1996-10-22I — "11*0
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall
October 22; 1996 20 Middlebush Road
agenda - 7:30 P.M. Wappinger Falls, N.Y.
Approval of October 8, 1996 minutes_
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Appeal #1229 - At the request of Alexander W. Hubner who is seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 420.3, where you are required to
maintain a 10 foot side yard and you are showing 5 ' 211, thus
requiring a 4' 10" variance to replace a 10'X 20' carport and to
construct an additional 1 bay garage onto the existing garage on
property located at 106 Mac Farland Road and is identified as Tax Grid
#19-6157-04-970424-00 in the Town of Wappinger.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE the Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself
Lead Agency on October 8, 1996.
2_ Appeal #1230 - At the request of Camillo Trust. Steven Berner. Trustee
(Keith Capolino Subdivision - App. #8659) who is seeking a variance of
Article IV, Section 420.5.1, whereas you are required to maintain 15
acres in the RMF -3 Zone and you are requesting a 2 lot subdivision
,%.. consisting of 5.142 and 6.096 acre parcels, thus requiring a 9.858 and
a 8.904 variance on property located at 109 Old Hopewell Road and is
identified as Tax Grid X19-6157-01-240641-00 in the Town of Wappinger.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE the Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself
Lead Agency on October 8, 1996.
DISCUSSIONS
1. Leslie & Laurie Schlagel - Discuss Appeal ##1231 requesting a 3 inch
side yard variance for an existing "L" shaped pool deck for property
located at 5 Cameli Drive in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Patrick & Joyce Lacy - Discuss Appeal ##1232 requesting a 2110" side
yard variance and a 8 foot rear yard variance for an existing 8' X 10'
wooden shed on property located at 9 Lawn Place in the Town of
Wappinger.
Town of Wappinge.0 Toning Board of Appeals
October 22; 1900
Minutes
Member_~ Present_
Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele:
Mr. diPierno: Member Mr. Warren:
Member Absent
Mr. Lehigh:
:ethers Present
Vice Chairman
Town Hail
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls; N.Y.
Member
Member
AVpROVED
%OV 2 V96
Mr.
Albert
Roberts, Town Attorney PLANNING BOARD
Mr..
Constance
Smith, Supervisor
Mr.
Donald
Close: Zoning Administrator
Mrs.
Linda
Nguyen; Secretary to the Z.B.A.
I would like to call the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board
of
Mr. Prager:
Appeals to
order. Can I have a roll call please?
R^LT, CALL: Mr. Warren: Here. Mr. diPierno: Here.
Mr. Fanuele: Here. Mr. Lehigh: Absent.
Mr. Prager: Here.
+.
Mr. Prager: Just for everyone's knowledge that you might not have been
-.ere before; I would like to say this is a no smoking building. The
exists; there are emergency exits in the rear of the room and off on the
side Dere. The first order of business is normally the approval of the
minutes for the last meeting; but unfortunately we just got them this
evening and I know I haven't had a chance to read them.
Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to table the minutes.
my. Warren: second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonights agenda is a public
hearing on Appeal 21229. At the request of Alexander W. Hubner who is
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 420.3; where you are required to
maintain a 10 foot side yard and you are showing 512", thus requiring a
4110" variance to replace a 101X 20' carport
to construct
located at
additional 1 bay garage onto the existing garage
106 Mac Farland Road and is identified as Tax Grid »19-6157-04-970424-00
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order.
tw4r Prager: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing?
Mr. diPierno: So moved.
Mr. Warren: Second.
Vote: All present voted afire.
:n
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 2
Mr. Prager- Now, can I ask who is here this evening to speak for this
appeal? Can you come up front and state your name for the record and tell
us exactly what you need?
'Ar. Delucca: My name is Robert Delucca, General Contractor. I'm the
contractor representing Mr. Hubner tonight because he is out of Town. I
would. like to show the Board tonight that this picture was taken in 1969.
Can I bring it up? Basically; what we want to do is just make the place a
lot more attractive. We aren't changing anything. We are just going to
change the carports into a garage. He built this with his father in 1969,
the garage with the carports. We aren't changing any of the boundaries
that were existing. They have been there since 1952. There was never a
e_ with The permit was approved. We went up there and
0Jcll 71 1-11hp estj_matjnC1 already, then they camp olat to look
We went7 i`� 7nd t 7 V
raid maybe e We Sh()l_lI d ,'�h ':lr
and got a survey and this is what we are asking for: a
variance.
Mr. Prager: I know Mr. Hubner was in last month and explained in quite a
bit of detail exactly where the additions are going to go on the garage.
We did have a site inspection, which you might know. We went out and
looked at the property. Is there anyone else here in the audience that
would like to speak about this variance at this time either for or
*AW aaainst? Show that there is nobody in the audience that would like to
speak.; but we did get a letter from a neighbor. I will just read it for
everyone's information. It is from Francis E. & Jeanne D. Sharkey. "We
are in receipt of a Notice of the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance
at the request of Alexander W. Hubner. Pursuant to the notice Mr. Hubner
,,c; requesting a 4110" variance to replace a 10' X 20" carport." I don't
think that is right. I think it should be 10' X 20' carport. "And to
construct an additional one bay garage onto the existing garage. The
south line of our property borders the area where the variance is
requested for the construction. There are a few points you might want to
consider in making your determination. First of all, we have resided at
this location since June, 1974, and have observed the improvements at the
Hubner residence. In June, 1974, Mr. Hubner did not have a carport on. the,
north side of his garage. There were big trees which he later cut down --
one was right next to his garage. Within the last ten years, Mr. Hubner;
himself, built the carport (without a building permit) for his son's car.
His son drives an older Ford Escort. The carport was just large enough
for a small car. I do not believe the carport was 10' wide, but rather
81. At your request, we can provide you with photos. Last spring or
early summer, Mr. Hubner obtained a building permit from the then Building
Inspector (Mr. Keller). Thereafter, Mr. Keller inspected the premises to
verify the drawings which was attached to Mr. Hubner's application as he
thought the side line could be closer to the proposed construction than it
appeared in the drawing. At the site, Mr. Keller verbally told Mr. Hubner
that he could. not continue with his project on the north side of the
garage until he establishes the property line, but that he could continue
with the other construction. We were in touch with Mr. Keller just before
his death and he informed us of what had transpired. A review of the
Hubner application revealed that the drawing was erroneous. The drawing
ndicated that there would be 15' between the proposed construction on the
north of his garage and the side line. This explains why Mr. Keller
'"of
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 3
issued a building permit in the first place without a variance_
Unfortunately, Mr. Keller suddenly died before he had a change to put it
down in writing. Shortly after his death, Mr. Hubner proceeded with the
construction by digging the footings on the north and south sides of his
garage and requested a site inspection. At the inspection, Mr. Close
(Acting as Building Inspector) stopped further construction on the north
,side of his garage until the side line was established. Mr. Hubner owns
'.95 acres at 106 Mac Farland Road in the Town of Wappinger. For
practical reasons, he wants to extend his garage as far as 512" from the
side line. An inspection of the property will show that Mr. Hubner should
instead either tear down the existing garage or move it further back to a
point where he could easily have 15' or more from the side line. It would
increase the value of his property. As it stands now, the new
construction on both sides of his garage will render the portion of his
property in the back of the dwelling almost inaccessible with a vehicle,
etc. unless he passes on the south side of our property. Last winter 36
of our tall spruce trees uprooted following a windstorm. Roots still need
to be levelled down in the area bordering Mr. Hubner's property. We feel
that by Having a building so close to the side line and our residence so
Tar from it would result in Mr. Hubner further encroaching our property.
Does the Board give variances merely for practical reasons? After our
inputs, if the Board decides to give the variance to Mr. Hubner, we
therefore suggest that it be done with the condition that he erects and
maintains, as part of his construction, a stockade fence along the south
side of our property which borders his property, that fence to be on his
Property one foot from the side line. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, Francis E. Sharkey and Jeanne D. Sharkey." There is a
P.S. on here also. "P.S. Due to the fact I will be out of town, I would
appreciate it if you would adjourn this matter until your next meeting on
November 12, 1996 so I can be present." I would definitely like to enter
that evidence into the file.
Mr. Delucca: Can I make one more statement? There is about a 250 foot
setback behind the Sharkey's house. You guys went out there and you saw
there is plenty of room. The driveway is already set up. The garage is
that way. To Move the thing around would, you know, would cost a little
bit more money. I'm asking for the Board's consideration.
Mr. Fanuele: no you have the authority to sav he can put a fence there or
not?
Mr. Delucca: Excuse me.
mu. Fanuele: Sharkey suggested he put up a fence. Your not authorized tr.
Mr. Delucca: No, but I'm sure Mr. Hubner wouldn't have a problem with a
stockade fence. That might be the best alternative.
%,,Mr. Fanuele: I would like to see a row of trees along the property line
to make it a little softer. (Too low to transcribe.)
Mr. Delucca: And the most affordable.
Mr. Prage_-: We might want to adjourn this until the next meeting which i:�
• doe
wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 4
Novemher 12. Then; Mr. Hubner can come in and agree or disagree with the
fence. Before I do that, I would just like to make sure that we have
logged in certain evidence that we have here. The fist thing I would like
to make sure that is logged in is the site plan showing the lands of
Alexander Hubner dated 9/24/96 and three drawings of the proposed 2
garages dated 10/96 and received by the Zoning Administrator on 10/10/96.
Mrs. Nguyen: They are both on the back wall -
Mr. Prager: There was a letter to the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of
Appeals from Alexander Hubner dated 9/17/96 explaining the history of the
ear-aorts and the information about the ....
Mrs. Nguven: Yes_
sir. Prager: The building permit #96-100 granting Mr. Hubner permission to
remove and replace 2 existing garages 10' X 301.
Mrs. Nguyen: Yes.
Mr. Prager: There is a letter from Francis E. & Jeanne D. Sharkey. That
is the letter I lust read. Also we just received photos of the carports:
which has a date on it 1969. Do you have a copy of the photo?
Mrs. Nguyen- No. (Mr. Prager gave the the copy of the photos to Mrs.
Nguyen.) I have 3 photos that Mr. Hubner submitted to the Board at the
last meeting.
Mr. Prager: On the building permit, and that is where I had a little
confusion, it states removing and replacing 2 existing garages 10' X 30'
I think that was supposed to be 10' X 201.
Mr. Delucca: Yes, that was a mistake.
Mr. Prager: There is no way both of those garages could be built on the
south side?
Mr. Delucca: You would have to change everything around and move the
flowers and the walls and you know, change the driveway location_.
Everything is already set up for that. He has had his place for years
like that. I do like the idea of putting up a fence.
Mr. Prager: I will take that up with Mr. Hubner. He should be back by
next month.
Mr. Delucca: He will be back Monday.
Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to adjourn this to the next meeting.
Mfr. Warren: So moved.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
°dote: All present voted ave.
CEJ
wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonights agenda is a public
hearing on An -peal #1230. At the request of Camillo Trust, Steven Berner.
Trustee (Keith Capolino Subdivision - App. #8659) who is seeking a
variance of Article Iv, Section 420.5.1, whereas you are required to
maintain 15 acres in the RMF -3 Zone and you are requesting a 2 lot
st.�bdivision consisting of 5.142 and 6.096 acre parcels, thus requiring a
9.858 and a 8.904 variance on property located at 109 Old Hopewell Road
and is identified as Tax Grid ##19-6157-01-240641-00 in the Town of
Wappinger. Again, we have proof of publication?
Mrs. Nguyen: All the mailings are in order.
Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to open the public hearing.
Mr. Fanuele: So be it.
Mr. warren: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Adams: My name is Jon Adams. I'm an attorney representing the
applicant. I'm here with Bob Gray and engineer who is also appearing on
behalf of the applicant. Before I get into the substance of the
application, I just want to briefly review for the benefit of everybody
`f"'here the circumstances that has given rise to this application. The
applicant proposes to divide an eleven acre,. and I'm rounding it off for
the purpose of discussion, lot into a 2 lot subdivision. The motivation
for the subdivision is to sell off Lot No. 2, I assume the Board has
before it a copy of the map, to another party who proposes to construct a
single family home on that lot. The location of the home is indicated on
the map. The Planning Board has already given preliminary approval to the
application. We have an anomaly here in the sense that this particular
property while intended to be used for single families homes is located in
a RMF -3 zone, which for whatever reason requires even for a single family
home a 15 acre lot. I don't want to talk about the constitutionality of
that. That is for another day, however, I want to go through with you the
standards that now exist. I say now exist because your application form
doesn't seem to reflect the correct standards for an area variance. We
are seeking an area variance. In 1994 the state imposed new standards. I
want to run through those standards because I deem those standards to be
applicable to the application and I want to demonstrate to you how this
particular application satisfies each of the four standards. The first
standard that the state now has for area variances is whether or not the
variance is substantial. The answer here is no for one reason. This lot
of 11 acres was substandard and nonconforming simply because of the Zoning
Law. We can't achieve even with 11 acres the minimum standards to satisfy
the RMF -3 standards even for a single family house. We are nonconforming
to begin with. The second question, will an undesirable change in the
neighborhood be created by this variance? Again, the answer is no. We
`rrrC+ -e 2 lnt:,, 5 and. 6 acres. Each of those lots are probably
7 ;;llrrol1lldin rieighb�: rhood_ I
re' 1.eV*� file i r r vii?id.i 1 :C': i ti prllll_ r1 :i7 "i`.P.(�-
R-?r� & R-40. These lots would be grossly in excess of the minimuvi lest
size that otherwise exists in this area for single family zones. The
third standard is whether or not we can achieve the results that we want
,low
CM
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 6
which is simply to create a 2 lot subdivision by any other standard and
the answer is no. Keep in mind that owner is doing this in part because
he has surplus land. His house is located on Lot No. 1. He has
determined he doesn't need 11 acres for a single family house. He
proposes to sell 5 and retain 6 for a single family house. Therefore;
given the extreme standards you have in this district for single family
houses, keep in mind the only proposed development here is for a single
family house, there is no other way to accomplish this result. Lastly;
the last standard is whether or not the need for this variance is
;elf -created. Again, the answer is no. This lot was substandard the day
the Zoning Ordinance was passed in 1993. The Zoning Ordinance created
this problem. The owner didn't create this problem. For those reasons I
believe that the applicant satisfies ... and the fact the circumstances
of this application the four standards that now exist for area variances.
Keep in mind this is an area variance, not a use variance. Single family
houses are permitted in this particular zone. I expect this application
may have invited certain questions. I'm happy to answer any questions
that any member of the Board may have, but I want to make it clear again
that the intended use is specifically outlined in this map. There is no
other use intended today or tomorrow and to indulge in speculation is
unwarranted because we have no other plans for the use of the property.
Mr. Prager: Would anybody else like to speak for or against?
♦w Mr. Art McCluskey: My name is Art McCluskey. I'm speaking as an
interested party for my son owner of an adjoining property. What concerns
me is this whole matter seems to be before the wrong Board. It would. be
mach simpler and more proper in my mind if this were to be rezoned to
R -20/R-40 which would then allow a conventional subdivision. What
concerns me also is a letter dated September 18th from the Planning Board
that says it would only enjoy that R -20/R-40 use unless it was combined
with a RMF -3 zone, which happens to be adjacent to it. It would concern
me if this Board would approve this and allow the potential for that
combining, which then would allow a higher density use, which then would
have a number of ... within the area variance, which would fall under
question. I would think this would be sent back to the Planning Board and
the Town Board for an actual rezoning request, which would allow
reasonable use of the land and the subdivision that they requested.
Mr. Prager: Mr. Roberts, do you have anything to say?
Mr. Roberts: I'm here to assist the Zoning Board. I think the applicant
should address that issue.
Mr. Adams: We would not seek a rezoning. We don't think it is necessary
under the .. In fact, I've heard no evidence to suggest that a variance
isn't proper here. We would not be willing at this point and time to
prolong the process by taking that step.
4r. Art McCluskey: If that were the case, if you were to favor in view of
the applicant; I would. then suggest that the Zoning Board of Appeals
stipulate in its vote that it not be combined to gain a further use beyond
the R -20/R-40.
Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman; if I could Just call the Board's attention to
en
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 7
the Schedule of Use Regulations - Residential Districts. Perhaps I could
clarify some of the issues here. There is a 15 acre requirement for any
development of property zoned RMF -3 where there is no public water or
sewer. It would have to be combined with an adjacent parcel to be
developed in that fashion in any event. The issue before you is whether
or not this property can be subdivided so as to permit its use for single
family residential purposes only.
Mr. Adams: That is correct and I would like to compliment that comment by
intersecting something. Any other use, which requires a zoning permit
would have to come back before you. So, you would have the opportunity at
a future time if that ever happened to pass upon it. The most extreme
example would be an RMF -3, lets say multifamily use. Any applicant would
have to come back before you because he would have to get a building
permit and Mr. Close couldn't issue it without a variance. That is best
left at that point and time, if that ever happened. That is why I used
Elie term speculative before because I think we should simply address the
facts and the circumstances of this application, not some other use.
qtr. Close: Mr. Chairman, while we are at it, I guess we better get it in
the minutes that there are violations on the property.
Mr. Prager: Yes, I was going to bring that up in a minute.
Mr. Close: We have b building permits that were issued and never closed.
CIO's were never issued.
Mr. Roberts: Building permits were issued non, is that it? And then they
never had a final inspection?
.Mr. Close: Right, and letters were issued or sent saying that they were
running out and no response.
,Mrs. Smith: I believe the Town has a policy that if there are violations;
we don't entertain anything at all from the applicant.
'Ar. Close: That is right.
Mr. Prager: Yes, normally.
Mr. Adams: Let me make several comments. If we are talking about
Administrative task of going out and closing out the file, I don't have a
problem of that as a condition, if in fact those violations still exist.
But, I would like to say that those violations aren't even before you.
Your not an enforcement body. That is Mr. Close's job. Your Zoning
Ordinance doesn't provide that I can't be granted a variance simply
because he thinks there are violations on the property. I think that is
best left for the enforcement arm of the Town and not the Zoning Board.
The Law is quite clear the Zoning Board does not directly or indirectly
have any enforcement powers, but I would consent to a stipulation. I
would consent to a condition that these things be closed out as part of
the ...
Mrs. Smith: It is Town policy that we don't entertain ..
,"me
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page S
Mr. Adam: I understand that, but unless that policy is reduced to
writing, you have no jurisdiction. I appreciate that Mrs. Smith and some
Zoning Ordinances even have an expressed provision that says that. Your
Zoning Ordinance doesn't have it.
Mrs. Smith: we have a policy.
Mr. Adams: It is a non -issue because we are happy if there is a problem
Mr. Roberts: Will you stipulate to correct all of the outstanding
violations prior to the issuance of any variance should they decide that?
I'm not even sure they would.
Mrs. Smith: We went through this once before with these violations and
how they decided to take care of this and come in and get a whole bunch of
permits and they never do anything and they never closed them out.
Mr. Adams: I thought they were resolved at that time. That is why I'm
surprised by that comment.
Mrs. Smith: No, they just came in and got the permits with what we
thought was the intention they would take care of them. They weren't
taken care of: Nothing was ever done and the permits expired. Now, are
*4w we. going to go through this again? Come in and get the permits and let
them expire. Is that what your intention is again?
Mr. Adams: That is why I said we need to close the files. I've agreed. to
do that.
Mr. Prager: Okay, clean it up and lets get it over with. Is there anyone
else who would like to speak either for or against this?
Mr. Bill McCluskey: My name is Bill McCluskey. I'm a direct adjoining
property owner. I must admit to being a bit confused with regards to the
ownership of the property status of the .. (Tape Turned Over) I've had an
opportunity to look through some paperwork that has recently come to the
surface in the last couple of weeks that speaks about the rezoning of the
property from R-20/40 to RMF -3. An application that was made by Keith
Capolino and the Estate of Margaret Capolino back in 1992 with the express
intent of developing 144 attached multifamily units. I've also heard some
things with regards to conveyance of that property over to Camillo Trust.
I don't understand what financial hardship the Camillo Trust is
experiencing that necessitates a variance on this property. There is a
reasonable use on of this property as it stands and I don't understand wlny
they need a variance in order to use this property.
Mr. Adams: That is why I used the 1994 standards. When they adopted the
1994 standards, they eliminated any consideration of financial
,%„ coin..iderations .
Mr. Bill McCluskey: Well, I'm very opposed to this!
Mr. Art McCluskey: Once again, I don't think the neighbors oppose a
rear=onable use proposed by Mr. Adams for an R-20/40 type of use for single
Wappi.nger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 9
family houses. It seem, to me that the Town Board is the one that has the
ability on its own, not without a request, to re -look at the zoning if
that RMF -3 zoning can not apply to that property. I really believe that
if this is the true use of the property, it would be best achieved through
a conventional zoning change to R-20/40 and allow a true subdivision
without the future complications of being recombined with another property
that would have a great impact upon a neighborhood. I think it would be
best serving of your community to send this back to the Town Board for
their review of a zoning change. After all it was the Town Board that did
change the zone to begin with. On top of that I would say to you also as
far as the violations, I think that is standard practice in most
communities that any violations be eliminated prior to a public hearing.
Not as a condition to give me the approval and I will fix it up. Get it
squared away and then come back for a public hearing in the due time that
it takes to get those problems solved. Thank you.
Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else?
Mr. Weiss: My name is Andrew Weiss. I'm an adjoining property owner.
I've been here since 1988 and basically I just want to ask a question.
When I bought my property, all the surrounding property was listed as R-20
and R-40. Now this is RMF -3. I don't know how that came about without my
being notified. Shouldn't I have normally been notified of any kind of
change in that nature?
'err
Mr. Roberts: No, it is only a legal notice. There is no individual
requirement ..
Mr. Weiss: How is that accomplished?
Mr. Roberts: There would be a public notice in the newspaper.
W01.11d. yott point out your property just for our benefit on the
i,ei;ef i t i,e p,iilt.ed t _ the I,eRray parcel _
Viz_ . Prager : Which LeRoy? There is two LeRoy' t}- PI e .
Mr. Gray: He is pointing to Lot 2 of the Filed Map 147369.
Mr. Weiss: I just want to closeout my comments. Development of any of
the properties in that area as a single family housing is not opposed by
me at all. I'm very concerned about the ability or requirement or
whatever it is to add the remaining 6 acres to another series of acres,
somewhere further back in there, which is listed as RMF -3. I really think
that would have very severe detrimental effects not only on my property,
but on all properties within the immediate area. I'm very much against
that. If it could be somehow stated and stipulated and compelled that it
would be limited to single family houses now and forever, then fine build
some houses.
Mr. Prager: Anyone else would like to speak for or against this
variance? We. did have a site inspection on the property October 12th. We
did look at the barn on the map here. It looks more like a residence
rather than a barn. we did bring that point tap to Mr. capolino when he
was there. That would probably have to get some attention if we make some
on
type of decision here.
Mr. Fanuele: I have a question
can I actually build on it?
Wappinger Zoning Board_
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 10
If this remains RMF -3, how many houses
Mr. Adams: I couldn't answer that question. I haven't indulged in that
analysis because that is not our objective. Keep in mind one thing Mr.
Fanuele, you have a difficult site here since you have wetlands and site
constraints in addition to everything else, which probably lends itself
more to this particular application and the use and to the theoretical use
that you could get under an RMF -3 situation. I couldn't answer that
question.
Mr. Fanuele: If I go RMF -3, would it be treated it like a regular
subdivision with Town roads in there?
Mr. Adams: Both lots have frontage so for subdivision purposes we
wouldn't need to create any additional ..
Mr. Fanuele: So, if I were to break it down to RMF -3 type, I would need
some type of subdivision with access on a Town road?
Mr. Adams: Sure, I assume your Ordinance has a requirement that each lot
irr have frontage on a Highway, if I recall it correctly. which would kind of
be awkward when you look at the dimensions of these lots. The Town road
would probably take over potential areas.
Mr. Roberts: If I can refer to the Ordinance, RMF -3 is multifamily. That
is more than one residential unit on a lot. what your discussing is
single family detached residences. Multifamily is probably more like a
condominium or apartment complex which would require site plan approval.
It would require municipal water and sewer. Most probably it would
require an environmental impact statement. At the moment it is not
included in the sewer district. There isn't water coming down in the near
future and what is being proposed here is single family development as
Opposed to multifamily development. Your question is somewhat loaded in
the sense that if you went to develop it at a higher density for single
family purposes, you would have to put in the road and do quite a bit of
engineering study. I don't know if anybody could really answer that
question at this point and time.
Mr.
Fanuele: I didn't
mean to make it a
loaded question. I was trying to
cet
a feel of if I need
a recourse, what
is my density? And if I rezone
it
to R-20/40; will it
be basically the
same density?
Mr.
Roberts: Well, he
is not permitted to develop it at the multifamily
level until there is municipal
water and
sewer.
Fanuele: He would need a variance because it is less than 15 acres.
Mr. Roberts: 15 acres, but only for single family purposes. That puts it
in line with what the audience is requesting than the ....
Mr. Praaer: I would like to have a motion to go into an Executive
Session. I would like to speak to him about some legal advise.
rn
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Warren: So moved -
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - TAPE OFF/ON
Mr. Warren: I make a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Mr. Fanuele: Second.
Vote: All ayes_
Mr. Prager: What I would like to do is .. Mr. Close, No. 1; if we could
get a detailed report on how all of these permits came about. We have a
little bit on the status now; but the status of them for our next meeting
and if we could get them as soon as possible before the meeting so we can
look them over. Mr. Adams, if we could get these violations cured or
fixed. before ..
Mr. Adams: The next meeting hopefully.
`Ar
Mr. Prager: Yes, Linda, I would like to have the detailed minutes on this,
as soon as possible.
Mr. Adams: We have been provided by the way with the list so we have the
dame list as he has.
Mr. Prager: Great. If you have any questions, work with Don. Other than
that I would like to ask for a motion to adjourn this public hearing to
November 12th, our next meeting.
Mr. diPierno: So moved_
Mr. Fanuele: Second.
Vote: All ayes..
Mr. Prager: The next item on tonights agenda is to discuss Appeal #1231
Leslie & Laurie Schlagel requesting a 3 inch side yard variance for ail
existing "L" shaped pool deck for property located at 5 Cameli Drive in
the Town of Wappinger. If you could just state your name and again you
won't kind of have to go through what we just went through. Basically,
what we are here for tonight is a workshop. We're getting information
that you might not have brought to us yet, then when we have a public
hearing we will go through it again.
Mr. Schlagel: I'm Leslie Schl-agel, that is Lori Schlagel; property owners,
of 5 Cameli Drive.
Mr. Prager: Why don't you tell us a little bit about what you need.
Mr. Schlagel- Basically what it was .. I applied for a building permit
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 12
for a 616 sq. ft. L shaped pool deck. What happened was when the deck was
IDl.ip, a couple of the dimensions were estimated and it turned out to be
660 sq. ft. At the time, on my property plan I had 12 feet from the side
property line. When the deck was .. They come out and inspected, it was
measured and the area turned out to be 660 sq. ft. We amended the
,ermit. We went in to cover the permit so the permit covered that size
deck. The Building Inspector measured according to my neighbors saying
where the property line is. He measured it at 919" rather than 12 feet
because the deck obviously .. Because it was bigger and extended past
where it was. I'm not disputing where my neighbor says the property line
is. I have a site map. I went out and measured it and measured 9'9".
BB.sicall_y, what I need is a 3" variance.
Mr. Prager: This is the site map that you have then? This is a copy of
it?
Mr. Schlagel: That is correct. That is a copy of it. I just need 3"
just because the code is 10 feet. Correct? That is what I was told.
Mr. Prager: That is correct.
Mr. Schlagel: 10 feet, so I'm 91911, and I need a variance for 311. The
property borders a right-of-way. It doesn't really border any usable
property.
Mr. Prager: On that side?
Mr. Schlagel: Right, where that deck is, it borders a driveway for a
neighbor who isn't even involved. That has a right-of-way permission for
that. So, it doesn't even face his property.
Mr. Prager: Ok, that was Charles Muckal's property? (The previous owner
of the surrounding property.)
Mr. Schlagel: No, Patella's property.
Mrs. Schlagel: Charles Muckal lives in North Carolina.
MIXED DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY
Mr. Schlagel: Basically, the deck actually doesn't even face his house.
it faces a right-of-way just like a driveway. There is really no usable
property that I'm encroaching on. The only time any of my neighbors see
the deck, you can't even hardly see it from the road, so the only time it
is encroaching is when you drive down the driveway.
Mr. Fanuel.e: Are you asking for this variance because your neighbor is
objecting to it?
Mr. Schlagel: I'm asking for the variance because I have a violation on
the size .. I'm past the code. That is all.
Mr. Prager: How did you come about getting this bigger than you really
expected_?
Mi- Rchl_aael: It was the first time I've done a structure this type_..
M
rn
Wappi.nger Zoning Board.
Minutes - October 22.; 1996
Page 13
What happened was I measured the area that my original building
permit, from the footings, not realizing that I was going to extend past
the footings on all sides. The 18" past the beams.
Mr. Prager: Does the Board want to ask anything? I don't think I have
anything
Mr. Schlagel: I do have some existing violations on that deck. One of
which is the code because I was listening to the previous people. My plan
was to find out what the determination of the variance would be before I
addressed the violations because one of which is that side yard that I
have to come before the Board on.
Mr. Prager: Don, you know about this obviously?
Mr.
Close:
Yes, sir. They
are construction violations.
Mr.
Prager:
Obviously, if
we grant the variance ..
Mr. Schlagel: All violations will be .. Oh; yes, indeed. That was my
determination because if the variance won't be granted, then I have to
remove 3" of my deck. I will address the violations then. It would be
easier to do it then.
Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion for the ZBA to be Lead Agency.
Mr. Warren: So moved.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye_
Mr. Prager: Motion for Negative Dec.
Mr. diPierno:
Mr. Warren:
So moved.
Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: I will set the public hearing for this variance for our
meeting on November 12th. Linda, if you would, make copies for us.
(Talking about the photos.)
Mr. Schlagel: We tried to copy them, but it didn't work.
Mr. Prager.: Oh, then just make sure they are presented for the next
meeting. The next item of business on tonights agenda is to discuss
Appeal X1232. Patrick & Joyce Lacy requesting .. The print out tia.vc
VW 2110" and I understand it has been changed to an 8 foot side yard varianca
and an 8 foot rear yard variance for an existing 8' X 10' wooden shed_ on
property located at 9 Lawn Place in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lacv?
Mr. Lacy* Yes. Cood evening, my name is Patrick Lacy, 9 Lawn Place.
What happened was about 6 years ago I bought an Amish built shed. I
0:
En
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22, 1996
Page 14
figured becaus=e it was prefabricated that it didn't require a permit,
was wrong. t7. T had them deliver it and I prepared a stone base for
- - - -- - -Y= T = ac -r i t 2 f eet f rom Illy rn�Je_'t y _ ?7P f r:=t 11: t
ear ;and the side yard. �1They delivered it and the truck got s 4--u c, k
of the grade and they had to get towed out. I'm now in the process of
doing an addition and it was revealed that this shed is in violation of
the Zoning. I was going to pursue moving it, but by the time I rent heavy
equipment and put new gravel down in the new location .. Here I have some
pictures of it. It is near a pool. I have to move it about 100 feet.
Mr. Prager: That is your chain link fence?
Mr. Lacy: Yes, that is my chain link fence. The fence is about 6 inches
in from the property line.
Mr. Prager: Is it on skids?
Mr. Lacy: Yes, it is on 4 X 4's on gravel. It would be about a couple of
hundred bucks for the gravel, a couple of hundred bucks to rent something
to drag it about 100 feet. About $400.00 and I paid about $800.00 six
years ago. I just don't see the need to .. I mean financially ...
Mr. Fanuele: To drag it a hundred feet?
`%W
Mr. Lacy: You would have to use a Bob Cat or something. My plan was to
get a couple of buddies and kind of keep pulling and rolling and rolling
it. I could prepare that area prior to bringing in the heavy equipment.
I could have the gravel in place and the skids in place so I could just
pull it up on that.
Mr. Fanuele: It would be about a couple of hundred feet.
Mr. Lacy: No, a couple of hundred dollars. The reason being is the
pictures here, there is a pool. I didn't want it too close to the pool
because my kids are kind of young and kids can be stupid. One of them
could get up on it and dive into the pool. Any questions? I talked with
the neighbors that adjoin the area and they have no objections.
Mr. Prager: It looks to me like the back and around the sides that I can
see it looks like it is not really close to another building, is it?
Mr.
Lacy:
No, it
is all .. These areas back here are basically
Mr.
Prager:
Are
there houses on those lots?
Mr. Lacy: There is a house here on Regency Drive and a house here on All_
Angels Hill. Road. If you come around Regency, there is Cloverdale and
these houses are divided by this parcel of brush. So the people who have
41W a decent shot at it is the ...
Mr. Prager: You said you have owned the property for how long?
Mr. Lacv: Since 1982.
Mr. Prager: When was the shed put tip, six years ago?
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - October 22; 1996
Page 15
Mr. Lacy: Approximately, I really
don't have a date for that. When my
daughter was born. It was to house
the Little Tykes stuff.
Mr. Prager: Anybody else have any
questions? Do you want to set a site
inspection?
Mr. Fanuele: No, I don't think so.
Just set a public hearing and take
the next step_
Mr. Prager: Motion for Lead Agency
for the ZBA.
Mr. Fanuele: So moved..
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: Motion for a Negative
Dec.
Mr. Fanuele: So moved..
Mr. Warren: Second.
Iftw
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: The public hearing will
be the next meeting on November
12th. Motion to adjourn.
Mr. diPierno: So moved.
Mr. Warren: Second..
Vote: All ayes.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted;
rr&K Linda tdguylen, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
On