Loading...
1997-06-10D AGENDA ''I%W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board MEETING DATE: June 10, 1997 TIME -- 7:30 PM Approval of March 25, 1997, and April 8, 1997, minutes. DISCUSSIONS Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY .rr 1. Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. (Contract Vendee) - Discuss Appeal No. 1244 requesting a 15 ft. front -yard variance and a 10 ft. side -yard variance for property located on Orchard Drive in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Robert & Jean Morse (Morse Subdivision) - Discuss Appeal No. 1245 requesting an area variance to allow a decrease in the minimum lot size for property located at 273 Smithtown Road. 3. LPV Associates - Discuss Appeal Nos. 1240, 1241 & 1242 to consider sign variances for the front of the building, and two freestanding signs by the road for property located at 1611 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. 9M %W on MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals June 10, 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 Mr. Donald Close: Zoning Administrator Mrs. Linda Nguyen: Secretary to the Zoning Board APPROVED JUN 2. q.19 i 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 March 25 and April 8, 1997, minutes. Can I have a motion, or are there any changes? Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion to accept both of them. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonight's agenda is to discuss Appeal No. 1244 - Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. (Contract Vendee) requesting a 15 ft. front -yard variance and a 10 ft. side -yard variance for property located on Orchard Drive in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Angelo: My name is Gus Angelo. I represent Presidential Homes of NY, Inc. We have an interest in purchasing property on Orchard Drive and to construct a single family residence for a particular customer that we have already. We applied for a building permit about three weeks ago and it was denied by the Zoning Administrator based upon the side line setbacks. This particular piece of property is roughly a third of an acre and falls adjacent to many other properties that are also a third of an acre. The zoning line of R-40 to R-15 runs right adjacent to this particular piece of property, putting this piece into the R-40 zone. Not being able to hit the setback needed in the R-40 zone; we applied for a variance for front and one side line setback. Water and sewer are already ... Mr. Fanuele: The setbacks you are applying for, are they R-15 setbacks? Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Angelo: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Does this conform to the R-15 ...? Mr. Angelo: We can hit the R-15 setbacks without any problem. We are looking for a roll back of the R-40 to the R-15 setbacks. Mr. Lehigh: According to the map it looks as if it was in the R-15 zone originally anyway. Mr. Prager: No, not according to mine. Mr. Lehigh: Ardmore Orchards were the original houses and one, two, three, four, five on Spookhill were all part of the original Orchard Homes. They were all the same split level homes put up by Louie Eck. Mr. Angelo: I believe there is a pre-existing zoning map from 1984 that shows this particular lot was in the R-15 zone. The current zoning map shows it in R-40. Mr. Prager: On the copy of the zoning map that you provided it shows 83.51 feet. Is that correct? On the subdivision map it looks like 95 feet. Which one is correct? Mr. Angelo: It is my belief that the 83 feet is correct. That is a recent survey map. Mr. Lehigh: Don, on the map I see where this line along here says Contrail. Mr. Close: That is Mr. Buyakowski's strip. Right now he is talking about putting a cul-de-sac there and two or three houses on the end of that. That property goes way up. Mr. Lehigh: It says 13 acres. Mr. Fanuele: It is not too wide. Mr. Close: I think he is saving that as a right-of-way to another piece that is up in the back. Mr. Lehigh: I was wondering if it is a right-of-way. Mr. Close: No, it is not a right-of-way. Mr. Prager: On your site plan map again, you are asking for on your appeal a 15 ft. front yard variance from 35 ft. setback for the house, is that correct? Mr. Angelo: Correct. Mr. Prager: On the site plan it shows 32 feet. Mr. Angelo: The site plan will be modified. C7T Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 3 Mr. Prager: Again, on the sides it shows 25 feet on each side, but you are saying 15 feet on the one side. Which side are you taking about? Mr. Angelo: Looking at the map with Orchard Drive to the bottom, it would be the right hand side. Mr. Prager: Are you going to bring the house over to the right? Mr. Angelo: Not necessarily, we want a little ... We are tight in here now with the setbacks. We want to get a little bit of flexibility. Mr. Prager: How long is your house? Mr. Angelo: Fifty feet. Mr. Prager: It is going to stay 25 feet on the left side and you would be going 15 feet on the right hand side. Is this house being built for someone? Do you already have a buyer? Mr. Angelo: Yes, we have a contract and mortgage approval. Mr. Prager: You can not make the house any smaller? Mr. Angelo: Not without losing the customer. Mr. Prager: Can you put it in a different shape? Mr. Angelo: To maintain the 25 and 25? It would be difficult to do it. Basically, what I am looking to do is to pick up a little ... Right now, we are on 25/25 with the house exactly at 50 feet. It is pretty tight. Even a 5 ft. variance would help a little bit. Mr. Prager: On the side? Mr. Angelo: Yes. Mr. Prager: That is what I was going to say. If you can bring it back ... I noticed the lot widens out to the back. Mr. Angelo: There is a little bit of a drainage problem to the back so I can not drop it back tremendously. Obviously, from the shape of the property if we do move it back, it does enhance the width a little bit more. Mr. Prager: You can do that? Mr. Angelo: Conceivably, yes. �. Mr. Prager: That will help you on both of them. You are talking 15 feet on one and ... You would be getting fairly good sized variances if that is the case. How far back would you move it? 1"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Angelo: I would say probably 40 feet from the front. Mr. Prager: So, that would be 5 feet back farther? Mr. Angelo: Well, actually 8 feet as it appears on the map because the map was drawn incorrectly. Mr. Prager: That is correct now? Mr. Angelo: The new site map is at 32 and it should have been at 35. We will do a modification. Lets take the front setback ... Mr. Prager: At 40. Lets just change a couple of things. Mr. Fanuele: This is the last buildable lot in that area? Mr. Angelo: To my belief. Mr. Close: Yes, but the rumor is that Mr. Buyakowski may put a cul-de-sac on the end and try to get two more lots on the end. Mr. Fanuele: Contrail is only 13 ... Where will he put the two houses? Mr. Prager: If you would measure when you go back to 40 feet, now we are going to change that to 40 feet on the front, find out exactly what you would need for the side variance. Mr. Angelo: Is the 25 feet acceptable on the side? Mr. Close: That is for R-40. Mr. Prager: That is correct. Mr. Fanuele: In an R-15, the minimum side yard is 15 feet. This piece of property is adjacent and surrounded by the R-15 zone. So, if he matches the R-15 setbacks, I would have no problem with that. Mr. Angelo: That was the original concept when we were ... Mr. Fanuele: This is a small lot and to try to have him squeeze it in and have him design it, this way it will give him a little leeway. Mr. Lehigh: It was designed for an R-15 originally. VWMr. Fanuele: It will match the surrounding area and concept, then I would not have a problem with that. Forget this, let him follow the R-15 guidelines. The front is 50 feet. It is on page 76 and the side setback is 35 feet in R-15, which will match the rest of the area. VAr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Lehigh: The only problem he really has is with the front width that is 83 point something and you are supposed to have 85. Mr. Angelo: Looking at the map, I do not believe the overall width is 83 feet. I think it is 83 feet from pin to pin. I think there is an additional pin there which is about 10 feet. Mr. Prager: I see that and I have a feeling that is why it says 95 on that other ... Mr. Angelo: I think the surveyor neglected to put in the distance from that pin to the corner pin. Mr. Prager: You might want to, by the next meeting, get the dimensions clarified. Mr. Angelo: We definitely will not have a problem meeting the R-15 setbacks. Mr. Prager: See what you can do about bringing that back a few feet. If not, that is fine. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals be appointed Lead Agency. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: So moved for a Negative Dec. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: So, we can set the public hearing for June 24"'. Mr. Angelo: And I will bring a modified survey back. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on the agenda is to discuss Appeal No. 1245 - Robert & Jean Morse (Morse Subdivision) requesting an area variance to allow a decrease in the minimum lot size for property located at 273 Smithtown Road. Mr. Morse: I am Bob Morse and this is my wife Jean. What happened is my property splits Wappinger and Fishkill. The Wappinger piece happened to be two acres. Being you wanted to take the road taking, it brought it down under two acres. It put me into the position that it is not a legal lot according to R-80. On the first sheet of my drawings, you can see that Lot No. 4 will be 76, 179. A note in the middle of the page in the hatched area says lands to be deeded to the Town of Wappinger is 5,700. If you add the 5,700 to the 71,179, you come up with 81,879. I was legal before ... Mr. Prager: And the Town requested this? Mr. Morse: Yes. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Prager: Are they paying you for it? Mr. Morse: No. Mr. Prager: Is there a letter stating they want this? Mr. Morse: That was part of our discussion with the Planning Board. Mr. Lehigh: The Planning Board sent a letter recommending ... Mr. Prager: I am not asking that question. What I am asking is if there is a letter stating that the Town is taking the property. Who discussed this with you about taking the land for future road expansion? If not the Planning Board, then it must have been somebody else. Mrs. Nguyen: It was the Planning Board. Mr. Morse: You can see that Fishkill asked me for the same thing, twenty-five feet off the center. Mr. Prager: How long have you owned that property? Mr. Morse: Since 1988. Mrs. Morse: 1989. Mr. Morse: That is my house, the existing house. Mr. Fanuele: Is Lot No. 4 all in the Town of Wappinger? Mr. Morse: Yes, you can see the Town line goes right through. In order to get my house lot the right size and the next one, and the road perpendicular to Smithtown Road, the road is going to be a Town of Fishkill road. It will end up coming out in the Town of Wappinger. I got a letter from both Superintendents that Fishkill has agreed to take care of the road. So, both Town's have that and they do not have a problem with that. Mr. Prager: Anybody else have any questions? Can I have a motion for Lead Agency? Mr. Warren: So moved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: Motion for Neg. Dec.? Mr. Lehigh: So moved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. 11W Vote: All present voted aye. 1"W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Prager: We will set this for a public hearing for June 24"' also. That is our next meeting in two weeks. The next item of business on the agenda is to discuss Appeal No. 1241 - requesting a variance for a freestanding sign on the road. The property is located at 1611 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. (LPV Associates. Inc.) Mr. Stenger: Mr. Chairman, do you have the letter from the sign company? Mr. Prager: Yes, we have it. Mr. Stenger: The sign stands 10 feet depending upon how many additional boards are added to it exceeding the space allocated by the statute by 13 feet on each side. We do not know if we will expand to that size, but we do not want to come back in for a variance each time we get a new tenant. I think I have shown, so you can get a better idea, how that sign will tie into the finished ... Here is generated prints of signage that will be on the building. It will complement the inside. What is missing from the print is what the overall picture will look like. The square entryway is going to be removed and we are going to put a decorative ornament there. The sign description that you have, that is the subject of this evening meeting, although we did not show the landscaping on the sketch because it is not part of the application. I can assure you we are going to spend a lot of money to make that part work too. When you came to visit, I do not think any of you came inside. We have an office that is very well or nicely appointed. Our ambition is to have the exterior of this building match its content. It is also our ambition to have an impact on traffic along Route 9. The size of the lettering, at the last meeting ... I was not here for the first meeting. I was not here for the meeting that was canceled because we did not get stuff in. I am here for his meeting. I think the original proposal called for two signs with 50 feet on each side. I think the application went in without a whole lot of thought as to what it would require of this Board to grant the second freestanding sign. I would think that the obvious request that always happens with an applicant when your looking for an area variance is can you make it any smaller. If we make it smaller, it will cost me less. I would lose the road impact and I would lose the tie in of the design with that which is going up on the building. I would definitely lose the intention of my tenants and they would say, how come you squeezed me down to a half inch of aboard with just my name on it. Those are the reasons why I cannot or I would wish that this application would be considered in terms of ... Overall the application is 13 feet against 25. That is not an uncommon request for an area variance of that size to be granted in this Town or any Town up and down the Route 9 corridor. Mr. Fanuele: The sign is going to go in with the landscaping of the area? Mr. Stenger: I want everything done. This has been a ... operation and I got a little frustrated about three weeks ago and said I will do it. I want all the permits and the budgets, everything in place. My plan would be in one week to do it. There is no reason to spend the money a little at a time. You won't get the impact of the design and what your looking for. It is for people to drive up that road and look at that building and say that is a nice piece of commercial property on Route 9. When you come inside, you get that impression. If you don't come inside, I don't want to .... I would like to spend my money in a manner which will do more than make me look esthetically pleasing. .nrr Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Prager: How high is that sign here to right to this point right here? Mr. Stenger: It is 10 feet. That is what I asked for. Mr. Prager: Is that 10 feet or is this 10 feet the whole thing with the post? Mr. Stenger: I am sorry. The whole thing should be 10 feet. Ten feet from base to the top. It is 5 feet interior wise across. Mr. Prager: That is fine. So, we know that is 5 feet that way. I am curious to know from here to here. Mr. Stenger: I don't know. I will get that information for you for the next meeting. Mr. Prager: I take it back. It is on there, it says 7 feet. It says it on the other side. .... Thirty five feet. Mr. Stenger: I think it can go to 38, but maybe I .... Presumably we can go down two more because it doesn't take it down to the .... What is shown there is 35, but we are going to obviously want to add more tenants. Actually it is a pretty nice mix of tenants for a professional building. (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Lehigh: So then instead of the 48 square feet that was on the original one, your asking for 38? Mr. Stenger: That is correct. Mr. Lehigh: The height matches, the width matches, right, 5 feet? It is just the total sign area. Are you putting this on a platform like the one that is there? Mr. Stenger: That is a good question. I would have to find out. I think so. I believe it is going to have a platform of similar elevation as part of the landscaping. I think we have to assume from this conversation the answer is yes. It is not going to be a big platform, but we will elevate it up one or two feet because we are going to put the landscaping around it. Mr. Lehigh: That is the way it sits now. Mr. Stenger: I would say you can look at it being the same height off the ground. Mr. Lehigh: The only reason I was asking that is because I would hope that is going to look nice. In other words, done in a nice job. If we are going to put it up there and we are going to okay the sign, I want to know that the base looks as good as the sign. Mr. Stenger: Well, we intend to. There is no sense spending any money on the sign if I don't spend money on the landscaping. The lighting on the sign will be exterior from below. The lighting on the signage on the building, which again is not part of the application, will be exterior. 0 ,"No, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - June 10, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Prager: The last time that we had a meeting, we had a site inspection on this property, which would have been March 29'. That is when we discussed a little bit the variations of the signs. At the last meeting, we did make a motion that the ZBA be Lead Agency. We did not do anything on the Negative Dec. I would like to have a motion on the Negative Dec. Mr. Lehigh: I will make a motion for a Negative Dec. Mr. Warren: I will second that. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: We will set the public hearing again for June 24. Mr. Stenger: I will do my best to get you some kind of a landscape plan. Mr. Prager: I would like to add something on that appeal also that at the last meeting we had asked Mr. Close to find out some information on past permits which were issued on it. There was a lot of data and it was very good. It looks like you have been coming back and forth for all kinds of signs. Thank you Don. It was very helpful. Mr. Fanuele: A while back we wrote a letter to the Town Board about the zoning for accessory apartments. I believe a meeting was supposed to be set up. Do you know if it has been set up? Mrs. Nguyen: That was for Elaine to do. As far as I know, she hasn't. I read about that in the Town Board minutes. Mr. Close: On June 30`h the Planning Board is going to have a meeting and ask for input from the different members. Asking them what they think ought to be changed or update the ordinance. Mrs. Nguyen: They are having a special meeting. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that we adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 PM. Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals