Loading...
1999-08-10*Now #PF40%1INUT.. OCT 1*2199g Minutes Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals August 10,1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present., Mr. Prager Chairman Mr. Lehigh Vice Chairman Mr. Fanuele Member -"W A. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10, 1999 pagel Mr. diPiemo Member Mr. Warren Member Others Present Mr. Roberts Attorney to Town Mrs. Smith Supervisor Mrs. Nguyen Secretary to Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Public Hearing: Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie Adjourned to August 24,1999 '%-Jiscussions: Owen & Deborah Jordan Public Hearing August 24,1999 Minutes Minutes from July 13,1999 Mr. Fanuele motion to approve the minutes Mr. Warren second the motion All present voted aye DISCUSSIONS Minutes from July 27,1999 Mr. Warren motion to approve the minutes Mr. Fanuele second the motion All present voted aye Owen & Deborah Jordan To discuss Appeal No. 99-7025 seeking a rear yard variance for addition on property located at 112 Robinson Lane in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Bossi Jr. is present for Owen & Deborah Jordan. Mr. Jordan is present Mr. Bossi: We have propose to replace an existing deck off the rear of Jordan's home with an addition. It would run full length of the home. There would be two rooms in this addition one bedroom, per master bedroom, and one family room. We need a variance from the rear yard setback. It is required to have 50ft. Rear ,.rd setback. We would be able to provide 27 ft. We require a 23 ft. variance. One corner does not comply for `one property line. We have a letter from the neighbor, and there is no problem with him to get the variance. Mr. Lehigh: Is that letter from lot 17? Mr. Prager: Yes, that is lot 17 Morano. Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10,1999 page 2 Mr. Lehigh: On your drawing you have mark down 25 ft. and here you have 27 ft. Mr. Bossi: The initial permit, which was submitted by someone else, had a copy of the survey which was not in full scale. When we got the survey we found out that it was 27 ft. not 25 ft. Mr. Fanuele: Felt that it was not a rear yard setback. Mr. Bossi: Mr. Liebermann determined that is was a rear yard setback. Mr. Prager: You have 43.2 ft. to the existing house? Mr. Bossi: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Prager: If that is the rear lot then that is not correct either right? Mr. Bossi: The house was built in 1980. Mr. Prager: That should not matter. Mr. Bossi: One can determine that it is a side lot. Mr. Prager: We need the paper work on when this house was built. See if there is any CO's on the house, and if there are, consider the rear or side yard setback at that time. Mr. Bossi: Mr. Carlson the surveyor measured the corner of the house rather then the deck. Mr. Prager: I would like to know who was the prior owner was before Mr. Jordan. I would like to go look at the property and mark where the deck would be. Site Inspection August 18"', 1999 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. diPiemo will not be there that night he will go another night. Mr. Fanuele made motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. Lehigh: Second the motion. r.. All present voted aye. Public Hearing August 24,1999 Mr. Prager: You need information on the CO's and the information from the building inspection. Find out when it was built and who built it. PUBLIC HEARING Please take notice, that a 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 ( 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. A further public hearing will be conducted on the application of Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie for alternative relief of a variance (Application No. 99-7022) Section 330 of the Zoning Law to allow creation of one lot, which as a whole, meets minimum SC and HD bulk requirements. The Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself Lead Agency on July 13,1999, however the Zoning Board of Appeals has not made a determination of significance pursuant to Article VIII of the Enviromental 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 Appeal hereby reserves its right to make such determination after the conclusion of the public hearing as stated above. the mailings are in order. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPiemo: Second the motion. VAMW Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10, 1999 page 3 All present voted aye. Dave Kuracina attorney for Alpine Company is present John Adams Esq. Is present for Alpine Company. Ed Kellogg is present is present for Alpine Company. Mr. Kellogg: We made an application to the Planning Board back in May for a subdivision. This is for a subdivision of 86.8 acre parcel that we currently own. All the 86.8 acres is outlined in yellow and blue. We would like to further develop the site, starting with the land adjacent to BJ's then heading to the south. In order to do that we first have financing and leases. Those requirements require us to establish a separate tax parcel for this develop parcel so we isolate the existing shopping center. The existing shopping center includes 210,000 square feet with all the appropriate setbacks and parking. This subdivision that we are asking for was determine by Mr. Liebermann that we do not confide with the Zoning Law. That's why we are in front of you tonight. The shopping center will not go under any physical changes. There will not be any physical separation of tax parcel this is all on paper. Everything will act as an intergrated shopping center right now. There will be easements for utilities. Access setbacks whatever is require to comply with the requirements. Also whatever is required from the Planning Board criteria for intergrated shopping center. I will let Dave Kuracina talk you through it. Mr. Prager: The blue and yellow is one piece at this point? Mr. Kellogg: Yes, it is all one piece. The 86.8 acres (including blue and yellow), will be creating two parcels, gone is 76.2 acres one is 10.6 acres. The 10.6 acres falls in the shopping center zone and 7.85 acres and the balance of 2.75 acres falls in the HD zone. They total one lot of 10.6 acres. Mr. Lehigh: What is the amount of the wetlands? Mr. Kellogg: There is about 38 wetlands we have stayed away from it. Mr. Kuracina: The determination was made by Mark Liebermann that this parcel they want to create does not conform to Zoning. He states that section 420.4, which is the schedule of bulk regulations it observes that we need 5 acres for HD oppose to 10 acres for SC. Section 330 is states that each portion of the lot to comply with that district. Section 420.4 I am going to start with the lot area. You have to measure the whole lot. The lot area is defined as total horizontal area of a lot. In our view it requires the entire lot would conform. Mr. Liebermann stated that you have to treat these as separate lots, which would need frontage. There is a lot area portion conformed and the code is clearly defined terms, and what terms that apply. Considering that we believe that would perform with the zoning provided that if anything happens in the future the lot would suffer with the zoning. The lots would comply with the zoning office. Mrs. Smith: (She is to far away from the tape Linda did write down the notes) It would have 1 big lot ands 2 zones are the present conditions? When they go to build what would they comply? Mr. Kellogg: One portion is HD and the other portion is SC. Mrs. Smith: I think you are using two different pieces. Did you carve the top part lot out is that the new carved part. Mr. Kellogg: There is one lot and there is one big blue and yellow lot. We are drawing the yellow line to isolate the SC parcel. 10.6 acres is what is left over. We established our SC parcel, it measures off the south side of BJ's lot and everything to the north becomes part of the SC parcel and whatever is left over becomes the developed parcel. The developed parcel happens to cross the zoning. It's an existing condition process. ,,,.Ars. Smith: How do you handle that when you go to build something? Do you use which ever one is convent? Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10, 1999 page 4 Mr. Kellogg: We propose that if there in a building is here it would comply with the HD zone or if there is a building here it would comply with the SC zone. Mrs. Smith: Will it comply if you need 10 acres? You only have 7 acres -in lot one and 3 acres on the other lot. When you go to do the HD on that little piece you do not have 10 acres. (Everyone was talking at once did not get the answer.) Mrs. Smith: They will probably need variance in the future. Mr. Prager: You have mentioned a number of different cases. That is one of the reasons I asked the Town attorney to come here tonight. Mr. Roberts: I would like to point out two sections of the subdivision regulations that nobody seemed to mention. You might want to read them in the record as to enlighten the board and the applicant as to the requirement of subdivision regulation. (5.42-5.46). Mr. Prager: Reading the Subdivision Regulation out loud to everyone from 542 to 546. Mrs. Oliveri: 207 Old Hopewell Rd. We were all recently rezoned commercial because of Alpine. I want to know if you do make this one lot for their own and what else are you going to do for them? They are suppose to fence in my property with a 6 ft. high chain link vinyl fence. It's in the contract. He was supposed to buy us at a price that he agreed to. He did not because he raised our price. Mr. Oliveri: They are suppose to have 100 ft. I ended up with 50ft. The water problems took Mr. Kellogg two years to come and fix it. I am surrounded on 3 sides with commercial and I won't have 50 ft. Mr. Roberts: You indicated that you had some lease requirements that requires you to make the development parcel a separate parcel for future development can you produce a copy of those provisions ,%wMr. Kellogg: I think so. Mr. Roberts: What do you mean you think so, you made the statement. We want a copy of it. Mr. Adams: He was to far away from the Microphone so all I heard was that it was confidential basis. Mr. Roberts: All you have to do is to provide the provision. I will take your attorney's certification if they came out of the appropriate lease. But I think that should be made part of the record here in order to establish that allegation. Mr. Adams: Just to clarify that the variance Interpretation issue. Mr. Roberts: You made it part of the Interpretation presentation. Mr. Adams: My point is not really sure that explanatory reason as to what the subdivision purpose was, really had to vary on Interpretation. Mr. Roberts: You made the statement in your written material and you made it in your presentation. Secondly you also indicated that there was a declaration dated June 2,1999 was an easement agreement and maintenance declaration. Mr. Kellogg: Yes. Mr. Roberts: Can you produce a copy of that or do you have a copy to produce. Is it your position that the only purpose for the subdivision is for the future development of this parcel. Right now the parcel to be developed would be the development parcel. The parcel that you want to subdivide that is now part of parcel of the Alpine shopping center is located in the Town of Wappinger. What is the purpose of the subdivision? Mr. Adams: We want to develop additional land that we own. In order to do that we had to establish separate parcel. Mr. Lehigh: Why do you have to form separate parcel to develop? Why do you have to subdivide? Mr. Kellogg: Our financing with our existing lender. ,,,,,,Ars. Smith: Who is your existing lender? Mr. Kellogg: Melon Bank. Mr. Roberts: Is there any truth to the allegatign that you are selling the property. ruse Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10, 1999 page 5 Mr. Kellogg: There is no allegation or any truth that we have a purchase contract to sell the- Alpine Commons shopping center. As it close we will go into the new diligence. Purchase contract is for the existing shopping center parcel and they have the right to buy the develop parts. There are no allegation. I have made a number of phone calls to the town. I talked to Mr. Liebermann and Mrs. Smith a number of other people. Mr. Roberts: The contract of sale does not concinplate the undeveloped portion of the site. Mr. Kellogg: It complies the shopping center parcel and the development. Mr. Roberts: Right now the shopping center parcel is the entire piece Mr. Kellogg: OK Mr. Roberts: The blue area. Mr. Kellogg: They have the option on to purchase the develop parcel. If they do not purchase it then we will continue to develop it. Mrs. Oliveri: On the phone Mr. Kellogg said to me that I will be contacted by a Mr. Ipship, about my property 3 weeks ago. I said OK fine. We don't want to get involved in these little wars, we want to get out of here. We are going to sell it. Are you listening to me, he was counting on me not being here because I did not show up at the propane barn he wanted to put in. He told me with his own lips. Mr. Fanuele:' The part that is in the HD that is part of the current parcel? Mr. Kellogg: Yes, The 2.85 acre piece in the HD is part of the existing 86.8 acre parcel Mr. Roberts: It's one consolidated parcel. Is it not Mr. Kellogg: As of March of 1999 *,ww,\lr. Fanuele: The existing property conformed to all of the approvals of the shopping center, or do you have some conditions there that are not being conformed? Mr. Kellogg: We have a certificate of occupancy. We have signed as built plans from the planning board with all the approvals. Mr. Smith: Verified that it is all in compliance. Mr. Adams: If we do subdivide this parcel that means then we will need additional variance for side line setbacks. The develop parcel has to relocate the building further towards route 9 to minimize the variances. Mr. Prager: What we need right now is the information on the financing and the easement and Maintenance Declaration. Until we get those we really cannot get any further. Mr. Fanuele: I find it very hard to believe that Alpine allowed the tenants to put this in their contract. We need something that is documented saying exactly what happened. Mrs. Regina Mass: If they do develop that shopping center is there no bearing on interpretation. Mr. Lehigh: We are not the Planning Board we cannot give out that information. Mr. Roberts: Regulation that were read into the records requires each area to be develop in corrdance with the requirements of that zoning district. They can only put up buildings and parking for that building within that zoning district. Mr. Warren motion to Adjourn public hearing to August 24,1999 Mr. diPiemo: Second the motion. All present voted aye. Public Hearing on Variance 99-7022 ,,11 the mailings are in order Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to open the public hearing. NNaw Mr. diPierno: 'second the motion All present voted aye .r► Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes August 10, 1999 page 6 Mr. Prager: Is there anything else that you want to say. I think you should put it on the record. Mr. Adams: We will wait for that one I guess we will take anything on what the public has to say. Mr. Roberts: So you are not going to make a record tonight for the request for you variance. Mr. Lehigh: Will there be a separate entrance into the shopping center from route 9. Mr. Adams: (The tape has too much background noise and they are not talking by the microphone) Mr. Adams: The variance we requested was wrong. Section 330 of the Zoning Law assuming that the Zoning Administer decision is correct. It requires that both pieces are treated as separate lots. Mr. Lehigh: Later on they will need more variance. Mr. Kellogg: We can meet the setback requirements in each of the zoning areas. Mrs. Oliveri: What are the setbacks? Mr. Roberts: The side yard setbacks are 50 feet, and the rear yard setbacks 50 feet. The HD is 10 feet. I think you might want to read the Zoning Administers interpretation, so we have a clear understanding on what the issues are. Has these matters been referred to the Planning Board for their comment. Mr. Prager: A letter from The Acting Zoning Administer Mark Liebermann. Mr. Prager reads it out loud to everyone. Ar. Roberts: Are you adjourning the public hearing. You also going to request a recommendation from the %wPlarniing Board Mr. Lehigh: Makes a motion to have a recommendation from the Planning Board about the variance. Mr. Lehigh: Makes a motion to adjourn the public hearing to August 24,1999. Mr. diPierno: Seconds the motion. Mr. Lehigh: Made the motion to adjourn the meeting Mr. diPierno: Second the motion MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:55 PM Respectfully yours, Com: 401104&. Christina DiPaola Secretary to Zoning Board of Appeals