Loading...
1997-11-12Rn 09 AGENDA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board Town Hall MEETING DATE: November 12, 1997 (Wednesday) 20 Middlebush Road TIME -- 7:30 PM Wappingers Falls, NY Approval of October 28, 1997, minutes. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING Appeal No. 1249 -- At the request of Goodwill Industries, who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.1.4 - the applicant is proposing a 288 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 100 sq. ft. sign is allowed, thus requiring 188 sq. ft. sign variance for property located at 1271 Route 9 (former Channel building) and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-653974-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance on October 14, 1997. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal No. 1252 - At the request of Alphonse Gargano (Contract Vendee), who is seeking four area variances for pre-existing buildings on a pre-existing lot: Article IV, Section 420.4 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Non Residential Districts - Setback for County Road - Appellant seeks setback variance from Middlebush Road (a County Road) to allow pre-existing building to remain in present location. Building is 60.67 from the centerline of the road and 41.5 feet from the curb line. Zoning Regulations require a 75 -foot setback. 2. Article IV, Section 420.4 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Non Residential Districts - Lot Size - Appellant seeks lot size variance for this pre-existing approximately 1 acre lot, whereas the Zoning Law requires 2 acres. This parcel is in the HB Zone. 3. Article IV, Section 420.4 - Appellant requests a variance to allow existing small block garage building to remain, although it has a 9.5 -foot side yard setback, where 10 feet is required, thus one-half foot (6") variance. 4. Article IV, Section 440.21.3 - Appellant seeks to place new garage doors facing Old Route 9, pursuant to the Planning Board's recommendation, whereas the Zoning Law provides that doors not face the street. The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-580887-00 in the Town of Wappinger. MINUTES +•►Town Hall Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 1997 20 Middlebush Road Minutes Wappinger Falls, NY Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Members Absent Mr. diPierno: Member APPROVED Others Present i I 1997 Mr. Don Close, Zoning Administrator PLANNING BOARD Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning BoardRJ OF APPEA. Mr. Prager: I would like to call the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals to order. Roll call please? ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Here. Mr. diPiemo: Absent. Mr. Fanuele: Here. Mr. Lehigh: Here. Mr. Prager: Here. Mr. Prager: I am sure most of you have been here before, but just in case you haven't, there is no smoking in the building. The fire exits as you look around the room here are lit. The back doors and also through this door here. The first item of business tonight is on the approval of the minutes from the last meeting, October 28'. Can I hear a motion? Mr. Warren: I make a motion to accept. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye except Mr. Prager since he was not present for that meeting. Mr. Prager: The next item on tonight's agenda is the adjourned public hearing on Appeal —No. 1249 - At the request .of Goodwill Industries, who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.1.4 - the applicant is proposing a 288 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 100 sq. ft. sign is allowed, thus requiring 188 sq. ft. sign variance for property located at 1271 Route 9 (former Channel building) and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-653974-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren: Second. 09 Vote: All present voted aye. ,mow Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 2 Mr. Prager: I wasn't here last month, but the hearing was adjourned because there was a question about a State Law that required 150 square feet. The Board was not sure if it pertained to the building or as we found out by looking at it, it looks as if it pertains to billboards and signs along the road. So, it really did not pertain to your sign at all. That is the major reason I believe that it was adjourned. Mr. Walsh, is there anything you would like to say? Mr. Walsh: Yes, what I did was a scale drawing of what is allowed - 100 square feet. As you can see, the size of the unit that ... What we are asking for can really increase in size and not really look disproportional on the building. If you go down to 100 square feet, it is more than obvious that it is too small for that size of a unit and for an anchor store. Mr. Prager: I might have asked this question when we had our workshop or discussion two weeks ago. There is a banner on the front of the store. What is the size of the banner? Mr. Walsh: I believe that is 3' X 20'. Mr. Prager: That would be 60 square feet. Has everybody seen it? Is there anything else? Anybody else want to speak? Mr. Finnerman: Yes, my name is Sam Finnerman. I am with ... Real Estate. We are the exclusive brokers representing the owners of the center. I am essentially representing the ownership of the center. Just like to share with you some points and concerns the owners have and what they are looking to do. Their goal is to help position the Goodwill Store as an anchor. It is very important it has a strong presence on the road. As you know, the two anchor stores unfortunately for the last year and a half have been vacant. There is change in the ownership. They are very interested in turning the center around. They would like to see that Goodwill has a strong prominent position for the sign so it attracts the clientele into the center. So, the size is important to have the maximum size. Not oversized, but appropriately large sized store so here as an anchor ... In fact, this is a plan. I will just show you a quick site plan of the center. You can see that the original store, Channel and Waldbaum's were anchors. From a business point of view, what the center is lacking up until now is anchor stores. It is very important for the economic well being and the value of the center. It helps the other tenants in the center, if Goodwill becomes the anchor store. That is why the smaller sized store would hurt. Creating the important presence of Goodwill as a strong retail store. As you know, they have invested a lot of money. They are making a wonderful effort. It is a great operation. We want to see and hope that you approve the larger sized sign. Mr. Lehigh: I have some questions. I would like to know, the other signs in the shopping plaza, I go by there almost every day and that Goodwill Industries banner sticks right out there. I think you can see that better than the existing lighted signs in that shopping center. That shopping center is open to Route 9. You get a clear view of it. I really feel myself that 288 square feet is excessive for a sign on that building regardless of what Channel had before or anything else. I still feel that is excessive. I think you can come up with 150 or 160 square feet sign on the building and light it so you would be able to see it from Route 9 without any question at all. I went by there today and looked over there. That Goodwill Industries pops right out at you. If you look at the other signs and I don't think the other signs in the shopping center look half as En Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 3 rr. good as the Goodwill Industries sign. It is a small sign that you're talking about now, 60 square feet. It just pops right out at you. One of the ideas of the Sign Ordinance of the Town is to cut down on excessive signs that you end up reading rather than driving your car down Route 9. Mr. Walsh: Now, the banner that is on the Goodwill Store now is probably smaller than most of the other signs in the plaza. Being an anchor store, I really do not see where that should be the case. Mr. Lehigh: That really is not my point. My point is with 60 square feet stands out and looks good. I would move or make a motion to grant you 150, but I find 288 square feet is excessive for that shopping center. That is my own personal opinion. Mr. Walsh: That is basically somebody who is directly looking at the sign. Mr. Lehigh: Well, I just drove by and looked at it. You can look at it with a glance and it stands right out. You can read Goodwill Industries without any problem whatsoever. Mr. Walsh: I have a layout here as well. It is the same sign that I am proposing, but what I would do is ... The icon is a certain distance away from Goodwill. We are calculating this space in here as the square footage of the sign. Mr. Prager: As far as I am concerned, you should. It is all one sign. That is what it comes down to. Mr. Walsh: That brings it down to 209 square feet. Mr. Prager: The way I interpret signs, it is the whole thing. Anything else Mr. Lehigh? Mr. Lehigh: Well, I think we would like to work with them. You know if you had Goodwill and then Industries abbreviated somehow to cut down on the size of that sign ... I just find 180% variance is excessive. Mr. Walsh: We don't have Industries on our sign. Mr. Lehigh: I know, I mean if you abbreviated it and did away with the Store. Mr. Warren: I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Lehigh. I think the reason the banner shows up so well is that white background. Are you going to have a white background on the sign? Mr. Walsh: No, that would be changing the facia of the building. Mr. Warren: Maybe you should consider doing something like that because the white background ... Mr. Lehigh: It really jumps right out at you when you go by. Just paint the background around the sign white and blended it in. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else that would like to speak for or against this variance? 019 . Ww Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 4 Mr. Fanuele: I think the sign is too excessive. When you talk about percentages, you're talking about 200%. Mr. Prager: Would you people feel 150 is acceptable? Mr. Fanuele: I think the sign at the Hometown Buffet there is ... Mr. Lehigh: That is about 130 to 150. Mr. Prager: Is that right Don? Mr. Close: I am not sure. Mr. Lehigh: We went down to look at it. It is hard unless you get up and measure it. The estimate on that is about 130. Mr. Prager: Anybody else? Mr. Finnerman: I would just like to make one more comment. I am just trying to figure the calculation out. It seems that 288 square feet is about 15% of the white band. I am just afraid that if you reduce it too much below the 288 square feet, it will be out of proportion. I am very much in agreement with the spirit of the Ordinance. You don't want excessive signage. It is a very critical issue and .... good taste. We certainly do not want to do anything in poor taste. That is a big store. I think it is over 200 + feet across. When you compare it to Hometown Buffet, that store itself is only 9,000 square feet and this store is 25,000. In proportion to the size of the store ... Mr. Lehigh: I don't buy it. I don't buy it because I will tell you why. What your selling here is what you can see from the road. This should have been done the minute you moved in because that is when people are going to look for Goodwill Industries. If you give it a couple of months or two months, the customers knows where it is. They know where Goodwill Industries is. Then, they start coming regardless of what kind of sign you have. Then, you have to do your business correctly to keep the people coming. If you do that, your sign is not that important. At least not in my opinion. I think that sign right now, 60 square feet, knocks you right off your feet when you drive down the road. You can look right over there and bingo it stands right out there. Mr. Prager: Anybody else? Linda, I would just like to log in a little of the evidence right here. The drawing by Sign Language. At the time that I wrote that, I only had the one drawing dated 9/18/97, but now we also have the other one. Letter from Donald Close, Zoning Administrator dated 10/21/97. That letter pertains to three appeals from the last meeting. Appeal No. 1249 Goodwill Industries is mentioned in it. It says, "Previously Rickels had a sign permit for 288 square feet, but it was granted without a variance. There is a letter in the file saying a variance was necessary, but no follow-up was done." And of course the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals minutes from 10/28/97. Findings of Facts; the appellant's property in its entirety falls into the SC district classification. It is located at 1271 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. The appellant is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.1.4. The applicant is proposing 288 square foot sign where only 100 square foot sign is allowed, thus 1"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 5 requiring a 188 square foot sign variance for property located at 1271 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-653974-00 in the Town of Wappinger. If there is no further discussion, I would like to ask for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: So be it. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that the variance be denied. Will the requested variance be detrimental to nearby properties? No. Will an undesirable change occur in the character of the neighborhood? Yes, a sign that large would look completely out of place. Is there any other feasible methods sought by the applicant? You could have reduce the sign and you did not want to. The request for the variances is substantial. It is 180% over what is allowed. Will the effect cause adverse effects on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood? Yes, signs that big are a visual impairment. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, a smaller sign would work just as well and I don't feel that 150 -foot sign would be too small for the size of that building. The last reasoning, I believe that the smaller sign would work just as well. It has for the other businesses in that plaza. A smaller signs could have been requested - smaller than the sign that you requested. I make a motion that the variance be denied. Mr. Warren: Second. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: The motion has been denied and it will be filed in 5 days. Mr. Close: Can I ask a question Mr. Chairman? If Tom comes back with 150 square foot sign, would he have to come back here or would we let that run? Mr. Prager: He would have to come back here for a variance. Mr. Walsh: May I ask a question? I thought that was mentioned that .... Mr. Lehigh: It was mentioned, but you did not say you could work with 150 square feet so we denied it. Mr. Walsh: There is no chance of changing that at this moment? We would work with 150 square feet if that is a condition. Mr. Lehigh: That is what we tried to ... CJ _4fie Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Walsh: I did not understand that. Mr. Lehigh: I think if you want 150 then, you should request it. Mr. Walsh: We want to reconsider that offer of 150 square feet. Mr. Fanuele: You want to reconsider it tonight you mean? Mr. Walsh: Yes, that is correct. I am sorry we want to go with 150 square feet. Mr. Lehigh: I will rescind my motion and move to grant you a variance on 150 square feet for the same reason I used before, except I find 150 feet is not excessive. Mr. Warren: Second. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. diPiemo: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: To set the record straight, you have a variance for 150 square feet. The next item on tonight's agenda is a public hearing on Appeal No. 1252. At the request of Alphonse Gargano (Contract Vendee), who is seeking four variances for pre-existing buildings on a pre-existing lot. Before I go any further, is it four variances or is it three? Ms. Van Tuyl: It is in fact four. When we were here the last time, we thought that four was reduced to three. Based upon subsequent discussions I had after that with Al Roberts, the Town Attorney, we both decided that in the interest of caution it was best to come in for all four. That is why the notice is different from what we discussed. Mr. Prager: Okay, so No. 1 - Article IV, Section 420.4 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Non Residential Districts - Setback for County Road - Appellant seeks setback variance from Middlebush Road (a County Road) to allow pre-existing building to remain in present location. Building is 60.67 feet from the centerline of the road and 41.5 feet from the curb line. Zoning Regulations require a 75 -foot setback. No. 2 - Article IV, Section 420.4 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - Non Residential Districts - Lot Size - Appellant seeks lot size variance for this pre-existing approximately 1 acre lot, whereas the Zoning Law requires 2 acres. This parcel is in the HB Zone. No. 3 - Article IV, Section 420.4 - Appellant requests a variance to allow existing small block garage building to remain, although it has a 9.5 -foot side yard setback, where 10 feet is required, thus one-half foot (6") variance. No. 4 - Article IV, Section 440.21.3 - Appellant seeks to place a new garage door facing Old Route 9, pursuant to the Planning Board's recommendation, whereas the Zoning Law provides that doors not face the street. The property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-02-580887-00 in the Town of Wappinger. on 1"Ov Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 7 Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that we open the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. (All the mailings were in order) Ms. Van Tuyl: I will just briefly summarize our request in the event that anyone is interested and I know that you were not able to be at the last meeting. This relates to property that is located very close to here. It was the Furlani Machine Shop for a number of years. Mr. Gargano is proposing to operate an automotive repair facility in the existing building. No new buildings are going to be built. The existing structure is going to be used. The lot is an existing size. It has been that size forever. It used to be an HB1A and now HB is a two acre zone. When we went to the Planning Board, the Planning Board thought that the site ... They actually thought that this is a good use for the site. A way to fix up the property. They thought that the site should be oriented to Old Route 9 rather than Middlebush Road. So, they wanted to have the main at the entrance to the facility on Old Route 9 and the garage door oriented towards Old Route 9 as well. The existing door that is there facing Middlebush will remain, but there will be a chain across the entrance on Middlebush Road. That would be used in the rare instance of a very large vehicle being brought in. I believe that this Board should have received a letter from the Planning Board. At their last meeting, the Board endorsed the granting of the variances and said they are going to send a letter to you. So, the variances being requested are pursuant to the Planning Board's encouragement on the site plan. My letter has summarized each of the factors and I don't want to take everybody's time to go through that, but basically all of these conditions are pre-existing. We are trying to work with the site the way it is. Mr. Fanuele: You said a copy of the (previous) variance papers are attached. (Muffled, not able to transcribe.) I got a copy of the notice of appeal and a copy of the vote, but what was voted on and what was granted does not seem to be here. Ms. Van Tuyl: This is all I ever got and I believe that is all that is in the Town records now. This is the old variance given to Mr. Furlani? Mr. Fanuele: I got a ... (Muffled, not able to transcribe.) Ms. Van Tuyl: That is all I was able to find in the file. I think that is all that exist. Far be it for me to explain what happened. In fact, it is very odd because that is the variance that was received when the building was constructed. Our numbers are different from the numbers that are in that variance anyway. That variance says 54 something or other feet and we measured 41 from the curb and 60 something from the middle of the road. I don't know what it means. That is why I am requesting a variance for the way the building is rather than speculate. The variance runs with the land, but I am not going to go to the bank with that piece of paper with any confidence. Mr. Lehigh: Wasn't this property at one time part of the land next door to it? VOW Nave Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 8 WOW'Ms. Van Tuyl: I don't know. Where the trailer is, is on the property. By the way, the Planning Board wanted the trailer removed even though the trailer is part of the existing site plan. That is part of the whole thing to improve the site. Mr. Gargano is willing to remove that. That is going. So, the site plan will be one cohesive site plan use. It is part of that, but that is one parcel and then the cemetery on one side and the office building behind it. Mr. Lehigh: You go right up to the cemetery? Ms. Van Tuyl: Yes, although our property has a little section of it that butts out. DISCUSSION - Concerning the cemetery. Ms. Van Tuyl: The difference in the site is rather than entering from Middlebush, we will have the entrance come in off Old Route 9. Mr. Prager: I think it will be safer. Ms. Van Tuyl: I think that is what the Planning Board thought. Mr. Fanuele: I don't want to harp on this, but the old variance ... I don't even know what it is. So, either it will be removed with the new variance or you have to understand what it is. I have a piece of paper here that says, "The requested variance, please see attachments." Then, I have an approval. I don't even know what I am voting on. Ms. Van Tuyl: Honestly, I gave you that because I did not think it would be candid not to disclose that there was an old variance on the property. When I first came in and I think I discussed it with Al or the Zoning Administrator, and someone asked if there already is a variance, why are you coming in again. When we went out and did our measurements, the measurements did not come out the same. As far as I am concerned, you can rip up that piece of paper. I am not relying on it. In fact, I am saying since it is such a mess and I don't know what it is, lets just start all over again. The buildings exist there. Our measurements are totally different from that. I am not even asking you to rely on it. I am telling you it is there for whatever it is worth so that there is no nondisclosure. As I said I am not banking anything on that and I am not asking you to. I don't know why they gave it. I can't guarantee he built it where he said he did. I don't know anything about it. That is why ... Poor Al is trying to buy the building the way it is. We are just asking to confirm the location of where it is right now. I think if you grant a new variance, we will have a document in the record and we will have the minutes and the files will be kept appropriately. Mr. Fanuele: The only other thing I brought up the last time, the plastic chain. I do not believe the plastic chain is an appropriate barrier on Middlebush Road. Middlebush Road is getting to be a very heavily traveled road and really, I think that whole entrance should be blocked. A plastic chain in my mind could disappear in no time flat. Ms. Van Tuyl: The comment is noted and the Planning Board has been discussing it in length the landscaping over there and the last time we were before the Planning Board they redesigned a lot of the landscaping there. In -►' Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 9 Mr. Fanuele: We could state it as a condition of the variance that a permanent barrier be put up there. Ms. Van Tuyl: We do object very vociferously to blocking off all access to that because I mean this door is already there. Al works on cars for the most part. Rarely once or twice a year a large vehicle might come in and it would be impossible for them to get in if that was totally barred. Mr. Lehigh: What Vic is alluding to is you could put up a steel chain across there and still be able to take it down. Ms. Van Tuyl: Fine, if you want the material of the chain to be ... Mr. Warren: (Too low to transcribe) ... Gate. Mr. Fanuele: You could put a gate there. Ms. Van Tuyl: We are willing to do whatever the Town decides as far as the material of the gate or the chain or whatever it is. I would just say for my client's sake I would like to avoid getting the Zoning Board and the Planning Board saying two different things on whatever. You can recommend whatever you want. Mr. Fanuele: As long as they agree with us, we won't have an argument. Ms. Van Tuyl: They will say that is their bailiwick and not yours. Maybe, I don't know. Mr. Fanuele: If you don't get the variance, then whose bailiwick is it? Ms. Van Tuyl: Then, we are dead in the water. Mr. Lehigh: Vic, why don't we send a letter to the Planning Board and suggest that? Mr. Prager: That it is not permanent, but ... Mr. Lehigh: That they have something more substantial than a plastic chain. Ms. Van Tuyl: I have no objection to that because as I said I can see your point. Mr. Fanuele: Are you saying that we are going to table this until they give us a response? Mr. Lehigh: I wouldn't do that. I think that they will take it into consideration. Mr. Fanuele: I don't think they will take it into consideration. They might and they might not. I would like to see if we are going to grant a variance that we come up with something here that would not be a plastic thing - that it would be some type of a gate. We could put that as a condition. You could agree to that right now. Ms. Van Tuyl: I think a gate presents esthetic issues that might concern the Planning Board. I have no problem with saying the chain would be steel. I think that is what you first said. En Mr. Lehigh: That is what I said. _.r/ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 10 Mr. Fanuele: I want something more permanent. Steel is a little more, but ... Mr. Prager: What would you suggest? Mr. Fanuele: I would think ... Someone mentioned a gate. You can lock a gate and it is done. Nobody will come in and that would be it. To bring trucks in, you open the gate and close it. Mr. Lehigh: It says on the plans, "Proposed plastic chain." Evidentially, the Planning Board does not expect to have a gate there. A compromise would be a steel chain fastened securely. Mr. Fanuele: My request to the Planning Board is to consider a gate and tell us why they can't do the gate. Ms. Van Tuyl: Perhaps, if you're trying to impose a condition that the condition would be that at least it be a steel chain and you recommend to the Planning Board that they also consider a gate. Mr. Fanuele: No, we are not saying a steel chain. I want you to come back and say what you would put there that is more permanent. You specify what you want to put there that is a little more permanent than a plastic chain. You state what you want and then we will decide. Ms. Van Tuyl: Just clarify if you would for me, which variance does this relate to? Does it relate to the setback issue? Because the door we're asking a variance for isn't the one facing here. This is pre-existing. I think maybe we are beyond the area that is relevant. This seems to be clearly a site plan issue. Mr. Fanuele: Your asking for a variance on this piece of property. Ms. Van Tuyl: Yes, but I don't think that where the gate is ... Mr. Fanuele: We can set conditions on variances. Ms. Van Tuyl: The conditions have to relate to the variance that is being requested. I don't think that the material of the chain relates to the garage door variance because the garage door variance is the door facing the other road. The setback variance already exists. So, I don't think the material of the chain or the gate has to do with that. As I said, I think that this is clearly a site plan issue. Mr. Prager: I would definitely like to see that maybe we could recommend something to the Planning Board. Mr. Fanuele: I look at this as a site plan issue and a variance dealing with a site plan. The entrance on Middlebush Road is part of the variance that we are dealing with. I can not accept .. Ms. Van Tuyl: But, that is pre-existing. *#AW Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 11 *4w, Mr. Fanuele: That is right. Pre-existing and we are recommending that if you use this property the way you want, you want to come in off Old Route 9, that the entrance should be permanently closed. I would like to see it permanently closed, but I am willing to settle for .... Ms. Van Tuyl: But, the Planning Board has already ruled that it will not be permanently closed. They have already ruled that. Mr. Fanuele: The site plan is not approved yet. The Planning Board can not do anything because we did not grant the variances yet. Ms. Van Tuyl: I am representing to you ... There are people here in this room who are at all of the Planning Board meetings. The specific issue of whether that entrance should be blocked or not was discussed at the Planning Board and a consensus was reached that it not be blocked, but a chain be put there. Mr. Prager: I have assume that since we got this map, that the Planning Board has looked at the map. Basically, .... Mr. Lehigh: They have declared themselves Lead Agency. Mr. Prager: And if you get your variances, this is the way it is going to look. Ms. Van Tuyl: They are looking at some storm drainage issues that Jay Paggi has addressed. They have looked at that map since it was prepared. We had a meeting there and they raised no objection to the chain. Mr. Prager: Anybody else have anything. Mr. Warren: Can we send a letter to the Planning Board? Mr. Lehigh: She already said that she will go with a steel chain. Steel is not something you're going to drive through. Plastic is already on the proposed set of plans. I think that is as good as you're going to get. Mr. Prager: Mr. Gargano, do you have anything to say? Mr. Gargano: A steel chain will be fine. I don't see how anybody could drive through a steel chain. Mr. Lehigh: If you want to send a letter to the Planning Board that you feel that there should be a gate in there, then I would go along with that. Mr. Prager: If they decide to change it, that is fine. I guess there is nobody else that would like to say anything. I just want to log in some evidence. Site plan map dated 9/29/97, by Eric W. Gardell, PE, LS., a letter from Don Close dated 10/28/97, explaining the variances and informing the Board the feelings of the Town of Wappinger Planning Board that they are in favor of granting the variances requested. A letter from Richard I. Cantor, Esq. to Mrs. Linda Nguyen dated 10/20/97, giving permission of authority to Alphonse Gargano to make an application to on 1001 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 12 the Zoning Board of Appeals. A letter from Jennifer Van Tuyl from Pagones, Cross and Van Tuyl dated 10/14/97, summarizing the application. The notice of the SEQR Designation and Lead Agency and Classification of Action dated 10/28/97, a form from DC Dept. of Planning and Development received Nov. 3, 1997, stating the variance is a matter of local concern. The Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals minutes dated 10/28/97. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mr. Lehigh: So moved. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: I would like to make a motion to grant the variance. I don't feel there will be any detriment to nearby properties. The next question of course is, is there an undesirable change to occur to the character of the neighborhood? I don't feel there is since no additions will be made to the building. In fact, one of the buildings on the property will be removed. It is going to be landscaped. Also the setback to the County road, there looks as if there might have been a variance before, but we do not feel that is very substantial. Are there any alternative methods feasible? No, the building is there now and the garage door facing Middlebush Road is there now. The Planning Board has requested the new garage door face Old Route 9. The variance is not substantial. It will not cause adverse effect to the physical or environmental condition in the ,` neighborhood. I don't feel the difficulty is self-created. Everything is basically pre-existing except of course the garage door and that is brought on by the Planning Board. Those are my reasons for moving to grant the variance. Mr. Lehigh: I would like to add to it that the steel chain across the Middlebush exit be included and I will second that motion. Mrs. Van Tuyl: And, we consent to the steel chain. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Aye. Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye. Mr. diPiemo: Absent. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: The motion has been granted and it will be filed in 5 days. Mrs. Nguyen: Do you want a letter to go to the Planning Board? Mr. Fanuele: The condition is a steel chain so we don't need a letter to the Planning Board. All they need is a copy of the Decision. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on the agenda tonight is to discuss Appeal No. 1253. Chris & Sharon Ryder requesting a 6 foot side yard variance to construct an addition (20'6" X OOT r.rrr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 13 36') on property located at 16 Lake Drive in the Town of Wappinger. May I ask who is here to speak for this? Come on up and state your name for the record and tell us a little bit about what you want. Mr. Ryder: My name is Chris Ryder. I live at 16 Lake Drive in Wappingers Falls. I am looking to put the, as I had mentioned, an addition on my house. We have been living in a small house for 10 years now. We are looking to expand. We are looking for a two car garage and a little space above it. It was getting to the point where either we were going to move or stay in the neighborhood and we decided to add on. In order to have the room that we need, we fell short of the setback. Mr. Prager: How many are in your family? Mr. Ryder: Just the two of us. Mr. Prager: When did you purchase the property? Mr. Ryder: 1987. Mr. Prager: What do you plan on using the extra room for? Mr. Ryder: The two car garage for downstairs and then a small additional basement place because the house is on a .... Mr. Prager: Slab? Mr. Ryder: No, not on a slab. It has a crawl space. We have no basement at all. No storage or anything. Upstairs we want to create a playroom area, with a wood stove possibly. Mr. Prager: Have you gone so far as to get some plans drawn up? Mr. Ryder: Yes. Mr. Prager: You might want to bring them to the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh: You have an enclosed porch on the back of the house? Was that existing when you bought it? Mr. Ryder: Yes, it is existing. Mr. Lehigh: It would be nice if you could say on the drawing where you are going to put the driveway in. Mr. Prager: I was a little confused about that. *aw Mr. Ryder: The property is so irregular. It was all one big piece of property owned by one family. When they got old enough to retire, they all subdivided and I don't know how they came up with those property lines. 14or Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Fanuele: It is going in the front of the house. (Talking about the addition.) Mr. Ryder: It is going in the front of the house. It is the only place I could go. Mr. Lehigh: It is going to encompass the front porch. Mr. Ryder: Right, the front porch I had to rip down because the beam in the front of the house ... Water got behind it and it started to deteriorate. So, I had to repair that. So, that is not there right now. DISCUSSIONS - Mr. Prager requested additional copies of the building plans. Mr. Lehigh: So, you're joining this to the house so you will be able to come out here and have one room? Mr. Ryder: This is going to be one room here of 14 X 20. It will be ... Mr. Lehigh: It will be living space for you? Mr. Ryder: Yes, it will be a laundry room, there will be a bathroom and then a small computer room and a hallway. Mr. Lehigh: Your garage is going - what underneath that? Mr. Ryder: Underneath. Mr. Close: Where is Lake Drive? Mr. Ryder: Down in the Chelsea area where American Lumber Company was. It was across the street. Mr. Lehigh: It is one of the small areas up there. It used to be summer homes years ago. The garage is going to be in this end underneath it and then the room on top. Mr. Prager: So, it will actually be on two sides. It looks like a variance will be needed. Mr. Lehigh: Fourteen feet on each side. Mr. Fanuele: How long is it? Mr. Ryder: How long is it? It is about 320 feet. Somewhere along there. Our driveways run side by side. (Unable to transcribe.) Mr. Prager: Actually, they will need two side variances. Mr. Fanuele: Two six foot variances. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Prager: If you brought that in from 36 feet, you wouldn't need quite as much of a variance. I don't know how much. Mr. Lehigh: Well, you would have to bring it in 6 feet. Mr. Prager: No, not necessarily. No, I am just saying if you brought it back this way, how much would it be from there? Mr. Lehigh: You would have to figure the angel on it to see how much. Mr. Fanuele: You would still need a variance. DISCUSSION - Mr. Prager requested a copy of the building plan prior to the site inspection. Mr. Ryder gave his copy to Mr. Prager. SITE INSPECTION set for November 22, 1997, at 9:00 AM. Mr. Prager requested it should be staked out. Mr. Warren: Motion the ZBA be Lead Agency. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: Do you want to do a Neg. Dec. or do you want to wait? The Board agreed to wait until after the site inspection. Mr. Prager: We will set a public hearing for our next public hearing which is November 25"'. The next item of business is Appeal No. 1254. Alpine Commons of Poughkeepsie (A C Moore) to discuss requesting to temporarily expand A. C. Moore's existing pylon signage, at Alpine Commons, on property located at 1357 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Walsh: As you can see, there is a unique topographical circumstance that exist on this property. The mall is elevated above Route 9 making the visibility of the center very difficult as you may know. The elevation of the property puts A C Moore at a disadvantage because you can not see the building or the building identifications. These are only seen after the people have entered the shopping center. This I believe is a hardship for A C Moore that was not created by them. They do not have the visibility as other competitors or businesses in that area. Also, it is important for A C Moore to be recognized and be known that they are in the Alpine Commons Shopping Center for their business to survive. In the sign portion, we are only asking for a temporary increase in the panel size until another tenant would utilize that space. This would not be a permanent sign and it would be very attractive so it would look like a permanent sign. We feel this is in a minimum to afford relief to A C Moore to give them the opportunity to be recognized by their customers. We also respect that the Town's Zoning Ordinance and what you are trying to accomplish with that. That is why we are not asking for a separate sign for A C Moore, like a freestanding sign. M Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Lehigh: Do you have a copy of this? An Appeal Action - there was a variance granted before to Alpine and they never fulfilled the conditions of that variance for the very sign your talking about. Namely, they were supposed to contact the State and see about taking the trees down that block that signs view on the north side. They never removed the black plastic that they were supposed to remove along with the bails of hay that were put in with the original construction. It was put into the last variance what they had to do that. They haven't done any of this. They haven't really complied with what this agency has asked them to do. Now, you come in for more and plus .....(Unable to transcribe.) The 150 square feet by the State which would entail that sign because it is a freestanding sign. It can not be over 150 square feet by the State Law which we found out was for this type of a sign, not for signs on buildings. Do you know what the dimensions of that sign is right now existing? When I look at it here, I come up with about 192 square feet. You are over what we could legally tell you that you can have. I know Alpine has been in here and has been before us, and I am just giving you the information that we had from them. I know that they have the dimensions exactly of the sign and what is there and what isn't there. We probably have it in our records, if we went back and looked at it. The variance that was granted to them to move the sign closer to the road. Mr. Prager: It comes out about 190 square feet. Mr. Lehigh: You have to really talk to Alpine and see what they are going to do. I know myself, if they are not going to fulfill what they said they were going to do with the last variance, and it is their sign and it belongs to them and they are supposed to maintain it and take care of it, I wouldn't look favorably on granting another variance to Alpine when they are not fulfilling the conditions of the previous variance. This is just a workshop. This is nothing official. I am just giving you some information that went on before you were involved. You probably have .... Mr. Walsh: I had no clue on what you just mentioned. Mr. Fanuele: We did meet with the Dept. of Transportation at the site. There was some questions of whether we could eliminate some of the brush and cut some trees down. The DOT gave them the okay to cut the trees that are closest to the road. That was no problem because they were going to die anyway. Some of the brush was to be cleaned out so you could better see the sign as you go north. Mr. Walsh: Not the ones on the buildings? Mr. Lehigh: No, going north on 9. You can not see that sign until you get right up on top of it. You can see it fairly well from the south, but there are some trees that could come down there. Vic went ahead and called the DOT himself. They said they can take the trees down. Mr. Kellogg was supposed to move towards that and nothing has ever been done with that. Also, as a prerequisite of that, we asked him to remove the bails of hay with the plastic that they put in during construction to keep the sand and everything from going into the State ditch. They have never done that either. There was shopping carts, all kinds of garbage in there that we asked him to clean out. None of that has been done. I think really you need to talk to Mr. Kellogg or the head of that shopping center to see what they are going to do. These are questions that I am going to ask when you come back for a public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: Are you representing Alpine or A C Moore? .nrr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 17 Mr. Walsh: I am representing Bartish Signs who is representing A C Moore. They are the fabricators of the A C Moore's signs. I am directly representing A C Moore. Mr. Fanuele: A C Moore does not own the sign, so you have to get the owners permission. Mr. Prager: I noticed that you Sign Language made out the appeal. Mr. Lehigh: You should be contract vendee or something. Mr. Prager: No, not necessarily contract vendee, but at least have a letter from Alpine because they are the owner of the sign. That might be another thing that you might want to make sure you do before you come back. My personal feeling is your saying what you wanted to do ... We had given a variance the last time for a sign for A C Moore and also an area under it for the next tenant. You want to basically take up all of that space as a temporary sign. I guess I am a little confused. Say you get another tenant in there in a year or in a month, it doesn't matter what it is, and you are saying you will drop the sign back to the original size or will you be coming in again for another variance? Mr. Walsh: No, what would happen is A C Moore's existing sign would come out. I would store that in my shop. I would like another panel for that saying A C Moore and underneath where the blank panel is, arts and crafts so we could increase the size for the visibility. Once another tenant comes in ... The only reason I would do that is so that it looks like a permanent sign, but it acts as a temporary. When a new tenant comes in, the bottom sign would come back out and their sign would go in with A C Moore's older sign. Mr. Prager: I guess I don't see their feeling of how that is going to help. I know ... It is really funny, because I opened up a newspaper and here is a big flyer from A C Moore. I know they do other advertising. Everybody I have talked to seems to know where they are located. They have no problems with it. I guess I am really confused really why they need the sign. Mr. Walsh: I guess they just want the ... They are set back from the road, they want better visibility on the highway if that is possible. That is their reason. Mr. Lehigh: One time they want a large sign on the blank side of the building and we denied that also. Mr. Fanuele: When the other variance was granted, the argument was that they wanted a sign before they would sign their contract. They got the sign they wanted and they were happy. So, they went away happy when we dealt with the issue then. Now they are saying they can not be seen. Mr. Walsh: I wasn't involved then. Mr. Lehigh: We are not really against signs either. It may seem like it, but we are definitely not against signs. We realize they are a function of business and they are necessary. rrrr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12,1997 Page 18 .r.,r Mr. Prager: Sometimes we think they are a little excessive. That is why we are trying to keep it down. Mr. Walsh: That is exactly why they wanted to offer it as a temporary because they are a new business in the area. d the one you Mr. Lehigh: If you come back withsore exiting lanll not look favorable to occupy and what your going to do 0r have that cleaned up b unless they are doing something with the trees and cleaning up the mess. Mr. Prager: Basically helping themselves is what .... Mr. Walsh: May I get a list of those items? DISCUSSION OF LIST Mr. Lehigh: Hay bails, shopping carts, plastic, tires, and so forth to clean up the front of the site. it mentions at Mr. Prager: Primarily, in the conclusion t trees can be cut back n this Appeal along Route Shand rconta�gthe tg is o contact the DOT about seeing if some DEC to remove the black plastic. It is not just that we wanted him to contact him, we wanted him to actually clean it up if they gave him permission. When Vic Fanuele went down there with the DOT and Mr. Kellogg, they agreed it could be done. Mr. Fanuele: All Mr. Kellogg had to do was to indicate which ones he wanted to take down so they could see them. They had no problem with taking down the ones closest to the road. (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Prager: You would definitely need some type of permission from them even to come before this Board. Do you think you can get this done in two weeks or do you want to make it another date? Mr. Walsh: I'm probably going to have to make it another date. Two weeks might be pushing it. I can personally make the contacts with in that time, but I don't know .... Mr. Lehigh: Since he hasn't gone for a public hearing, why don't we let him come back when he Get a hold of Linda. Mr. Walsh: So come back for another discussion or come back for a ....? Mr. Prager: You don't have to within the next meeting. Mr. Fanuele: What are we sending him away to do? We are sending him to get a letter from the owner saying you can be their representative for the sign. You need to talk to them about the conditions of the previous variance. `r. Mr. Prager: Those things would have to be completed for me to even think of granting another variance. Those have to be done. ,rrr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - November 12, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Fanuele: Which trees you want to take down depends upon how you view the sight distance. If you take the trees down, then it might make enough sight distance to see the sign. Mr. Lehigh: It certainly would allow them to see the sign that they have there a lot better. Mr. Prager: I don't want to give you the impression that if these things are done, we are going to grant this variance. That is not my feelings at all. That would then at least let us go on to think about it. DISCUSSION - Mr. Prager requested this project be put on the agenda for December 9"'. Mr. Walsh agreed. Mr. Warren: Motion to adjourn. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals