Loading...
1995-12-12 ~t ... .I v Town of Wappinger zoning Board of Appeals December 12, 1995 Agenda - 7:30 P.M. Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road wappinger Falls, N.Y. '-' Approval of November 15 & 28, 1995 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal #1216 - At the request of Charles J. Palazzo who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 470.7.2.1, where you are required not to exceed the maximum grade of 15% for a driveway and you are showing 16.7%, thus requiring a 1.7% variance for property located at 27 Dugan Lane and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6356-01-005967-00 in the Town of Wappinger. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARINGS L Apneal #1210 & 1213 - At the request of Gasland Petroleum Co., Inc. who are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 446.6 whereas they are required to maintain 2500 ft. between filling stations and they are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 440.3.1 whereas no gasoline filling station shall be within 1000 feet of the boundary line of any residence. The property is located on Old Hopewell Road and Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-02-610544 in the Town of Wappinger. ~ Appeal #1214 - At the request of Robert Deshonq who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 420.3, where you are required to maintain a 25 ft. side-yard and you are showing 18.3 ft., thus requiring a 6.7 ft. side-yard variance to add an addition to a single family residence for property located at 248 pine Ridge Drive and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6257-04-740087-00 in the Town of wappinger. ~ ~ t ~,-' . u Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals December 12: 1995 Minutes Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls: N.Y. ~ Members Pres,:ent Mr. Prager: Mr. Fanuele: Chairman Member Mr. Lehigh: Mr. diPierno: Vice Chairman Member Others Present hftnuVl:D Mr. Chris Mularadelis: Esq. Mrs. Linda Nguyen, Secretary to the Z.B.A. JAN 2 3 1996 Mr. Prager: order. Roll PLANNING BOARD lONIN'" et: " ' - I call the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeal to call: please. o X ROLL CALL - All present. Mr. Prager: For everybodies information that might not have been here in the past weeks, this is a no smoking building and again the exit to your left is an emergency exit and in the rear. The first item of bllsiness tonight is the approval of November 15 and 28th minutes. T want tn take them separately. Do you want to do the 15th first? Can T have a motion? Are there any changes? Mr. Fannele: I make a motion to accept the minutes of the 15th. ~ Lehigh: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: Now, the November 28, 1995 minutes. I do have one correction that. T spott.ed on Page 13. In the last paragraph where it start.s: "Does anybody else " Do you see that? That was me that said that. Mrs. Nguyen: From there on you said that? Mr. Prager: Yes: until you start on the next page. Does anybody else have any corrections? Mr. Lehigh: On the first page, " Mr. Lehigh: as written." I move t.hat it be accept.ed Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion please? Mr. Lehigh: So moved. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr - Praaer: The first i t.em on toni ghts Flgendi'l is a pub] i c hear; ng on ~eal #1216: at the request of Charles J. Palazzo who is seeking a variance of Article TV: Section 470.7.2.1 where you are required not to exceed the maximum grade of 15% for a driveway and you are showing 16.7%: thus requiring a 1.7% variance for property located at. 27 Dugan Lane and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6356-01-005967-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Is Mr. Palazzo here yet.? ~-- v Wappinger Zoning Bo~rd Minutes - December 17 1995 Page 1 ~ Mrs. Nguyen: No. Mr. Pragpr: We bprtpr no a spconn call on rh~t. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that we move Mr. Palazzo into last pl~cp_ Mr. F'amlP 1 P: Spconn. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on the agenda is an adjourned public hearing on Appeal #1210 and #1213. At the request of Gasland Petroleum Co. Inc. who are seeking a variance of Article IV, section 446.6 where as they are required to maintain 2500 feet between filling stations. They are also seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 440.3.1 whereas no gasoline filling station shall be within 1000 feet of the boundary line of any residence. The property is located on old Hopewell Road and Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-02-610544-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Can I have a motion to reopen thp adjourned public hearing? Mr. diPiprno: So moved. Mr. Lehigh: Spcond. v~e: All ayes. Mr. Prager: meeting, do the Board? Mr. Cappelletti, Mr. Henry or Mr. Ninnie, before I close this you have anymore information that you would like. t.O prpsent to Mr. Henry: Basically, I don't think so. Mr. Prager: O.k., lpt the record show that there is no more information that will come before the Board. The only thing I would like to mention and I will reference it later about a letter is that the only document that the Board has from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on record is one to Mr. Vincent Cappelletti from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, dated April 28, 1995. That is the one where it said your land could not be cleaned any further. Mr. Cappelletti: There are other letters that are on file in the Zoning Department. Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, I don't have them on record. motion to close the public hearing? Can I have a Mr. Lehigh: So moved. ~ t '~ '-' Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 2 -.,. Hr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: I've taken the privilege of writing up the Findings of Facts. what I'm going to do is I'm going to pass this out to all the members of the Board. What I want you to do is take it and read it over. If you have any corrections or anything that you would like to add, get it back to me in writing and that way we can make a decision at the next meeting. Linda, you need a copy too. I also have a letter here from Mr. Frank Healey of Healey and Healey, which we got late in the last month. I am going to hand that over to our Town Counsel. Mr. Roberts isn't here and in his place is his associate, Chris Mularadelis. I would like him to look it over and give us back a legal brief on it for the next meeting so that we can make an intelligent decision both in favor of everybody. At the next Board meeti ng, which unfortunately isn't. until ,January 9 because the 26th is cancelled, we should be making a decision on it. Mr. Cappelletti: There is no way you could vote tonight on it? Mr. Prager: No, we have so many facts that I want these gentlemen to look over all the facts that have been handed in. There is a lot of paperwork on this between letters and attorney's. I would like to get a legal brief on that last letter. We keep putting it off, unfortunately, I want to do tV right bot.h for your sake and the Town's. Mr. Cappelletti: Can I get a copy of that? Mr. Prager: Certainly. Can you make a copy for Mr. Cappelletti? Mrs. Ngllyen: I can give him this copy. Mr. Prager: O.k., the public hearing is closed and we will hopefully be ahle to render a decision at the next meeting. I don't want to keep putting you off, but I just want to do things right. Mr. Cappelletti: O.K. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonights agenda is an adjourned public hearing of Appeal #1214. At the request of Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Palazzo has arrived and we should advise him of what we're doing. Mr. Prager: Mr. Palazzo, since you weren't here when we started, we are going on with the rest of the meeting and then we will have you last. Mr. Palazzo: All right.. M'- Prager: Appeal #1214 at t.he request of Robert Deshonq who is seeking ~ariance of Article IV, Section 420.3 where you are required t.O maintain a 25 foot side-yard and you are showing 18.3 feet, thus requiring a 6.7 foot side-yard variance to add an addition to a single family residence on property located at 248 Pine Ridge Drive and is identified as tax grid ---~ .....J Wappinger Zoning Roard Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 3 ~-6257-04-740087-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Can T have a mot.ion t.o open the adjourned public hearing? Mr. diPierno: So moved_ Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes_ Mr. Prager: Mr. Deshong as you know we adjourned the last meeting so we could have a site inspection of your property, which we did. In the meantime, we have received 5 various letters. One was from Mrs. Corbeels in opposition to the variance and 4 which were received today are in favor of the vi'lriance. Mrs. Corbeels: Mr. Prager... Mr. Prager: Let me just finish with Mr. Deshong first. Do you have anything that you would like to say about the letters and then we will go into yours. Mrs. Van Tuyl: with the Boards permission, I am here as the Attorney representing the applicant. My name is Jennifer Van Tuyl and I am the author of one of the letters. With your permission, I would like to summarize them briefly. I will bring up t.he photographs t.hat you Jooked ~the last time. _I ~ould be happy to open t~em u~ if you would 1 ike t.O ., .. them. T have 1 eV1ewed all of the papers 1n thJS matt.er. At. t.he outset I would like to say that we are happy that the Board made a sit.e visit of the propert.y and I hope that the Board understands the enthllsiasm of my clients as being what it is. They were very anxious to have this matter brought to fruition, but of course we understand that a site visit is absolutely necessary for you to understand the situation as do the people that live there, so I hope you understand that. I won1t belabor the point set forth in the letters. I think they speak for themselves. T would like to briefly summarize the main points. I think the first main point is that there has been a big change in the law that applies to arei'l variances since the new statutes were enacted. There was some confusion as to what those meant. The highest court in our state has spoken to that point in the last several weeks and said that the proof of practical difficulties is simply no longer part of the area variance test and nor is hardship. T know there was some statements made on behalf of the neighbor at the last meeting that hardship or practical difficulty is needs to be shown and I th ink that we should understand that is not. the test. The test is a balancing test of the benefit to the applicant vis-a-vis the detriment to the community. We bave submitted letters to address factllally the issues that had been raised because obviously every time you face an area variance issue you want to pay attention to impacts in the neighborhood. The first letter we submitted to you was by Al Mauri, the Architect who designed this addition. Speaking to the design elements that he incorporated in the structure to assure that it would be c0~patible with the neighborhood including stepping it back, including o~ a small window facing the neighbor et.c. In fact an interest.i ng point is when T looked at the site plan that showed the 6.7 foot variance, T noticed that. t.he property is act.ually wider at the rear of t.he propert.y and T called Mr. Mauri and said, can you t.ell me what that dimension is in '-' ...J Wappinger Zoning Board Minut.es - December 1? ..1995 Page 4 t~ back. In fnct t.he vnriance requested in the back is I ess than 4 feet. So, we should lmderstand that the 6.7 is the maximum at that front. corner. As you are aware.. there is n proposnl to set that back from the front, which also minimizes the extent of the variance sought. The second letter that we submitted dealt with the issue of property values, the impact of the variance on property values. We submitted a letter from Jackie Barlow, real estate broker, to the effect that there would not be an adverse impact on property values. Lastly, we submitted a letter from an engineer addressing the issue of a perceived fear of harm to the wnter supply. As the enclosure in the engineers letter states there is no applicable BOnrd of Health requirement of any specific separation from n well and a structure. The model guidelines illustrated are of a 5 foot separation. So, even with the variance we would have at a minimum, even assuming that the well was on the property line, 18.3 feet. Again, I won't belnbor the points stated in the letters. I think they are fairly straight forward. The applicants have shown and I would just repeat on their behalf thnt we are anxious to do whatever would make this varinnce work in the neighborhood and to assure compatibility. The last time there were several illustrations that were discussed of possible landscaping. Either Canadian Hemlocks, is one plan or a mixed deciduous border. We would even be willing to have that selection be made at the choice of the neighbor. We want this to work and we want this to be attractive. I think thnt when you came to look at the property you could see how it has been kept and the characteristics of the neighborhood and we would want to enhance that. I note that our architect made a point that this ~"1ificant tree here will be kept.. other than that I will 1 et the letters speak for themselves, but if any of you have any questions to ask me on behalf of the applicant I would be happy to address them. Mr. Prager: I jllSt have a couple of questions and it is not about the letters and then I will go into Mrs. Corbeels letter. Just for the record, because I didn't ask th is question before and I thought. about. it. when I was up at the house, when did Mr. Deshong purchase the house? Mr. Deshong: 1987 _ Mr. Prager: The other thing that I was interested in is on the addition and again it relates to the well, is there going to be a basement under this addit.ion? Mr. Deshong: No. Mr. Van Tuyl: No, it is slab. Mr. prnger: In fnct one of the letters here said it is going to be n slab. Whnt do you think the depth will be footing wise? Is it 54? Maybe 4 feet.? Mr. Deshong: 3 feet.. Mi. '. iTan Tuvl: Certainly, there is going to be no crawl space l~e.rne.ath.~ No space whatsoever_ Mr. Prager: The legal footing and I'm not sure what that is, but it is around 4 feet. The last thing is that you did SnY Mr. Deshong at the last '-' ..."J Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 5 ~ting that you could not make the addition any smaller. the architect what he was referring to. I noticed by Mrs. Van Tuyl: T think we would just say that actually in an effort to minimize the variance or even see if one could be avoided all together, the room has been downsized. Again, I could have Mr. Deshong speak to it, but less that. be viewed as in anyway self-serving, we did include the statement of the architect to say that for the expense that you go to to add an addition below a certain size it becomes impractical. That is why the size has been taken down to something that the architect concluded was the minimum viable space. Again, I would point out that the 6.7 feet is in that front corner and it gets less and less throughout the whole 20 foot width. Again, we face the long side front to back so I think that orientation also minimizes the variance. Another words, the 24 feet isn't projecting out towards the neighbor, that is the 20 foot side to again try and minimize t.his in anyway possible. Any other questions? Thank you very much and if the Board has questions at the conclusion of the proceedings tonight, we would be happy to answer them. Mrs. Corbeels: I would like to address a question. I got from Linda when I was in the office an appeal action where she said that these are the things they follow and how you make your decision for the Zoning. Just this evening by looking over it I found under it that this was signed by <Joel Sasser, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger. That was in September. What I want to ask now is the c&.....,.stion, I wasn't here on November the 15th for the meeting. This was ~ a public meeting and I was out of the country. I would like to know, Mr. Deshong was allowed by you to have Mr. Joel Sasser give you all the explanations of how to proceed on this. Could you tell me if this is the same Joel Sasser? Mr. Prager: Yes it is. What was brought up, if I remember correctly at that meeting .-- Mrs. Corbeels: No, it was not... Mr. Prager: It was a workshop. friend of Mr. Deshong. It was a discussion. Primarily he is a Mrs. Corbeels: Yes, but. why was he allowed ...? Mr. Prager: He wasn't on the Board. Mrs. Corbeels: No, why was he allowed to speak as a former C~airman? Mr. Prager: Anybody can speak for another person. Mr. Deshong just felt being he was a past member of the Board he was familiar with this and he would give us the right information. Mrs. Corbeels: You stated that this was not a public meeting. Why was he a",owed to speak in what capacity? Mr. Prager: Mr. Deshong asked him to represent him. It is the same jf he had an attorney with him he could have the attorney speak for him. Tt doesn't matter at a public hearing. Basically we're just trying to get '-' ....J Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - Decemher 17, 1995 Page fi ~ormation . Mrs. Van Tuyl: I would just note one thing and that is that there are no non-public meetings in the Town of Wappinger. Although it might not have been a public hearing, it was certainly a public meeting as are all workshops in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Prager: times. Right, and we do ask for information from other people at Mrs. Corbeels: I want this to be on record because I don't think that is fair to me that I wasn't here and this was not a puhlic meeting. If he was present. Mr. Prager: Mr. Deshong was here at the meeting also. just speaking for Mr. Deshong. Basically, he was Mrs. Corbeels: Yes, but you are not supposed to do that. Mr. Prager: We have every right to do that. speaking for another person. I can't stop anybody from Mrs. Corbeels: Yes, hut on that meeting? Mr. Prager: Certainly, any meeting. -.., Mrs. Corbeel s : Because you sa id, "Thank you, I apprec i ate. it. T 'm Boh Deshong and owner of the residence. My wife Patricia, and Joel Sasser who is a close personal friend. I haven't done this so he is assisting me." Then you tell him, "Good Mr. Deshong, just. before we go on I just want to mention to you that this isn't a public hearing." Mr. Prager: It wasn't a puhlic hearing, that is right. Mr. Lehigh: It was a workshop. Mr. Prager: It was a workshop for information. Mr. Lehigh: .Just. for gathering information- Mr. Prager: What we do is we would have the Appellant come in first before the public hearing and give us information about what he wants as a variance. He can have anybody he wants come in here and speak with him or for him or whatever. All we are doing is we're just gaining information. So, now when we take that information, and hopefully we have all of it, at that time we didn't. You happened to come in the next meeting and you brought up some points and that is why we went out for the site inspection. That is why we adjourned it. Once we feel we have all the information, then we'll close the meeting. As far as Mr. Sasser or anyhody el se coming in here and speak ing for Mr. Deshong or any ot.her ~ellant. t.llat. is fine. There is not.hing illegal about. it. Mrs. Corbeels: Was Mr. Sasser also present on Saturday, December 27 Mr. Prager: Yes, he was. ~ ..J Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 7 '-' MI-S. Corbee1 s : I want that on record too. Mrs. Van Tuyl: I would like to note that my client has informed me that at the public workshop meeting in which Mr. Sasser spoke and candidly disclosed everything, which has been kept on the record of which no one has anything to be ashamed. During the entire meeting Fred Shaeffer the Attorney for the neighbor was here. So, there was no deprivation or no Mr. Prager: Actually, that was the public hearing, not the workshop. Mr. Deshong: No, he was here. Mr. Prager: Oh, but he didn't speak. Mrs. Corbeels: Because Linda told me that you could not speak at that meeting. That was Linda who gave me that information. Mr. Lehigh: spoken. If we had asked you a question for informat.ion you coul d have Mrs. Corbeels: But, I didn't know. Linda told me that you could not speak at that meeting. That is what I told my lawyer. I don't think that was fair. '" Mr. Prager: Well, as an attorney he should have known that he could have spoken at that meeting. That is my feeling. Mrs. Van Tuyl: I would just make the point on behalf of the applicants that there is no prejudice whatsoever here. This Board has no legal right to bar anyone from speaking or addressing the Board. Furthermore, there was a full public hearing at which everyone had the opportunity to be heard and both the neighbor and her attorney had every opportunity to speak and yet here again we have an adjourned public hearing at which the neighbor is also given every opportunity to speak and we would welcome further comments until you are finished. Mrs. Corheels: I just want to point out that Mr. Sasser was not at the public meeting on the 28th and that was the public meeting. Mr. Prager: Correct, but he was here and he did give information at the workshop. Mrs. Corbeels: Yes, hut that was not at the public meeting. Mrs. Van Tuyl: Excuse me, I would just correct the record, all of these meetings have heen public. The distinction being drawn here is between a public hearing and another equally public meeting. ~~. Corbepl s : I have another question about my well, which is in . .ween. \-J'hat happens if something goes wrong t.O my well during the building of this thing? Because there is going to be drilling and heavy equipment coming in and I want. to know before any decision is made who will be responsible? '-' \wi Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 8 .... Mr. Lehigh: You are trying to get the Zoning Board of Appeals to mitigate something that hasn't happened and we have no idea about. I would imagine that you would have to get an attorney and prove that they did something wrong. That is not up to us. Do you understand? We are trying to make a decision for you or for the Town and for the applicant, whichever is best. That is the decision now. If you feel that you haven't had an opportunity to put in all the information that you want to put in, then you should speak right now. Irregardless of who you got the information whether we went for the on site inspection or the previous two meetings, that is all apropos to this meeting. We take it all under consideration before we make a decision. You may not like it and they may not like it, but we try to do the best that we can. So. if you have a problem with the fairness you should speak now. Mrs. Corbeels: I just wanted to ask in case something Mr. Prager: Well, unfortunately, we really donlt have an answer for you. Mrs. Van Tuyl: Excuse me. I would like to address that. The neighbor has placed no evidence in the record as to the exact location of her well other than to say that it is somewhere between her house and our side property line in t.he very line toward where we wish to put. this addit.ion. Taking that as the worst case scenario that the well is in fact located lpts say one inch from the property line near our property. We have ~ided a letter from an engineer stating that it. far exceeds the appl icable legal 1 imi tat ions on di st.ance of a well to a house of which there is no minimum distance. We are at least 18.3 feet away at the narrowest point and 21.14 feet away at the greatest point. Even the model which would be the ideal model you would obtain for in the n lust.rations which we provided to you provides for a 5 foot separation. I also think that it is totally unsupported in the record to assert that there will be drilling and excavation. This is not a large thing that is being composed here. It is a minor addition. It is on a slab. So, I would say that we have no reason in the record to have any reasonable belief that there is going to be harm to the well. If in fact there ever were to be harm to the well and admit that we are speculating wildly here. this neighbor and the Deshong's would be in no different situation than every set of neighbors in the Town of Wappinger. the Town of East Fishkill. and all of New York State. That is if something happens to my well that is the fault of my neighbor, I have a cause of action for which I retain counsel and proceed in the same way that if the Deshong'S suffer damage in the future, which they assert is the responsibility of their neighbor. They have every right to seek legal recourse for that. I think that addresses the questions. Mr. Prager: Thank you very much. Is there any other questions? Mrs. Corbeels: Well. I would just like to ask you at least to consider that the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law requires a 25 foot side-yard and \.; s is the Law in t.he Town of Wappinger_ Mr. Prager: We obviously know that because that is why the Deshong's are here. Anybody else would like to speak for or against this variance? Anybody on the Board have any other questions? I would like to entertain ~ "'" Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 17, 1995 Page 9 a'-<<ot.ion to close the public hearing. Mr. Lehigh: So moved. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: I have taken the liberty again to write up a set of Findings of Facts for this. It isn't as long as the one from Gasland so I think maybe I could read it. I think that might be wise and then everybody can understand it. After that, t.hen we will render a decision after you approve t.he Findings of Fact.s. (Mr. Prager read the Findings of Fact.s.) "Whereas, Appl icat.ion #1214, Robert Deshong is seeking a variance of Article IV, section 420.3, where you are required to maintain a 25 foot. side-yard and you are showing 18.3 feet, thus requiring a 6.7 foot side-yard variance to add an addit.ion to a single family residence to property located at 248 Pine Ridge Drive in the Town of Wappinger. Whereas, all members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have reviewed the Notice of Appeal exhibits. Whereas, hearings were held and all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded. Whereas all testimony has been carefully considered and the following pertinent fact.s are noted: No.1, the Appellant's property in its entirety falls into t.he R-40 dist.rict classification. No.2, the property was purchased in 1978 bv Mr. Robert. Deshong and is located at 248 Pine Ridge Drive in the Town ~Wappinger. No.3, the s~ze of t.he ?roperty is .53 acre.s., No.4, t.he Appellant has produced archltects drawlngs of the proposed slte plan showing where the proposed addition would be built and proposed conditions. These drawings indicate the variance at its greatest point is 6.7 feet at the Northeast corner. (See Mauri Associates Architects P.C. Drawings, dated September 7, 1995 and October 16, 1995.) No.5, the Appellant has also produced two (2) drawings showing screening locations. No.6, t.he Board has received a letter of opposition to t.he granting of this variance from Mr. Fred W. Schaeffer of corbally, Gartland & Rappleyea, who represents Mrs. Rosa Corbeels. Mrs. Corbeels resides next door to the Appellant, on the side in which the proposed addition would be built. (See letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Corbally, Gart.land and Rappleyea, dated November 28, 1995.) No.7, Mrs. Corbeels concerns are that if the variance is granted, it will greatly reduce the value of her property and the value of all properties in the neighborhood. Also, if the variance is granted, "It. will look like the houses are right. on t.op of each other." Another concern of Mrs. Corbeels is, "The close proximity will shorten t.he distance between the houses to the extent t.hat noise from the Deshong residence will invade the quiet. sanctity of the Corbeels home.1I Mrs. Corbeels further feels that "The Applicant created his own hardship by put.ting in a pool some years ago." And lastly, Mrs. Corbeels is concerned about. her well. "A foundation dug so close to her well will adversely affect her water supply." (See letter to Zoning Board of Appeals from Corbally, Gart.land and Rappleyea, dated November 28, 1995.) No. R, t.he Zoning Board of Appeals also received a letter from Mrs. Rosa "'l.Corbeels, dat.ed Novembe,r 5, 1995, to ,clarify some statements ,.made. at. ~ November 15, 1995 Zonlng Board meetlng. (See letter to Zonlng Board of Appeals from Mrs. Rosa M. Corbeels, dated November 5, 1995.) No.9, a site inspect.ion of the property was done by the Zoning Board of Appeals on nec~mber 2: 1995. No. la, Mr. Robert Deshong produced two (2) letters \.f ..., Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 10 ..., from neighbors across the street from his residence who are in agreement with the granting of the variance. (See letters to Zoning Board of Appeals from Raymond G. and Kathy L. Knauss, dated November 27, 1995 and from Linda P. Smith, M.S, C.R.C., of ARC, DC, dated November 28, 1995.) No. 11: Mr. ,Joel Sasser, speaking for the Appellant., st.at.ed at the November 15, 1995 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that "He has a well in t.he front. and a sept.ic in t.he back." (See Zoning Board of Appeal s Minutes, dated November 15, 1995 on Page 13.) No. 12, Mr. Sasser also stated that the addition will be used as a bedroom for the Deshong's parents. (See Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes, dated November 15, 1995 on Page 13.) No. 13, Mr. Deshong stated at the November 28, 1995 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting that, "Pat and I both work and we are alone." (See Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes, dated November 28, 1995 on Page 3.) No. 14, there will not be a basement under the addition. The depth of excavation will be legal footing. (See Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes, dated December 12, 1995.) No. 15, Mr. Deshong stated he needs the addition the size he is asking for because it has already been reduced as small as possible. No. 16, the Zoning Board of Appeals has received a letter from Jennifer L. Van Tuyl of Pagones, Cross & Van Tuyl, P.C., dated December II, 1995 in support of the applicant's variance. No. 17, the Zon ing Board of Appeal s has received a lett.er from .Jacquel ine .J. Barlov,j' of J. Barlow Realty Group, Inc., dated December II, 1995 in support of the applicant's variance. No. 18, the Zoning Board of Appeals has received a letter from Robert J. Gray, P.E. of Gray, Railing & Heinsman, dated ~ember 12, 1995 in support of t.he applicant. I s variance. No. 19, t.he Zoning Board of Appeals has received a letter from Albert R. Mauri of Mauri Associates Archi t.ects P. C., dated December 11, 1995 in support. of t:he applicant's variance." l'4rs. Corbeels: Mr. Prager, let me ask you why did you omit my petit.ion? It was not mentioned. Mr. Prager: Basically, the petition we felt was basically not against t.his variance. It is against the 25 foot. side.-yard. That is why. Mrs. Corbeels: May I also say that Mrs. Smith is not a neighbor. It is a home for retarded people and I think all of us are the owners of that. Mrs. Smith is not the owner. Mr. Prager: She might not be the owner, but she is the person that wrote the letter. Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Chairman, we have closed the public portion of this meeting. Mr. Prager: I'm going to render a decision now. Again, we went by the five points that we have been so lead on area variances that we must look at and how we have to arrive at our decision. First of all, could I have a motion to approve the Findings of Facts. t..... diPierno: So moved. Mr. Lehigh: Second. Vote: All ayes. '-' "" WanDinger ~oning Bo~r~ Minutes - December ]2, 1995 Page 11 ~ Mr. Prager: I woulct like to make the following decision in the form of a motion. "Now therefore be it resolved by the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeal that Appeal #1214, Robert Deshong requesting a variance from Section 420.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law, requiring the Appl icant to ma i nt.a i n a 25 foot side-yard, be grant.ed on t.he followi ng grounds. No. I, the requested variance will not be detrimental to nearby properties. The additional 6.7 foot variance will not reduce the value of the nearby properties. Being that the addition is for a bedroom and bathroom, there should not be any increase in noise. Also, since the total ctepth of the excavation will not be sizeable, there should be no problem with Mrs. Corbeels well. Mr. Deshong has agreed to install screening with shrubbery in order to minimize any impact to nearby properties. No.2, there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. As the architectural drawings, which were produced by the Applicant, showed the addition will blend into the house which is now there and also the neighborhood. No.3, there are no alternative (feasihle) methods to achieve the benefit sought. Since Mr. Deshong's well is in the front of his house, his septic system is in the rear and his pool is in the location that it is, there is no other location in which to put the addition. The size of the addition can not be decreased since it is for the Applicants elderly parents and this is the size of the room they require. No.4, the requested variance for 6.7 feet is not substantial. No 5, the variance will not cause adverse effect.s on the rL.....sical and/or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or dist.rict. ~re will he no additional noise, light, or visual impact on the neighborhood. No.6, the difficulty is not "self-created". The Applicant is building t.he addition for an area in which his parents can st.ay." Can I have a second to that motion? Mr. Lehigh: I would like to add that I would like to see the screening before we ... Mr. Prager: O.k., very good. Mr. Fanuele: I would like to say that we should put some screening hetween the two properties. Mr. Lehigh: Since he has the two plans I would like to see the evergreens preferably unless somebody else Mrs. Van Tuyl: We will do which ever one you want. Mr. Lehigh: think? T think the evergreens would give more privacy. What do you Mr. Prager: hetter. I would think so. To me I would have thought this would be ~ Fanuele: I'm going to reserve a decision on what type of landscaping should be. I think that is between the two neighhors and if he can't get any agreement, then Mr. Deshong should put .., Mr. Prager: Some type of screening. -- '-' 'wi Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 12 .... Mr. Deshong: No question. You can come back and look at it. Mr. Prager: O.k., could we have that in a motion. Mr. Fanuele: So moved. Mr. Lehigh: Second. ROLL CALL - All present voted ayes. Mr. Prager: The motion to grant the variance has been passed and it will be filed within 5 days. Our next item on tonights agenda is a public hearing on Appeal #1216 at the request of Charles J. Palazzo who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 470.7.2.1 where you are required not to exceed the maximum grade of 15% for a driveway and you are showing 16.7%, thus requiring a 1.7% variance for property located at 27 Dugan Lane and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6356-01-005967-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Do we have proof of publication? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPierno: Second. \.~e : All ayes. t-fr. Prager: Mr. Palazzo would you like to once again corne up and just. explain again what you want for the record and state your name? Mr. Palazzo: My name is Charles J. Palazzo. I would like to request a variance on the driveway which was blacktopped in 1986, ten years ago. We had problems with the grade with the driveway and other things. I had a contractor do all the grading. He did that for the Health Department for the sewage disposal system. He did that for the driveway. As I stated earlier or at the last workshop, we had very heavy trucks that came up that driveway after it was filled and these trucks, one was a truck that unloaded a modlllar home. The modular home was in the driveway on a trailer. Then, they raised it up off that and set it on the foundation. The variance of 16.4 and 16.7% in two segments of the driveway. I think that amounts to about three point some odd inches from one point to the other and likewise at the higher point. For me to go back and redo that driveway which has already been blacktopped would be a very costly operation. r have been over many roads and driveways in the Town of Wappinger, in the Village of Wappinger and I want to tell you that there are far more grades that are much higher than my personal driveway on our property. Incidentally, there is probably about 6 or 7 houses on that road. It is a dead end street. It isn't even a cul-de-sac. It is just a dead end. There is very little traffic on that street. Mrs. Durso, who ~.. an abut.ting neighbors, asked if I would 1 ike her t.O corne to the Board j~ting. I said, flI don't think it's necessary.fl I said, flIf you send back your certified receipt, r think that is all they require." If you would rather have a letter from her, she is our nearest neighbor from the driveway. I don't think we are harming the environment. I don't think we are harming any neighbor. I don't think we are harming ourselves. We are ~ ~ Wanninger Zoning Roard Minutes - Dpcember 17. 1995 Page ]3 ~ managing. We are doing o.k. That is about all I can offer. It was my intent to have that driveway go up like this on a very gradual slopp from bottom to top. That was my ambition. That was my intent and it just didn't happen. Mr. Prager: Fine, thank you very much. I know we do have information that you did supply us with at the last meeting. That is what we will be going by. Hr. Fanuele: in the bot.tom The driveway you said didn't happen, but with a little fill you could have made the grade. Mr. Palazzo: With a little fill in the bottom, yes. Just prior to that area where it suddenly goes up 16.4 and 16.7%, you are right. Had I been more astute in building and watching.. I was working at the time. I just couldn't be there all the time. I couldn't watch these contractors. T couldn't watch him do the Health thing and it passed fine. He did the same thing. He did the whole thing. So, they were aware of this. It wasn't just me. Mr. Prager: As I look out in the audience I don't see anybody else sitt.ing out there, but I will ask if there is anybody else who would like to speak for or against this variance? Please let the record show that there was no one. M~ Lehigh: I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: I will make the motion to grant the variance for the following reasons. The variance will not be detrimental to any nearby properties. It will not produce any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The variance is not substantial. It is only a 1.7% of an increase. The variance will not cause adverse affects of physical and/or environmental conditions of the neighborhoods. Can I have a second please? Mr. Fanuele: I would like to add something to that. At a future time if YOll ever re-blacktop it, you should fill in the bottom and make the grade. Mr. Palazzo: I was going to mention that I do intend to redo the driveway. I'm not going to promise you that I'm going to build it up to 15% or less. Mr. Fanuele: i t:.. It doesn't seem like much if you are going to re-blacktop M-- Palazzo: But, you know blacktop is not that cheap. ~. You have to fill Mr. Lehigh: The fill isn't cheap either. Mr. Palazzo: T know. T am going to do something with the driveway. T'm - ii ... \.f ...J ~appinger Zonina Board Minutes - December 12, 1995 Page 14 going to try to do something more with it to make it less of a pitch. ~ Mr. Prager: That is what we want to make sure. Mr. Palazzo: I want to do that, but I don't want you to come back and say: "Hey: you told me that you were going to bring it down to 15.5." Mr. Fanuele: O.k.: the pitch will be reduced_ Mr. Palazzo: I hope to reduce the pitch. Ivfr. Fanue] e: Second,. ROLL ~ALL - All present voted ayes. Mr. Prager: Let me just mention that the motion has been passed to grant the variance and it will be filed in 5 days. Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion that we adjourn. l-Jr. diPierno: Second. vote: Al] ayes. ~ Prager: The next meeting will be January 9th. MEETING ADcTOURNED AT 8: 20 P.M. Respectfully submitted: of Appeals "