Loading...
1998-11-10In AGENDA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MEETING DATE: November 10, 1998 TIME: 7:30 PM Approval of October 27, 1998, minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY 1. Anneal No. 98-7029 - At the request of Robert Tompkins, who is seeking an Interpretation as an Aggrieved Person, is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator for denying a building permit for repairs to property located at 1539 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-632285-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the subject application is an Unlisted Action. 2. Anneal No. 98-7031 - At the request of Dutchess Terminal, Inc., who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.2 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations and Article IV, Section 440.3.2 - Gasoline Filling Stations - Whereas the appellant is proposing a 15 -foot setback for a proposed gasoline dispenser island, and a 25 -foot front yard setback is required, thus a 10' front yard setback variance is requested for property is located on Route 9 D and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6057-04-819102-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency on October 13, 1998. 3. Appeal No. 98-7034 - At the request of Mr. & Mrs. Doherty, who are seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 20 -foot side yard setback is -required; the appellants are proposing a 4 -foot setback in order to construct a detached (20' X 24') carport, thus requiring a 16 -foot side yard setback variance for property located at 6 Pippin Lane and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6258-04-572102-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency on October 27, 1998. DISCUSSION Michael & Patricia Pylypshyn - Appeal No. 98-7035 - To discuss a side yard setback variance furan addition. The property is located at 160 Rosewood Drive in the Town of Wappinger. MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals November 10, 1998 Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Member Absent Mr. diPierno: Member Others Present Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. Warren: Member jf" s t �rg����ptot .. .:, Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney .c' z2 Mr. Close, Zoning Administrator L..n Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes to be approved: SUMMARIZED October 27, 1998 -- Approved Public Hearings: Robert Tompkins -- Variance Granted W/ Conditions Dutchess Terminal, Inc. -- Variance Granted W/ Conditions Mr. & Mrs. Doherty -- Variance Granted W/ Conditions Discussions: Mr. & Mrs. Pylypshyn -- Set Public Hearing - Nov. 24, 1998 Miscellaneous: Application Forms -- New Applications approved MINUTES Mr. Lehigh made a motion to approve the October 27, 1998, minutes. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. •.r+ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal No. 98-7029 - At the request of Robert Tompkins, who is seeking an Interpretation as an Aggrieved Person, is appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrator for denying a building permit for repairs to property located at 1539 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-632285-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the subject application is an Unlisted Action. Mr. Railing, PE, Mr. Hanig, Esq., and Mr. Tompkins, property owner, were present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Now Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated the application is to appeal a decision of the Building Inspector/Zoning Administrator which denied an application to issue a building permit for repairs to be made to the structure. The building is best known for the Rafters. Probably, at one point and time, the building met the setback requirement of the Town of Wappinger. As a result of road expansions of Route 9, the State has eroded away the distance between the building and the front lot line. The building is non -conforming in terms of the setback, but the building in the past has been used as a conforming use. Mr. Tompkins would like to maintain the building so he can continue using it for a conforming use. To do that, Mr. Tompkins has to maintain the building. They believed the Zoning Administrator turned down the application for a building permit under the belief that it is a non -conforming structure which could not be repaired because it was not in use continuously for the last couple of years. They did not believe that type of position applied to a building which was otherwise structurally intact. He said that type of margin would also apply to every single house and building in the Town of Wappinger which has not been occupied for the last year or so. It would result in a defacto condemnation of the structure that is there. It would relegate his client to the position to seek compensation for the loss of use of the structure. That is a position his client doesn't want to be in. His client wants to find a new tenant to use the building for a conforming use under the Zoning Ordinance. Whatever the use is, Mr. Tompkins knows that he would then have to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Right now he has to be able to put the building in a condition so he can show it and attract a tenant. As the building is right now, that can not be done. That is what the application was going to be for which was to make repairs to the building. He agreed with some of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 3 Planning Board's letter and disagreed with other parts. He agreed with the part that said for any intended use of the property, the owner would have to go back to the Planning Board for site plan approval. He disagreed with the part of the letter which indicates no building permit can be issued until site plan approval is granted. That will create an impossible situation for his client to find a tenant first, then get site plan approval so a building permit can be issued. All the owner wants to do now is make repairs to the building so he is capable of attracting a tenant for the property. He is asking the ZBA to reverse the decision of the Building Inspector which denied his client the ability to get a building permit issued for repairs to the building. Once the building is repaired, when he finds a tenant for the building, then an application has to go to the Planning Board for site plan approval for the use of the tenant that is obtained for the building. At this time, they are only asking for a building permit to allow the owner to make repairs to the building. Mr. Prager asked about the frontage on Route 9. He asked if it was a condemnation. Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated Route 9 was once a two lane road. Mr. Tompkins stated he purchased the property in 1988. Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated Mr. Tompkins purchased the property after Route 9 had become a 4 land road. Compensation never went to Mr. Tompkins from the State. Mr. Tompkins explained that he wants to rehab the building so he can rent it. He wants to replace windows, siding, the roof and heating system and bring the wiring up to code. The way the building is presently, no one is interested in even looking at the building. Mr. Fanuele asked if the owner is willing to go through all of that and then be denied by the Planning Board because he can not get site plan approval. Mr. Hanig, Esq. could not see how the Planning Board could deny site plan approval. They would probably put restrictions and conditions on the development of the site. Mr. Prager read into the minutes the Planning Board's letter dated October 5, 1998. "In connection with the appeal of Robert Tompkins for premises known as the `Rafters", it was and continues to be the position of the Planning Board that no additional area variances be granted for this site. The site presently contains three separate buildings, two of which are actively used. The building known as the `Rafters' is in very close proximity of Route 9, creating many site layout concerns. It was reported to the Planning Board that the applicant Nftwl has appealed the ruling of the Building Inspector not to issue a building permit for repair work to the existing `Rafters' building. The Planning Board notes that Section 400.5.7 applies to dimensionally non -conforming buildings which are otherwise conforming in use. `.rr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 4 Such section only authorizes a permit to be issued for the alteration, maintenance and repair work as is required to keep the building in a safe condition. No changes or alterations can be made that will result in an increase of such non -conformity. Section 400.5.8.2 requires the reconstruction of all non-residential non -conforming buildings to be subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. In addition, Section 450.8. Ld states that site plan approval expires in the event that the premise has been substantially vacant or inactive for more than three years. It is the Planning Board's understanding that the `Rafters' building has been vacant for more than three years. Provided the applicant only seeks to do such repair work as is required to keep the building in a safe condition, it is the recommendation of the Planning Board that such a permit may be issued after the Planning Board has received and approved a site plan for the building". Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated his only dispute with the Planning Board letter is that it is hard to get a site plan for the building until they know who the tenant is going to be. They want to do the repair work to maintain the building in order to attract a tenant. Mr. Prager stated a site inspection was held on October 3rd. He logged into evidence the letter from the Building Inspector dated July 10, 1998; letter from the Planning Board dated October 5, 1998; letter from the Zoning Administrator dated August 5, 1998 and October 26, 1998. He read into the minutes Mr. Close's October 26th letter. "Mr. Tompkins opened the building for me at 1:30 PM on Friday, October 28, 1998. Surprisingly, I found the structural portion of the building to look OK. The exterior sheathing, roof, doors, interior walls, ceilings and floor are shot and will have to be replaced. I did not see the foundation or sill plate nor was I able to `feel' the rafters or floor joist for any type of rot. By sight, the structural portion looks to be sound". He asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against the appeal. Hearing none; Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager made a motion to reverse the determination by the Zoning Administrator. He wanted to uphold the decision that a building permit is not to be issued until site plan approval is granted by the Planning Board. (Per the Planning Board's letter dated October 5, 1998.) Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Absent. Vote: All present voted in favor of the motion. wr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 5 Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. Hanig, Esq. asked if Mr. Tompkins can make repairs to the building at this time to keep the building structurally sound. Mr. Prager said no, he has to get site plan approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated he can not attract a tenant. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated the owner can only use the building for permitted uses. There are some locational issues created by any of the permitted uses. The owner could get site plan approved by showing a general layout for any of the generic permitted uses. Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated a number of the permitted uses may have different site plan requirements such as parking. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated the site will be restricted to a certain extent by the number of parking spaces available for use. Mr. Railing, PE, stated the current documents on file in the Health Department indicate that the septic area is an acceptable parking area. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated he has to get site plan approval for a generic use. If he comes in later with something that requires additional parking, then he will have to amend the site plan. Mr. Tompkins said the first thing the Planning Board is going to ask him is what does he intend to put in the building and he doesn't know. The Planning Board is going to tell him to get a tenant and then come back. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, said that will not be the position of the Planning Board. The ruling of the Zoning Board will control how the Planning Board acts. Mr. Hanig, Esq. stated Mr. Tompkins does not want to go through the winter without making the repairs to the building. The way the Planning Board works, it will take until February or March to get approval. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 6 lftw Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, asked what agenda could Mr. Tompkins be put on for the Planning Board. Mrs. Nguyen stated the next meeting is December 7" Mr. Railing said he has an existing sketch layout of the existing site. They started last March by first going to the Planning Board with what they felt is an acceptable location of the building based upon a meeting with the then Chairman of the Planning Board. Eight months later they are going back to the Planning Board. Some of the issues that are going to come up are parking and Board of Health. They will have to go back and reestablish an approval with the Health Dept. They will need to submit an application to the DOT, which has a lengthy review time. Then there are the other issues that relate to the different types of uses that are possible within the building. Mr. Tompkins needs to get in there and do some repairs now. He felt there would be no harm to the community for Mr. Tompkins to rehabilitate the building by re -roof it, painting, fixing the siding and windows. He said they are looking at an extended stay in the Planning Board not necessarily due to the Planning Board process, which is 2 or 3 months, it is the other processes that are wrapped around it. He said it would be easier to make the modifications to the site plan with the knowledge of the type of use that will go into the building. For example a loading zone is required for certain types of operations and not in others. He asked how he can design a generic parking lot to accommodate everybody. Mr. Lehigh made a motion for an Executive Session at 7:50 PM. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. Lehigh made a motion to come out of the Executive Session at 8:00 PM. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals upon reconsideration of *404 the limited facts of this case and upon its own motion rescinded its prior determination of the evening and hereby overrules the Zoning administrator determination, dated August 5, 1998, hereby authorizes the issuance of a `limited' building permit for NOW Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 7 `exterior repairs only'. Specifically, the foundation, roof, siding and the windows. And on further expressed conditions that the footprint of the building will not be altered. Basically, what the Board wants to allow him to do is close it up for the winter. No use of the building will be allowed, no c/o will be issued until a site plan has been approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele wanted it added that anything that might be structural improvements be included. He said they may need some extra post to hold the roof up. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, did not feel that would be necessary because Mr. Close already conducted an investigation. Mr. Railing, PE, said if they hit a rafter, he was sure the intent is to let them replace that. Mr. Prager said the idea is to close the building up so the weather does not deteriorate it any further. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye. 2. Appeal No. 98-7031 - At the request of Dutchess Terminal, Inc., who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.2 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations and Article IV, Section 440.3.2 - Gasoline Filling Stations - Whereas the appellant is proposing a 15 -foot setback for a proposed gasoline dispenser island, a 25 -foot front yard setback is required, thus a 10' front yard setback variance is requested for property located on Route 9 D and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6057-04-819102-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency on October 13, 1998. Mr. Spratt, PE, Mr. Daly, property owner, and Mr. Khorsrow Vosoughi, (tenant) President of Dutchess Terminals, Inc., were present. ,*a*- Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Warren made a motion to open the public hearing. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 8 Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Spratt, PE, explained this appeal is before the ZBA in regard to the placement of the proposed gasoline dispenser island. Mr. Prager stated a site inspection was held on October 17`h Mr. Lehigh asked about lighting since the canopy will sit close to Route 9D. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the lights are recessed so nothing will extend outside the canopy. He said the building that is there has a peeked roof. He felt there is a problem putting a peeked roof on the canopy because snow will come down on the vehicles of the people getting gas. Mr. Prager was concerned that the canopy could inhibit the sight distance. He wondered if that is why DC Planning suggested a peeked roof on the canopy. Mr. Lehigh stated there is not much parking for the amount of use they are getting from the site. He felt the parking lot in the rear should be blacktopped. He stated that would be up to the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele asked what the parking in the rear would be used for. Mr. Daly stated the `future parking', shown on the original plan, was to be used if he had too much parking in the front. Then, he could designate parking in the that area. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the parking in the rear of the parcel is for storage for the repair business. Mr. Lehigh suggested the ZBA could make a recommendation that those spots in the front should be used for the store and any storage should be in the rear. Mr. Vosoughi explained there will be more room on the north side for additional parking spaces due to the proposed curbing. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the DOT has accepted his submission and they are reviewing the shifting of the driveways. Mr. Prager asked about signage. Ern Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 9 Mr. Spratt, PE, said they did not present any signage because at the last meeting it was discussed and they came to the conclusion it would complicate the appeal. Mr. Fanuele said they had talked about putting an entrance to the rear of the property so people would not drive through the pump area. Mr. Spratt, PE, said they may need to take out two parking spaces on the north side in order to make an opening to get around the building for circulation. That will be an issue with the Planning Board. Mr. Vosoughi stated there is an existing gravel driveway on the north side. All they have to do is move a couple of parking spaces to gain access to that driveway. Mr. Fanuele said in order for him to vote for the variance, he has a condition that the road they are using now has to be abandoned or a set of pumps have to go. Mr. Lehigh said if the Board grants the variance, it would be contingent upon the DOT approving the curb cuts. Mr. Warren noted, from attending the site inspection, they have enough room to loop the driveway around. Mr. Lehigh agreed with Mr. Warren. He felt they should pursue the gravel driveway on the right so it would be a loop driveway. Mr. Daly said there is a wooden thing closing off the gravel driveway on the right. All they have to do is remove that and the road is already there. After much discussion, the Board agreed it would be best to open up the gravel driveway so people would not drive through the pump area. Mr. Fanuele suggested they should put up a sign saying for `deliveries only' to help reduce the number of cars entering on the paved driveway on the south side of the parcel. Mr. Lehigh made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. 1.. Vote: All present voted aye. 1%W En Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Prager asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding the appeal. Hearing none; Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager logged into evidence a letter from Mr. Spratt, PE, dated 9/23/98, a letter from DC Dept. of Planning dated 10/13/98, a letter of recommendation from the Planning Board dated 3/30/98, site plans dated 11/4/96, revised 9/14/98 and 10/20/98 and plans dated 11/4/96, revised 9/14/98, by James Spratt, PE. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to grant the variance subject to opening the (gravel) driveway on the north side (to create a loop driveway) and a sign to be installed indicating `deliveries only' on the south side (on the convenience store side). Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Appeal No. 98-7034 - At the request of Mr. & Mrs. Doherty., who are seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 20 - foot side yard setback is required, the appellants are proposing a 4 -foot setback in order to construct a detached (20' X 24') carport, thus requiring a 16 -foot side yard setback variance for property located at 6 Pippin Lane and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6258-04- 572102-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency on October 27, 1998. Mr. Doherty, property owner, was present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to open the public hearing. O *4W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 11 Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Doherty explained that he wants to construct a carport since he does not have a garage. There is no place else on the property to put the carport except where he is proposing it. Mr. Prager stated a site inspection was held on October 29 and 31St. He noticed from the survey (dated June 3, 1987, last revised on June 10, 1987, by Peter R. Hustus, LLS) that the carport is proposed only 4 feet from the property line. There are large pine trees next to it. If a fire ever happened in the carport, being that it is all open, it could easily spread to the pine trees and his neighbor's property. He was concerned that if they ever needed to get to the rear of the property, it would be blocked on that side by the proposed carport. Mr. Doherty stated he does not plan to put up any walls so it would be open (8 feet high). Mr. Prager stated he asked the Town Fire Inspector, Mark Liebermann, to take a look at it. He sent in a letter dated November 10, 1998. "In reference to the above captioned property and request for a variance to construct a two car carport, I have inspected the site and offer the following: constructing the two car carport would be close to the property line and would be directly underneath a large evergreen tree. In the event of a fire, this tree would be added fuel and endanger the adjoining structure. I would highly recommend a single vehicle carport be constructed." Mr. Prager agreed with Mr. Liebermann's letter. A single carport would keep it farther away from the abutting neighbor. It would also give room for someone to get to the rear of the parcel. Mr. Lehigh asked if Mr. Doherty had spoken to his neighbor about the variance. He stated there are a number of pine trees along the property line. If a fire ever started in the carport, the pine trees would act like a torch. The neighbor's house is only about 20 feet away. The neighbor could lose his house on a windy day if there was a fire in the carport. Also, in order for Mr. Doherty to build the carport, the trees will need to be trimmed. Mr. Cupano - 8 Pippin Lane - 25 year resident - Stated he already discussed it with Mr. Doherty. He has agreed to trim the trees. As far as he is concerned, the trees can be removed. He felt Mr. Doherty's request is reasonable. He felt the position of the carport off the rear of the house is acceptable. As for fire apparatus or equipment, they can go through his property. Mr. Prager asked if there are any septic systems in that side of the property. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Cupano stated he has Town sewer. He felt Mr. Doherty's request is reasonable. He said if it could be set more to the right, that is fine. He said the trees are of no value other than to divide the property. Mr. Warren asked Mr. Cupano if he would mind removing all of the trees. Mr. Cupano said not all of them. He said there are only 3 or 4 by the proposed carport. He said that is up to the Town. Mr. Lehigh said the trees are interlocking. If one goes, then they all have to go. Mr. Cupano appreciated the Board's concerns for Mr. Doherty's and his safety. Mr. Fanuele stated with the trees removed, then Mr. Cupano will be able to look right into the carport unless some type of screening is put up. Mr. Doherty stated that side of the carport would to have a slated fence. Mr. Fanuele asked if it would be like the one that is on the deck. Mr. Doherty said yes. Mr. Cupano stated they plan to trim the pines. If it is necessary for one or all the trees to be removed, then Mr. Doherty would have to consider that. Mr. Lehigh said if they go with some screening and take the trees down, that should take most of the fire hazard out of it. He said since there are no sides on the carport, there is nothing to contain the fire. In a regular garage it would be contained within the garage. A fence should alleviate some of that. Mr. Prager asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to speak for or against the appeal. Hearing none, he logged into evidence the three drawings of the carport, and a subdivision map. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Lehigh made a motion to grant the variance with the stipulation that the pine trees, the length of carport, are to be removed and a screened fence, the length of the carport, is to be installed (on the property line) to help screen it from the abutting neighbor. It will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. There are no other feasible alternatives that they can use. The requested variance is substantial. He felt they mitigated that by requesting the trees to be removed and adding a fence. He felt it is not self-created since the house was already in existence. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ROLL CALL Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. diPiemo: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye in favor of granting the variance with conditions. DISCUSSION Michael & Patricia Pylypshyn - Appeal No. 98-7035 - To discuss a side yard setback variance for an addition. The property is located at 160 Rosewood Drive in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Pylypshyn, property owner, was present. Mr. Pylypshyn explained that he wants to add a (13 X 21) addition onto his house. He has a problem with the side line setback requirement of 25 feet. He has a problem meeting that setback on the corner of the addition. He presented a cutout to show how much the corner is over the required setback. Mr. Prager asked if he could reduce the size of the addition. Mr. Pylypshyn stated he wanted it to be bigger. He wanted to come out 24 feet. Mr. Prager asked what the addition will be used for. Mr. Pylypshyn stated it will be used for more room for the family. His oldest daughter will be graduating collage and his mother-in-law will be coming to live with his family. vftw Mr. Lehigh asked if the addition could be moved to the other side of the house. .rr+� Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 14 Mr. Pylypshyn said he cannot do that because of access to the addition. He has an existing sliding glass door which would be perfect for the addition. Mr. Lehigh suggested a site inspection. He noticed from the drawing that the addition will be on pillars. He suggested it should be screened off on the bottom. Mr. Pylypshyn agreed it has to be screened. He stated the room will be used as a sunroom, rec. room, family room, etc. He started building the house in 1978 and in 1981 they moved in. They love the area and this is where they want to stay. Mr. Lehigh made a motion for the ZBA to be Lead Agency. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager stated they will wait on the Neg. Dec. He set the site inspection for Saturday, November 21, 1998, at 9:00 AM. I.. Mr. Fanuele asked if Mr. Pylypshyn could make the addition wider or shorter. Mr. Pylypshyn explained that he wanted it wider too, but due to the chimney location, the roof line and the collection of snow, it would cause a problem with drainage. Mr. Prager set the public hearing for November 24, 1998. He asked for Mr. Pylypshyn to steak -out the addition for the site inspection. APPLICATION FORMS Mr. Prager explained that the week before he met with Mr. Roberts regarding a new application. They received applications from the City and Town of Poughkeepsie. Todd took the best from each application and came up with a new application for the ZBA. Mr. Todd Robinson, Esq. explained that by changing the application, maybe the Board will be in a better position to understand and get a more full answer from the applicant. They looked at the statutory factors and tried to `plain English' them better for the applicants. Mr. Prager stated the way the application is made up now, it is more geared towards a use variance and an outdated use variance at that. It was getting confusing when people came before the Board. He asked Mrs. Nguyen if she had any input. "err. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 15 Mrs. Nguyen stated there needs to be a place for an application number, date, fee, and receipt number and several other suggestions. Mr. Fanuele suggested the application should allow more room for the applicant to fill in for each a question. Mr. Robinson, Esq. said they took care of that by saying, "You may attach additional sheets as necessary". Mrs. Nguyen explained that a while back the issue of revising the application had come up. She had typed up a few examples on the computer. One of her ideas was to have separate applications; one for an area variance, one for a use variance and one for an interpretation. Mr. Prager stated he likes the idea of it all being on one application. Mrs. Nguyen stated an applicant finds it confusing since some parts of the application would not pertain to their request. She presented an example of an `area' variance application. The application would be only for an area variance. The applicant would answer the 5 or 6 questions regarding an area variance. There is an area `for office use' on the form. That is the section that the Board uses to make their determination of whether or not the variance will be granted and if there are any conditions. The last part is for the signature of the Chairman and there is a place for the document to be notarized. Everything would be done on one document. After the Chairman's signature, the whole document would be filed in the Town Clerk's Office. The Board was in favor of having separate applications. Mr. Lehigh was concerned about someone coming in asking for a variance when what they really need is an interpretation. Mrs. Nguyen stated there is room at the end of the document, under conditions/stipulations to explain the situation if someone came in for one type of an application and it changed to another type. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated a `Findings and Facts' should be included in the decision making process. He suggested Mrs. Nguyen should submit copies of the applications for the Board. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to use the new applications. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ,` Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 PM. •.r Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - November 10, 1998 Page 16 Respectfully Submitted, Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals