Loading...
1997-02-25CM Town of Wappinger Zoning Board February 25, 1997 Agenda — 7:30 PM Approval of February 11, 1997 minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY 1. Appeal No. 1236 — At the request of Ellen & Josh Proto who are seeking a VARIANCE of Article IV, Section 410.4.2.4, whereas a fence is not to exceed six (6) feet in height above adjoining grade and you are showing several areas of the fence exceeding six (6) feet by one (1) to four (4) inches, thus requiring a variance to exceed the six (6) foot limit on property located at 9 Crabapple Court and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6257-02-669977-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency for this project on February 11, 1997. 2. Appeal No. 1237 — At the request of Michael DiZillo who is seeking an INTERPRETATION of Article IV, Section 220, DEFINITIONS — which states an accessory apartment is to be located "within the same building" as a permitted one family dwelling and you are requesting to "add onto" the existing dwelling an accessory apartment for family. The property is located at 75 Ketchamtown Road and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-03-205371-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency for this project on February 11, 1997. DISCUSSION Frank & Elvira Tosto and Liugi & Giuseppina Capparelli — Discuss Appeal No. 1238 requesting a VARIANCE from the Zoning Law, Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Use Regulations, which requires a seventy-five (75) foot front yard setback and the applicants are requesting a fifty (50) foot setback to meet the requirement of the septic field, thus requiring a twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback variance on property located at 276 All Angels Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger. 40V 1"W MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals February 25,1997 Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Others Present Mr. Donald Close, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Linda Nguyen, Secretary to the Z.B.A. Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. diPiemo: Member MAR 2 5.11W, ZWNING BOARD NG IWO OF APPEALS tl Mr. Prager: I would like to call the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 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 is the approval of the February 11, 1997 minutes. Can I have a motion to accept them or are there any changes? Mr. Lehigh: Motion made to accept them. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonight's agenda is a public hearing of Appeal No. 1236. At the request of Ellen and Joseph Proto who are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.4.2.4, whereas a fence is not to exceed six (6) feet in height above adjoining grade and you are showing several areas of the fence exceeding six (6) feet by one (1) to four (4) inches, thus requiring a variance to exceed the six (6) - foot limit on property located at 9 Crabapple Court and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6257-02-0669977-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Proto, would you like to give us a synopsis of what you need and go over it for the audience? Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order. `ow 1"W Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 2 Mr. Proto: Would I be able to read a brief statement? Mr. Prager: Sure. Mr. Proto: I am here to request an approval for the variance of a few inches of my fence that is over the six foot limit according to the code and to grant me leniency. If I have to lower this fence, it will cause me a financial hardship of about $6000.00. The fence poles are all about 2 feet under the ground level and there is no danger of the fence to topple over and harm anyone. My adjacent neighbors have one objective and that is to have the fence taken down. They quoted me, "No fences are allowed to stand in our neighborhood." They demanded a measurement of the fence height purely to harass me as they have done before and will continue until my family is driven out of the neighborhood. Now they are video taping my handicapped son getting on and off the bus, claiming he is making them late for work. Please base your decision on these issues for I feel there are fences in the area that are also over the six - foot limit. Fortunately for these people they probably do not live next to people that enjoy getting pleasure from destroying other peoples lives as my adjacent neighbors have done to my whole family. They already claimed that I maintain their side of the fence where the grass grows or they will take the matter up in court. I can not do this without setting foot on their property, which they will not allow me to do. Mr. Prager: Why don't you go into it for the record? We know about the fence, but just go into the record for everybody that is here exactly the height, the whole ... How much it cost to put up, who put it up? Mr. Proto: Mid -Hudson Fence put it up from December 9"' to the 13'". They put it up and it cost me $6000.00, which I have a bill. I am sorry, $5900.00. Mr. Prager: Yes, we have a copy of the bill here. Mr. Proto: I did call Frank Boula, the owner of Mid -Hudson Fence. I requested that he be here because I have done everything right by the book. I have been calling Mr. Close to make sure I was right in code. I asked what side of the fence, how far from the property line, for the front of the house, how heigh can it go. I even had a survey done to make sure everything was in line. I told Frank, I said, "Make sure you put this fence up because my neighbors will be looking for something." So, I called him and he basically said he could not make it. I said, I did not do anything wrong. I signed a contract with you and you are supposed to be in the code. Mr. Prager: Exactly. Mr. Proto: It is one of two things, either ... If the fence has to be lowered, I am going to have to sue him. It will probably cost me a bundle of money either way the way I look at it. What is going to happen..? I told him, I said, I asked him, I said, why is there space underneath? He mentioned the term .. I do not know anything about terms with fences and all, but he said he left 'rrr Wappinger Zoning Board of Appea3rs Minutes - February 25, 1997 3 some spaces due to wicking. He used the term wicking. I said what does that mean? He said something where the wood will not rot or something along those lines. He said also, he said, when the ground freezes it tends to give a little lift to the poles. So, those two things he brought UP to me. Mr. Prager: As you know, we did go out and do a site inspection. We did notice there are some areas that it is right on the ground now. So, he could not have been too worried about those areas. We do have a copy of the contract, which reads $5620.00 for the cost of the fence. I am sorry, $5920.00. We do have that. Also, you were good enough to submit a copy from Kihlmire, the surveyor. Mr. Proto: I ran to his house and I ... Mr. Prager: We have all of the dimensions as the lot was and when it was sold to you and what it is today. We have a letter here ... Why don't we log these in as evidence. Lets start again with the copy of the contract, the new map, the map with the past owners. I also have a bill here from Kihlmire for staking out the area. We have the Schedule A of the deed showing the dimensions. I have all these copies, 8 pages of photos. Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Prager: Is there anything else you would like to tell us? Mr. Proto: There was one instance back in November. On November 6, on October 12`h, what I was originally going to do was put up hedges. So, what I did was on the left side of my property I dug out a strip. I know this is going to be brought up and I have everything here. So what I did was I did that and then I decided in November that I was going to put the fence up. I said the heck with that. So, what happened was on November 6"' I had my whole property surveyed and I have the stakes. What happened was the side that I dug on was the Torrisi's property. I clearly saw that I was in the wrong and they approached me and asked me if I was going to fix it. I said I have every intention. They took me to court. I paid for the damages. I paid them $615.00 because I clearly told them I realized that it was their property now, but at the time I did not realize it was not mine. I was just acting in good faith. I just wanted to keep peace in the neighborhood. That is all I ever wanted to do. I still want to do that. There are always things coming up. I guess that really is the last thing I want to say. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that we open the public hearing. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: While I am at it, I would like to make a motion for a Negative Dec. ,%W Wappinger Zoning Board of Appears Minutes - February 25, 1997 4 Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: Is there anybody else that would like to speak for or against this appeal? Yes, could you please come up and state your name? Mrs. Moran: My name is Mary Ann Moran. I have a statement also that I would like to read. I am the owner since 1974 of the property at 11 Crabapple Court, which is adjacent to 9 Crabapple Court. I will try to state my reasons for being here and also try to correct some of the inaccurate statements that have been made so far by Mr. Proto. I am here because I filed a complaint against the height of the fence in which the Zoning Laws specifically states in General Regulations, Article IV, Section 410.4.2.4 -- "fences shall not exceed six feet in height above adjoining grade." This fence at 9 Crabapple Court is exceeding six feet. Just some background, Crabapple Court has 11 houses. Two of these homes already have six - foot fences on them put there even before Mr. Proto moved there. They are legal and we never contested it at any time. In these 11 homes there are approximately 10 people that work or have worked in local school districts. All of which at some time have worked or are working with handicapped children. I would be extremely hard to find another street where special need's children would be so well accepted. We had hoped that Mrs. Proto as the principal party would be here this evening. Mrs. Proto is the one with most of the complaints. In our opinion Mrs. Proto causes many of the problems. These problems occur when Mr. Proto is not home, but he is the one to face the consequences. As an example, Mrs. Proto will not allow neighborhood children on her lawn. "Not even one inch." She has kept wiffle balls that have landed on the lawn. When adults question her the reply was "if you do, I will have you arrested." They have followed through. Mr. Proto stated in the last meeting that he had my husband arrested. This was because he was erecting a fence as he stated, but it was not on his property. He had not had his survey done then. My husband removed it and they called the police. The Proto's then posted large no trespassing signs on the trees facing our property, thus setting the tone for relationships with the neighbors. After this trouble Mr. Proto again tried to extend his property before his survey was done. This time he removed sod and bushes from the neighbor on the other side. This neighbor sued him and the Wappinger Town Court found against Mr. Proto. It was during this session that Mr. Proto's father-in-law threatened the neighbor for trying to solve the problem legally. At this time, Mr. Proto's father-in-law is out on bail awaiting a court date. There have been other quarrels about us and the other neighbors when they believe "the Law has been broken." We have come here to have the matter corrected properly. We are not against "the fence" as stated. In truth the fence was hopeful because the fence would keep his children out of the neighbors' garages and houses and also keep the child from approaching moving vehicles in the road. His handicapped child would approach cars saying, "hello, who are you, and where are you going?" We on a number of occasions have found this child in our garage and once even in our home heading for the cellar steps. Yes, Mr. Proto did erect a fence, but how is the fence going to contain his children when it is only on two sides? The children still have access to the neighboring homes, woods in the back of the house, and the roadway in the front. A properly erected fence and ... might solve the problem so would proper supervision. During the . 'irrr Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 5 w November 11`h meeting Mr. Proto was asked by Mr. Fanuele if the fence was the same on both sides. Mr. Proto's answer was yes. As per your visit, you have seen that it is not. Mr. Proto responded regarding the fence being too tight and it being off the ground verifies that he knew that it exceeds the height limit. Therefore, he knew that the fence did not meet regulations before he put it up. Before filing a formal complaint, I followed the outline recommended by the Zoning Administrator. I went to his office on December 19`h asking about the regulations for the fence. I requested that the fence be checked out. On December 20`h the Administrator visited the site and found need to send a letter to the Proto's and a copy to myself. I then asked the next step and was told to wait ten to fourteen days, maybe a little longer depending upon weather conditions and the holidays. I waited and nothing was done. Again, I returned to the Zoning Office and asked the next step. I was told that a formal written complaint should be sent. I did so. This complaint is not about a special need's child or about the fence. It is about the height of the fence. We are asking for a lower, which would be legal, height to be decided upon. A legal height to all panels. We have checked our side and of the 21 panels, not one meets the Zoning specifications in Regulation 410.4.2.4. Maybe if it had been only in the one or two spots as stated by Mr. Proto and maybe if he did not always quote the Law to us and others, he would not be here. As you see, that is not the case. In conclusion, Mr. Proto stated he went by the book. The regulations are clearly stated there. He then received a copy of it from the Zoning Administrator. He had time to rectify the problem. He chose not to. I am now requesting that the regulation be enforced and that the fence at 9 Crabapple Court not exceed six feet above the adjoining grade. Thank you. Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else here that would like to speak? Mrs. Torrisi: I am Donna Torrisi and I live on 7 Crabapple Court ... I am here because the fence in question does not meet the height requirement of this Town. Normally this would not be a problem, but due to constant problems with the inhabiters of 9 Crabapple Court, I am here to see that the fence meet these requirements. Mr. Proto stated that the fence was to retain a handicapped child. This is not so. The fence came about due to several instances when Mrs. Proto has lost her temper and has come at me verbally. I have needed to call the Sheriff's Department to control both her and her husband. Ever since Mrs. Proto attempted suicide, she has been very argumentative with me. My husband has talked to Mr. Proto several times. He has promised in our home that he would see to it that his wife would not continue to behave in such a fashion. After our last call to the Sheriff's Department, he then decided to put up the fence. The handicapped child has never been a problem. My husband and I have baby-sat his son many times. To assure that they did not have to worry about him on our property, we encased our air conditioning unit at our cost because the child is attracted to the machine. We did not want them to have to worry about keeping him off our property. You know, he could wander where ever he wanted to. The child would sometimes put his fingers inside the top of the unit so we encased it ourselves. Mr. & Mrs. Proto have been the only ones to put up no trespassing signs, yell at children about the boundaries and the property lines. I have small children and I know children go on other peoples' properties. I also find it insulting that he would state that I would have a problem with his handicapped child. I have been in education for eleven years. I take pride in the fact that my class work goes hand in hand with special need children. If his fence is truly for -✓` Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 6 a handicapped child, then why doesn't the property have it enclosed? He still has free access to the road. What I want publicly understood is if the fence rest two inches before the line, Mr. Proto does not have access to take care of the back of his fence. It has cost me over $600.00 in property damage. I have had to go to Small Claims Court to retrieve the money for my ... To the Wappinger Court I am very grateful. I have had to have the Sheriff's Department remove the gentleman from my property that worked for him on the fence because me asking him to leave the premise was just not enough. Mr. Proto also needs to be reminded that I still have the remains of his old driveway that he so graciously deposited when he was replacing his new driveway in my yard. He promised to remove it two years ago, but I have had to do it myself. Mr. Proto also made an accusation that his neighbor moved the stakes, which is my husband. When we talked to Officer Lamonica and he noticed several neighbors who knew we were not home on that day. Luckily, a neighbor witnessed Mr. Proto removing the sticks himself and breaking them himself. This has come about because of a complaint that we had made. I really wish they would not do that. (Referring to noises) Mr. Proto's father-in-law now stands trial in the Wappinger Court on Harassment charges. I have all of the paperwork if you are going to question this. I also have pictures of obscenities that have been written on their driveway in clear view of neighbors pointing to my house. If you would like to see them too. Again, I am asking that we follow the code. I do not have a video camera so I do not know where they get that. One day I hope to save up for one, but I do not have one. Mr. Proto should be aware that I do not want him at anytime on the other side of the fence. We will weed whack it and take care of it. We do not want him there. The fence being above the grade has also allowed him to blow the leaves underneath the fence now. Thank you. Mr. Prager: Is there anybody else here that would like to speak? Mr. Moran: My name is Bob Moran. I live at 11 Crabapple Court. I have lived here since 1974 I have 5 different neighbors bordering my home and this is my first time here. I am requesting the variance not be granted to the Proto's. The Proto's are fully aware of the Zoning Laws and choose not to follow them. They are very quick to call the police and now the police just come and log the reports. A lot of you may say it sounds trivial to you, inches, but the Proto's make inches a big deal. They really do and I quote you, "Don't come on my property, not one inch." The Zoning Law says up to six feet. If a permit was required for the fence, it would not be granted. Why grant the variance? A legal fence is all that is required. Mr. Prager: Thank you. Is there anyone else here that would like to speak for or against the variance? Anybody on the Board have any questions? Mr. Fanuele: I have a question on the letter that he sent to the Board about the Town usually gives 10% lenience. I do not know where you got that from. Mr. Proto: I wrote on there, I do not know whatever he told me was true on that piece. Mr. Fanuele: I looked it up in the dictionary the word `wicking' and I could not find it a definition of wicking. 'hrr Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 7 Mr. Proto: This is what he said. Mr. diPierno: Don, have you ever heard the term wicking? Mr. Close: No, I am not familiar with it. Mr. Prager: Just for the publics' information, I will just read that letter from Mr. Proto to the Zoning Board that we just received tonight. "I, Joseph N. Proto, am scheduled for a public hearing on Tuesday, February 25, 1997 at 7:30 PM as Appeal No. 1236. I called Mr. Frank Boula, owner of Mid -Hudson Fence Co. and he claims he will not be able to attend the meeting. His company installed my fence. I feel that the site inspection by the Zoning Board on Saturday, February 15, 1997 was not a favorable one for myself and I am pleading (begging) with the Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the lenience of a few inches that the fence is over by six feet. If I have to have the whole fence lowered, this will cause me financial hardship. The fence problem is only one of many items that my neighbors are harassing us over. I am sure if you measure a number of fences in this area that a good number of fences are over six feet. I spent $6000.00 for this fence and having it lowered will only weaken it. Mr. Boula of Mid -Hudson Fence said that Towns' usually give a 10% leniency on height. He also said that there are spaces from the ground to the fence to prevent wicking. I do not know if this is true, but I have done everything right by the book with Don Close and I seem to be the one that is getting shafted. I already spent over $100.00 regarding this incident. My neighbors clearly told me that, NO FENCES WILL BE ALLOWED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, and that is why they are giving me such a hard time, not about the issue or a few inches. These neighbors videotape my handicapped son getting on and off the bus, make vicious remarks about my wife and children. We are talking inches, not feet. Please reconsider your decision and please allow me the few inches variance. I feel that I am going to be a SITTING DUCK with all of my neighbors present on February 25, 1997. Thank you for your consideration. Joseph N. Proto." Mr. Prager: Does anybody else have any questions from the Board? I just wrote up quick Findings of Facts. The appellant's property in its entirety falls into the R-20 district classification and is located at 9 Crabapple Court in the Town of Wappinger, New York. The appellants' property was purchased from Richard K. and Teresa Cypher. The appellants' had a fence installed by Mid -Hudson Fence Co., 1297 Route 376, Wappinger Falls, New York. The fence is erected on the appellants' property on both the east and west sides of the appellants' house. The fence was erected on December 9, 1996 to take the place of another fence which was erected on September 30, 1995. The appellants' property lines were resurveyed on November 4, 1996 by Raymond Kihlmire, LLS, that verified the property lines. The site inspection was held on Saturday, February 13, 1997 with all of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board in attendance. The fence height was measured at that time in numerous areas and was found to be from two to five inches above the six - foot height limit. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Mr. Lehigh: So moved. 'err Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 8 Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: I make a motion to grant the variance for the following reasons; the requested variance will not be detrimental to nearby properties due to the fact that fences are allowed and the exceeded height is very minimal. An undesirable change will not occur in the neighborhood since fences are allowed in R-20 district. There are alternate feasible methods to achieve the benefit sought by the applicants by shortening the height of the fence, cutting the proper amount from the top or installing the fence post deeper in the ground. The requested variance is not substantial. It is from 2. 8% to 6.9% in various areas with the average percentage being 4.9%. The variance will not cause adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood or district. The difficulty is self-created. The fence company that installed the fence at an incorrect height. This does not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. Can I have a second? Mr. Lehigh: Second. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: I would have to go with granting it based on a reduction of the fence to the six feet .. Yes. Mr. Prager: That would not be a yes; it would be a no. I think you want six feet. Is that what you are saying, not over? Mrs. Nguyen: Would you repeat it again for the record? Mr. Warren: That basically I was going with the variance as long as they plan to reduce it to six feet in height. Mr. Prager: That would not be in favor of the variance thought. That would be a denial. Mrs. Nguyen: So you are denying it then? Mr. Warren: I denied it. Mr. diPierno: Denied. Mr. Fanuele: I am going to deny it based on the fact that the fence whether it is there or not the problems up there are still going to be the same. If we deny it and follow the Zoning Ordinance, they still have their problems and they can resolve them themselves. Mr. Lehigh: I am going to vote for the variance. Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 9 ,.. Mr. Prager: I would be for it. Mrs. Nguyen: Okay, that is three denials and two for it. Mr. Prager: The variance has been denied and it will be filed in 5 days. 1997. The next item on tonight's agenda is a public hearing on Appeal No. 1237. At the request of Michael DiZillo who is seeking an INTERPRETATION of Article ... It says IV here, but it is actually Article II. Section 220, DEFINITIONS — which states an accessory apartment is to be located `within the same building' as a permitted one family dwelling and you are requesting to `add onto' the existing dwelling an accessory apartment for family. The property is located at 75 Ketchamtown Road and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-03-205371-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing? Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: I think at this time since we went out for a field inspection and we could also go for a Negative Dec. I move for a Negative Dec. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Petrucelli: My name is Robert Petrucelli. I am Mike's Architect. We had filed for a variance because we are outside the footprint of the existing building. The Zoning Administrator, Mr. Close, asked me if it could be changed to an interpretation. I agreed to it, but I do have a reservation with it because I know we are outside the footprint that is why I was asking for a variance. Mr. Prager: Right and this was a little confusing at the last meeting to us too. That is why I looked into it a little more before we got here tonight. In fact I checked with our Town Attorney to make sure I was right. It is not really truly an area variance only because the apartment could be put on. You have plenty of property. It is not like you need the variance for area. What you actually need ... Mr. Petrucelli: The setbacks do not need to be adjusted either. The one thing, I have been doing work on and off in the Town of Wappinger since 1984. It has only been in the past two weeks that you were actually able to buy a Zoning Ordinance. Which as a professional really puts you Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 10 behind the eight ball of being able to go through these things with a fine tooth comb to see how you dot the eyes and cross the T's. Mr. Prager: This one was a little confusing. I will grant that. I noticed in your right up when you originally ... for the notice of the appeal under interpretation it is limited to the accessory apartment. I noticed that you did do that too. Obviously, for an accessory apartment anyway you would have to go to the Planning Board. We do not even have the power to do that. That is where it was a little confusing. Mr. Lehigh: It is not a use variance either. You are not putting in a gas station in there. Mr. Prager: Right, so that is how we came up with an interpretation. Mr. Fanuele: I have a question. It is not a use and it is not an area, but it is in violation of the Zoning Laws, what is it? Mr. Petrucelli: This is what I am confused with. Mr. Prager: That is a gray area. We can not touch it in other words. Mr. Fanuele: I would think that we would have to pick one or the other. Mr. Prager: Not if it does not fall into one or the other. Definitely not. Mr. Fanuele: I would think it is more, it does not fit like a glove, but more an area variance than a use variance. Mr. Lehigh: Well, you are not changing the area. Mr. Prager: How are you changing the area? Mr. Petrucelli: We are adding 525 square feet. Mr. Prager: You can do that anyway. That is fine. You can do that. You do not need an area variance to do that. You would need a variance to allow you to put an accessory apartment in that area, which is not our prerogative number one. We cannot give you that. That would be the Planning Board that does that. Mr. Petrucelli: The Planning Board approves the site plan that is developed within the footprint of the building .... Mr. Prager: They also give the special use permit for this. Wappinger Zoning Board of Appea�s Minutes - February 25, 1997 11 Mr. Petrucelli: For the accessory apartment and then they grant the special use permit. I have obtained them before on other projects in this Town. Basically, the configuration that we have, we have sufficient room where we can put an addition on and then come back to the Planning Board. We would then meet the requirements if we do not get a positive input from this Board. Mr. Prager: What I am saying is we are not legally giving you an area variance because ... Mr. Petrucelli: I understand that. Mr. Prager: There is nothing to give. Mr. Lehigh: There is no variance to give. We cannot allow you to have an accessory apartment because that is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, not the ZBA. If we told you that, it would be wrong. Mr. Prager: More so than that, if you go back in the definitions at the beginning, which we have probably read a dozen times .... Mr. Petrucelli: I haven't because I have not been able to until just recently after I filed this application been able to purchase a Zoning Ordinance. lft► Mr. Prager: "Accessory Apartment: A `dwelling unit' which is incidental and subordinate to and located within the same `building' as a permitted `one -family dwelling." So, it has to be within the footprint. In order to change that, you are changing the Zoning. Mr. Lehigh: You certainly are. Mr. Prager: You are not given a variance to make it bigger. Mr. Fanuele: (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Lehigh: He could do that anyway without it. Mr. Fanuele: My feeling is that he could build the building, an extension, come back and go to the Planning Board for a special use permit for an accessory apartment. Mr. Lehigh: That is what we are all saying, but we cannot do it. Mr. Fanuele: Or we could grant him a variance with condition. Mr. Lehigh: We cannot. It has been taken out of your hands and put into the Planning Board's hands. You have no right to issue a variance for an accessory apartment because they do it. Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 12 Mr. Fanuele: We are not issuing the variance for an accessory apartment. We are issuing the variance that an accessory apartment can exceed the footprint. That is what the violation of the Ordinance, not that we are going to give him permission for the accessory apartment. Mr. Petrucelli: That is basically the feeling that I have. I will agree with ... Mr. Lehigh: Well, the Town Attorney does not feel that way. Mr. diPierno: I think his route would first ... He should go to the Planning Board and if necessary come back here. Mr. Petrucelli: I think what I will do is first go to the Building Department. Unfortunately, we were given the wrong advice by Mr. Close or we would never have come here. We would have gone directly to the Building Department for a building permit. Mr. Prager: The only thing you cannot do is obviously put the kitchen in it. Mr. Petrucelli: Yes, we can do everything else except for the kitchen. He has a valid permit for the third bedroom in the garage so ... Mr. diPierno: How old is that permit? Mr. DiZillo: I think it has expired. Mr. Petrucelli: It has expired, but it can be renewed. I mean the house itself was only built in 1985. Mr. diPierno: What makes it nebulous is what you already have and what you want in addition to it and where do you go. You already have half of it. Mr. Petrucelli: It is also a very difficult house to work with and the site conditions that you have there. That is one of the reason we have to put an addition onto it to be able to achieve the accessory apartment. Most houses you have room within the existing house one way or another to work it out. This particular house you do not. Mr. Lehigh: It does not need an interpretation then. Mr. Prager: As long as we are here, lets give him an interpretation. Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or against this? We did the Negative Dec. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing unless anybody else has something they want to say? Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. diPierno: Second. En Vote: All present voted aye. ..rr Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 13 Mr. Prager: With reference to Article II, Section 220, Definitions, which states accessory apartments, a dwelling unit which is incidentally and subordinate to and located within the same building as a permitted one -family dwelling. The Zoning Administrator issued an interpretation that the above section meant that the applicant is not allowed to erect an addition onto the existing residential dwelling in order to construct an accessory apartment. I make a motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Mr. diPierno: Would you mind reading that again? Mr. Prager: Which part? Mr. Petrucelli: The last part. Mr. Prager: With reference to Article II, Section 220, Definitions, which states, which states accessory apartments, a dwelling unit which is incidentally and subordinate to and located within the same building as a permitted one -family dwelling. The Zoning Administrator issued an interpretation that the above section meant that the applicant is not allowed to erect an addition onto the existing residential dwelling in order to construct an accessory apartment. Then I said, I made a motion to uphold the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. Mr. Petrucelli: That does not eliminate my client from putting an addition on and then coming back to the Planning Board. Mr. diPiemo: Absolutely not. Mr. Prager: Can I have a second to that? Mr. Lehigh: I already seconded that. ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Warren: Agreed. Mr. Fanuele: Agreed. Mr. Prager: Agreed. Mr. diPierno: Agreed. Mr. Lehigh: Agreed. Mr. Prager: A motion has been passed to uphold the Zoning Administrator's interpretation. The next item of business on the agenda is a discussion of Appeal No. 1238. (Frank & Elvira Tosto and Liugi & Giuseppina Capparelli) Discuss requesting a variance from the Zoning Law, Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Use Regulations, which requires a seventy-five (75) - foot front yard setback and the applicants are requesting a fifty (50) - foot setback to meet the requirement of the septic field, thus requiring a twenty-five (25) - foot front yard setback variance on property located at 276 All Angels Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger. Whom may I ask who is here? In -aw Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 14 Mr. Capparelli: Liugi Capparelli and my friend Joseph Frenze is going to talk. Mr. Frenze: Good evening, my name is Joseph Frenze. I am a real estate broker. I represent the owners in the sales of their property. Due to a severe medical hardship the Capparelli's were forced to put their property on the market about two years ago. After trying to market it for two years we have finally found a buyer. That buyer came in and applied for a building permit and was turned down because the approved map that we had said 50 - foot setback and Building Inspector's Office told them that it is a County road and it has to be a 75 - foot setback. Consequently, we lost the buyer. Their situation is forcing them to liquidate the property as quickly as they can. The recommendation we got is to come in and apply for a variance so they can get a building permit and be able to sell the property. So they are here tonight to ask the Board to consider granting us a variance. This property is located along All Angels Road near the intersection of Pye Lane and Tor Road. If you stand out and look at the homes in that area, this lot has a much larger frontage than most of the other homes there. This has about 262 feet of frontage. So, that 25 - foot difference would hardly be noticed when you compare it to the other homes up and down the road. We do not think it will have much of an impact and we are asking for that variance. Mr. Prager: What is the appeal here under number three? The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district because, and then somebody has written in here other homes in the area have setbacks at 50 feet. Is that true Don? Mr. Close: Not to my knowledge, but it is something that I would have to go out and physically check. Mr. Prager: Could you possibly be able to do that? Mr. Close: Certainly. Mr. Lehigh: Another question Mr. Close, is there no sewer in that area? Mr. Close: No sir. Mr. Lehigh: There is municipal water, but no sewer? Mr. Close: Right, water. Mr. Frenze: We have a letter from Jack Railing's Office, which states this property is not in the water and sewer district. Mr. Fanuele: (Too Low to transcribe.) It is on Tor Road, then it is in the sewer district. It is right next to ... Could you become a tenant of that ...? low Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 15 Mr. Frenze: Well, this was removed years ago. In fact I probably could have given you a copy 1.4w of that letter, which explains that it was removed from the water and sewer district years ago. The few builders that we have had look at this situation just said that the cost to run the pipe from the home out to the road, all the way down to Tor Road and then up would be excessive. Mr. Prager: How about water? Is there water in that area? Mr. Lehigh: Yes, there is municipal water. Mr. Franze: That is also down at the intersection. Mr. Lehigh: You show a copper line going down there to pick it up. One inch cable cooper water service purposed. That is going down there. It is proposed on the drawing here. Mr. Fanuele: That is for the water. Mr. Lehigh: When you have to dig for the water, you dig a couple feet more for the sewer. Mr. Fanuele: That is my next question. (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Close: They are supposed to be five feet apart. Mr. Lehigh: They are not five feet apart now? I thought that was done way back. Mr. Franze: I probably had no less than seven or eight builders out there trying to consider selling them the lot. We all know that lots are kind of scarce. They have gotten to the point where they are willing to sell the property for almost half of what they paid for it, but every builder that goes out says it is too much of a problem. If you look at the top of the map I think it shows where rock was hit a couple of feet down. They said that would be another problem when digging for ... Mr. Prager: That was what I was going to ask you. Why are they putting the septic there? Why is the expansion area in the back of the house? Mr. Franze: That is the reason Jack Railing's Office told us that he has put a 50 - foot setback here because the expansion area is prohibiting him from moving the house back 75 feet. Mr. Lehigh: What is the expansion area though? What is it? Mr. Prager: Is it for the septic? Mr. Franze: It is for the septic system. Mr. Lehigh: Oh, how come it is laid out on the left? I Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 16 1VOW Mr. Prager: In other words, the septic really is not going to be the size it is shown here? Mr. Franze: The septic is to the left side of the home. The expansion area runs behind the home. Mr. Prager: You definitely need that expansion area. Mr. Franze: We went back to him and said we have a plot plan here that was signed by everyone. The Zoning Administrator, the Building Inspector, Jay Paggi back in 1987 which shows 75 feet. So we said to the Engineer, why did you give them a map that said 50 feet? And he said because there is no way we can move the house back any farther because the expansion area is as far back as you can put it. Mr. Prager: I am confused. Mr. Lehigh: I am too. If they have the septic fields to the left of the house, I do not know why they need the 100 - foot expansion area. Is that going to be fields too? What is it going to be? Mr. Close: I think that is for the future Al. Mr. Lehigh: In other words, if something goes wrong with the other fields? ,%W Mr. Close: Because of the perk test, that is why they did that. Mr. Lehigh: Then that is a reasonable answer. Mr. Close: If somebody puts another bedroom in there, those things have to be expanded. Somebody may be looking down the road in that direction. Mr. diPierno: There is a note down here from Dutchess County Health Department that this lot is approved for a maximum three bedroom house. It is unlikely they will approve any kind of expansion. Mr. Close: If somebody goes in and makes another bedroom Jerry, then it has to be expanded. Nine times out of ten the only thing they will make them expand is the size of the tank. In this case it is showing room for more fields. Mr. Fanuele: Not that the house would be expanded, but the septic ... Mr. Prager: Yes, the fields, yes. Mr. Fanuele: What is the least setback variance that you can get away with? You are saying 50. Would 60 work? "rrr VAW Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 17 Mr. Lehigh: The individual that designed this said that is where you have to put it. Mr. Franze: It is pretty close to the house as it is. Mr. Lehigh: You said you cannot put the house back any farther, but it looks to me as if you should be able to go back whatever the distance between that expanded field. You should be able to crowd that a little bit. Mr. Close: There is not much there. Mr. Lehigh: There is not much there. Mr. Close: That line is kind of cockeyed. Mr. Lehigh: If that is where it has to go. Mr. Fanuele: What is the distance between the road ... here and your property line? Mr. Franze: We are showing 50 feet on this map from the house to the edge of their property line. Mr. Fanuele: From the property line to the paved portion of the road, do you have any idea? Mr. Franze: This says 75 from the house to the edge of Liugi's property line. This one says 50 from the edge of the property line. Mr. Close: That property line that you see that is there, that is his property. The balance of that is taken line. If the County ever wants a three lane zipper ... Mr. Prager: Right, that is what I was just looking at. Mr. Fanuele: That is why there is a 75 - foot setback so they do not destroy the property. Mr. Capparelli: How about the houses that are right next to the property? It is right on the ... It is no more than 50 feet. Mr. Prager: We will have Don measure ... Mr. Capparelli: You will have to knock down those houses too then. Mr. Lehigh: We will have him check that out. That is all I need to know right now. I make a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals be appointed Lead Agency. Mr. Warren: Second. Wappinger Zoning Board of Appears Minutes - February 25, 1997 18 Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh: The Negative Dec ... Do you want to go out and look at this? Mr. Prager: I do not know what we would go out and see. Mr. Lehigh: Well if Don is going to do it, then we don't have to. Mr. Close: It is the lot behind Rudy Lapar. Mr. Franze: Rudy Lapar's house is to the right of this lot. The only house to the left faces Tor Road. It fronts on Tor Road. Mr. Prager: That is right. Mr. Franze: That is what we are saying, you get so much frontage here that there is not a lot of homes to compare it to. Mr. Prager: Did you make a motion for a Negative Dec.? Mr. diPierno: Yes. Mrs. Nguyen: No. Mr. Lehigh: No, I said to wait until ... Mr. Prager: I do not think we are going to do a site inspection on this. Do you want to do it at the next meeting? Mr. Lehigh: The next meeting. Mr. Prager: I am going to set the public hearing for March 11"'. Thank you. DISCUSSION - ACCESSORY APARTMENT Mr. Fanuele: The Ordinance under accessory apartments, we have a limit of how it has to be .... I do not know what that means. If somebody comes into the Town and buys a house that is older, and move in on day two and apply for an accessory apartment. My proposal is to suggest to the Town Board that we add to it that the people have to own the house and live in it for five years as well as the house being five years old. Mr. Prager: That is not a bad idea. O Mr. Fanuele: I wrote something up here. Mr. Lehigh: You go ahead, but I disagree with you. Mr. diPierno: I disagree also. '"W Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 19 Mr. Lehigh: Why should we limit somebody from having an accessory apartment and make them wait for five years? Maybe they are going to buy this house because there is one already in there. Mr. Fanuele: An accessory apartment is for the Town of Wappinger residents to wind up with some sort of problem with their mother-in-law or father-in-law or what have you, to help them out. Mr. Lehigh: Not necessarily. Mr. Fanuele: Yes, that is the purpose of an accessory apartment, not to help them financially. Mr. Lehigh: Then, why do we allow children, and any blood relative? Why are we doing that? Mr. Fanuele: My interpretation of a blood relative is a relative of a Town of Wappinger resident. I do not want to make it too attractive to bring everybody into the Town of Wappinger because *.w we have lenient Accessory Apartment Laws. We will destroy the single family area. What I want to do is help the people that are living here. I have no problem with that. An accessory apartment is basically for a short period of time. They do extend longer without bringing in everybody that ... Mr. diPierno: What about the case where there is a preexisting ...? Mr. Fanuele: The Zoning Ordinance today says when it is sold, it is gone. Mr. diPierno: Yes, but if it is preexisting ... I know a house ... I am in real estate, I know a house where somebody already has all of the gas hooked up and everything. He took the stove out when his mother died. The thing is just sitting there. Mr. Fanuele: That is the risk you take ... Mr. diPierno: Yes, I know it is, but theoretically that guy could sell that house as a mother daughter and the new owners can buy that house contingent upon getting approval to reestablish the accessory apartment and have their in-laws come in. Mr. Fanuele: I feel that the Town of Wappinger residents are not out to help every other Town with their people problem. We need to help our own people problems and let the other Towns help out their people problems. ,"Nov Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 20 Mr. Lehigh: You are going to help the people in the sense that okay, I have got my mother -m - law in here and I am taking care of her. I am sixty and she is eighty. She dies. Now, I have this money invested in this house. I want to go to Florida myself and spend what little bit of time and now you are telling them you are going to take the buyers right off the market from them. Mr. diPierno: You cannot deprive the financial benefit of having the house that you paid for. You lose it. I do not think that is fair. Mr. Fanuele: ............ when you decide to buy a house. What you are going to do when you sell it. We are not going to guarantee that when you buy a house and when you sell it that you are going to make a profit and you are going to get your money back. Mr. diPierno: Vic, I know where you are coming from and I happen to agree with you. There are too many people moving up here thinking that they can just move in with their relatives and set up a second apartment and I agree with that. It is just if you are going to draft any kind of a proposal that restricts an application for an accessory apartment, it has to be done in such a way so that it is really fair. When I moved up here with my wife's eighty years old grandmother. We did not have an accessory apartment. She was just part of the family. Mr. Fanuele: That is no problem. Mr. diPierno: Of course that is no problem. It would have been nice if we could have found a mother/daughter house. Mr. Fanuele: We do not have mother/daughter houses here for sale. What we have here is accessory apartments for the people who are living here who have that problem, not for new residents coming in. That is the difference. Mr. diPierno: It has to be fair. Mr. Fanuele: All I am suggesting is that we send a letter to the Town Board that we recommend that the change be implemented. Mr. Lehigh: Exclude me. I cannot agree with that. First of all, if the Law is used right, the people need that apartment whether they are from this area or not from this area. Suppose a guy moves into a house on Edgehill next door to you and he has a problem. He does not have to wait five years to put the apartment in. He just goes in front of the Planning Board and says I have a problem and I need to put this in and he goes and gets it taken care of it. You are going to exclude that. You are going to say that he has to live there for five years. Mr. Fanuele: Otherwise, he needs a variance for it. Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 21 �. Mr. Lehigh: I think that is too much government. You are sticking your nose into somebody else's business that you really should not be in there. There is too much government around here. Mr. Prager: Is not now if I have an accessory apartment that has been given a permit, and either my parents die or my children move out, am I supposed to get rid of that accessory apartment? How do you get rid of it? Mr. Fanuele: You just get rid of the kitchen. Mr. Close: No, it is just the stove Vic. Mr. Fanuele: If somebody moves in there and they use that accessory apartment, it is up to the Zoning Administrator to go down and cite them. Mr. Lehigh: I bet you if we went through the list of accessory apartments, known file of accessory apartments in this Town of Wappinger, and went through them, I bet you would find 3/4 of them are occupied whether they have gotten one or not. Mr. Prager: That is very possible. Mr. Fanuele: I agree with you. I do not say that is right. The Zoning Ordinance says they *4W should be reviewed every so often, then that should be reviewed. I agree with you and that is why I want to put some more teeth into it. Mr. Lehigh: If you cannot enforce it now, what will more teeth do for it? Mr. diPierno: I tell you what. Why don't you just request that the Town Board review the current Ordinance with a view towards increasing the restricted use of ... I think five years, first of all, is excessive. Mr. Fanuele: Three years? Mr. diPierno: Three years are enough. If you have lived in the Town for two years, that is enough. Mr. Fanuele: If I changed it to two years, would it make a difference? I tried to get a discussion here. Mr. diPierno: And you are getting it. I think you have to make a distinction between somebody coming into the Town and immediately requesting that an accessory apartment be built verses the person who buys a house that already has the potential of reactivating a preexisting accessory apartment. Ln 1W 1400` Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 22 Mr. Fanuele: If the person buys a house with an accessory apartment, he is buying it in my mind wr.. for the space that he needs. If he is buying it to come in and put two families in there, that is a no no. Mr. diPierno: Two families are one thing, but if he ... Mr. Fanuele: That is what will happen. Mr. diPierno: Well, that is where you have to put the teeth in the Law. That is a serious offense. Mr. Fanuele: Did you read the Poughkeepsie Journal today where the guy from East Fishkill ...? The Zoning guy from East Fishkill was saying that the people who living up here park on their own property. People that are moving in park on their neighbors' property because that is the way they were brought up and where they came from. So, you have to put the rules in place. If they want to move up here, they have to follow them. I have people in my neighborhood that move in and they destroy the neighborhood. When you ask them, why did you move here, and they say they like the neighborhood. Then, why are you doing what your doing? It does not make any sense. Anyway, I can change this to two years, if you will agree with it. Mr. diPierno: That is just one thing that I have. I just think you should make a distinction between preexisting mother/daughters. Suppose I have an accessory apartment built to accommodate my wife's grandmother, and she passes away and I take the stove out. Now, I am getting ready to retire and I want to move or I want a townhouse and I want to get out of there. What your telling me is that I cannot market that house as a potential mother/daughter. Mr. Fanuele: You are telling me that if that comes into my neighborhood, I am going to have to Mr. diPierno: That is a big investment. Mr. Fanuele: What your telling me is when they give them the special use permit, if that is the case, I will have to go against any accessory apartment in my neighborhood because of that particular fact. I do not mind helping somebody that is there, but why do I have to help the people that are moving out and coming into the place because they are selling it? Then, you are going to get the people saying no more accessory apartments. As Al had said there are an awful lot of illegal ones. Mr. diPierno: We should talk to Al about something like this. It sounds like it is discriminatory. I do not know if you can discriminate. Mr. Fanuele: Well, I was going to copy Al and say please advise. If you want, I will read it. "After reviewing an application for an interpretation of an accessory apartment, the Zoning Board of Appeals would like to recommend the following be added to the accessory apartment regulations. In Section 440.4.3.1, we specify that the age of the structure shall be five years old," �11rr Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - February 25, 1997 23 Which does not make any sense. Based upon the ... it is not the age of the structure, it is the people living in it. "The ZBA would like to include that the owner who is applying for the accessory apartment own the building and live in it for at least five years. The intent of this addition is to help the residents of the Town of Wappinger and not to become a magnet that will attract new residents because of our lenient accessory apartment regulations." Then I said, "Please advise." If you want it to be two years, I can change it to two years. Why don't we just put two to five? Mr. Prager: Or just put number of years and let them worry about it. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Warren: Second. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 PM. Respectfully submitted, f Linda Nguyen, Secretary Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals