Loading...
1999-10-12MINUTES APPROVED - OCT 2 6 1999 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 1 MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals October 12,1999 Time: 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mr. Prager, Chairman Mr. Warren, Member Mr. Fanuele, Member Mr. diPierno, Member Members Absent: Mr. Lehigh Member Others Present: Mr. Roberts, Attorney to Town Mr. Liebermann, Acting Zoning Administer Ms. DiPaola, Secretary to Zoning Board of Appeals PROJECTS DISCUSSED: Public Hearing Discussions: Decisions: SUMMARIZED Thomas & Elena Tait Andrea Fabucci Paul Juliano Jr. Claire & John Minunni Jr Alpine Commons of Poughkeepsie Town Hall 20 Middlebush Rd Wappinger Falls, NY - Withdrew - Variance Denied - Variance Denied - Site Inspection Oct. 16,1999 Public Hearing Oct. 26,1999 - Variance & Interpretation Denied Appeal No. 99-7029 - At the request of Andrea Fabucci who is seeking an area variance of Article XIII, Section 240-112 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 10 foot side yard setback is required, the appellants is proposing a 1 foot side yard setback, thus requiring a 9 foot side yard setback variance in order to have the shed remain where it is on property located at 17 New Hackensack Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-04-586335 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself as Lead Agency as of September 14,1999. 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. FILE Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12, l 999 page 2 All the mailings are in order. Mr. Warren: Made a motion to approve minutes from September 28,1999. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. diPierno: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Ms. Fabucci: I put a shed up about 3-4 years ago. I did not know that you needed a permit for the shed. I did not realize that it was not a setback, because of the way the fence was. I did not realize that it was so close to the lady's property line until we took some of the bushes down and the lady came and told us. That is when we realize where to property line was. The way that we rent the house is I have one side of the house and the front of the house and that was the only place to put the shed. Mr. Prager: We got a letter from Don Corsell confirming the outside use of the property which Ms. Fabucci rents from Mr. Redl. We were out there on a site inspection on September 22,1999. I did notice that there wasn't a lot of things in the shed. It is a 90% variance, which I would be against from the beginning. Is there anything that you want to say. �••► Ms. Fabucci: No, I didn't know that there was something wrong before we put the shed on the property. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak for or against this variance? Mr. Tom Logan is present here tonight for Andrea DeRosa. Mr. Logan: I talked to Mr. Redl today and he said that he gave Ms. Fabucci a survey. he measured the line and there was 1 foot from the line. There is a letter from Mrs. DeRosa that she wrote herself. There were several discussions about the trees and shrubs that you took down on her property and the encroachment on the property. I am not making any judge on it, I am just saying what is there. Mr. Prager: He read the letters from Mrs. DeRosa for the public. He gives the letter to Christina to put into the file. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else in the public that would like to speak for or against this variance. Ok, anyone on the Board. Mr. Fanuele: The accusations that Mrs. Derosa made is that true are you on her property? Mr. Fabucci: No, the shed is not on her property. I do not have the required variance and as far as the fence goes I thought that was the property line. The fence has been there for 11 years. I never knew anything different, she never said anything before. Everything was there the whole time. When we took the bushes down, that's when we found out that those were her bushes. I offered to replace the bushes, and she said nevermind. That is about all I know. Mr. diPierno: Did you also clear away the ladders and the stuff behind the shed? Were there any behind the shed? Mr. Fabucci: Yes there was at that time. The fence was past that point so we didn't know when we took the bushes down that's when we found out. The ladders were there because we thought the fence was the boundary line. Mr. Prager: Do you think the ladders were from someone else? Ms. Fabucci: No, the ladders are my boyfriend's. The were in on the side of the fence. Mr. Prager: Oh ok, I got it. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 3 Ms. Fabucci: Even in her letter, Herb's daughter put the fence up. When I moved in right after Herb's daughter I did not know that the fence was not the line. I thought it was the line. Mr. Prager: This is a 90 % variance, which is very high. I personally feel that the variance should be denied. I also feel that you should get with Mr. Redl. He should really find a place on that property that you can put that shed. Its not like there is no property there, you have a large amount of property. You might have to walk to it, but at least it would be legal to put up. I would like to make a motion to deny the variance. Ms. Fabucci: Can I say one more thing. There is a lot of property there, but it also is the others lady's and I might have the same problem that I am having now. Mr. Prager: I think you have to straighten that out with Mr. Redl. If nothing else its more of Mr. Redl's problem to an extent than yours. This is his property. He should know better. It's between you and Mr. Redl. Mr. Fanuele: This actuzation between you and Mrs. DeRosa will have to be resolve. You are a tenant there, really the variance goes with the property, so when you move out. It should be Mr. Redl asking for the variance. Mr. Prager: We have to close this one out. Mr. Redl would have to come in and get a variance himself if he wants to do that. Ms. Fabucci: Oh I see. Mr. Prager: You are the one that is the applicant in this one. I will be perfectly clear, I do not think he has much chance. If you have a piece of property that can not be used for what you need it to be used for, and if there is no other area that you could put the shed in, then that is what the variance are for. �.. Mr. Logan: There should be an up to date survey by Mr. Redl showing the property line. Mr. Prager: If this ever comes up again, we would have to get an up to date survey by Mr. Redl. Mr. Fanuele: I would suggest that we table the decision and have Mr. Redl supply us with the survey and the markings. If he does not come back and then we should deny it. Mr. Prager: I still think Mr. Redl should come in for that variance. Ms. Fabucci: What is the difference? Mr. Prager: Legally, its the applicant, you are the one that filled out the variance. He even gave you permission to fill out the variance. Ms. Fabbucci: I paid the money just like he would pay the money. Mr. Prager: That is fine, that is why we are doing your variance not Mr. Redl's. He can not come in on yours. Mr. Fanuele: I think if we accepted the money that she has the right to presuant a variance so we should really let it stay open only until it is resolved. Mr. Prager: We can only adjourn this for so long. Mr. Fanuele: We can close the public hearing and then adjourn the decision. Mr. Logan: That result is going to be that the shed will have to be more anyway. Regardless if you have another hearing or six more hearings. Mr. Fanuele: If it is 1 inch from the line or 2 feet from the line I might be a little different. Mr. Logan: There was never a building permit obtained, there was a building permit issue on July 27 it was revoked on July 29t' Mr. Fanuele: The property probably is not big enough for the shed. Mr. Logan: That is a pretty good size lot. Mr. Fanuele: Yea, but it is an odd shape. You are not going to put it in the front. You can put it on the one side in which she did. Mr. Prager: I am standing by my motion. Lon Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 4 Mr. Prager: Made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. Roll call: All present voted aye. The variance was denied on October 12,1999. The Decision/ Order will be filed within 5 days. Appeal No. 99-7030 - At the request of Paul and Brigitte Juliano Jr., who is seeking an area variance of Article XIII, Section 240-112 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 10 foot side yard setback is a required, the appellants are proposing a 3 foot side yard setback, thus requiring a 7 foot side yard setback variance in order to have shed remain where it is on property located at 33 Pye lane and is identified a Tax Grid No. 6258-04-995010 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency as of September 14,1999. The Zoning Board of Appeals has not made determination of significance pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act and hereby reserves the right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearing. All the mailings are in order Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. All present voted aye. There was a site inspection on September 22,1999 Mr. Juliano: I purchased a home in 1990 with the existing shed in the place that it is at now. I refinanced my mortgage this passed year. I was told that I had a violation which I knew nothing about. I put in for a building permit and that time I stated that the shed was 3 or 10 feet, I had to do something because my mortgage was in limbo. I had to get my mortgage approved, so it was reinspected by Mr. Foody, and he said that the shed was not 10 feet from the fence. I submitted a variance to keep the shed where it is. My feelings are that I did nothing wrong. I purchased a home and expected everything to be in place. That's what we pay title searches for and everything else. Obivisioly someone dropped the ball and it was not me. I am asking for a variance to keep the shed at the present location. Mr. Prager: When we did go see the shed, we did notice that the shed is on a concert slab. Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this variance? No one spoke for or against this variance. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone on the board? Mr. Fanuele: I have one comment about what you said about the title insurance? Mr. Juliano: I mean a title search. Whatever has to be done when you purchase a home to make sure everything is in order. Mr. Fanuele: Did you get title insurance with it? Mr. Juliano: Whatever I had to do. This is the first house that I have purchased. Whatever I was required to do I did. Mr. Fanuele: Title insurance is not required, its up to you for your protection. Mr. Juliano: Inspections, title search? Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 5 Mr. Fanuele: If you had title insurance and they missed something then you have to argue with the title company. Mr. Juliano: To be honest, I don't know if I did or did not, I just did whatever I was told. We assume that doing what we are suppose to do covers all bases. What else can I say. Mr. Juliano: I have gone down the sheet here and some of it is the same as the last variance. If we go ahead and start giving these variances its going to start changing the Zoning laws. There are alternative methods that you can do. The variance is a 70 % substanceual. It will not cause any effects to the environment. This is not a self created shed I was there when Mr. Juliano bought the house. Mr. Fanuele: I think if the title company ok this then you have a case with the title company. They did not come out and do their job. He should of known about this at his first mortgage and take his action then. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Roll call: All present voted aye. Mr. Warren: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. diPiemo: Second the motion. All present voted aye. The variance was denied and the Decision will be filed within 5 days. Mr. Juliano: What do I do now? Mr. Prager: You have to get either with Mr. Foody or Mr. Liebermann. After the public hearing was closed Mr. Juliano spoke in length about how he did not think it was fair that his variance was denied and how it was not fair that he is getting picked on out of the whole Town of Wappinger. DISCUSSIONS 1. Claire & John Minunni Jr. - To discuss Appeal No. 99-7034, seeking a side yard setback variance to convert a car port into a garage. The property is located at 12 Sucich Place in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Minunni: We have a car port and we would like to convert the car port into a garage. The car port is 12 feet wide and I would like to make the garage 14 feet wide. I will still have 15 feet from the property line. Mrs. Minunni: The car port and the house was built prior to Zoning, so they do not meeting current zoning codes. Even though we are asking for an additional 5 feet its only an additional 2 feet. Mr. Prager: What is the garage for? Mrs. Minunni: We are going to convert the garage into living space and then we want a garage. Mr. Minunni: The car port that is on the deed now we want to make it a garage. Mr. Prager: When was the house built? ,f Mrs. Minunni: It was built in 1956. Mr. Prager: Was the car port put there the same time the house was built? Mr. Minunni: Yes. ...... Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 6 Mr. Prager: You have the car port and a garage right now, how many cars do you have? Mrs. Minunni: We have 2 cars. Mr. Prager: What are you going to use the living space for? Mrs. Minunni: One bedroom and one den. Mr. Prager: The size of your garage now is 12 by 28? Mr. Minunni: It is actually 12 by 20 there is a shed on the back. Mr. Prager: It is 12 feet wide. Ok What is the reason for putting 14 feet instead of 12 feet. Mr. Minunni: To have more space in the garage. There is a staircase that comes out inside the garage to the house so we want more room for the staircase. Mr. Prager: Do you have a drawing of the garage? Mrs. Minunni: We have a preliminary drawing. This is a very basic stretch. Mr. Prager: Ok, I did notice that you have more room in the back, would that be able to legal back there? Mrs. Minunni: I am not sure. Mr. Prager: The car port right now is 12 feet wide. Mr. Minunni: Right. Mr. Prager: We can take a look at it. Mrs. Minunni: Do you need this? Mr. Prager: No, but you might want to do is get some copies made. Is there anyway that you can move that car port back. Mr. Minunni: I think I would look better this way. I was planning on dropping it back 2 feet each way. ...... Mr. Prager: That is why I wanted a picture. If you can get some type of drawing of what it will look like that would be a big help to us. Mr. Prager: We are going to do a site inspection. Site Inspection October 16,1999 at 9:00 a.m. Public hearing on October 26,1999 Mr. Warren: Made a motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. Al! present voted aye. Mr. Warren: Made a motion for a Negative Declaration for Andrea Fabucci. Mr. diPiemo: Second the motion. Al! present voted aye. Mr. diPierno: Made a motion for a Negative Declaration for Paul Juliano. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Al! present voted aye. PUBLIC HEARING DECISION 1. Alpine Company of Pouehkeepsie Appeal Nos. 99-7021 & 99-7022. seeking to have a decision on the adjourned public hearing. ...... Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Adams is present for Alpine. ........ Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 7 Mr. Prager: As you know we have not approved the minutes from August 10th and August 24th because there were some questions about it. We felt that we have gone over them a number of times ourselves. Do you gentleman have some further things for us. Mr. Adams: I would like to be sure that the letter for October 7, 1999 is part of the record with the attachment submitted to you. I understand that there is a new draft of the minutes that we have not yet seen. So we can not comment on the contents. This letter shows to the board what we submitted in terms of revisions, and the board can see from a glance of that there are substantial. In addition to that, not only are there new revisions but there are portions of the record missing. I do not say this at a critical stand point, I know that Christina is new and Zoning is a particular language, it takes time on what is being said. This is a very important application to Alpine so we think it is highly important that the record both for you and further purposes use actuate. We want to maximize that potential. There are preference that I outline on the letter to you, is to have an opportunity to review the new draft. I also suggest a complete record is very important simply now because we are 2 months away from when the hearings were held. So everyone's memory will not be as fresh as it was back 2 months ago. Mr. Prager: Separately we went over the tapes and we did get more information in there. Mr. Kellogg: There is a critical section missing from the minutes. The variance application, when Dave Kurasina's discussion about the variance. We can submit a written summary paraphrasing what he said. If that is not the most recent. Mr. Adams: I also note for the record, that Mr. Roberts request for the title report. Mr. Roberts: There are a lot of graphical errors that I can not pick this out without listening to the tape and ...... seeing what is typed. It makes it very difficult for all of us without doing it in that fashion. John if you want to make the title I brought the title report with me, we can make that part of the record for whatever purposes or not. Mr. Adams: I do not know if that is dramane or not. Mr. Roberts: There were some issues with the respect to the REA as you refer to it and being recorded and then not being recorded. Mr. Adams: Can I suggest a course of action. If! heard Mr. Roberts correctly I think he was almost suggesting that he would like the opportunity to sit down and go over the tape. I think if the two of us sat down together and listened to the tape, I think we can properly agree to the contents of the record. Mr. Prager: Are you willing to do that? Mr. Roberts: Yes I am willing to do that. I would like a volunteer from the ZBA to participate. Mr. Prager: We have done it ourselves, because in fact we made a lot of these additions was because of that tape. Mr. Kellogg: Is there a another draft of August 24,1999 minutes? Mr. Prager: Yes, the August 24,1999 minutes I received on Thursday and on the August 10,1999 minutes I received over the weekend. Mr. Roberts: Have you seen in the minutes of August 10,1999 minutes there is a brief discussion on Dave Kurasina. Mr. Prager: On the 10th nothing much was said on the variance, if you remember correctly. You stated that you wanted to wait. On the 24th majority of that was said by Mr. Kurasina. Mr. Adams: It is really important to sit down and go over it. Mr. Roberts: It is up to the Board. I'm not sure that we are ever going to be able to determine exactly what ...... was said and not said because the tape does not pick it up. Mr. Prager: I am confused about that part what would you do in that case, you can not have the hearing over. Mr. Roberts: You already closed the public hearing. " '--.,. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 8 Mr. Adams: Until we have reviewed the record, I think we need to look at the record at the most recent graph and see what in the fact the record is. Mr. Roberts: We are not under no obligation to take the minutes word for word. Mr. Adams: That is your practice, you may be under no obligation but that is a practice that you observed. Mr. Roberts: We do it to the best of the tape recorder. Mr. Prager: Do you know what section that you are talking about? Where this would of been said? Is any of this in here? Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to go into a executive session. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. All present voted aye. All the members were in executive session for about 15 minutes. The tape was turned off for that period of time. They all member that were here this evening came back from executive session. The tape was turned back on. Mr. Prager: We went over the minutes and agree that there are still some errors in it. We feel that substanical they are correct, I think that they do reflect essence of the presentation. With that being said I would like to have a motion to first accept the August 10,1999 minutes. Mr. diPierno: Made a motion to approve the August 10,1999 minutes. '--'" Mr. Warren: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Warren: Made a motion to approve the August 24,1999 minutes. Mr. Fanuele: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: I believe at the last meeting and I believe that I have said it at the last meeting, if not I am going make a mention of it now. We do not need a negative declaration for the Interpretation. I also wanted to state that I had the Town Attorney do some research and also assisted me in drafting this interpretation. Which I will now read. Mr. Prager read all of the Interpretation to everyone. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman I think we also should let the record reflect that we have adjourned to this meeting to clarify some things in the minutes. The last meeting the applicant had requested the adjournment to this date. The adjournment was on consent. Mr. Prager: Let me restate that, we did adjourn this at the request of the applicants in order to try to clarify the minutes. Do we have a motion to accept that interpretation. Mr. Fanuele: Made a motion to accept the Interpretation. Mr. diPierno: Second the motion. Roll Call: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh is absent. " Mr. Prager: The motion has been passed to go with the Interpretation of the Zoning Administer. ...... The next item on the agenda is Appeal No. 99-7022. I also asked the Town Attorney to assist me in this draft. believe in the last meeting that we did do a negative declaration. Just in case we did not, can I get a motion. .~ Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes October 12,1999 page 9 Mr. diPierno: Made a motion for a negative declaration. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: I also know that this has been brought up at the August 24 meeting that Mr. Adams want to clarify how the Planning Board felt as far as recommendation to deny the variance. I do have another letter from Mr. DiNonno and Mr. Kellogg was present at that meeting. He reads over the letter from Mr. DiNonno. Mr. Prager: I will read the application of the area variance. He reads all of the application to everyone. Mr. diPierno: Made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Roll call: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh is absent. The variance will be filed within 5 days. Mr. diPierno: Made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. All present voted aye. ......... Meeting ended: 9:20 p.m. Respectfully yours, (~'. (VlJ.btt~f\k'C D i tt~(f(-<- Christina DiPaola, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals ........