Loading...
1999-05-250 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals May 25, 1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. diPierno: Member Members Absent Mr. Prager: Chairman Others Present MINUTES MINUTES SIID# &wall 20 MiddlebuTiRoa-f— - Wappingers Falls, NY Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals SUMMARIZED Minutes to be approved: May 11, 1999 -- Accepted Public Hearing: Curtis & Krystyna Ginader -- Denied Discussion: Mobil Oil Corp. -- Public Hearing set for June 8, 1999 Heart Acura -- Public Hearing set for June 8, 1999 MINUTES Mr. Fanuele made a motion to accept the May 11, 1999, minutes. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal No. 99-7011 - At the request of Curtis & Krystyna Ginader, who are seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 10 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellants are proposing a 3 foot 6 inch setback, thus requiring a 6 foot 6 inch side yard setback variance to allow an existing storage shed to remain in the current location on property located at 13 Mina Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-974800-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board .,- of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency on May 11, 1999. The Zoning Board 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. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 APPROVED Paget JUN 0 8 1999 Mr. & Mrs. Ginader were present. Mr. Warren made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mrs. Ginader submitted a letter from her neighbor, who would be most effected, stating they are not concerned about the shed. (No letter in the file) Mrs. Ginader stated they are willing to plant shrubs in-between the shed and the fence to help screen it. They have lived there for 9 years. They see no benefit in moving the shed. Mr Prager came to the site inspection and said 5 feet would be o.k. That means they would have to move the shed 18 inches. She felt there would be no negative impact by keeping the shed in the existing location. To move the shed would cost a lot. She asked the Board to allow her to leave the shed where it presently is. Mr. Lehigh asked if the chain link fence is the Ginader's. He asked if it is located right on the property line. Mrs. Ginader stated the fence is her neighbor's and it is located right on the property line according to the survey. She stated her property is smaller than the rest of the properties in that subdivision. Mr. Lehigh did not believe it would be difficult to move the shed 5 feet or even 2 feet. Mr. Fanuele asked if the shed was put up before or after they received a building permit. Mrs. Ginader said after. Mr. Fanuele stated Mr. & Mrs. Ginader knew the building permit called for a 10 foot setback, but chose to ignore the rules. Mr. Ginader said they felt it would be better close to the fence. Mrs. Ginader stated they had no idea what the process is to get a variance. Mr. Fanuele asked who put up the shed. Mr. Ginader said Home Depot. Mrs. Ginader stated the existing location is the best place on the property to put the shed. Mr. Fanuele stated the applicants chose to ignore the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Also, Home Depot should not get the feeling that they can put sheds wherever they want in the Town of Wappinger. '"' Mrs. Ginader said they were going by common sense. 1*40- NOW MINUTES APPROVED Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals JUN 0 8 1999 Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 Page 3 °,•► Mr. Fanuele said common sense would be not to ignore the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. The Law requires 10 feet and that is what the Board has to go by. If they want to change that, they can go to the Town Board and get a zone change. Mr. diPierno stated the Board can not set a precedence. Mr. Lehigh stated since the Ginader's have a smaller lot than the other lots in the neighborhood, he suggested the Board could grant a 5 foot variance. Mr. Ginader stated the expense to move the shed will be significant and it would be for no benefit. He believed it could cost about $500.00 to move the shed. He said the Board feels 5 feet is allowable which means they have to move the shed 18 inches. At the site inspection, Mr. Prager stated 5 feet would be acceptable. The shed is already in 3 Meet, so it is a matter of moving the shed 18 inch to equal a 5 foot setback. His neighbor has stated it does not bother them and they are right on the property line. Mrs. Ginader stated before they would move the shed, she will go to the Town Board to get the setback changed. She stated she had asked why 10 feet is required and nobody knows. She stated R-15 has a 5 foot setback. She wanted to know what is the difference between an R-15 and R-20. Mr. Fanuele stated the property she bought is in an R-20 zone. Mrs. Ginader felt since her lot is smaller she should have a 5 foot setback rather than the 10 feet which is required. Then, they could ask for a variance from the 5 foot setback and it would be less than 50%. Mr. Fanuele stated they are in an R-20 zone which requires a 10 foot setback. Since her lot is smaller than most, then the Board can consider a 5 foot setback. Mrs. Ginader felt they should be able to apply for a variance to the 5 feet, therefore, 18 inches is not significant. Mr. Lehigh stated the only reason the Board would grant them a 5 foot variance is because they have a smaller lot, but she is still in the R-20 zone which requires a 10 foot setback. Mrs. Ginader asked if 5 feet is acceptable for a person with 15,000 sq. ft. in the R-15 zoning area ...... Mr. Lehigh stated, but they are not in an R-15 zone. They are in an R-20 zone. Mrs. Ginader asked why the zoning Law is not based upon the size of the property and not on the street. Mr. Lehigh stated it's based upon the zone that the property is in. Mrs. Ginader stated she will go before the Town Board to change that. Mr. Lehigh did not believe the Town Board could change the zone of her property. _MW Mrs. Ginader said if it will save her $500.00 she will ask the Town Board to change her zone. She asked if they could plant some trees to help screen the shed. Discussion regarding the neighbor's fence being right on the property line. 14MW "+ter "a** *41W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 APPROVED Page 4 JUN 0 8 1999 Mr. Lehigh stated that is not the issue before the Board. Mrs. Ginader stated Laws are in place for safety reasons. They have a shed on their own property that none of their neighbor's care about except the Zoning Board. Mr. Fanuele stated Home Depot put up a shed and totally ignored the Town of Wappinger Zoning Laws. They knew 10 feet is required, but they chose to ignore that. Mr. Ginader stated they chose to ignore it because they did not want to go through the variance process. It made common sense to them to put the shed in the existing location because it looks the nicest there and it is out of the way. She asked the Board to made a decision so she could get home to her children. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. diPierno made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to deny the side yard setback variance as requested by Mr. & Mrs. Ginader. Mr. Fanuele stated the Ginader's could help get Home Depot on line by having the ..... Mrs. Ginader stated the people came from New Hampshire to put up the shed. They, Mr. & Mrs. Ginader, told Home Depot where to put it. Mr. Ginader stated Home Depot has no responsibility for what is happening. They told Home Depot where to put the shed. Mr. Fanuele stated it is the Ginader's responsibility. They chose to ignore the rules. Mrs. Ginader said yes, so they would not have to go through this. Mr. Fanuele felt anybody that chooses to ignore the rules is wrong. If you do not like the rules, you can not arbitrarily ignore them. Mr. Ginader stated they can appeal the Law or change the Law because sometimes the rules do not make sense. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. **4W ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Denied. Mr. diPierno: Denied. Mr. Fanuele: Denied. Mr. Lehigh: Denied. AP ROVED 'JUN 0 8 1999 Mr. Prager: Absent. Vote: All present voted to deny the variance. DISCUSSIONS %now Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 Page 5 Mobil Oil Corp. - On -The -Run Convenience Store - To discuss 4 variance request to construct a new convenience store. The property is located on the corner of Route 82 and Route 94 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Romig, Esq., Mr. Virbickas, PE, and Mr. El Jamal, were present. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated they have been before the Planning Board for site plan approval. They submitted 4 variance applications for the Zoning Board to review. No. 1, they are seeking a 58 foot front yard setback in lieu of the 75 feet which is required for the building. No. 2, they are seeking two additional illuminated building signs, whereas only one is permitted. No. 3, they are seeking a variance for the size of the freestanding pylon. The existing pylon sign is approximately 48 sq. ft. Mr. Lehigh asked for a copy of the sign permit for the existing pylon since it is larger than what is permitted. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated what they want to do is take the existing sign and lower it down to a monument sign which would be less imposing. The last variance they are seeking, No. 4, is a rear yard variance for the proposed building. A 25 foot rear yard setback is required and they are proposing a 12 foot setback. Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a letter from the Planning Board recommending the variances. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the Board sent a recommendation for the front yard variance and the size of the pylon sign. At the last Planning Board meeting they discussed the rear yard setback. Because the property is on a corner lot, the Code gives the applicant the election of where the rear line is located. The property is odd shaped. They felt it would be best to let the Board determine where the rear line is located. If the Board feels the rear line is next to the building, then they have their variance request in place for that. Currently the existing structure has a 19 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a variance for that since 25 feet is required. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated there is no variance for that. He believed the reason there is no variance is because they decided at that time that the rear yard was not near the building, but instead near the septic area. He showed the Board a plan of the proposed monument sign. Mr. Fanuele felt the whole monument sign is part of the sign (including the stone). Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a permit for the existing pylon. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated there is an existing permit for the sign, but not for 48 sq. ft. He believed, at some point the Zoning Administrator had taken the basic sign and did not include the pricing as part of the square footage. Mr. Fanuele was concerned that the proposed pylon would block the sight distance. MlN Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals APPPO Ep Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 JUN 0 8 1999 Page 6 w- Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the sight distance has already been considered by the Planning Board. Mr. El Jamal stated the Town Planner suggested the monument sign. Mr. Virbickas, PE, believed gas stations are required to display the prices of gas. He stated some municipalities grant a certain square footage for prices alone and they do not count that towards the sign that is the actual advertising saying Mobil. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the plans submitted are a little inaccurate because the `On the Run' sign proposed on the pylon has been eliminated, at the request of the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh recommended the Board should hold a site inspection. He asked Mrs. Nguyen to ask for a letter from the Planning Board regarding the requested rear yard setback variance. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the Planning Board's recommendation was they felt the proposed rear yard setback is somewhat aggressive. The consensus of the Board was they wanted the applicant to reduce the size of the building by 6 feet, therefore, reducing the variance required. Mr. Lehigh asked how much larger the new building will be from the old building. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated it would be approximately 1,200 sq. ft. larger. Mr. Romig, Esq. asked the Board to take into consideration the old building has a two bay garage which did not have to rely on the sale of snacks, newspapers, milk, etc. He stated the old building and bathrooms are not ADA compliant, but the new building will be. The new building is required to have separate bathrooms that are handicapped accessible. Mr. El Jamal stated the new bathrooms would be inside rather than on the outside of the building. They will be cleaner and safer. He stated the way the building is structured allows them to have a glass storefront. The merchandise will be at a lower level giving a clear view in and out which makes it safer. Mr. Fanuele asked about the truck traffic. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated a tanker's patter is shown on page 12 of the site plan. Mr. El Jamal stated when the truck comes to deliver they will double park just like any other gas station. Mr. Virbickas, PE, stated the current site is quite congested. By placing the new building farther away from the dispensers and canopy it opens up the area and allows for tanker access, safer deliveries and an area for customers to park without having to walk across traffic to pay for fuel or buy things. Mr. Lehigh asked for a letter from the Planning regarding the additional variances. SITE INSPECTION SET FOR JUNE 5, 1999, AT 9:00 AM. i. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to set joint public hearings for all four variances on June 8th. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. ,*MW' `WMW Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals AppROOVED VEI Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 Page 7 JUN U 8 1999 Mr. Lehigh suggested the Board should wait on a Lead Agency and Neg. Dec. 2. Heart Acura - Appeal Nos. 99-7013 & 99-7014 - Seeking 2 sign variances for property located on Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Fitzgerald and Mr. Marsh were present. Mrs. Fitzgerald submitted northbound and southbound photos in order of approach to the site. Their original application request was for a large sign variance. They have since reduced the size down to 27 sq. ft. Their biggest problem is `seeing' the sign. She stated many cars come to a screeching halt and back up on Route 9 because they miss the entrance to the site. Mr. Marsh explained the approach to the site is from the south only. You can not get into the site going north. People going north have to go to the next intersection and make a U-turn. Every car that enters their site enters from the southbound lane. Mr. diPierno suggested since they have problems with people missing the entrance, possibly Acura could switch their entrance and exit. Mrs. Fitzgerald believed that is dictated by the DOT. Originally there was questions concerning the entrance and exit signs being on the property. She stated she followed up on that and found out that the DOT had allowed that to remain that way and dictated how the traffic would flow in and out of the property. Mr. diPierno asked Mrs. Nguyen to call the DOT to find out if they would consider switching the entrance and exit. Mr. Marsh stated it would be awkward to switch them because their service entrance is on the right hand side of the property. Presently, people pull in and the service area is right there. They would need to reconfigure their site in order to switch the entrance and exit which would be awkward and expensive. Mr. Lehigh asked if they had investigated putting the emblem on the existing entrance and exit signs. Mr. Marsh said it could be done. It would not be as effective as putting a sign closer to the property line. He explained the proposed sign is required to be 60 feet back from the road. Thirty-five feet is the DOT right-of- way. The sign would end up in their parking lot. He assumed they would have to go back to the State and request the entrance and exit signs to be made larger to include an emblem. He was not sure that is a viable solution. Mr. Fanuele asked who owns the property next door. Mr. Marsh stated he was interested in purchasing the property next door, but that never panned out. Mr. Lehigh asked if lowering the berm has helped Mr. Marsh. Mr. Marsh said yes. They intend to landscape the front of the property. On MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals APPROVED Summarized Minutes - May 25, 1999 `JUN 0 8 1999 Page 8 Mr. Fanuele stated what Mr. Marsh is asking for is a 5 foot setback (25 feet is required) from the property line, but the sign would actually be 40 feet back from the edge of the pavement due to the DOT right-of-way. He assumed that if they granted the variance, and the DOT added a third lane to Route 9, then the sign would need to be moved back the required 25 feet. Since the appellants are proposing to move the sign closer to the property line, they have reduced the size of the sign from what they originally were asking for. Mr. Marsh said yes. Mr. diPierno made a motion to set joint public hearings for both variance on June 8, 1999. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Warren made a motion for Lead Agency. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh suggested the Board should wait on a Neg. Dec. Mr. diPierno made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals