Loading...
2000-03-28 .I MINUTES APPROV~D APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals March 28,2000 page 1 ~ MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals March 28,2000 Time: 7:30 p.m. Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Members Presents: Mr. Lehigh, Mr. Warren, Chairman Member Mr. Fanuele, Vice Chairman Mr. diPierno, Member Mr. Prager, Member Others Present: Ms. DiPaola, Mr. Roberts, Secretary to Zoning Attorney to Town SUMMARIZED Mr. Liebermann, Mr. Kavinga, Zoning Administer Public Hearing: Richard & Nellie Briggs Hannaford Supermarket - Variance granted - Adjourned until April 11 ,2000 Mr. Prager: Made a motion to accepted the March 14,2000 minutes as corrected. Mr. Fanuele: Second the motion. ....... Vote: All present voted aye. Appeal No. 00-7045 - at the request of Richard and Nellie Bri2es, who is seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 - Whereas 50 feet north end and south end is required, the appellants can provide 18.10 feet on the north end and 15 feet on the south end, thus requestine 39.1 feet on the north end and 35 feet on the south end in order to replace the existine addition and make the new one bieeer. The property is located at 113 Osborne Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has not made a determination of significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearing. Mr. Warren: Made a motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. V ote: All present voted aye.2 Mr. Warren: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Prager: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: Made a motion to accepted the March 14,2000 minutes as corrected. Mr. Fanuele: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. ..... Mr. Briggs: Our request is to put a 14x21 addition, for the existing one now on the property. We will be tearing down the existing addition. We want to make the addition longer and wider. .......... Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Prager: Mr. Briggs: Mr. Prager: Mrs. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: ."-" Mr. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Fanuele: Mrs. Briggs: Mr. Fanuele: Mrs. Briggs: Mr. Lehigh: MiNUTES APPROVED APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 2 What is your reason to have this addition? We want it for a computer and family room. It is a large request. I notice on the legal notice is says 39.1. I don't think that is right, I think is should only be 31 feet. The application says 50 feet and they can provide 18 feet 10 inches. So say we round it off to 19 feet it would make it 31 not 39 feet. It is still a 62% variance, which I think is substantial. I know it is an odd shaped lot. Is it a R-40 zone? Yes. I would like to bring to your attention that the shed and the garage are equally that close. Is there any way that you could possibly bring that a little smaller? I do realize that the old addition is smaller. When we discussed it, we were talking about putting a full bath in there too. Our house is not accessible to handicapped people. You want to make that area handicapped accessible? Yes, having a door at ground level. Where would you put your exits on that? In the back. Then you will have to put some steps there. Maybe one step. If you corne out here, you will have a step but there will not be enough room. You could not legally put steps. We would not need a step if that is the case then. Ok. Anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this variance. No one spoke for or against the variance. How old is the house? It was built in 1924. Could the shape of the lot maybe have changed since then? Before Zoning was in effect. You are going to have to do a screening. I realize that there is a fence and some screening. You will need to put some screening down low. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Prager: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion for a negative declaration. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion for the variance to be granted. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Roll Call: Mr. Prager, nay Mr. Fanuele, aye Mr. Warren, aye Mr. Lehigh, nay. ~ Mr. Lehigh: There was a voted 3 ayes and 2 nays. The variance has been granted. Mr. diPiemo, aye MINUTES APPROVED APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 3 ........ Appeal No. 99-7031 at the request of Hannaford Supermarket, who is seeking 4 variances of Section 240- 112 and 240-97 - Whereas 50 feet minimum rear yard setback is required, the appellants are proposing 30 feet rear yard setback, thus requestine 20 feet rear yard setback to allow a 30 foot rear yard for a rather small portion of the rear yard. Whereas a 20% maximum building coverage is required, the appellants are proposing 21.3% building coverage, thus requestin~ 1.3% buildine coveraee to allow buildine coveraee to be 1.3% more than zonine currently permits. Appeal No. 99-7032 - Whereas 10x20 feet in length is required, the appellants are proposing 9x 18 feet in length, thus requestine lx2 feet in leneth to allow a standard parkine space stall to have dimensions of at ~east 9x18 feet in leneth. Whereas 873 parking spaces is required, the appellants are proposing a 7 space net increase in parking from the existing condition, thus requestine a 218 space variance to allow a total of 665 spaces. a 5 space increase from the existine 648 spaces. The property is located on Route 9 approximately 165 feet north of Myers Comers Road in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has not made a determination of significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearing. Ross Winglovitz the applicants Engineer and Peter Friedrichs, the applicant are present for the meeting. '-" Mr. Roberts: Mr. Lehigh: I gave you that letter to read. This is a public hearing for 4 variances. There is a reduction of parking size and parking spaces, reduction ofthe rear yard setback, and building coverage. This is a type 1 action, the Planning Board is Lead Agency. The Planning Board has not made a determination of significance. The Zoning Board of Appeals can not close the public hearing and can not make a full decision, until the Planning Board makes a decision. At this time I will open the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPiemo: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: ~ Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Friedrichs: 99-7031 has 2 variances to it, part 1 has to do with the setback for the rear yard. It is a small portion of the building, it would be within the 50 foot code requirements. It is the small comer of the building, it is about 50 feet of the rear yard line. Mr. Prager: It is only 50 feet out of the whole building, the rest of the building does not need a variance? Mr. Friedrichs: That is correct. Mr. Roberts: Can you identify the map that you are talking about. Mr. Friedrichs: The plan was prepared by Tectonic Engineering. Mr. Winglovitz: It is dated 10112/99 last revised 2/29/00. Mr. Friedrichs: It is drawing C-lOl. The area that we are talking about is the piece ofland that is unoccupied. (He goes over the questions on the application 3A - 3E.) There is no way to do without that comer? No, there is not, because of the way the store is designed. We have lapped of the comer of the building already. ........ Mr. Prager: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Adams: Mr. Lehigh Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Winglovitz: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Friedrichs: fv11NUTES ;\PPROVED APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 4 Will the building be taken down or will it be added on? It will be taken down. Anyone in the public have any questions on it. I am not going to make any comments tonight, but is the public hearing going to stay open? Yes it is. We are not going to make any decision. This is variance number 2 of 99-7031. The building coverage is 20% we will be asking for a variance of 21.3 %, so we will be 1.3 % higher than what the zoning is. (Goes over questions on the application 3A -3E, it is all in the application) There is more green space, to do some more landscaping. There is a decrease of lot coverage. What original approvals were granted for the site, total number of parking and total number of square feet. So we know what was approved and how your application is going to impact that original approval. We do have some information, but we do not have complete information. We do have some information in terms to parking. Right now the building is 105,974 square feet. That includes the detached buildings? Yes. Your proposal is to increase that building square footage? Yes, from 105,974 to 125,000 square feet. It's a little less than 15,000 square feet. What was the percentage of coverage? I believe it is 18.7% existing and we will go to 21.3% Mr. Roberts: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Wing10vitz: '-' The Bulk Requirements. Lot area: Lot Depth: Rear yard: Landscape: Building Coverage: Pervious surface ......... 10 acres required 12.972 acres Lot Width: 500 feet required 470 feet existing Front yard: 30 feet required 54 feet existing 50 feet proposed Side yard: 25% required 9.94% existing 10.08% proposed Building Height 20% max. required 18.7% existing 21.3% proposed Floor Area: 75% required 90.06% existing 89.2% proposed 500 feet required 1,030 feet existing 75 feet required 280feet existing 50 feet required 78 feet existing 59 feet proposed 35 feet required 25 feet existing 35 feet proposed .03 required .187 existing .213 proposed MINUTES I\PPROVED APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 5 ...... Mr. Dave: One thing I wanted to point out, it doesn't necessary represents and increases of the intensity of use, which is often attributed to making something larger. I think it is more prevision of wider isles, open areas, things of that nature. It shouldn't be necessary directly associated with a nature expansion and increase of the use. Mr. Friedrichs: This is variance application 99-7032 that consist of 2 request, the first one is the size of the parking and the 2nd is the number of parking spaces. We request that the board give us permission to have 9x 18 parking spaces instead of IOx20 spaces. We want to make the parking spaces conform to the existing parking that is there now. There was a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1994, which permitted 9x 18 feet. We want to be consisted with that prior existing variance that was granted. Mr. Lehigh: The appeal # was 1165 that was granted in 1994. Mr. Friedrichs: The parking spaces of this size are acceptable under the engineering standards and practices. (Gave to Board and to Ms. DiPaola for the file). Mr. Winglovitz: The study that we did was regarding parking space quantity availability. It provides and overall width for 62 feet, including parking space, the isle and the other parking spaces. We do conform to which consist to the 18 foot on the outside. Mr. Friedrichs: It allows us to enhance the landscaped areas in the center. There is a very small percentage of the existing parking spaces that are out there today that will be modified and we will be adding to the spaces. Mr. Prager: At the south end of the building are the parking spots going to be changed? '--' Mr. Winglovitz: Yes, they are going to be repave. Mr. Prager: The new parking spots are going to be 9x18? Mr. Winglovitz: That is correct. Mr. diPiemo: You want to maintain 90 degree parking? Mr. Friedrichs: Yes. (Goes over the question on the application 3A -3E) Mr. Lehigh: Any other questions on the first variance on this application? No other questions. Mr. Friedrichs: Variance # 2 under 99-7032 is to permit a variance that would allow a total 665 parking spaces in the shopping center. Under the ordinance 833 parking spaces is required, if it was to conform. There are 648 spaces out there now. In 1994 there was a variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals which would permit 664 spaces, there are more spaces out there than what the variance was granted for. Mr. Roberts: I don't understand that statement. Mr. Friedrichs: The ordinance requires 736 spaces for the uses of the site, a variance was granted to allow only 636 so there was a 100 space variance granted at that time in 1994. We counted 648 existing spaces. With respect to our use, we are increasing the square footage of the building by 15,000 square feet and since it is a retail use, it requires 1 space for every 150 square feet. We should be providing additional 97 spaces. We are increasing the parking by 7 spaces, the net outcome of this is that we are looking for 90 space variance. Mr. Lehigh: You are going to have to go for a total variance. You are still going to have a variance for 218 spaces? "-,,,Mr. Friedrichs: Yes. Mr. Roberts: You are going to provide 655? Mr. Winglovitz: Correct. You said that prior variance has permitted the total number to be 636. Yes. You are going to have 19 more spaces than the prior variance. Yes. When you talk about parking spaces we have to talk about useful parking. The ones in the back are useless. We really need more than 90 spaces. No one will park in the back and walk all the way to the front to go shopping. They will park there for the subway building. Also there will be parking for the employees. The parking is not just for your store it's for all the stores. Correct. We also have done a parking study, which I talked about at the last meeting. The study considers the areas that surround the building. (Gave parking requirements for shopping center to the Board and Ms. DiPaola) Mr. Friedrichs: The parking can have an adverse impact on the traffic in the area. In connection with the Planning Board review, we had a traffic impact study done. It was reviewed by the Planning Board and the Department of Transportation. The one story building is going to be taken down? No, we never talked about taking down that building. How many less parking spaces are around the subway building? Weare adding more spaces to that building. So you are taking away from the front spaces and adding to the back, which is useless parking. Actually the side parking is the ones that are being removed. You need more than a 90 parking space variance. I am Rod DiNonno, I run Hollowbrook. As far as the useless parking spaces, there are at least 30 cars parked in there from 9:00 to 5:00 every day, so behind subway is not useless parking. Who uses the parking? Employee's from Hollowbrook and the plaza in the front, as well as customers. If Hollowbrook is using the parking spaces, they have to supply more. Actually no, we share our parking, there was an agreement between the parking when Hollowbrook was built. It's not useless parking, that was my point. Those uses were taken into account when the parking study was done. Your problem is the amount of parking, they are not all for this store. Are you changing the front parking lot at all. No, there is nothing lost in the front. We are actually gaining spaces. You submitted a traffic study that indicated the peak number of parking spaces and uses, that should be in record here. Mr. Winglovitz: It is in record. Mr. Friedrichs Goes over the applications questions 3A-3E. Mr. Lehigh: I would like to read the evidence. A letter from Myers Comers Development Corp. dated 6/31/81, The Planning Board 8/18/83, The Building Inspector 6/4/81, the Planning Board and Building Inspector 1/10/79, a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Hannaford 12/6/99, parking requirements 3/28/00, dimension of parking 3/28/00, appeal 1165 1/19/94, Tectonic Engineering study 3/15/00, SEQRA determination from the Planning Board 9/30/99, Lead Agency 9/30/99, Letter from Roberts to Imperial Improvements 2/10/00, NY State Supreme Court Stipulation 2/1 0/00, Full EAF no date, ~ Mr. Roberts: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Winglovitz: Mr. Prager: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Winglovitz: ~ Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Winglovitz: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. DiNonno: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. DiNonno: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. DiNonno: Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Kavinga: Mr. Winglovitz: Mr. Roberts: '-' l\ilINUTES i\PPROVEO APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 6 MINUTES APPROVED APR 11 2000 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes March 28,2000 page 7 '-' Mr. Friedrichs: Mr. Lehigh: Letter from Planning Board to Zoning Board of Appeals for Recommendation, Letter from Hannaford 12/16/99, and letter from Wharten Reality Corp. 8/12/99. That is all I have I just wanted to say that these conditions were not self created. We can not go any further on this, so we will adjourn this until the next meeting. Mr. Warren: Mr. diPierno: Vote: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting until April 11,2000. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Warren: Made a motion to go into executive session. Mr. diPiemo Second the motion. V ote: All present voted aye. Went into executive session at 8:55 p.m. Mr. Prager: Made a motion to come out of executive session. Mr. diPiemo Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye Came out of executive session at 9:25 p.m. ......... Mr. diPierno: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Warren Second the motion. V ote: All present voted aye. MEETING ENDED 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~'YL~,-!Jilt~c,,- Christina DiPaola, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals ~