Loading...
1999-03-09MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals March 9, 1999 Summarized Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. diPierno: Member VA00 Others Present APPROVED Mr. Close, Consultant to the Building Dept. Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals" 2 SUMMARIZED Minutes to be approved: February 23, 1999 -- Approved **AW Public Hearing: Modu-Craft Homes, Inc. -- Granted Eckerd Retail Drug Store (Canopy) -- Granted with conditions Discussion: Heart Acura -- Set Site Inspection - March 13, 1999 & To come back before the Board on 3/23/99 for a discussion MINUTES Mr. Fanuele made a motion to approve the February 23, 1999, minutes. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye except Mr. Lehigh since he was not at that meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal No. 99-7001 - At the request of Modu-Craft Homes, Inc., who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Whereas a 25 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellants are showing 15.2 feet, thus requiring a 9.8 foot side yard setback variance for an existing porch on property located at 95 Osborne Hill Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6156-02- 624800 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance for this project on February 23, 1999. Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 2 Mr. Fred Straub was present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. diPierno made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Straub explained the reason they need this variance is because of the porch on the side of the house. It extends out into the required setback. Originally he did not think he needed a variance because there is no roof over the top of the deck. Many Towns do not require a variance for that. In this particular case, the Town wanted he to get a variance. The lot is an irregular shape. The area in-between where they built the house and the rest of the property is not buildable. That land is called the Green Fly Swamp. Mr. Prager asked how this had all come about. Mr. Straub stated there were three Building Inspectors through that time frame. The house was a spec house. He let this house sit because he had too many to build at that time. By the time he got back to finish `4w it, he got the as -built back from Mr. Paggi, the Town Engineer. Mr. Paggi stated Mr. Straub should apply for a variance even though at that time had a c/o. He stated he told Mr. Paggi that nobody really counts that area if it does not have a roof on it. If they ever want to install a roof on it, they will have to apply for a building permit. They would be turned down to put a roof on it and enclose it. Mr. Prager asked if there is any other way to get out the front door if it did not have a porch there. Mr. Straub said no, the porch is necessary. The porch is 6 X 8. Mr. Prager asked the Board if they wanted to speak. Hearing none, he asked if the public had any comments. Mrs. Kathy Nagwak - 69 Osborne Hill Rd. - Asked if her property line will change. Mr. Prager said no. If a variance was issued, it would only give the owner permission to have the porch closer to the property line than what is required. Mr. Walter Nagwak - 69 Osborne Hill Rd. - Asked if they were referring to the house at 95 Osborne Hill Rd. or 95A Osborne Hill Rd. He wanted to know how close it would be to the property line. Mr. Straub stated they are discussing the house at 95 Osborne Hill Rd. There will be 15.2 feet from the porch to the property line. Mr. Prager logged into evidence a survey map for Alton & Mary J. Kates (present owners of the property) by Richard Barger, PE, LS dated January 19, 1999. *AW `*.r Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 3 Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager made a motion to grant the variance for the following reasons. It will not be detrimental to nearby properties. Mr. Walter Nagwak - 69 Osborne Hill Road - Stopped the meeting. He stated he did not grant the variance. Mr. Lehigh explained to Mr. Nagwak that he was asked to come to the meeting for his input. The Zoning Board of Appeals are the ones to either grant or deny a variance. Mr. Prager continued with his reasons to grant the variance. No undesirable change will occur to the character of the neighborhood. There is no other feasible alternative methods to achieve the benefit sought since they need a front entrance to come out of the front of the house. It is a substantial variance. It will not cause adverse effects to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. diPiemo: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present voted aye. Appeal No. 99-7002 - At the request of Eckerd Retail Drug Store, who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 410.4.3 (which requires corner lots to provide a yard equivalent to the front yard on the side) and Section 420.4, which provides that the front setback is 75 feet from a State or County road. The applicant is proposing a yard of 43.44 feet, thus requiring a 31.56 foot side yard setback variance in order to construct a canopy on the proposed drug store. The property is located on the corner of Route 9 and New Hackensack Road and is identified as Tax Grid Nos. 19-6158-04- 550285/556293/546277/537298/540288/555308-00 (Town of Wappinger) and 29-6158-15-538265/538274- 00 (Village of Wappingers Falls). Mr. Pagones, Esq., was present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Mr. Pagones, Esq., was present on behalf of Ms. Van Tuyl, Esq. representing Eckerd Drugs. The applicant was recently before the Board to obtain a variance, and they were granted a 54.5 ft. for the building. During VW 4%W Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 4 the public hearing Mr. Fanuele pointed out the applicant would need a variance for the canopy. So, the applicant has filed a new application requesting a variance for the canopy. They are seeking a variance of 31.56 feet. He asked the Board to grant the variance based upon the application, all the evidence that was presented at the last meeting, a letter in support of the application from DC Planning, and the letter of recommendation from the Planning Board. Mr. Prager asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against the ordinance. Mr. Joseph Sarubbi - Owner of Associated Carpet Warehouse on Route 9 - Asked about the widening of the road. He wanted to know how it would affect his property. Mr. Prager told him he is before the wrong Board. He gave a brief synopsis of what Eckerd is proposing. He suggested to the gentleman that he could attend the Planning Board meeting to obtain more information. DISCUSSION OF ECKERD'S SITE PLAN Mr. Prager asked if anyone on the Board wanted to speak. Mr. Fanuele stated Eckerd did not receive a recommendation from DC Planning for the variance. They recommended the Board should base their decision on the facts. Mr. Pagones, Esq., agreed he was referring to the recommendation from the Planning Board with certain conditions. He asked that if any variance is given that it would include those conditions. Mr. Prager read from DC Planning's letter dated March 8, 1999. "NYS Law states that when a municipality is inclined to grant a variance, that the amount of variance should be the minimum amount necessary, and that reasonable conditions may be imposed to mitigate the negative impacts of granting the variance. Due to the significantly reduced setback, the Board should ask that any proposed canopy lighting be recessed to prevent glare onto New Hackensack Road. In Addition, the Board could also require the applicant to provide a more attractive canopy -perhaps one with a pitched roof rather than a flat roof'. He asked Mr. Pagones if they are proposing a flat roof or a pitched roof. Mr. Pagones, Esq., did not know. He assumed it was discussed with the Planning Board. Mr. Prager asked Ms. Nguyen to forward a copy of the DC Planning's letter to the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele wanted to know what they are proposing for a canopy since the Zoning Board is granting the variance, not the Planning Board. He does not want the Planning Board to make the decision for him. Mr. Pagones, Esq., said those issues (recessed lighting, design of the roof, etc.) are issues for the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele said it might make a difference in his mind if the lighting shines out or does not shine out because it is too close to the road. Mr. Prager said he is more interested in the lighting than the pitch of the roof. O "ir 1%W Volr Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Lehigh said if the Board grants the variance, they would make a recommendation that the Planning Board look into the lighting and into the design of the canopy. Mr. Pagones, Esq., stated the letter which accompanied the variance application states they agreed the variance could be conditioned upon site plan approval. Mr. Fanuele repeated his comments from the last meeting. He stated the project is disguised as a drug store, but really it is a supermarket with a pharmacy. The corner of Route 9 and New Hackensack Road will have a lot of traffic going in and out. Eckerd said they need all of those parking spaces. If Eckerd needs all of those spaces to make it a good business, then they will generate a lot of traffic on the corner. He did not want to be part of a disaster that he sees coming. He said they could moving the building and then they do not need a variance. Then, it would have nothing to do with him. As long as a variance is required, he felt it is too intense for the property. Mr. Prager believed the reason the building was shifted back is because the Planning Board asked them to do that for future road taking. He did not believe Eckerd was asking for extra parking spaces. Mr. Fanuele disagreed. He said at the last meeting Mr. DePuy, PE, said it was Eckerd's requirements for parking spaces. He said they can still reposition or redesign the building so it fits on the lot without a %Am- variance. Then, he would have nothing to say about it. As long as they need a variance, he is against the variance. Mr. Pagones, Esq., stated it is his understanding that the building was moved to accommodate the Planning Board for a turning lane, bike path and walk way. As for the parking spaces, he thought it would be the applicant's position that it is a planning issue. He asked that the Zoning Board defer to the Planning Board if they think there are too many parking spaces. Dr. Quintero - Owner of the former Bikeway Site - Stated he was at all of Eckerd meetings. His understanding was that the parking spaces were there only to fulfill the Town's requirements. Some of the spaces would remain `green'. Mr. Fanuele stated there will be a few parking spaces that will remain green. Mr. DePuy, PE, at the last meeting, stated he will need all of the other parking spaces. Mr. DePuy had said it is Eckerd's requirements. Mr. Quintero said the parking was determined by the square footage of the building. Mr. Fanuele stated the parking spaces are based upon the engineer of Eckerd. It is in the minutes that those are the required parking spaces. Mr. Prager read from the minutes of February 23, 1999. "Mr. DePuy, PE, said the Zoning Ordinance requires them to have more parking than what is shown on the plans. However, they accommodated 1%W1Eckerd's requirements and created parking spaces (green spaces) to be developed at a later date if necessary. They do not feel they are necessary at this time". Mr. Close remembered it being the Planning Board who wanted the parking spaces. Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 6 Mrs. Nguyen stated there should be a parking calculation table shown on the plans. It should say how many parking spaces are required and how many they are providing. Mr. Pagones, Esq., stated the parking is a planning issue and he is before the Zoning Board for the canopy. Mr. Fanuele said he resents that. He stated the Zoning Board has to grant the variance based upon the facts. If the fact comes out that it will be a very intense piece of property, maybe they should not grant the variance. He said it is not a Planning issue. He resented the fact that Mr. Pagones wants to dump it to the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele did not want to be part of a disaster. Mr. Lehigh stated the Zoning Board is not the Planning Board. They can not act on behalf of the Planning Board. He has not sat in on the Planning meetings and he has not read all the minutes. He does not know all the work that went into this. Knowing some of the Planning Board members, he knows they did a reasonable job of planning this store. It is in a busy area. It will create more traffic. He felt once they widen the roads in that area it should certainly be able to handle the traffic. He did not have a problem with it. He said if they grant the variance they should make sure the ZBA informs the Planning Board of their concerns with this piece of property. If Mr. Fanuele wants to include the traffic in it, he would agree with that. Especially making sure the lighting does not blare in peoples' eyes. He said he is content with letting the Planning Board make the final decision on it. Mr. diPierno agreed with Mr. Lehigh. He said anything the ZBA does should be contingent upon the concerns addressed by the County. He wanted it put into the record that the Planning Board is to be made aware of the letter dated March 8, 1999, from DC Planning. Mr. Prager logged into evidence a letter dated February 24, 1999, from Pagones, Cross and Van Tuyl, PC, boundary and zoning information maps by TM DePuy, Engineering and Land Surveying dated 4/28/99 and a letter from DC Planning dated March 8, 1999. Mr. diPierno made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. diPierno made a motion to grant the variance with the condition the Planning Board review the contents of DC Planning's letter dated March 8, 1999. He did not feel it is within the ZBA's purview to withhold a variance on issues that involves the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh suggested Mr. diPierno should make it contingent that the Planning Board address the ZBA's concerns. He wanted to make sure the Planning Board addresses the traffic, canopy, and recessed lighting. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. Mr. Prager wanted the motion to include, "The granting of the variance is conditional upon the resolution of all the issues before the Planning Board". ROLL CALL Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Nay. Mr. Prager: Aye. Vote: All present voted aye except Mr. Fanuele. DISCUSSION Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 7 Mr. diPiemo: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Heart Acura - To discuss Appeal No. 99-7003 seeking to double the size of the existing freestanding pylon sign on property located on Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. Ms. Barbara Fitzgerald (Gloede Signs) and Mr. Harold Marsh (President of Heart Acura), were present. Mr. Marsh stated the property has been a source of concern and difficulty with regard to the identification of the dealership. Going south on Route 9 you are blind to the property until you get right up to it. He has seen people pass the property and make a "u" turn. Statistically 28% of all people come into a dealership comes in because of drive-by signage. He is trying to solve the problem in a tasteful manner. They have restrained themselves from hanging balloons on cars. He said if the Board would consider the letters without the gray background, they are within the Zoning Statute. „,,,,, Mr. Prager explained they have to consider the whole sign. Mr. Marsh stated he has signage on the building, but the building is set back from the road. He stated they are handicapped because their inventory is 50 feet back from the property line. The appearance of inventory has a dramatic effect on whether or not people will stop by to shop at your business. There was a 6 ft. berm in the front of the property. The Town gave them permission to cut it down to 24 inches. That created some improvement. They will have an identity problem which is most serious when you are going south on Route 9. Mr. Fanuele suggested they could put an entrance and exit farther down on Route 9. Mr. Marsh said that would be awkward. The property is laid out so the service entrance to the dealership is at the entrance. He felt it would be more practical to put up a sign. Mr. Fanuele asked if they intend to keep the `in' and `out' signage. Mr. Marsh said they plan to keep them. Mr. Fanuele felt they are big. Mr. Prager stated some paperwork that was included with the application dates back to March 1987. At that time a variance was requested for signage by Mr. Richard Verrilli. Mr. Marsh stated Mr. Verrilli is the owner of the property. He stated Heart Acura leases the property from Mr. Verrilli. err � r.ia Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 8 Mr. Prager stated at that time, Mr. Verrilli was asking for 30 sq. ft., which is 5 sq. ft. over what is permitted. At that time, it was denied. He stated that was 12 years ago and they are still in business. Mr. Marsh stated he is the third owner. He stated there have been serious economic problems with that property as a car dealership. It is not exclusively a result of the signage. It is the way they built the building, and the berm. The berm was put there at the suggestion of Acura. He did not feel it would be inappropriate for the ZBA to help ameliorate the problem. Mr. Fanuele did not think the sign would do him any good because people will still go past the entrance. Mrs. Fitzgerald said if they can see the sign from a distance away, the will be prepared before you see a small entrance. Mr. Fanuele asked if they could work out a compromise where the `in' and `out' signs disappear and they could put an entrance down where the out is. So if they drive past it they can make a turn. That is where they can put an Acura sign. That would solve all of the problems that Mr. Marsh brought up. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated they want an even flow of traffic through the parking area. The service area is already there. If they reverse the entrance and exit, people pulling in will have to go across the property to get to the service area. Mr. Fanuele said all they would need is another sign saying where the service area is. Mr. Marsh did not think the proposed signage would have a significant impact. He stated they want to do it in a tasteful manner. In a manner which is respectful of the Town and the brand that he is selling. He did not feel his request is obnoxious. Mr. Prager felt it is obnoxious. They are proposing 150% increase in signage. To him that is changing the Zoning Ordinance. He did not believe the ZBA has the right to allow this. He suggested they could go to the Town Board to request them to change the Ordinance. If they allowed 150% variance, all their neighbors would be in to get a variance. Mr. Lehigh suggested the Board could do a site inspection. Mr. Warren asked who owns the rock formation that blocks the view of the subject parcel. Mr. Marsh said he does not own the rock formation. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated the sign background is opaque and it is not illuminated. Mr. Prager stated the ZBA has to consider the whole sign. Mr. Fanuele felt they are requesting more signage than what is shown in their application because they all ready have 2 signs there `in' and `out'. He said if they consider all the signage, then they will be well over 150%. He suggested the Board should measure them and then come back and see how much of a variance they are talking about. low Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 9 Mr. Marsh stated the entrance and exit signs are there for the safety of the population. Mr. Fanuele said if they do not need the entrance and exit signs there then they should take them down and put up the Acura sign up in the middle. Mr. Marsh felt the Planning Board would look at it a different way because it is a service to the consumers. SITE INSPECTION set for Saturday, March 13, 1999, at 9:00 in the morning. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated they would appreciate the Board's input before they go for something that will be denied. She wanted to have an idea of how they can mitigate the problems. Mr. Prager asked if they would rethink the size of the proposed sign. Mrs. Fitzgerald stated the Acura freestanding sign is existing. It was removed temporarily so they can work on the berm. Mr. Prager asked how that could have happened because they have a denial letter from back in 1987 when they asked for a 30 sq. ft. sign. Mr. Marsh stated they took the sign down temporarily to remove the berm. Mr. Fanuele did not remember a sign being located there. Mr. Marsh said that is the problem nobody sees it. Mr. Prager suggested they should hold another workshop. It will give the applicant time to rethink the size of the sign. Mrs. Fitzgerald said her company would be willing to prepare a computer visualization showing the road from both directions. Mr. Prager stated they will be back on the agenda for March 23rd for a workshop. Mr. Marsh asked the Board to consider the effect of his competitors' facilities verses his facility. MISCELLANEOUS Dutchess Terminals, Inc. Mr. Close explained that the Planning Board sent a letter to the ZBA asking for a clarification of the conditions ,*4W of approval, specifically the gravel driveway. Mr. Lehigh stated the driveway was supposed to be blacktopped. 1*4W 'rrr r.r►` Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Summarized Minutes - March 9, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Prager said he did not believe that was part of the motion. He asked if the Planning Board has a problem with the gravel driveway. Mr. Close said they do not understand the condition. Mr. Fanuele explained, "They do not want the cars going through the pumps to get around the back. They said they could open it on the side and come in that way. That would reduce the traffic going past the pumps to make the right hand turn in the mini -mart". Mr. Prager asked for a letter to be sent to the Planning Board explaining they were looking to service the garage in the rear. So those people using the rear of the garage would not be going through the pump area. They felt it would be safer doing it that way. Mr. Fanuele stated Dutchess Terminals agreed to all of this when they were before the ZBA. That is the compromise that they came up with. He asked why it is being questioned by anyone. He wanted it part of the letter that it was agreed to by the applicant as a condition of the variance. Mr. Close said he will respond with a letter. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals