003 Planning Board has approved, the Volvo, there average is like less than seven. We asked them to match that and they have. So you're saying that the lights that are there now are going to be less. Yes, 89% less. Each pole has 4 lights on it. This company put these lights up. They went through a lot of trouble to reduce the lighting. Are you saying that when they are done reducing these levels, they will be on par with the other dealerships? Yes. So the other dealerships are above the zoning code? There are two different things here. The first is that the only thing our zoning code does is measure the light at the property line. That's all it does. It could be Shea Stadium, as long as at the property line it's not over .5 foot-candles. So the different issues are the overall lighting level, which they are entitled too. They can make it as bright as they want as long as its approved by the Planning Board. The rest of the dealerships are fine. So he should comply because he doesn't have a valid reason why he needs more light. The real problem is that they never complied and we asked him to come in and we asked him what's going on with the double, triple light out there. We were not as concerned with the code as with the ambient glow. So before the plan that he submitted, we didn't even know they were over. Why can't we make them comply? They may have complied at one time until the DOT came in and took some land away. That probably led to the non-conformity. If the Town had to regulate the lighting, they would have to hire someone to do that. We grant variances all the time and try to keep them under 30% and this one is about 1 or 2%. I mean it's miniscule. Page 3 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Fanuele: '-" Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: '-" Mr. Wery: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Lehigh: '-" Minutes of January 22,2003 I see 40% or 50%. That's my argument, that's it's too high for a vanance. He's already agreed to lower the lighting without any problems. He's trying to change all the lights without changing the poles. The poles were there, they upgraded the lights and put larger lights in. There's no record to tell what was there or what was approved. So he's asking for a variance from .5 higher, how much of a variance is he asking for? Right now he's at an average of38 foot-candles. What is a foot-candle? I think it would help if we understood what the difference was going from .5 to 1.2. .5 is very dim, this room is higher then 10 or 15 foot-candles, maybe 20 foot-candles. The problem is that their property is more conforming at one end versus the other end. This neg. dec. says that he is doing us a favor by reducing the light. Can you change this to say what he wants in exact numbers? It's .5 and he wants an average of 4. So it would be 8 times higher. I think it comes down to the impact of going from .5 to 4. We are talking in the abstract and I think we need some barometer as to what it means. We need to look at the full impact. Weare reducing this to almost 1110th of the light that is there now. We don't have a standard. I think this is a dramatic improvement. It's far closer to conformance. You must remove this statement, where we are rewarding him for reducing something when he's in violation. That section has to come out of there completely. Without a record, he may very well be entitled to what he has today. Then he has to prove it then. He doesn't have to prove it, he just leaves it. Page 4 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Roberts: ~ Mr. Wery: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Warren: Mr. Wery: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Wery: ........ Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Wery: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Warren: Mr. Wery: ....... Minutes of January 22, 2003 We cannot find the original site plan, so we don't know what was there before. No engineering data to what was there before. Look at it as a setback variance to where the poles are placed. He's not spilling out onto Route 9. The real hardship is that the poles are placed to close to the property line. There's no reason he should be higher then the other dealerships. I'd rather give relief to Volvo, etc. He's right on Route 9 while the others are set up and back. How many lights are on each pole? I think there will be three lights remaining on each pole. Two will be 50 watt and one will be 400 watt above. At the north end he complies. This is a design concept rather than a strictly linear proj ection. Is there any impact to the driver's on Route 9? No, even the existing lights are not creating any horizontal glare. The main problem is that it's a waste of energy and the loss of the night's sky. When this is done, this will be what's comparable to Volvo. Why do they need such bright light? The argument made is to display their wares. There is also a lot of theft like at Friendly Mercedes and Performance Motors. Security is a big issue. Basic lighting is permitted, spillover is the issue. We in the Town could not establish what standard was there in the first place. We had no baseline to go from. He came back with a plan that suited his needs and for the most part basically conforms. Now the question becomes has he demonstrated a practical difficulty and does he fall within the guidelines for granting a variance. There are five of you, you are most adamantly opposed but I don't know what the consensus is. This gentleman is trying to fix a problem that has existed and he has come to the Town and he's worked with us and he's reducing the level where it's manageable. It may not be perfect but it's manageable. I bet what results here are less then what he had before he adjusts the lights. Page 5 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Warren: .~ Mr. diPierno: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Wery: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Wery: Mr. Lehigh: Minutes of January 22, 2003 I think we have to forget about percentages because it's so minute it's going to blow us apart. I think we have to look at the overall picture. We can't look at this in relative terms, we have to look at this in actual terms. Since we don't have an ordinance in effect that can control this, I don't see how can you punish him for being over that ordinance. My guess is that the lighting levels that will result from this plan will be no greater but probably less than whatever they did. That's the key here. It should bring it back to what's certainly a reasonable level. Gentleman, I think we ought to give our seats to the Planning Board. Meeting ended at 7:20 PM ""- '- Respectfully Submitted, ~tZfd~cifed/r Barbara Roberti, Secretary Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals