Loading...
1999-09-14MINUTIFS APPROVED SEP 2 8 1999 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals September 14,1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present: Others Present: Adjourned Public Hearing Discussions Adjourned Public Hearing Mr. Prager Mr. Lehigh Mr. Fanuele Mr. Roberts Mr. Liebermann Ms. DiPaola Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes September 14,1999 Page 1 MINUTES Chairman Mr. diPierno Member Vice Chairman Mr. Warren Member Member Attorney to the Town Acting Zoning Administer Secretary to Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie Andrea Fabucci Thomas & Elena Tait Paul & Brigitte Juliano Jr. Sept.28,1999 will decide Site Inspection Sept. 22,1999 Public Hearing Oct. 12,1999 Site Inspection Sept. 22,1999 Public Hearing Oct. 22,1999 Site Inspection Sept. 22,1999 Public Hearing Oct. 12,1999 An adjourned public hearing will be conducted by the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals on the appeal of the Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie affecting lands at Route 9 and constituting a portion of tax parcel no. 6157-02-707773, said appeal requesting an interpretation (Interpretation Application No. 99-7021) that section 330 of the Zoning Law does not require that a common lot divided by a zoning district line must be treated as two separate lots for the purpose of determining conformance with the bulk resolutions of the Zoning Law. A further adjourned public hearing will be conducted on the application of Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie for alternative relief of variance (Variance Application No. 99-7022) from section 330 of the Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself lead agency on July 13,1999, however the Zoning Board of Appeals has not made determination of significance pursuant to Article VIII of the Environmental Conservation Law and the related Title 6 part 617 N.Y.C.R.R. (commonly known as SEQRA), and local law number 6 of the year 1992, and the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the adjourned public hearing stated above. NVAW NVAW Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes September 14,1999 page 2 Mr. Prager: We do not have the minutes from August 10,1999 and the minutes from August 24,1999 have spelling and grammar mistakes. I will have to hold my decision for tonight, the decision will have to be made at the next meeting of September 28,1999. We did not do a negative check on the variance, the interpretation does not need one. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion for a negative check. Mr. diPierno: Seconds the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: We did have a Site Inspection on September 11,1999 at 9:00 a.m. Sorry that we have to keep postponing it, but without the proper information we can not do anything. Mr. Kellogg: Ok thank you. DISCUSSION Andrea Fabucci To discuss Interpretation Application No. 99-7029 regarding 17 New Hackensack Road. Wants existing shed to remain where it is. Ms. Fabucci: I rent the house that I live in. It is a two family house. I have lived there for 11 years, so I decided to put a shed up on the side of the house, the shed has been there for 3 years. I didn't know that you needed a building permit. The landlord never told me anything. There is also a fence on the property that divides myself and the neighbors property. I thought the fence meant that, that was the property line. I was wrong. I found out that where I rent I have the side of the house where the shed is and the front of the property. The lady that rents downstairs has the property in the back and the other side of the house. That was the lease agreement from Mr. Redl. That is why I am asking for a variance. Mr. Prager: The shed has been there for 3 years and you have lived there for 11 years? Ms. Fabucci: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Is this a legal two family home? Ms. Fabucci: It is listed a two family home on my paper work. Mr. Prager: Herb Redl is the owner of the house? Ms. Fabucci: Right. Mr. Fanuele: I think Mr. Redl should be here because he owns the property. Ms. Fabucci: I have a letter from Herb Redl. Mr. Prager: Did you purchase the shed? Ms. Fabucci: Yes. Mr. Prager: Who installed the shed? Ms. Fabucci: My boyfriend installed the shed. Mr. Redl didn't know that I had the shed and he did not care until this problem came up. Mr. Liebermann: The reason that it was brought to our attention, the lady that is living next to them was complaining about the shed being on her property line. That was the original complaint. Mr. Prager: I see the letter to Mrs. Derosa NOW 1.rr Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes September 14,1999 page 3 Mr. Liebermann: That was answering her complaint. Don Vasella said that she didn't meet the setbacks, then when they took the hedge down they realized they didn't have the proper setbacks. Mr. Prager: I have a letter to Mrs. Derosa form Don Corsell. I also have one from Don Close to Mr. Liebermann. Mr. Liebermann: He submitted a first plan, and the plan showed the shed met the setbacks. Then they realized that when they took down the hedges that it didn't meet the setbacks. Mr. Lehigh: Which plot plan is right? The one that shows the side of the house, or the one that shows the rear of the house? Ms. Fabucci: The one that is shown on the side of the house. Mr. Prager: Are you 17 or 19 New Hackensack Road? Ms. Fabucci: I am 19 for 11 years and I came here and I am 17. Mr. Liebermann: I think with the 911 and everything it has been changed a couple of times. Ms. Fabbucci: I live right next to Fun Central. Mr. Liebermann: It's possibly a two family house, I will check that out for you. Mr. Prager: Is the shed movable? Ms. Fabucci: No it is not, I have no other place to put it. Mr. Prager: What do you store in the shed? Ms. Fabucci: A lot of stuff. When I went to the lady next door, she was really mad about the bushes, that is how this problem came about. I had no idea that those were her bushes. She said then I want the shed taken down. Mr. Prager: We are going to have to have a site inspection. September 22,1999 at 6:00 p.m. will be the site inspection. Mr. Warren Made a motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. diPierno seconds the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: Public Hearing October 12,1999. Thomas & Elena Tait To discuss Interpretation Application No. 99-7028 regarding 5 Alpert Drive seeking to put a inground pool in and to fit it around a large rock. Mr. Tait: We moved into a house in November of 1998. We took down the above ground pool because the pool was not replaceable and we wanted to put a inground pool in the place of the other one. We had the builder come over and apply for the building permit. We were told that we can not build 10 feet from the line, you have to be 20 feet from the line. We took down some landscaping that was put in years ago. The only thing that is left are rocks, they are not decorative boulders placed there, the rocks actually come out of the ground. This is the only place that the pool can be put. We are asking for a variance of 10 feet. I stated how it would be different then a structure. I have spoken to someone about putting up a fence and I was told that the decorative part had to face the neighbors. The pool is going to go where the old fence was and then the new fence will go up. It will be 8 feet high. Mr. Prager: We are going to have a Site Inspection. September 22,1999 at 6:30 p.m. Can you mark out around the property to let me know where the pool will be. Public Hearing October 12,1999 Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes September 14,1999 page 4 Paul & Brigitte Juliano Jr. To discuss Interpretation Application No. 99-7030 regarding 33 Pye Lane. Want the existing shed to remain where it is. Mr. Juliano: I need a variance of 7 feet from the property line. The setback needs to be 10 feet from the abutting property. I bought the house in May of 1990, there was an existing shed. It has been there since I have been living there. I refinance my mortgage and now I do not have a CO and now I also have a problem. Mr. Prager: When did you buy the home? Mr. Juliann: I bought it in May of 1990. Mr. Prager: The shed was part of the property then? Mr. Juliann: Yes it was. Mr. Liebermann: Back in 1990 they did CO title searches. Back then Tim Classy was building inspector. All we did then was searches from the file open of the grid number no violation or permit and then we would give them no violation letters. The state came down and said you have to send violation letters out and the attorney agreed. You better go out and do a ride by inspection and make sure that there is nothing there that does not have a permit. That is how the shed got picked up. r.. Mr. Prager: I see a letter, there is no date on the letter. What is this letter regarding? Mr. Juliano: That is a estimate. The shed is on a 6 inch slab now. Mr. Lehigh: It's not suppose to be on a slab. Mr. Juliano: If I was to move the shed, then it would be in the middle of the property. My main problem with this that I am being victimized over this. Mr. Prager: That is why we are here. Site Inspection September 22,1999 at 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing October 12,1999. Mr. Warren made a motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. diPiemo seconds the motion All present voted aye Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Warren seconds the motion Meeting Adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Yours, Christina DiPaola Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals