Loading...
1999-08-24ftreS PPROVED .00T 12 1999 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals August 24,1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Others Present Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 1 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. diPierno: Member Mr. Warren: Member Al Roberts: Attorney to the Town %W Linda Nguyen: Secretary of Zoning Christina DiPaola: Secretary of Zoning Summarized Adjourned Public Hearing: Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie Public Hearing: Owen & Deborah Jordan - Adjourned Sept. 14,1999 Discussions: Salvatore & Regina Pace - Withdrew John & Elizabeth Coleman - Public Hearing Sept. 28,1999 Troy Swain - Public Hearing Sept. 28,1999 Louise & Patrick Clark - MINUTES No minutes Were presented to Approve .DJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING *4ftW Now I Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 2 1 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 resolution of the Zoning Law. Motion to reopen the adjourned public hearing made by Mr. Warren and 2nd made by Mr. diPiemo All in favor voted aye. Mr. Kellogg and Mr. Adams were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Prager: Asked Mr. Kellogg if there was any new information pertaining to this interpretation. Mr. Kellogg: Asked for Mr. Jon Adams to speak for him, however, he said he had sketched out the conceptual plan and how it would fit in with the existing plan. Mr. Kellogg: Said he took the developing parts and highlighted them in blue, put it into a box representing a building where a building went. Yellow strips are parking ( tape garbled) In pink are all the roads access tied into the rear of BJ's existing road comes along the face of Stop n Shop then extends to the south of Old Hopewell then right in and then a right out on route 9 This will show how it can stand alone all the parking ssociated with the two buildings will be'contained within the parcel just as the existing shopping center so '"tach parts can stand alone. Building setbacks parking variances and meeting the of proper standards. I will let John go into more details. Mr. Roberts: From what you show there you do not indicate that the HD parcel is going to be developed in any way, that appears to be the interior shopping center zone portion? Mr. Kellogg: There might be a building up front there under HD you could put buildings up front. Mr. Lehigh: You are changing the shape of the map then from what it was Mr. Kellogg: Xeroxed section of the map. Mr. Lehigh: I have a question on your HD portion. What is the width of the road? Mr. Kellogg: 304ft. Mr. Fanuele: The building, the new building, and the building on the other piece property will then have a 100 ft between the two building 50ft setback space of 100ft. Mr. Kellogg: Each require 50ft setback. Mr. Fanuele: How much parking space will you need for a building that size. Mr. Kellogg: Probably 330,000 sq. ft. Mr. Lehigh: Is the application for the subdivision and the tenants all know about this? They are aware of this and the easements? Mr. Kellogg: Yes Mr. Adams: I sent up two, sets of documents that will refer to. Some of the documents as part of the interpretation public hearing some of those documents may be refer to again as part of the second public hearing. The two documents I want to direct your attention to is part of the Interpretation public hearing the first is the easement and maintenance declaration. This is the form of the document that we propose that we .cord at one time we said to you the recorded at the last minute we discover that we need to make last minutes %waanges to satisfy lease standards. I can assure you that a bare minimum the format of this document will be the document that is recorded and the elements of this declaration that are presented on Ed's presentation is a road network. , vft. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page3 that goes through the existing shopping center and to the subdivision parcel. The easement in here provides for egress through and from this parcel. So the ability to use this infrastructure including the signal on route 9 to access this parcel that be preserve. One of the things that we indicated in the past that the objective here is to persevere the shopping center we are not trying to create a intergrating of the shopping center. Mr. Lehigh: You had more property rezoned along route 9 is to put an addition on that existing shopping center. Mr. Adams: No we didn't have. Mr. Fanuele: The Town Board rezone anything for you? Mr. Adams: No. Mr. Lehigh: Old Hopewell Rd. What was rezone there? Mr. Adams: There are about 18 acres along the Hopewell Rd. Mr. Lehigh And that's put into this site plan or not? Mr. Adams: No, for several reasons. We were not going to get into that issue since you raised the question I want to address it now. Because one of the things that occur between this meeting and the last meeting was the Town Board meeting last night where the Town Board indicated they want to reconsider the rezoning action rezone parcel here. At this point in time given that declaration we hope it doesn't take place. We believe they should consider on the merits of the shopping to begin with, but given the Town Board action last night its even more speculative as to the ultimate use of the property. We are asking again to consider this merits on the existing land of the zone in 1992. Keep in mind that this is part of the original zoned shopping center parcel owned 10 years ago and as a result we are asking to consider this simply on the merits on this parcel not on any addition parcel. Mr. Prager: Since you did bring it up I was going to ask Mr. Roberts, I am to assume that you are familiar with the rezoning. Do you have a copy of that? Mr. Adams: I have that. They might as well see it. Mr. Roberts: That's the local law for the rezone parcel. Its a public record. Mr. Adams : If the Board wants to consider it, It's on record at the Town Hall The second document I want to discuss is section 5.45 and I want to direct your attention also to section 5.46. This is not part of the Zoning Law it is a subdivision regulation this is what happens when it gets back to the Planning Board if you grant favorable interpretation or favorable variance. This subdivision regulation quite clearly gives the Planning Board the power where a lot is split in this situation about two zoning district HD and shopping center. To consider the entire lot that is the legal law as one lot as zoning purposes and to apply to the entire 10 acres. The more restricted zoning regulation between those two lots, we feel the shopping zoning standard are more restricted. So they can treat this entire parcel as being shopping center parcel for purpose of planning. Now this has practical impact that actually benefits the town. Given the standards of the shopping center zone with the setback standards which are larger then the HD zone its very probable that practically all building will have to take place in the rear portion. This is important because the Town when they originally consider developing this particular shopping center had to find a part of certain objectives that is minimizing the appearance of route 9 of the shopping center. The change in terrain here. You have the shopping center hidden back because of the rise and wind of route 9,and the shopping center. This subdivision regulation gives the Planning Board latitude so they don't have to take this action, but they can. The 70 acres and 10 acres so that we redeem eventhough its a subdivision regulation, the issue is, if you favorable the interpretation on this, what is the impact on the existing area. .r+ Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 4 Mr. Lehigh: You can't go about it because you don't have 500ft frontage. Mr. Adams : Well certainly it will cause great difficulty. Mr. Lehigh: Then you will have to come back for a variance to even be able to use it. Mr. Adams: Well we would have to build back here and that's why there is this section of the plan. Mr. Fanuele: You don't have a shopping center back there you don't even have 10 acres. Mr. Adams: What we have is 10 acres. This is one lot of the zoning ordinance. That is the whole interpretation concludes. We propose to make one lot not two lots, the only thing that makes two lots is the zoning line. We saying you should disregard the zoning line. Its a lot easier to build in the back then the front. The Planning Board has the power to treat this one parcel under the shopping center standard alone rather then having the HD up front. HD up front and shopping center in the rear. Mr. Prager: I want to get one thing in my mind correct the reason for the variance interpretation is basically to protect your future rights of the property for the other zone. Mr. Adams: In your package you have a document that says agreement of purchase and sale. This is really the driving force for our application tonight, I want you to turn to the page where it says second amendment and the page behind that has paragraph 5. Alpine received an offer of purchase the develop portion of the shopping center, everything from the yellow line. Alpine like any other property owner, when they get an offer and it is appropriate decides to sell. Any property owner does the same thing when they get a favorable price. Under the terms of the contract Alpine has the obligation to subdivide out this parcel. Now the size of that parcel was deterimed by two factors. One we need minimum lot size and secondly we have standards we have to satisfy that basically say that this'area is used for BJ's and this area for Stop n Shop. So that we can not intrude or take away from that portion north of the yellow line. We have copies of the lease provision that confirm that. The buyer didn't want an undeveloped portion, he didn't want the burden. He wanted to take the existing shopping center that is develop and use that for whatever investment purposes that he had in mind. We are trying to preserve that value. The parcel is the function of the sales contract and we submitted to you the contract. Paragraph 5 addresses the specific our, obligation cut out. The purchaser of the property also involved in the negotiation of the cross easements they are aware of the document. Mr. Roberts: It does provide for the cross easements. John I just want to clearify for the record just to introduce local law number 1 of1999 which is the local law of that rezone the property along New Hackensack Road for what ever purposes. Mr. Adams: We indicated I think for the record for the interpretation. Mr.. Roberts: I would like to have it for public hearing. Mr. Chairman in case you wish to consider. Mr. Adams: Are there any other questions to the respect of the sales. Mr. Lehigh: I would like to sit down and review what we have. Make a judgment on the document we just received. Mr. Fanuele: I hope you didn't expect us to act on these document tonight. Mr. Adams: Whatever the Boards pleasure is, in turns of the view it is the board prerogative. Mr. Prager: We have something else here this evening I am sure you know about it. The Town Board meeting was held on Monday August 23, 1999. In response to the letter sent to them about questions and comments are granting of variance of Alpine company. The Town Board voted in favor of the recommendation to deny the variance. Mr. Roberts: A letter of August 20,1999 to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Linda Nygena Town of Wappinger Planning Board is specific rest of the Zoning Administration interpretation. I believe that Mr. wrAdams submitted a letter objecting. Mr. Adams: If the Planning Board wants to make a comment on the interpretation then I cant prevent them from doing so. Their recommendation is limited to the variance issue oppose to interpretation. We were M NOW Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 ''�► page 5 present at that Planning Board meeting and I would like to say that most of the discussion of that Planning Board meeting address extraneous issues. Never really focus on the planning issue. You are the Zoning board you are here to interpret the zoning. Mr. Prager: Now I will take time to open this up to the public. Mrs. Oliveri: 207 Old Hopewell Road. I just want one to say one thing. I want the public to know that they are taking a 7 acres piece and 2.7 piece and combining them together. One is HD and the other one is the shopping center Their purpose is to combine these two separate pieces put them on one label which in my book is rezoning. There is a rock wall dividing those two pieces. No matter what they say we went to the Planning Board. When they first came up to you they wanted two things from you Interruption and explanation and they wanted you to decided yes or no. You told them to go to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board answer was no. Mr. Prager: What we will have to do is go over that. Mrs. Oliveri: I want to know one more thing. What setbacks are given? My hundred 100ft setback was turned down to 50 ft setback. Mr. Oliveri : 207 Old Hopewell Rd. They cant touch BFs parking lot. Where is the entrance going to be to the shopping center? Beside route 9? Mr. Adams: I want to say that if the entire parcel is treated in the shopping center we are reducing the potential, for instance in your HD zone you have 30% coverage under the SC extending the entire parcel we can only have 20% coverage that's a reduction. The side setbacks in the shopping center is larger then they are r.w in the HD zone. Mr. Fanuele: That argument has to do with the variance. Mr. Adams : You can treat this as a single parcel that minimizes the impact of the adjacent properties. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else who would like to speak for the Interpretation. Mrs. Madraw: My property is involved in this. They might rezone that is that right? Mrs. Smith: Yes you are rezone in commercial. We don't need permission to withdraw our vote that is our decision. We will only do that if this thing does not satisfy us. There are certain thing that have to be done or should have been done. Mr. Prager: I would like to have a motion to close the public hearing A motion by Mr. Warren and second by Mr. diPiemo. Rest of the members voted aye. I think what we will do is come up with a decision possible at the following meeting on Sept. 14, 1999. We will make a decision at that time. 2. Variance Alpine 99-7022 Mr. Adams: When the mortgage negotiated we were already aware that this possible subdivision might be sought so we requested and had included in the mortgage documents provision for release of this parcel. If in fact subdivision approval was granted. Again I say this all for a limited purpose simply to show that if this parcel was to be developed it would be developed under new financing. We will get to that new financing by first getting a release from the existing mortgage and then freeing the parcel for financing purposes of the separate parcel. When we discussed new record at the last public hearing we discussed the various standards necessary to satisfy to request for an area variance. Dave Caracena made that presentation and he is present tonight. Dave do you have any other remarks you want to make to supplement of the criteria associated in the area variance? Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 6 Dave: We submitted all the material in writing for a variance application sent forth the test written there. Without reiterating everything that John went through relative to. In the original variance application sent in June. Relative to the effect of the variance on the remarks that this would continue to be part of the shopping center and amount to subdivision on paper. That would continue through those easement it will be recorded to continue to operate as part integrated shopping center. Mr. Prager: What is the purpose of this subdivision? Mr. Adams: The purpose of this subdivision is to comply with the contract by a buyer who only wants to buy the developed portion of the shopping center. He doesn't want the burden of developing the 10 acres which will absorb another 100,000 square feet of the shopping center space. He wants an established shopping center, he does not want to come to the Planning Board and go through all the approval processing associated with the development of this portion. This portion again has been zoned in this way for 10 years so we created a lot that meets the minimum shopping center standards for 10 acres and we're breaking this off because we have a buyer who has no interest in buying this piece of property that is why we are in agreement outlining that particular provision. Mr. Roberts: What are you planning to do with that parcel of land? Mr. Adams: Its going to be used for shopping center purposes. It's zoned shopping center so there would be additional retail stores. This is an conceptual layout to show you that if a building was placed here you would have access through the cross easements and so forth. 'It would whatever stores are permitted and retail shopping center. It will not be a supermarket because we have lease restrictions, it will not be BJ's because BJ's doesn't want to have another store competing with itself in a chain shopping center. There will not be supermarkets and no stores that are comparable to BJ's so lease requirements extend to the entire 80 acres that were part of the original parcel but they would be formed to retail stores. Ed would you be able to address that further? You will have a situation again we made an analogy at the last public hearing of the Poughkeepsie Galleria you have 7 separate parcels there but you don't know that its all part of the integrating functional shopping center. Mr. Lehigh: Not Zoning situation we don't allow integrating shopping center when you are proposing this you are ground ruling out a piece of property that will not be a official property that will not be developed. That is not the saine as the Poughkeepsie piece. Mr. Adams: I'm sorry I didn't understand the question? Mr. Lehigh: I have two set of property that I need setbacks on both pieces. There is 100 feet between both buildings that will not be developed. Mr. Kellogg: I'm not sure what we will do with the HD. We would just make certain that we would comply with the SC bulk regulation of the entire 10.6 acre parcel. Once we get into 50 feet setback we really are left with very little useable space in that HD portion. Mr. Adams: We will have the road through the center. Once you have the road in there you are taking away from. Mr. Roberts: Are there any proposed access through the HD parcel to the interior land of the proposed lot to be subdivided? Mr. Kellogg: Yes, its right in the middle. What we have proposed is a right in and a right out access to route 9 which will require DOT approval. I tried to show that with the pink line right here Al. Mr. Adams: We can certainly consent to a condition that say you can not have any additional signal lines intersection there for the benefits of the south bound traffic. The south bound traffic on Route 9 would have to use the existing entrance. The intend is to preserve the integrated use of the parcel and we would have no objection to the condition that said any traffic entering the south bound Route 9 would have to enter through the existipg intersection rather than the new intersection. rn T Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 .. page 7 Mr. Roberts: If I am correct that was part of the conditional zoning of the rezone of Old Hopewell parcel there were certain conditions. Mr. Kellogg: To clarify the conditions included that Al was talking about is on Old Hopewell Road there was a right in and a right out only. On Route 9 there is only a right in and a right out. Mr. Roberts: To the extent of those restrictions are in place that would apply to this proposed lot. Mr. Kellogg: Local Law number 1 for 1999 there are conditions that attach to the rezoning on Old Hopewell Road that carry to the entire shopping center parcel. Not just on those parcel on Old Hopewell Road, there is a limitation on square footage potentially the site could of handled 1.4 or 1.5 square foot. The site being on Old Hopewell Road condition in that local law that pertains to the entire shopping center site. Mr. Roberts: How do you propose to allocate the 800,000 square foot between the new lot and the rezoned lots to the extent of the remained rezoned? Mr. Kellogg: Well we'll just have to comply with the bulk regulations and we'll have to conform to the parking standards, building setbacks and what ever conditions that are composed of part of the site plan process. Mr. Adams: To the extending building in place consisted with the existing regulations and covenants for zoning standards. There is another thing I would emforsize, as to the intersection, we would consent to an inattendent condition so that if for some reason the Town Board were to take some action not that we're encouraging that, but if the Board wants an additional safety net and wanted to impose on a condition, the Town Board can impose a condition independently of those covenants so as to continue under any circumstances. Mr. Roberts: Are we talking about the right in and right out? Mr. Adams: Yes. Mr. Kellogg: In the end its all up to the DOT anyway and we can all agree on whatever we want but the DOT is going to tell the whole world what they want. Mr. Roberts: Looking at the map, there appears to be additional undeveloped land immediately south of BFs. Mr. Kellogg: Right here.... That's with the shopping center parcel. . Mr. Roberts: Who decided where this proposed line went? Mr. Kellogg: I wasn't personally involved with it when it was decided between some of my partners. Mr. Adams: It was a product of negotiation in the purchase of the property. Keeping in mind that the lease requirements for BFs required that all this area be left intact and be dedicated to those stores. We have provisions. You cant intrude into that area for this purpose for creating a larger subdivided line. Mr. Roberts: Is the issue with you purchases whether or not he wants it be an undeveloped portion or whether he wants to pay for the undeveloped portion. Another words if this subdivision was denied you can still proceed to buy the shopping center with the remaining 10 acres there undeveloped. Mr. Adams: That's not the provision Mr. Roberts: You indicated that the purchaser doesn't want to buy a shopping center with undeveloped portions contained within the parcel purchase for the price you agreed upon. If you could not get this subdivision through and assuming that the denial was upheld in the courts, there is no reason why the purchaser could not buy the shopping center intact the way it is. He just wouldn't pay you a premium. Mr. Adams: No he wouldn't be paying for the fair value of that property that would be a taken. Your saying we would have to give it to him because I won't subdivided Mr. Roberts: I disagree with him. NOW Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 8 Mr. Adams: Incidentally there is a separate purchase price for this piece. There is extra value here. The buyer has an option for a limited period of time to purchase it. Mr. Fanuele: You negotiate the price on a piece of property, you agreed on the priced and that's it. Mr. Adams: No, we agreed on a price on the developed portion. Mr. Prager: Has your application for this subdivision have a copy of consent by the tenants that are in the shopping center now? Mr. Kellogg: The tenant leases also provide for the subdividing out the lease. Mr. Adams: This subdivision is able to explain and was structured into the leases. These leases were negotiated back in the early 90's Mr. Lehigh: One problem that I have is if you didn't subdivide that. If you strictly built a store in this new portion and you were told to take your roads out the existing way. You can still do that? Mr. Adams: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: With this, you could still do that. Do you have the easements that are in there? Mr. Kellogg: This is a copy of Stop n Shop and BJ's parcel section of their leases and once I pass it out you'll see there's plans attached that are 11x17 portions of the site plan and each of those, you'll see a copy of the 2"d and 3`d section numbered for the parking areas. This is the lease exhibit to each if the respective leases and you'll see that it's identified shopping center parcel. The BJ's one - mandatory parking area 600 cars. If you flip to the last 11x17 in the BJ's packet you'll see subdivision lot and is similar in shape to the blue development parcel that we're asking to be subdivided. The lease does provide for subdividing outer piece for both tenants working in parallel with this process. Mr. Prager: Was it required? Did you have to do that? Did they want you to do that? Mr. Adams: We preserve the right when the lease was in negotiation to do this. I mean obviously if we didn't sell the center this issued wouldn't be before you. We preserve that ability to the lease structure to create that parcel. Mr. Prager: I assume that the REA was executed and recorded? Mr. Adams: It has not been recorded but it certainly will be a condition, a representative will be recorded its going through some final adjustments but certainly we will accept a condition that says this approval is conditioned upon the recording of the documents substantially equivalent form from the document we handed to you this evening. Mr. Lehigh: How about the one parcel of land the pile of dirt that is right by BJ's? How big of piece of that? Mr. Kellogg: Less then 2 acres Mr. Lehigh: How can the town be assured that the future development site will be consistent with existing buildings? Mr. Kellogg: BJ's building is 105,000 square roughly 2.3 acres. Mr. Prager: How do you think the subdivision is going to effect the development of the site? The context of the conditional rezoning of the properties. Mr. Kellogg: Subdivision is a paper subdivision. There are physical characteristics of the site that requires us to build it the way it contemplated regardless of who owned it, whether this was owner A, that was owner B, and this was owner C. There's a 40 foot differential between the BJ's floor and Old Hopewell Road which basically requires that at the eastern end of the property to build this in terraces so that BJ's and this building down here and while its existing elevation, probably about 20 feet higher you would have the next building. Then another 20 feet would step up for a few buildings right here. You wont be able to walk across the face of the building to go to one store to another. Out here these grates will meet if BJ's grates pops up here this grate will probably be a little more flatter. One of the *.. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 9 conditions of the Town Board rezoning was to have access going out to Old Hopewell Road. The site contours are determining how its developed. Mr. Roberts: How can the Town be assure that future development of the site will be consist of the existing buildings? Mr. Kellogg: There are specific requirements from the rezoning, all those requirements don't run with Alpine they run with the land so regardless of who owns what portion, who occupies what portion, or leases what portion the obligation run with the land not with applicant. Mr. Prager: Let me proposed to allocate the square foot of the 8,000 square foot between the existing plaza and proposed subdivision and any rezoned parcels. Mr. Kellogg: We would have to take a close look at it because we haven't sent out engineer our entire plan. This is 210,000 square feet right now, there is really nothing you can do in the north there are some small pockets of dry land up in the north. There probably 300,000 350,000 square foot range that you can probably put on the yellow. The developing portion could probably handle 100,000 square feet the rezoned property probably can handled 200,'000 square feet, so while the 800,000 is an artificial cap well below the 1.4 million. I'm not certainyou can build 800,000 square foot. Mr. Prager: Yes Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith: I have several questions. This really isn't a subdivision yet? You haven't gone through the procedure of getting a subdivision Mr. Kellogg: We are still in the process of the subdivision. This is not our first step. We applied to the planning board in May for subdivision approval for this plan. That is still pending. Mrs. Smith: So it is really not a subdivision yet? Mr. Kellogg: No it's not a subdivision yet. Mrs. Smith: The other question that I have. The Zoning Board of Appeals has 5 things they consider considering variance one of them is hardship. If this becomes one parcel its a commercial parcel. I heard commercial property from your mouth. Commercial property can not have two uses on one parcel, if this becomes one parcel what are we going to do about the HD and the shopping center. Are we going to come back to a rezone? To rezone that whole one? Mr. Roberts: That's not the way the ordinance was drafted. I didn't say it, it was the engineer who said it. That is one of issues that I think the Town Board is considering right now, is the multiplicity of the uses of the non shopping centers. Mrs. Smith: This is not really a subdivision yet, because it hasn't gone through yet. It hasn't gone through the five things of variance therefore one of them being hardship and self imposed hardship. So therefore that won't count, so you have four left. You got one parcel that has two zones on it which means two uses which in commercial doesn't happen in this town. Mr. Adams: ( cant understand what he said his voice is all stratchy and he mumbles) This proposed lot does not perform to the minimum requirements form zoning. Can come to the Zoning Board for the Interpretation. One of the comments that John made before subdivision rights may have single lot,cut which is cut by a zoning district line. Mr. Riggero: I do believe that this is a self imposed hardship because this proposed subdivision doesn't exist today and if it was created it would automatically create a non conforming subdivision because you don't have 10 acres of shopping center. The Town Board early this year as you know, agreed in contract zoning to rezone the parcel of property along Old Hopewell Road to allow 18 more acres of shopping center. The majority of the board agreed to that rezoning and I think it would be proper planning if that parcel wasn't developed from Old Hopewell Road up to the blue line. I don't think it is proper right now to subdivide it out and get an automatically nonconforming piece seeking a variance from this Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 10 Zoning Board of Appeals. This is not an existed piece. I don't think that is a proper subdivision and I encourage your Zoning Board not to grant this variance. Mr. Adams: The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals is to grant variances, where the situation calls for it. Mrs. Oliveri: Over here a block wall and there is 93.14 feet. Here is my property. There is my 50 feet here. Is that going to give them access in there for the remaining footage? You cant go from here to here. I am so confused with all this talk. Number 1 was this piece original included in that big rezoning thing? Does anyone know if this piece we original involved with me or any other neighbors Mr. Roberts: That was part of the existing shopping center, it wasn't part of the recent rezoned. Mr. Oliveri: It wasn't part of recent rezoning, but was it included in that major plan from all the buildings. Mr. Roberts: It was part of the original consolidation for the Alpine Common shopping center which I approved it in 1992 or 1993. Mrs. Oliveri: Right but was it part of this major plan that they presented? Mr. Roberts: The conceptual plan Yes. That plan never got approved by anybody. Mrs. Olvieri: As behind me there is that drain and I keep telling everyone about it and nobody is listening. What is he going to do, I want to know. The drain is there I can see it. So far I have 93 foot minus my 50 that you still owe me. You don't have enough egress in here if he does something like this then he said that he had easements to go from the existing parking lot over to this section. Correct? Did he say that? Mr. Prager: I believe that is correct. Mrs. Olvieri: Another word when we are going from Route 9 out and go all the way around BJ's passed, the hill and go through the easements to this new section. Now you tell me that its going to be teared down which mean I am going to have drainage problems. You are going to cut down all the trees that we got now that is protecting us because he is going to build on this. I also believe that there is an easement on my property here which It seems to be blue out a little bit. On the back of my lot there is an existing easement that goes to with Rent All behind the 7-11 there is the old cow path. Mr. Adams: Those will be a function of site plan review. Mr. Prager: I agree. Thank you. I would like to call for a site inspection. Since we are hearing about all these easements and everything else. Mr. Roberts: I don't have the title, I wouldn't know anything about the easements. Mr. Adams: I will provide the Title report. Mr. Lehigh: This is strictly on the variance portion. Mr. Kellogg: I just want to add that when we were formulating this subdivision plan that I reviewed with the Town Engineer and he made a recommendation that's its too narrow. Comply with a certain width. The facts are that the edge of BJ's parking lot is 93 feet. Mr. Olvieri: what is the size of the road that they are putting in? Mr. Lehigh: We don't know that yet. Mr. Prager: Site inspection on Sept. 11,1999 at 9:OOam. Mr. Adams: We complete our submission. We do not have any other additional evidence that we want to submit, unless there are any other remarks from the audience. We think the Public Hearing Should be closed. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Warren: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. =.A Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 11 3. Owen & Deborah Jordan Appeal No. 99-7025, who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, section 420.3- Schedule of Dimensional Regulations- Whereas a 50 -foot yard setback is required, the appellants are proposing a 27foot setback, thus requiring a 23 -foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct an addition to consist of one bedroom and a family room on property located at 112 Robinson lane. Grid No. 19-6459-03-030287 in the Town or Wappinger. The 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. Prager: Are all the mailings in order? Ms. Nguyen: Yes they are. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing. Motion made by Mr. Lehigh and second by Mr.Fanuele. All in favor aye Mr. Jordan please state your name for the record. Mr. Bob Bossi Mr. Prager: We had a site inspection on August 18,1999 We did see the property Mr. Bossi: You made a request to get information of the original building permit CO and plot plan and we have done that. There was a question on weather this was a side line or a rear line and looking at the information that we attained it looks as if it was consider a side yard line. I have also discover that the application made for the building'permit was filled out incorrectly by a prior contractor. He is the one that decides that that was the rear yard not Mr. Liberman. I have a copy of the letter from him. Mr. Prager: You think that is not the rear at all. Its a side yard line Mr. Bossi: Judging from the construction of the house which is clearly marked 43.2 feet to that line and issued a CO. I would think concrete evidence if that is consider a side yard rather then a rear yard. Mr. Prager: When we did a site inspection. Do you have two sheds? Do you have a permit for those sheds Mrs. Bossi: They were there when we moved in. Mr. Prager: The reason I question it is, where is your property line. That shed looks like its on your neighbors property Mrs. Bossi: Its beyond that. Its closer to their house. Property goes up the middle of the grass Mr. Prager: How far do you think that shed is from their property line? Mrs. Jordan: About 29 feet Mr. Bossi: I would really like to know because we need to get under way its getting late in the season. If you can determine it, that is a side yard. Mr. Prager: I would rather have the Zoning Administer to do that. If he made an interruption of this that that was a rear lot then you can before us for and Interruption of his. We can change it. I am going to adjourn this. Mr. Bossi: Ok Mr. Prager: If he feels it is a rear then you will have to come back here. Mr. Lehigh: You have to check on that shed. If he says that you have to come back. Mr. Bossi: Ok Mr. Prager: We cant do anything on this until that shed is rectified. low Mr. Bossi: We will do that. Mr. Prager: - If he feels that it is a rear then we will have to put you down a meeting and then we will take it from there. We have an adjournment until the next date. Sept. 14,1999. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes august 24,1999 page 12 Adjourned till September 14,1999 DISCUSSIONS 1. Salvatore & Regina Pace To discuss Interpretation Application No. 99-7009 regarding 51 Myers Corners Road owned by R. B. Hettinger in the Town of Wappinger. There were letters written from Mark Withdrew his prior interpretation without prejudice. The letter was read by Mr. Prager. Mr. Prager: A letter from Mark Liebermann dated August 3,1999. Mrs. Nguyen: I have that letter from Mark, but I didn't receive anything from Pace's attorney. Mr. Prager: Thankyou 2. John & Elizabeth Coleman To discuss Appeal No. 99-7023 seeking a rear yard and side yard variance for existing pool with a 10x14 deck. The property is located at 7 Peters Road in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Prager. This meeting is for information that we might request of you before we do a public hearing. Mr. John Coleman: Years ago I put a pool in and didn't know I need a CO without a building permit. We are trying to sell the house and trying to straighten this out. The mistake was made and I am trying to rectify it. Mr. Lehigh: Your property is a third of an acre. Mr. Coleman: Yes. Mr. Prager: What about your deed? Mrs. Coleman: I have the deed, but I don't have the survey. We did have a survey done, I don't know what I did with it. It is one third of an acre. Mr. Prager: Who did you survey? Mrs. Coleman: I don't remember who did it. Mrs. Nguyen: You can check with the building Department. The assessor file will have a deed. Mr. Prager: You can get it in for the next meeting. Site inspection September 1,1999 at 6pm Mark a line on where you think you property line is. Public Hearing set for September 28,1999. 3. Troy Swain To discuss Appeal No. 99-7026 seeking a rear yard variance to construct an 18x52 above ground pool on property located at 10 Tuscarora Drive in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Prager: Why don't you explain to us what is going on. Mr. Swain & Mrs. Swain: We want to get a pool. We didn't realize how much trouble we would have. Mr. Prager: When did you buy property? Mr. Swain: In 1996 Mr. Prager: At that time you should of had some kind of site plan or survey. r.. Mr. Coleman: We have that ,NOW Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 13 Mr.Prager: Oh you do. Can you get a copy of it to Christina and she can get copies made. Mr. Lehigh: This pool isn't built yet is it? Mrs. Coleman: No it isn't. Right now its a big mess back there, there is a big hole, they started the process before we could get here. They stopped everything. Mr. Prager: I also noticed that there is a shed involved too. Mr. Coleman: Yes I have that on cinder blocks, I was wondering that not stationary. Mr. Prager: You still need a building permit for that. It also has to be within l Ofeet from the line. Can you mark your lines for me. Mr. Coleman: I assumed that I could have one because that my neighbor has one. Mr. Prager: Have you gotten a building permit for the shed too. Mr. Coleman: No we stopped everything. There is maybe 10 feet from the neighbors property. Mr. Prager: You have to go for an variance again because of the shed and the pool. Site inspection on Sept. 8,1999 at bpm. Public hearing on September, 28,1999. A motion to lead agency. Warren made motion and Fanuele second it. All said aye. - 4. Louise & Patrick Clark To discuss Appeal No. 99-7027 seeking an area variance for a proposed 3 lot subdivision on Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Marie Brule: I work for civil Technologies and engineering and subdivide 309 acres in R-20/40 zone we summitted to you a stretch of the propose subdivision. The stretch meets the zoning ordinance, expect for one item which is the driveway. The zoning ordinance states that the driveway has to located on the 50foot lot frontage. Due to poor site distances along the entire lawn frontage there is only one area where we can actually put a driveway. That would be on the south side of the property. We were proposing to combine each of the driveways. Additional the site distances for the existing driveway is bad so we were also going to add this driveway. Mr. Prager: Did you get us a letter or something stating that? Mrs. Brule: Ok sure Mr. Lehigh: Do you have 50 foot frontage on the highway? Mr. Clark: Yup Mr. Prager: They are asking for one driveway to the three driveways. Lot 3 comes down and has two dimension 16. Mr. Lehigh: Your proposing dividing all three driveways and that is just for site distance. That's the only reason? Mrs. Brule: That's the only reason Mr. Lehigh: Have you been to the Planning Board yet? Mrs. Brule: No not yet Mr. Prager: Go to the Planning Board for their opinion then come back to Zoning Board. Mrs. Brule: Ok Mr. Fanuele motion to adjourn the meeting Ar. diPierno second the motion Vote: All present voted aye '1� MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:44 PM Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 24,1999 page 14 Respectfully submitted, 0 Christina DiPaola Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals