Loading...
1997-06-24Cm err AGENDA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board Town Hall MEETING DATE: June 24, 1997 20 Middlebush Road TIME -- 7:30 PM Wappinger Falls, NY Approval of June 10, 1997, minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Anneal No. 1244 -- At the request of Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. (Contract Vendee) who is seeking two (2) area variances of Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — whereas: A. A 50 -foot front yard setback is required, the applicant is showing 35 feet, thus requiring a 15 -foot front yard variance to construct a single family residence and whereas; B. A 25 -foot side yard setback is required, the applicant is showing 15 feet, thus requiring a 10 -foot side yard variance to construct a single family residence on property located on Orchard Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6257-01- 223557-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance for this project on June 10, 1997. 2. Appeal No. 1245 -- At the request of Robert & Jean Morse (Morse Subdivision), who are seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Reaulations — the applicant is showing 81,879 square feet lot size; however, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 5,700 square feet of land to the Town of Wappinger for Highway Taking (future road expansion), thus the property will consist of 76,179 square feet which can not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 80,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant will need a 3,821 square feet minimum lot size variance to meet the R-80 zoning requirement for the construction of a single family residence on property located at 273 Smithtown Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6256-01-180665-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration for this project on June 10, 1997. 3. Appeal No. 1241 -- At the request of LPV Associates, Inc., who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2 - Permanent Mounted Free Standing Signs - The applicant is proposing a 38 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 25 sq. ft. sign is allowed, thus requiring a 13 sq. ft. permanent mounted free standing sign variance to allow all of the tenants to be listed on the sign for property located at 1611 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04- 704073-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency for this project on March 25, 1997, and made a Negative Declaration of significance on June 10, 1997. MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals June 24, 1997 Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Others Present Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. diPierno Member APPR10� mom unD AUG 12 IN Mr. Donald Close: Zoning Administrator Mrs. Linda Nguyen: Secretary to the Zoning Board PLANNBOARD Z,, 8�OARD OF APPEALS 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. diPierno: Here. Mr. Fanuele: Here. Mr. Lehigh: Here. Mr. Prager: Here. Mr. Prager: The first item of business tonight is the approval of the June 10, 1997, minutes. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that they be approved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: The next item on tonight's agenda is a public hearing on Appeal No. 1244 - At the request of Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. (Contract Vendee) who are seeking two (2) area variances of Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — whereas: (A) A 50 -foot front yard setback is required, the applicant is showing 35 feet, thus requiring a 15 -foot front yard variance to construct a single family residence and whereas; (B) A 25 -foot side yard setback is required, the applicant is showing 15 feet, thus requiring a 10 -foot side yard variance to construct a single family residence on property located on Orchard Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6257-01-223557-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance for this project on June 10, 1997. Are all the mailings in order? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, they are. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Warren: So moved. En Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. low Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 2 Mr. Angelo: Gus Angelo, Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. To reiterate, at the last ZBA meeting, we were looking to construct a single family residence on a piece of property on Orchard Drive in the Town of Wappinger. It was found out to be in a R-40 zone. The original setback requirements submitted could not meet the R-40 zoning. We are looking for a variance for the front yard setback to be reduced from 50 to 35 feet. Mr. Prager: What about the side yard? Mr. Angelo: It has been reconfigured to the 25 feet. We will stay there. We are only looking for a front setback. When we moved the house back the extra 3 feet, the engineer felt that we were. comfortable at this side yard setback. Mr. Prager: So, we do not have to do anything with part B. So, it is a 15 -foot variance (front yard) that you are looking at. I think we discussed the last time how far you could put the house back and the reason that you ... Mr. Angelo: The topography of the land. Mr. Prager: Is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for or against this appeal? Mr. Dennis Wolfe: Yes, Dennis Wolfe is my name - 37 Ardmore Drive. Clearly I am the property that is right next to it. I am 100% against the Town granting the variance. A couple of the reasons I am against it is; twenty years ago I bought my house and it was on a dirt road. That dirt road has caused me nothing but problems for the past 15 years. The Town, the Highway Department, and everyone that I have talked to tells me that you are not granted services because you live on a dirt road and it is not a Town road. It has not been officially dedicated over. It is a dirt road. James Devine lives at 44 Ardmore, up the street, is another house that is effected by this dirt road. He lived there before I did. In terms of services, we had to beg somebody to plow the snow. We had to beg somebody to look at the road. The engineers came and looked and said this is not our problem. We have a dirt road there and we are not taking care of it. Devine and I have done a lot of ... We have tried to improve the road. Devine himself had a friend that put in a small piece of blacktop to cover some holes that were in the road that constantly were washing away from the water and everything. Myself, I have spent at least $10,000 in terms of grading my property, re-blacktopping my property because water runs from that road and from that parcel also next to me. It was not until 1979 that I looked at that property. When it came finally to my attention that the property was not on the Town Tax Roll, it was recommended that I try to talk to somebody in the Town and have the property put on the roll, which I did. I was hoping at that time that it would eventually come to a foreclosure sale and I could buy that piece of property and do some work in terms of drainage and things like that rrr► there. It went in the tax sale to someone else, Lots of Plenty. In my opinion, certainly it was a bad maneuver by them. They have held the property for 10 years and why, because the property is on a dirt road. You can not build on a dirt road. From what I understand, they have been fighting and whatever the story is and all of a sudden the Town comes in and paves the road. 14se Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 3 low They said subsequent to that, that was a mistake. They should never have paved the road because it really was not their road. They paved the road anyway, which created other problems. They put a curb in which created drainage problems for myself. The water that naturally ran from the Lots of Plenty property would not roll out into the street anymore and it rolled down into my grove and down into my driveway. Again, I have been chopping ice and digging and dealing with all kinds of crap for years now related to it. Everyone I have ever talked to has told me that this property was not a buildable lot because of size and because of the fact that there was a dirt road. If I can address size just for a minute. In approximately 1970 something, the former owner of my home, Al Visciarelli, came to the Town to ask for a variance to extend his house forward. You know what I am trying to get at here. Mr. Prager: Less front yard. Mr. Wolfe: His front. Certainly there was no opposition to that because there were hardly any homes around Al Visciarelli and that house at that time, but the Town refused it. They said you do not have the frontage because of where his house was and it would not exceed the right thing. How in 1970 something they would not allow frontage to happen, and now all of a sudden we are going to take a shoe horn and we are going to squeeze a home in there? If the regulations say you have to have 50 feet, 25 feet or whatever this thing says, then dam it that is the way it should be. It is too bad the guy made a bad buy when he bought it at the tax sale. Let the buyer beware. I learned that in 1977 when I bought my house and it was on a dirt road. I had to shovel the snow myself and I had to do all the crap and deal with all the people. In my mind, we have drainage that I think that is a major problem. The Town came in and now they put a sewer in. They told me they were going to put it right by my driveway. The Highway Department came in there and they put it up the street. Mr. Prager: Are you talking sewer or catch basin? Mr. Wolfe: A sewer now, I think. They put in a sewer I believe. Mr. Fanuele: Is it waste water? Mr. Wolfe: No, street water. Mr. Fomabaio: A storm drain that goes into a catch basin that then empties into another wetland across the street. Mr. Wolfe: There still is going to be a drainage problem. Again, my argument here is I do not think it should be done. I think that no frontage thing should be allowed for these people. Esthetically I think the property that their house there is not going to be good. I think there will be a decrease in the property values to my homes because of the way that property there sits. I can not see this Town granting another variance like that. If you look around, again, twenty years ago I moved here because this was a rural area. It had a beautiful scenery, etc. All we have to do is look at Route 9 right now and see what the story is. The Town and various different I,. organizations here granting different variances and allowing different projects. Again, that is basically what I have to say. I should have written it all down. I had a lot more to say. In any event, did you say this property is on Orchard Drive? Did you read something about Orchard? cm Mr. Prager: Yes, I believe I did. 1400, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Wolfe: I have always thought that was interesting because for the past 20 years I have lived on Ardmore Drive and this piece of property is right next to me. We never could understand why there is a situation like that. This property has been going for many, many years. It is a small little piece that was cut from the Eck properties. It has just remained there. Unfortunately, there was even discussion by Mr. Buyakowski that owns on the other side. He had a plan that at one time he presented to the Town regarding houses there and eventually decided not to do anything at that time because there were people against it. He even said, a developer, that it is not a Town road. Mr. Lehigh: Do you have sewer and water there? Mr. Wolfe: Yes, I do. Mr. Fanuele: Are you on a Town road? Mr. Wolfe: I do not know if it is a Town Road. Technically, I do not know if it was dedicated over or ... Mr. Close: For all we know is it is a Town road now. Mr. Fomabaio: Good afternoon, I am Dominick Fomabaio. I live at 99 Spookhill Road. I am the property directly in back of it. As Dennis had stated, I had spoken to him before, a while ago. We were under the impression, we were told when we bought our house that they would not be able to build in the back of our house. There are woods there and they would not be able to get the frontage to stick a home in there. That was the impression we were under when people had told us from around the area and the real estate agent. There is a big drainage problem back there. There is a big water problem. In fact, Mr. Owen's is on the side of me. I am at 99 and he is at 101 I believe. I am sure the Board is aware of all the times you guys had to go out there and get a plow and break the ice out of his driveway. I keep digging ditches and getting an ice chipper and making tunnels to make all of the water go into the sewer, storm drain that you guys put over there because there is so much water coming from that property. That water comes down that way and then it comes in back of her house also. So it goes from Dennis's side yard, which is over here to my back yard, which is the back yard to the new property that would be put into place and the side yard of our lawn. There is a lot of water coming through there. Number one, I am very concerned with the water problem that will be up there. Extremely concerned, especially in lieu of the storm that just knocked down an 80 -foot willow of mine. That willow took up a lot of water. Now, I have more water than I ever had. With this property coming in there, it will be a problem to me. I was told when I first bought the house, do not worry about it, they will never put anything back there. It will stay woods and the woods will take care of the water problem and the roads over there since they are not going to be able to build. Now, all of a sudden, I find that they are going to be able to build. There have been many times that I have come up and I helped Dennis with his property taking ice out of his driveway, or other things - getting his lawn mowers and towing it out of the mud. His riding mower got stuck when his son was doing it and I think this is a big problem that we are going to have to do. Al Owens, Arlene's dad, was unable to be here since he is on vacation. Arlene came in his spot. He had to dig around his whole house. Me, I was a little bit more fortunate. I had a little bit more money -"r✓ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 5 r`" and I brought in Be Dry Water Systems to take care of my house. Since then I have had to do more work. I have put in three more sump pumps because they are constantly going. Now, with this house coming in here, I will have a bigger problem. I know that for a fact. I am a fireman and I constantly go to peoples' houses and pump out their basements. When the forest goes, the water has no where to go, but down hill. I am down hill and she is down hill. We were always told that there were never going to be any houses back there. Now, we are flirting with houses coming in there. I would like the Board hopefully to really look at this and I appreciate you listening to me and sending me this letter. I think it is a big problem for us. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else here that would like to speak for or against this? Mr. Fornabaio: Just state on the record that I was against it. Mrs. Owens: My name is Arlene Owens and I am here for my father. He does oppose the property being built. We were told the same thing when we moved here in 1972 that we would not have any house behind because that lot is too small. I just came back from Virginia today and there are deer in my back yard. I do not want that to go away and neither does he. He is against it. I do not know what to say other than he is against it. He is concerned about the drainage and the sewage and how it will effect us. Mr. Prager: Is it mainly the drainage that bothers you or is it just because it is a house that is going to be built on a lot that you did not think was going to be built on? Mr. Fornabaio: The main reason for me is I bought the lot for two reasons. They told me, across the street are wetlands and would be forever like that. I sold my house in Somers and I was across the street from wetlands. That is where I buy. I do not want people on both sides of me. Now, that is my main concern. That is a cosmetic concern and I would put it up there as a high priority, but the water is going to be a higher priority to me also. I really have a problem with this. Common sense tells me that the water has no place to go except to my house. I could go over here and lie to you and say well my main problem is the house being back there. Sure I never thought they would build a house back there. I will be honest with you. Now, the house is going to go back there ... They are thinking about putting it back there. I in not happy with that at all. That house going in will cause me problems. Instead of my not having a nice backyard to look at, I am not only not going to have a nice backyard, but I am going to have big water problems. I came home after the storm with no power and there was three feet of water in my basement because my sump pump was off, three feet. Mr. Wolfe: If I may, my objection is also a drainage problem. In addition, I do not necessarily think that the size of the property is large enough to build there. 1 say that for a reason. In 1989, Mr. Hamilton from Lots of Plenty surveyed their parcel. Subsequent to that, I had a survey done of my property by James Devine. It turned out that the Lots of Plenty survey was incorrect. Their pins were in the wrong places. They were infringing on my piece of property. James Devine at that time contacted their surveyor to try to have them do something, or have the surveyor make a correction into the Town records. He never had any response at all from the guy. Devine finally filed the plan to show something difference which was from what he had surveyed. I know that the property was just surveyed again. Again, I do not know what the size of the property is right now. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, it is a certified map. Probably we would have to go by what we have here in front of us. Again, the only thing I would like to mention to you, other than that front 15 feet that they are asking for, they can build on this lot. Mr. Wolfe: Isn't there also ... In that parcel somewhere or right around it, isn't there a change in zoning? Mr. Prager: As far as R-40 to R-15? They had a meeting about that and that is in the correct zone. Mr. Wolfe: State that again please. Mr. Prager: There was some confusion at first. It was either in the R-15 or the R-40. They had a meeting with the Town Engineer and in fact I have a letter here. To confer that Supervisor Smith, our Town Attorney, Mr. Roberts, Town Engineer, Mr. Paggi and Highway Superintendent, Mr. Foster, had a meeting. This letter I am reading is dated May 28, 1997. It was decided that the lot is in Zone R-40. The new home will have to meet setbacks and side yard requirements for a R-40 zone. The applicant will require variances and not for a rezone. They thought at first he would need a rezoning and it is not. It is in the R-40. Mr. Fornabaio: Are you saying that they moved the house back 3 feet and now ... Mr. Prager: No, no, not three, it has to be 15 feet. In an R-40, it is required 50 feet and they have 35. Mr. Fornabaio: I was talking about the side yard setback. Mr. Prager: Oh, they are at 25 feet and 25 feet is proper. So, you are talking about just the front. You might have come in a little late. We went over that when we were reading it. Mr. Fornabaio: I have here the Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration of Significance for this project on June 10, 1997. Mr. Prager: That is right. That was at the last meeting. Mr. Fornabaio: Can you tell me why they made a Negative Declaration? Mr. Prager: Because on a lot this size, it has nothing to do major with the environment. That is more for a complete site plan, not just one lot. They do not take it into consideration. Mr. Fornabaio: I think it does have something to do with the environment. Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, we did not. *.r Mr. Angelo: I have a couple of things. Number one, I would like to make mention that even though this particular piece of property lies in the R-40 zone as opposed to the R-15, which is right next door, that the size of this particular lot is very similar in size to the other properties that are in the subdivision in the R-15 zone. Number two, I would also like to mention also that we cm -AW Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 7 low feel the property can be graded and drained properly not to create any larger water runoff than you currently have. In fact, you might even have a better situation. We can meet the 50 -foot setback on the house. We feel by making it 35 and keeping the house more forward that it would keep in continuity with the other homes on the road and we felt it would give us a better opportunity for the water to drain off the house to drain to the front yard to the road and into the storm drain rather than in the back of the house emptying into the other adjoining properties. That was our main course in bringing the house forward to show continuity and better drainage. I think we will all agree it is better to have the water drain in the front of the property and ultimately into the road to the storm drain to catch the water. Mr. Prager: Are there any other questions? Mr. Lehigh: It seems reasonable. Mr. Fanuele: I am wondering if this is a Town road or not. I would like a letter to go to Graham Foster, the Highway Superintendent, to determine if it is a Town road. If it is a Town road, then these people should have the services that every other Town resident gets. If it is not a Town road, then he doesn't have frontage on a Town road and he will need another variance. Mr. Lehigh: Well, on this map it is marked. Mr. Fanuele: Well, there is a question of if it is a Town road or not. I would like to know. Mr. Close: It is a Town road if it has sanitary and it has water out there. Mr. Lehigh: Then, it is a Town road. Mr. Fanuele: Usually, the developer puts the sewer and water in. Mr. Lehigh: Well, it wasn't. The sewer was put in afterwards, years afterwards. Mr. Fanuele: I would like it clarified. Mr. Fornabaio: Are you positive it is a Town road? Mr. Lehigh: It is marked a Town road on the map. My understanding is they are not going to put sewer in a road that is not a Town road. That sewer was put in there years afterwards the water. The water was there originally. Mr. Angelo: My belief from Mr. Foster is that when the sanitary sewers were installed, and I do not know the year, that at least at that point that road became a Town road. Mr. Lehigh: They just did the sanitary sewer this year, the storm drain. Mr. Angelo: That is my belief that it is a Town road. That is what I was told. Mr. Prager: Your not getting any services at this time. Like last winter ... En vr+ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Wolfe: No, that is not the case. I am sorry, maybe I was misunderstood. I get snow plowing now. I get services on that road. The Town does come. The people on the other side of me have problems with water and this and that - relating to that. The Town did come and take care of that problem. I did not mean to indicate that there are no services now. There has been ever since, the quote is, "Ever since they blacktopped the road." Mr. Lehigh: Didn't they just put the storm sewer in this spring? Did that help at all? Mr. Wolfe: Yes, they did. There is a problem. It has helped somewhat. There is a problem that again originally, my property had a gully in front. I had that all taken out. I had it regraded and redone. The guy who did that for me told me that there was always going to be a problem because the road itself, the dirt road, is on an uphill slope to the existing curb of the Town road. When the Town came to put the road in ... Let me say just before that, the Town paved what I will call a Town road and they repaved that by chance. Mistakenly they put a little piece in front of my driveway to help with my drainage problem. That helped, but there was always a problem because there is still a slight uphill slope. When the Town paved the road, there was no notification. One night the road was leveled. The next morning they blacktopped. Nobody knew anything. They blacktopped it even and there was problems with water because that still has a grade that is not the right .... Mr. Prager: Have you notified the Road Supervisor about that or the Town Supervisor? Mr. Wolfe: That is one of the reasons the people next to us argued to talk to the Town Highway Supervisor, Mr. Foster, relating to that. They argued we should have a sewer in there, this, that and the other thing. This was a couple of years ago. They said well they are planning to put in the sewage and that will take care of that problem. It does take care of it. It does alleviate some of that problem, but when the water rolls and it doesn't roll fast enough, it is not going to reach the sewer down at the other end. It creates water there. Especially in the winter time is when you catch the ice and when you catch the problems. The ice builds and then the water comes in the driveway. Mr. Fanuele: I am not too sure it is a Town Road. I want Mr. Foster to verify that it is a Town road and then we can go from there. If the water is coming off the road onto your property, then that shouldn't happen. Mr. Fornabaio: What about when a curb is put in and water from the Lots of Plenty property changes the flow? Mr. Lehigh: I don't know if it has anything to do with a Town Road. If they are paving it and put sewers there, I think it is a Town road. Mr. Fanuele: If you look at the road, it doesn't look like a Town road. It is a very rugged road. Half of it is paved and half of it is not. Mr. Fornabaio: Maybe it was misinformation or ignorance on my part and part of the other owners that we were told that no one would be able to build there. L" 0 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 9 ''r Mr. Prager: It seems like it is a buildable lot. If it is, then he has every right in the world to ask for a variance. Mr. Fanuele: I would like to make a motion to do a site visit and draft a letter to Mr. Foster. Mr. Warren: Second. Mr. Lehigh: I would have to oppose that unless we are going to ask the gentleman who is asking for the variance if he will go along with it. Otherwise it will be over the date when we have to give a determination on this. Mr. Prager: No, we won't. We have plenty of time. The public hearing was only opened tonight. Mr. Lehigh: You are right. Mr. Prager: We would adjourn it until a later meeting. Mr. Angelo: How much? Mr. Prager: It will be two weeks until the next meeting. Mr. Angelo: I think we can handle that. We do have a customer who has a mortgage commitment. Mr. Prager: Our next meeting is July 8'. Primarily all we are going to basically find out is if it is a Town road. We will go out and find out what it looks like. SITE INSPECTION SET FOR MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1997, at 6:00 PM. Mr. Fanuele: You are all invited if you want to come, but we can not discuss anything. Mr. Prager: We are just going to look at the property. Mr. Wolfe: Am I allowed to say one other thing? Mr. Lehigh: We closed the meeting. Mrs. Nguyen: You didn't actually make a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Wolfe: With all due respect, and please understand where this is coming from. I don't even want ... I feel terrible about saying it right now and I want him to know that. I think his idea or his thought is going a little against what our side seems to be thinking here. Again, with all due respect to Mr. Lehigh, should he have a vote at all relating to this property if his wife is going to *Wl get commission from the sale? Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Lehigh won't even be here for that meeting. w% Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 10 Mr. Wolfe: Please Al, I have known you for many, many years. Mr. Fornabaio: Does he have a personal interest in this? Mr. Prager: I do not know. I have no idea. Mr. Lehigh: I am not going to be here for that meeting. Mr. Wolfe: Good, then you're not going to vote on anything. Mr. Fornabaio: Hold up, he said his wife has a personal interest in this affair here. I would like to hear about it. I am not aware of it. Mr. Prager: I wasn't either. Mr. diPierno: Neither were we. Mr. Wolfe: She is a real estate broker. I would assume her name is on the sign. I would assume she is going to make a commission. The only reason why I said that ... Mr. Fornabaio: And you're sitting on the Board here? I%W Mr. Lehigh: There is nothing wrong with that. Mr. Fornabaio: I heard you make a couple of statements where he said something negative. Mr. Prager: Hopefully, we are all a little open minded here. Mr. Fornabaio: I am on the Board for the Local 628 Firefighters. We are not allowed to rule on anything that we are personally involved in. Mr. Prager: Well, he is not. Mr. Fornabaio: He said he is not, but his wife is. I kind of think there is a conflict of interest. Mr. Prager: As long as he doesn't vote for it, it does not matter. First of all, nobody on this Board sways anybody else. Mr. Wolfe: I am almost sorry to bring that up. I am sorry. I apologize, but ... Mr. Lehigh: There is no problem Dennis because I was not going to vote on it anyway. Simple as that, I can't - conflict of interest. Mr. Prager: We have a motion to adjourn the meeting and a second? Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. vftw 4; Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Prager: It will be adjourned to our next meeting. The next item on tonight's agenda is a public hearing on Appeal No. 1245 -- At the request of Robert & Jean Morse (Morse Subdivision), who are seeking an area variance of Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — the applicant is showing 81,879 square feet lot size; however, the applicant is proposing to dedicate 5,700 square feet of land to the Town of Wappinger for Highway Taking (future road expansion), thus the property will consist of 76,179 square feet which can not meet the minimum lot size requirement of 80,000 square feet. Therefore, the applicant will need 3,821 square feet minimum lot size variance to meet the R-80 zoning requirement for the construction of a single family residence on property located at 273 Smithtown Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6256-01-180665-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency and made a Negative Declaration for this project on June 10, 1997. How are the mailings? Mrs. Nguyen: All in order. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to open this public hearing? Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Morse: Robert Morse - owner of the property. Mr. Prager: Give us a little synopsis of what we need and what you need. Mr. Morse: I think you pretty much covered it there. I had the proper zoning. The Town wished to take a Taking along the highway to expand the highway at a later time, which gave me a deficit in my R-80 zoning. I am here to ask that you give me a variance to comply with the zoning in the Town of Wappinger so there won't be any future problems with it later on if I didn't have a zoning variance. Mr. Prager: This lot in question is entirely in the Town of Wappinger? Mr. Morse: Yes, it is. The Town line separates the two. Mr. Prager: Anyone have any questions? Mr. Lehigh: I think we pretty much took care of it before. I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Mr. Prager: Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against it? Let WNW the record show there is nobody else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this variance. I just want to mention the evidence that we have. It is the three maps, which are the site plans of the property. We also have a letter from the Planning Board recommending approval of the variance. Now, we can entertain Mr. Lehigh's motion. 1"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 12 Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: I also make a motion that we grant the variance for the setback area variance. Will the requested area variance be detrimental to nearby properties? No. Will an undesirable change occur in the character of the neighborhood? No. Is there any alternative feasible method available to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant? No, because the Town has his land and I don't think they want to give it back. Is the request substantial? No. Will the variance cause adverse physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No. Is the difficulty self- created? No, the Town has taken the land. That is the reason I make a motion for the variance to be granted. Mr. diPierno: Second. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Granted. Mr. diPierno: Granted. Mr. Fanuele: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Yes. Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Prager: A motion has been passed to grant the variance and that will be filed in 5 days. The next item on tonight's agenda is an adjourned public hearing on Appeal No. 1241. Actually, it is not an adjourned, it is a public hearing. Sorry about that. At the request of LPV Associates, Inc., who are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2 - Permanent Mounted Free Standing Signs - The applicant is proposing a 38 sq. ft. sign, whereas a 25 sq. ft. sign is allowed, thus requiring a 13 sq. ft. permanent mounted free standing sign variance to allow all of the tenants to be listed on the sign for property located at 1611 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-704073-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency for this project on March 25, 1997, and made a Negative Declaration of significance on June 10, 1997. All the mailings I assume are in order? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, they are. Mr. Prager: Can we have a motion to open the public hearing? Mr. Warren: So moved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Stenger: You have the materials that I provided for about two weeks ago. It is a �,.. freestanding sign. It will replace the ... I will make this very brief. It is a freestanding sign. You have the dimensions in front of you. You know what it is going to look like. You have the sketch in front of you. It is integral to the redesign of that building. We are now waiting on this to start our schedule for construction. . **MW ,"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 13 Mr. Prager: It looks to me ... Is it really ... I don't think it is 38 square feet. I think it is 35 square feet. Am I correct? Mr. Stenger: I think what your seeing ... What you see drawn is 35 square feet. It has a capacity to be expanded to 38 square feet. I believe that is the case. MIXED DISCUSSION Mr. Stenger: Unfortunately, I do not have a draft of that design. I have to go by what is on his letter. If there is difficulty or a significance for the Board between a 35 -foot and a 38 -foot sign, I may have to come back for an extra 3 feet. I know I am not going to be allowed to ask for a variance twice on the same sign. Obviously, the sign can take what it can handle. I am not going to want to put the signage so low that you can not see it. I would love to say it is 35 and be comfortable with it because obviously it would be a smaller variance. Mr. Lehigh: By the same token, if you had another ... If you divide it up and put another 15 people in there, we wouldn't want another 15 signs dangling down there. It looks like you had adequate room right now for all your tenants. Mr. Stenger: Al, I am told by the man.. By the letter that you have, I am told by the man who designed that sign that at maximum capacity we will have 38 square feet on each side. My only point is I am not asking for more than 38 square feet. My point is if he is wrong, and it is only 35 feet, that is terrific. I don't want to come back in a couple of months and say I have one more tenant that I want to put up there and I need 3 more feet. I don't think the 3 feet is significant ... Mr. Prager: No, it was more a case that the numbers just didn't jive with me. Mr. Fanuele: Three feet is about another sign six inches in height. Mr. Prager: I don't see anybody in the audience, so I have to assume there is nobody to speak for or against this appeal. Anybody have any questions? I just want to log in some evidence. We have a letter and copies of the sign permit application. From Don Close, Zoning Administrator dated April 10, 1997, that is all that package from Don. Letters from LPV Associates dated April 7, and 9'' agreeing to another discussion about the sign and motion to adjourn the meeting on April 22" until November 13'. A letter from LPV Associates withdrawing the sign application for signs on the building and on the freestanding sign for Century 21. The letter from Sign A Rama describing the directory sign with a drawing of the sign dated June 2, 1997. A letter from the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development recommending if any variance is granted that it be the minimum of relief and should deny any repetitive wall signs and second freestanding sign for the Century 21 sign. Mr. Stenger: Which we withdrew. .. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to close the public hearing if there are no further questions? Mr. Warren: So moved. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. .00p, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 24,1997 Page 14 Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to grant or deny the variance from someone? Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Lehigh: I will second it. Mr. Prager: Motion by Mr. Fanuele to grant the variance and seconded by Mr. Lehigh for the following reasons; Mr. Fanuele: Will the requested variance be detrimental to nearby properties? No. Will an undesired change occur in the character of the neighborhood? The sign with the rest of the landscape will probably enhance the neighborhood. Are there any alternative methods to achieve the benefit sought by the applicant? There are probably a dozen alternatives. This seems to be the best one. The variance is the minimum in size. Will the variance cause adverse effects on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood? No. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Granted. Mr. diPierno: Granted. Mr. Fanuele: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Yes. Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Prager: We had a motion to grant the variance and that will be filed in 5 days. Any further business to come before this meeting? If not, I could entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Warren: So moved. Mr. Lehigh: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:28 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals