Loading...
1997-10-28_%NW - *41r law AGENDA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board Town Hall MEETING DATE: October 28, 1997 20 Middlebush Road TIME -- 7:30 PM Wappingers Falls, NY Approval of October 14, 1997, minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 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. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, the Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance on October 14, 1997. 2. Appeal No. 1250 - At the request of Kenneth J. Catale, who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - whereas a 20 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellant is proposing to erect a 26' X 26' detached garage 10 feet from the side yard, thus a 10 -foot side yard variance is required for property located at 48 Top O' Hill Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6359-03-009005-00 in the Town of Wappinger. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, the Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency for this project on October 14, 1997. 3. Appeal No. 1251 - At the request of Stephen & Melissa Fischer, who are seeking two area variances; 1. Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - whereas a 10 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellants' are proposing to build an 8' X 15' bicycle shed within 5 feet of the side yard, thus a 5 -foot side yard variance is required and; 2. Article IV, Section 420.1, Item No. 40 -whereas accessory buildings (bicycle shed) may not be located in the front yard. The property is located at 257 Myers Corners Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19- 6258-02-931655-00 in the Town of Wappinger. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, the Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency for this project on October 14, 1997. DISCUSSION Alphonse Gargano (Contract Vendee) - To discuss Appeal No. 1252 requesting 4 variances for *am- property located on the south east corner of the intersection of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals October 28, 1997 Minutes Members Present Mr. Lehigh: Acting Chairman Mr. diPierno: Member Members Absent Mr. Prager: Chairman Others Present Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Mr. Don Close, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board 0 Mr. Lehigh: Would you call the roll call please? ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Here. Mr. diPierno: Here. Mr. Fanuele: Here. Mr. Lehigh: Here. Mr. Prager: Absent. Mr. Lehigh: The first business to come before the Zoning Board would be the minutes of October 14'. Can I hear a motion? Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to approve the minutes for October 14`h Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: We will move along to Appeal No. 1249. At the request of Goodwill Industries, who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.1.4 - the appellant is proposing a 288 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 100 sq. ft. sign is allowed, thus requiring 188 sq. ft. sign variance on 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. Please take further notice, the Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance on October 14, 1997. Do we have our mailings in? Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order. Mr. Lehigh: Do I hear a motion to open the public hearing? Mr. diPierno: So moved. = Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Lehigh: Is the applicant here, Goodwill Industries? Step forward and state your name please. Mr. Walsh: My name is Tom Walsh. I am with Sign Language. Mrs. Cockrin: I am Mary Cockrin with Goodwill Industries. Mr. Lehigh: Do you want to give us your reasoning for this request? Mr. Walsh: We are requesting a sign area of 280 square feet. That is 8 square feet less than the Rickel sign. Mr. Lehigh: So you have changed it from 288 to 280? Mr. Walsh: I am sorry, we are requesting a 288 square foot sign. Mr. Lehigh: You do not think you can get along with anything less than 288 square feet? Mr. Walsh: No, that is what we are requesting is the 288 square feet. The previous occupant was Rickels who was at, I believe, 280 square feet. We are just going 8 square feet above that. Mr. Lehigh: You realize that Rickels did not have a permit for that? No variance was granted on that. Mr. Walsh: I have a permit, but I don't have a variance for that. I have a permit that was for Rickel, but no variance. They did not go for the variance. Mr. Lehigh: In view of the other signs in the shopping center, you don't think you can get along with anything less? Mr. Walsh: No, due to the size of the building, any smaller sign would look out of place for that size of a building. Do you have the drawing? What we are requesting is the 7 X 7 icon, the Goodwill and Store on there and anything smaller than that would just be too small for this size of this facade. Previous tenants, even the Channel Home Center, was a larger sign than Rickel. They did not have an adverse effect on the community. Mr. Lehigh: Channel was before the new sign Ordinance. So, that wouldn't come into play and Rickel never had a permit or a variance for it. Mr. Walsh: On some of the questions that you have like, strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce an undue hardship because the sign that is allowed by the Zoning Board does not reflect the size of importance of the anchor store that will occupy that spot. Not only does it look proportionally small on the building, but people may not realize that Goodwill Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 3 \'' occupies the entire building. They may think they occupy a smaller unit like the other stores in the plaza. That would certainly be an adverse effect on their business especially a building that has been vacant so long. The hardship created is unique and not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and in the district because the other stores in the plaza are much smaller than the future Goodwill Store. The sizes of their signs are appropriate for the size of their units. Mr. Lehigh: We have come across the State Law that we will have to have an interpretation on. The way some of us read the State Law, it says 150 square feet on a state highway is the maximum. We are going to have to turn it over to the Town Attorney and let him give us an opinion on that. Would you like to come back and see what that opinion is? Mr. Walsh: Yes, I would. Mr. Lehigh: Or would you like us to give you an interpretation on it tonight - that we feel? Mr. Walsh: We would like to come back. Mr. Lehigh: Then, we will adjourn you to the next meeting which is, what the 14'? Mrs. Nguyen: November 12ffi. `%W Mr. Lehigh: I will have the Town Attorney have an opinion at that time. Mr. Fanuele: Is there anyway that you could - are there certain colors that maybe you could paint at the top of your store that would kind of delineate that this whole store is part of Goodwill? Mrs. Cockrin: I think that would have to go to the owner. I have to tell you the owner wants a bigger sign than this. He wants us to add some more words to it. They have a new owner that has just taken over the shopping center. Because it is the anchor store, he thinks it needs to be bigger. For him to paint it, to set it off from the other center, would probably not be quite right because we have the yellow or cream tone and then it goes into a dark tone. Down at the other end where the old Jamesway was, it goes back into the cream again. It would be changing the facade on the shopping center. Mr. Lehigh: We couldn't possibly grant you anything larger than what the State Law calls for, if in fact that is the Law. Can I have a motion to adjourn the public hearing to November 12`h Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. *4w Mr. Lehigh: Can you make copies of that Law for the other members of the Board? Mr. Fanuele: I just want to go over this notice that there is some writing on the bottom here recommending no sign on Route 9. Is that what they are saying? *aw ,Now Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 4 Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, that is from the Village. They had to be notified because they are within 500 feet of the Village. Mr. Lehigh: Moving along, next Appeal No. 1250 at the request of Kenneth I Catale, who is seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - whereas a 20 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellant is proposing to erect a 26' X 26' detached garage 10 feet from the side yard, thus a 10 -foot side yard variance is required on property located at 48 Top O' Hill Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6359-03-009005-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Please take notice, the Zoning Board of Appeal has declared itself Lead Agency for this project on October 14, 1997. Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mr. Fanuele: Motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order. Mr. Lehigh: Kenneth, are you here? There was some discussion in the minutes before on moving the garage and moving the door on the garage to make it a little bit smaller. Mr. Catale: I moved it 13 feet from the property line now. I moved it 3 feet behind the house. had the mason come and he gave me some suggestions of what I can do by moving the door. 1 am going to put a little walkway right where the doors are going and then the steps to my backyard. Mr. Lehigh: In other words, you are asking for a 1 foot side yard variance instead of 14, if you move it? So it is 14 feet from the line? Mr. Catale: Thirteen feet. I moved it around 1 foot so it is actually parallel with the property line now. Mr. Lehigh: So, it is not closer on one side than the other? Mr. Catale: No, it is pretty much equal with the line going up. Mr. Fanuele: Are you going to level it with the driveway? Mr. Catale: Yes, Larry Murphy is a friend of mine. He is going to let me use his backhoe. That is what I do. I run backhoes and machines. Mr. Lehigh: Actually, you were requesting a 10 -foot side yard. You said you moved it to thirteen. Then, you don't really need a variance for the side yard at all. Mr. Fanuele: It is 20 feet. So, he is looking for ... ..rr' Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Lehigh: Then, he is looking for 7 feet. Any questions? Anybody from the audience? We still have to have a Negative Dec. Mr. Fanuele: I move for a Negative Dec. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele: I grant the variance of 7 feet. Mr. Lehigh: We have a motion on the floor to grant the variance of 7 feet on the side yard. Mr. diPierno: Second. Mr. Lehigh: Do you want to state anymore than that? All in favor? Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: I would like to add to it that the request will not be detrimental to nearby properties. It will not create an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Since he moved the line, I see no .. other feasible way to do it. The variance is only 7 feet, so it is not substantial. I don't see any other way to do it. Do I hear a motion to close the public hearing? Warren: So moved. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: The variance will be posted in 5 days. Moving along, Appeal No. 1251. At the request of Stephen & Melissa Fischer, who are seeking two area variances; Article IV, Section 420.3 - Schedule of Dimensional Regulations - whereas a 10 -foot side yard setback is required, the appellants' are proposing to build an 8' X 15' bicycle shed within 5 feet of the side yard, thus a 5 -foot side yard variance is requested and; Article IV, Section 420.1, Item No. 40 - whereas accessory buildings (bicycle shed) may not be located in the front yard. The property is located at 257 Myers Corners Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6258-02-931655-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Please take further notice, the Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency for this project on October 14, 1997. Can I hear a motion? Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren: Second. y.. Vote: All present voted aye. Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Fischer: What do you want to hear from me? Mr. Lehigh: Explain what you want. Whatever you had before was just a discussion. This goes on the official record. Mr. Fischer: Okay, the reason I would like to put a bicycle shed in this location is because it is the optimal position for access to the driveway for the bicycles. It is the optimal storage location for any car related items that I might want to store temporarily there. It is the only ... I require a variance to put any kind of storage at the end of my driveway. It is a significant distance from the end of my driveway to the house and even a farther distance to the one shed that I do have right now. So, this is the motivation for the proposed location. I think that it is reasonable because I imagine that the reason for the front yard restriction is purely esthetic. Because I have no frontage on no road, I would expect that it really shouldn't apply in this particular case. The shed will be small. It will be relatively inconspicuous. It is going to be just on blocks without a foundation. If something comes up later that there was a problem, it could possibly be moved. The request for the 5 -foot side yard variance is there because I know many Zoning Laws have an esthetic content. If I can have the 5 -foot side yard as well, then I can hide it somewhat better and improve the esthetics more than if I can not get the 5 -foot side yard variance. I think that is everything. I am sorry, one other point, there is an existing shed sitting there which apparently is illegal. The proposed location is right near the existing shed of the neighbors. ,,.. Mr. Lehigh: That is what I am looking for is the letter from Mr. Close on the shed next door. Was that shed legal next door Don? I know it was said to be legal as to the ... But, it doesn't look to be legal because it said it is 25 feet from the line and it certainly isn't. Mr. Close: By the building permit, and the application made, it said it was 25 feet off the property line. I was never out there. Mr. Lehigh: We were out there and if his line is right the way he laid his line out, which I have no idea whether it is right or not, then this one has to be wrong. Mr. Fischer: Mine is referenced to the telephone pole on my survey, if you look. You can see the telephone pole is located right near one of the property corners of my property. The direction I got from the direction of the telephone line. I think that my line is at least approximately .... Mr. Lehigh: It would seem that his is not right. Mr. Fanuele: Either the shed is located in the wrong spot or the other owner feels he owns more of Mr. Fischer's property. Either way, we would like that to be resolved before I would give permission to put another shed there. Mr. Fischer: I don't know why the existing shed couldn't or shouldn't be irrelevant to the construction of my shed especially if I am only asking only for the front yard variance and not the side yard. Mr. Fanuele: The only reason I say that is because of the property line. He is saying he put it twenty-five feet from the property line. That means he is over in your driveway. If he is over in on Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 7 your driveway, we can not allow you to put your shed on his property. So, we have to resolve that issue. Mr. Fischer: The issue of where the property line is. Is that the issue that you think needs to be resolved? Mr. Fanuele: That is what I feel. He said he put his 25 feet from the property line. That takes him into your driveway. If it is his property, then you can't put a shed on his property just like he can not put one on your property. Mr. Fischer: I think that would be easily resolved, but I am worried about the time it would take to resolve it. I am running out of time to build it this season. Mr. Lehigh: You don't see a difference between the front yard and back yard, but I do. To me you are close to that neighbor and that would be your front yard. The house is built facing out towards the front. That to me would be the front yard. I personally do not think you should have it in the front yard. I think you should tear the old shed down and put it in the back yard next to that. Mr. Fischer: The old shed will have to go eventually, but I don't have the money to replace it appropriately right now. So, the bicycle shed I am looking for in the meantime. Well, I would probably keep the bicycle shed there anyway even if I did replace the back shed. I don't have enough room for all of the stuff back there right now. I do not understand, why do you feel that the front yard thing is important? Mr. Lehigh: I think for esthetics, or whatever you want to say, it would look a lot better in the back yard. Mr. Fischer: I think that is true. I tried to balance the need of the optimal location from a practical point of view and that is why I would like to put it in the front. It will be rather small and inconspicuous. I am going to paint it a dark color similar to the existing shed that is there. Mr. diPierno: (Too low) Mr. Lehigh: Well, it is for where he wants it definitely. Mr. Fischer: I have surveys from my neighbors that show their shed on the survey itself. So, you can see even on the neighbors survey that the shed is sitting right next to my property line. DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY Mr. Lehigh: You would be located on the right-of-way then. Mr. Fischer: It would be near the right-of-way, that is correct, if I get the 5 -foot side yard variance. Mr. diPierno: Who owns the right-of-way? om r.✓ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Fischer: Mr. Cappelli is the current owner. He was notified. I know that he returned his green card. So was everyone else with property on the right-of-way. Mr. diPierno: (Too low) Mr. Fischer: Mine is right. It is just going to be on blocks. Mr. Lehigh: I think once it is there, you will have a hard time getting it moved from there. Mr. Lehigh: I was not aware that it is a right-of-way. I don't know if that effects us or not. Mr. diPierno: Unless you get something in writing from Mr. Cappelli saying .... Mr. Lehigh: There may be something in the Ordinance that says you have to be a certain distance from a right-of-way. Mr. Close: It is a paper road, Mr. Lehigh. Mr. Lehigh: You do not think it will make any difference? Mr. Close: They do not exist as far as we are concerned until somebody wants to build on them. They don't mean anything. Mr. diPierno: This is not a Town road right? Mr. Close: No, it is just a paper road. If somebody wanted to build on it, they would have to get from a certified title company that they have unencumbered use of the road. That is all we require. Mr. Lehigh: Any further discussion? Mr. Fanuele: I am satisfied as far as the property line with that piece of paper he showed us. I make a motion to declare a Negative Dec. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to close the public hearing if nobody here wants to speak. Mr. diPierno: So moved. Vote: All present voted aye. 140, Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to grant the variance due to the fact the lot is very odd ball shaped. It is tough to recognize where the front and where the side is. The shed is going to be located next to another shed and neither the house, nor the shed, or the road can be seen facing the road. I have no problem granting the variance. En Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: In 5 days you can pick up your zoning permit. We will move along to a discussion for Alphonse Gargano (Contract Vendee). To discuss Appeal No. 1252 requesting 4 variances for property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. Ms. Van Tuyl: Hi, I am Jennifer Van Tuyl, Esq. and this is Al Gargano. This is about property just down the road here. The old machine shop at the corner of Middlebush and Old Route 9. Does everybody know that? Al is in contract with Mike Furlani to purchase the property from him. The present owner Mike Furlani has very vociferously maintained that he has not given up his non -conforming use on the property. He is probably correct in that since the 2 year period has not passed. Al wants to go in there, take out the mobile home that is there, and clean up the site. The Planning Board has requested that we orient the site to Old Route 9 rather than Middlebush Road. As you know now, there is one big garage door facing Middlebush Road. We are going to leave the door that is there for emergency use in case Al ever works on a large vehicle. Most of his work is on regular passenger cars. That requires a variance of the special permit requirements on where the doors face, that they not face the road, but we have a corner lot you see so there is difficulty with that. All the other variances, the two other variances we are requesting are all pre-existing things. There is a building there. We need one setback variance where Mr. Furlani put in a building that did not comply on one edge with the 10 -foot setback. It is actually 9.5. That is a 6 inch variance. There is a small building that Al would like to use as his office. He wants to keep it there. Also, in 1983 or thereabouts, Mr. Furlani obtained a variance from this Board for his side setback from Middlebush Road. Fifty-three feet, I believe it was measured out to, where 75 was required. We just want to reconfirm that variance. We would like to request that ourselves just to make sure the building as it presently exist now is okay. I had originally thought that we would need a variance for the lot size, but I spoke to Al Roberts and Dave Stolman from Frederick P. Clark, and after discussing it, we all believe and I think the Zoning Administrator concurs that, because of the fact that this is all pre-existing. We meet the requirements in the code that would allow the Building Inspector and the Zoning Administrator to make the ruling that the parcel qualifies for a building permit without the necessity of a variance. So, actually there are three variances that we are requesting. Two of them have to do with pre-existing conditions of the buildings. The other one relates to where the garage doors face. Really that is at the reacquisition of the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh: The variance for the 6 inches, did he have a variance for that before? Ms. Van Tuyl: No. Mr. Lehigh: Well, that is really the only one you need. Variances go with the land. 14,,,,. Ms. Van Tuyl: There was something though about the measurement. When I scaled off the 53 feet, it is like I think he got a variance for 57 feet. When you scale it out now, it is 53 feet. It is unclear whether it is because the road has changed or whatever. There may be a foot or two that like he got a variance for 57, but then he built it 53. I just want to confirm that the building is Vrr. ..r Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 10 okay the way it is. I would prefer if you don't have a problem with it to review it just to make sure that the variance is on this particular site plan. Mr. Close: There was no variance given on the 6 inches. Ms. Van Tuyl: I think he built that new building and it was just like a builders error of 6 inches. The other corner does comply. Even the average setback would comply, but it is just that one side. Mr. Lehigh: I would like a letter from the Planning Board. Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, there is a letter from Don dated October 28th. Mr. Fanuele: The only comment that I have is I agree with the Planning Board about putting the entrance on Old Route 9. The door that faces Middlebush Road, there is a plastic chain across that. It doesn't really give me a strong feeling that it is really a commitment not to use that. Maybe extend the isle across. Something where the everyday cars wouldn't go through. Ms. Van Tuyl: We don't mean it to be a rink-e-dink chain that somebody would scoff at. The only reason for keeping it not completely closed off is because if you look at the site plan, it is hard to get around from the old Route 9 side over there. Certainly, that is a site plan issue that the Planning Board could talk about. We would be happy to convey your recommendation. I don't think we mean plastic in the sense of dime store plastic. Mr. Fanuele: You could put the island there, but with ramps on it so you could get something over it, but the common person wouldn't go in there. Ms. Van Tuyl: Al is going to be adding quite a lot of landscaping to the site. Whatever we would do would be something that is attractive. Mr. Warren: So it will strictly be for car repair? Mr. Gargano: Yes. Mr. Van Tuyl: Al has a place now. Mr. diPierno: Your not going to do any body work? Mr. Gargano: No, we are not a body shop. Mr. diPierno: Just strictly mechanical repair. No tractor trailers. Mr. Lehigh: Well, that would be up to the Planning Board anyway. ,%W Ms. Van Tuyl: No, Al works on passenger vehicles. Mr. Lehigh: You want all three or all four request then? 09 1"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Van Tuyl: No, three. At the behest of the Planning Board, the Town Attorney and the Town Planner, we agree that the first variance is not required. Mr. Lehigh: The last three - garage doors, setback for the office and setback from the road. Can I hear a motion to appoint the Zoning Board ... Ms. Van Tuyl: Oh, can I add one thing? The Planning Board at its last meeting recommended that they be the Lead Agency. Mr. Lehigh: Well, the only thing we would become Lead Agency for would be the three variances. Mr. diPierno: Both can not be Lead Agency. Ms. Van Tuyl: Yes, there can only be one. I think the Planning Board was recommending ... I think we did this with Outback Restaurant also. That they be Lead Agency and that you consent and the Health Department consent so that ... If you do agree that they should be the Lead Agency, then that would resolve you of the necessity of you making your own Neg. Dec. You would just make whatever decision you made conditioned also upon the Planning Board issuing a Negative Dec. I think that is what we did in Outback. You will be getting a formal notice from the Planning Board. I happened to speak with Dan Wery, I don't know what time, he faxed this at 16.52. I think the Town offices were closed, but this is a draft of the notice. Mr. Lehigh: I think it would be better if it were.. you know the Lead Agency. Ms. Van Tuyl: I think it would probably make sense. Mr. Lehigh: It does to me. The Negative Dec., they should be looking into that as Lead Agency. So, we shouldn't have a problem with that either. We will set the public hearing for the 12`h. Mr. Warren: Motion to adjourn. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, ecretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board