Loading...
1995-11-15Town of Wappinger ember 15, 1995 ATIenda - 7:30 P.M. 1 AMENDED AGENDA Zoning Board of Appeals ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING M Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, N.Y. W Appeal #1210 - 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 for property located at Old Hopewell Road and Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-02-610544-00 in the Town of Wappinger. PUBLIC HEARING Appeal 41213 - At the request of Gasland Petroleum Co.. Inc. who 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. DISCUSSIONS 1. Spotted Owl Development Corp. - To make a determination on Appeal ##1208 for an existing undersized lot located at 6 Montfort Road in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Robert Deshona - Discuss Appeal ##1214 requesting a 6.7 ft. side -yard variance to put an addition on a single family residence located at 248 Pine Ridge Drive in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Dimitrious Diamantopoulas - Discuss Appeal ##1215 requesting a 16 ft. rear -yard variance to put an addition on a single family residence located at 19 Brothers Road in the Town of Wappinger. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the regular scheduled Zoning Board meeting for •ember 14, 1995 has been rescheduled for Wednesday, November 15, 1995. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals November 15. 1995 Minutes Srembers Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member K Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, N.Y. Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. diPierno: Member Others Present Mr. Roberts; Town Attorney APp�DVE� Mr. Close, Zoning Administrator eeC Mrs. Linda Nguyen, Secretary to the Z.B.A. 9 2 1995, 21 ANVI'Ir, v- - r, ZDYlihro pcy4RD in Mr. Prager: I call the Zoning Board meeting to order. Can I have a roll call please. ROLL CALL - All present. Mr. Prager:" There is no smoking in the building or the rest rooms. If you must smoke, please smoke outside. We have exits to the right of me, over on this side and also the rear doors. I would just like to mention to everybody also that especially for the public hearing tonight that there are only 4 members sitting on the Board. Nevertheless, you will still need the same number of votes that we would if we had a full Board. -first item on tonights agenda is the adjourned public hearing of peal #1210 at the request of Gasland Petroleum Co. who are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 446.6 whereas they are required to maintain 2500 ft. between filling stations for property located at Old Hopewell Road and Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid 419-6157-02-610544-00. Linda has all the mailings come back? Mrs. Nguyen: I am not sure how to answer that because I don't think they have. Mr. Prager: Could you go into it a little? Mrs. Nguven: I think that the 6th one needs to be notified, La Fonda Del Sol. I don't believe it has been. Mr. Prager: We have a letter here. Is there someone here for the applicant? Mr. Ninnie: Yes, right here. Mr. Prager: Your name sir? Mr. Ninnie: Eugene Ninnie, I am the Project Engineer. Mr. Prager: Mr. Ninnie, I guess your the one that actually sent this ?--tter to the Board? Mr. Ninnie: Yes, what I'm stating in the letter is that the Law states that it has to be adjacent or abutting. La Fonda Del Sol borders Old Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road. It doesn't share an adjacent or abutting r j Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 1 property line or a road with us. The other six around us do. Those are the six that we sent them to. Mr. Prager: Looking at the map here I can see where Old Hopewell comes out and it looks to me from the map like it should be an abutting piece of property. How do you gentlemen feel? If that is the case, then I'm going to have to ask you to re -submit. Mr. Ninnie: We have a letter from Mr. Rodriguez that I have here. He has no objection to what we're doing. Mr. Prager: Mr. Rodriguez is who? Mr. Ninnie: He is the one who owns the La Fonda Del Sol. Mr. Prager: I still feel and we all seem to be on the same order here Vic? Mr. Fanuele: .. Or not, he got a letter. Mr. Ninnie: He was informed about this back on Thursday. I was right there at the restaurant. I hand delivered it to him, the notice of public hearing. The Law states that you have to have five days. We are well within that. $e. Roberts: Sir, could you submit an affidavit that you served him on that day? Mr. Ninnie: From him, sure. Mr. Roberts: No, from you. Mr. Ninnie: Sure, absolutely. Mr. Prager: O.k., just bear with me for a minute. I looked through the minutes and I did not see any kind of a SEQR determination on this. Mr. Lehigh: I don't think there has been, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Prager: Would someone like to make a motion? Mr. Lehigh: I would like to hold that until we hear the Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to reopen the public hearing? Mr. diPierno: So moved_ Mr. Lehigh: Second. to : All ayes. Mr. Prager: Mr. Ninnie, I assume you would like to speak. n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 2 Mr. Ninnie: The proposed action is a renovation of an existing gasoline station into a convenient market and a gasoline station from its present vacancy to a Sunoco ownership. What we have here is the proposed elevation of what it's going to look like facing the Route 9 side and the old Hopewell Road side. The Board had requested this so we brought this tonight. Mr. Prager: How many feet do you feel you are from the other gas station over across Old Hopewell Road? Mr. Ninnie: We are about 275 feet from the gas station and about 285 from the neighboring residences, which is in the back of this parcel. Mr. Lehigh: Is that property really the property line? Mr. Ninnie: That is from building to building. That is how I would interpret it. Mr. Lehigh: So, it's actually closer. That would be to the property line. Mr. Ninnie: Yes, it would be closer. Now, that is the closest residence. There is other residences on Cayuga Drive, which are about same 650 feet away. Lehigh: Now, the rear of the building on the Hopewell side has two large garage doors in there. Mr. Ninnie: On this side over here? Mr. Lehigh: Yes, are you doing away with those? Mr. Ninnie: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Another words, all the area that used to be used for mechanics work would be turned into store area? Mr. Ninnie: That is correct. That is going to be removed. The building would be renovated. Naturally the plans would have to be submitted to the Building Department. it would have to go to the Building Inspector. I have here tonight Bill Henry from Gasland Petroleum. He would like to read our rebuttal to state our hardship that we have here on this site for our zoning variance. Mr. Henry: I have a letter that I will follow and try to present our case as the applicant. Basically, Gasland Petroleum is the applicant who is requesting to use the subject property for a convenience store and petroleum sales. This gasoline station has been closed for over a two year period and has lost its grandfathered status as per the I terpretation by the Zoning Administrator and upheld by the Zoning Board Appeals on 10/10/95. During the time this location ceased operation, the Town of Wappinger passed new Zoning Laws for area requirements for gasoline stations. So, in order to proceed with this project were requesting the Board to grant the two area variances that are now needed for this location to resume operation as a gasoline station. Article IV, n n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 3 ction 446.6, the property is required is maintain a distance of 2500 feet between filling stations and a variance of Article IV, Section 440.3.1 whereas the property is required to maintain a distance of 1000 feet between a filling station and residences. Seeing that this property has been closed for four years and unable to be used and I have a letter from Mr. Cappelletti, the property owner, which I will give you a copy. Basically it is regarding a hardship for Vincent Cappelletti to the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board. "When I purchased this property in 1992 and since then has been vacant, as a result it's a tremendous hardship for me. At the time I purchased this property and agreed to do the clean up as per the D.E.C., I was mistakenly under the assumption that I would have no problem with the self use of car sales while performing the clean up, of which I was denied. At that point I tried to market the property, but I found no one was willing to get involved until certain environmental concerns had been completed to the D.E.C. satisfaction. Until a letter of compliance was issued on April 28, 1995, I was unable to derive any income from this property. In order to meet the financial burden of carrying the mortgage, expense and taxes on this property, which amounted to a monthly mortgage payment in excess of $3000.00 and to perform the environmental. cleanup, which cost thousands of dollars, I had to refinance my personal residence. On April 28, 1995 the D.E.C. finally issued a letter of compliance. For the first time the property can pay for itself. At present Gasland Petroleum is interested in occupying the property as a tenant and intends to use the property as a gas station. This property has limited uses, but suits itself for the use given the history of the perty. The approval of this application would not only relieve my urden, but would be a much needed improvement to the property in this Town that has been vacant for too many years. To date no other business has expressed some interest in this property due to the environmental clean up concerns. I no longer have the financial means to continue the carrying cost of the property while it remains vacant. I offer these facts to the Zoning Board members in hope that they will see my hardship and would grant the application now before them. Thank you, Vincent Cappelletti." Mr. Prager: Mr. Henry, if I could just ask a couple of questions. No. 1, this property could be used for other things other than a gas station. Has Mr. Cappelletti thought about that? Also, No. 2, he did mention in here about the environmental clean up. Wouldn't that have to be done anyway even if he put a different type of business in there? Mr. Henry: Someone would have had to clean up the environmental clean up. The problem with the ongoing environmental clean up, no one would go into the property based on there was an environmental problem there. Due to the EPA Lender Liability, basically no one could get financing on that piece of property. The way the Laws are set up, if the owner goes bankrupt, if there is a loan on it they consider the lender to be a contributor manager of the property and they hold the lending institution liable for the clean up. No one would go in there. We had originally submitted to the Board letters from Ann O'Dell, the Donald R. King Real r" tate, concerning the marketability of this property. I should say +tmarketability of this property prior to the April 28, 1995 letter from the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Prager: I believe we have a copy of that letter. It kw In Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995. Page 4 Mr. Henry: We did submit the letter from the NYS Dept. of Health Environmental Conservation, Division of Spilled Management, saying that we are giving you a release to use the property again. Basically, I would like to go into the history of the property. The property according to Mr. Don Close, the Zoning Administrator, was issued a permit for the present gasoline station on the property in 1965. This location was operating as a gasoline station and repair facility until 1992, or at least 27 years. The facility to present date, 30 years later, looks like a gasoline station. This property to say the least is unique and has been affected by our circumstances. The first circumstance was the environmental issue, which caused the location to cease operation due to the lack of capital needed to install new tanks, piping, dispensers, as well as remedying the property. I would like to point out that the individuals that owned the property weren't a corporation, yet the station across the street had the same type of problems, but had the financial backing, capital to put their tanks in and not cease operation. To give a comparison of a situation where there was a lack of capital and remediation of the property. The second circumstance was new Zoning Laws were passed during the period the station was closed setting new .— Mr. Lehigh: They were revised. The 2500 and 1000, I think goes back to 1963. I want to ask you another question. It seems to me that I remember that gas station ceased pumping gas for at least two years while they had repairs there in the bays? *. Henry: I got a letter from Sunoco stating that their last delivery was in ... I think it was submitted to the Zoning Board and then they operated unbranded into 1991. Mr. Lehigh: What your telling us then is that it was definitely D.E.C. that closed them even though they had ... Mr. Henry: Basically, they couldn't operate. They had leaky tanks. They shut the tanks down. Mr. Prager: That was when, 1992? Mr. Henry: 1991, Vincent Cappelletti took it over and removed the tanks. The end of 1991 they shut down. Vince Cappelletti paid to have the tanks removed in the summer of 1992. Mr. Prager: Was the building used after that for anything else other than that or did they just completely close the doors down? Mr. Henry: I guess Mr. Cappelletti was before this Board a number of times trying to switch the use to used cars. Mr. Lehigh: Do you remember the date on that? When he came in for the car lot? You were contract Vendee? ,,r. Cappelletti: Vincent Cappelletti, I am the owner of the property. I did the clean up in 1992. I came in probably in 1992, maybe 1993. I was before the Board for quite a while. w t Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 5 . Ninnie: Mr. Lehigh you said that the 2500 and 1000 have been in effect since 1963. Mr. Lehigh: I believe that is right. Mr. Ninnie: It has been my understanding that it was within the time frame from 1985 or 1986, somewhere in that range until now is when this occurred. Mr. Lehigh: I'm not sure on the exact date of that. Mr. Fanuele: 2500 feet was in when I was on the Zoning Board about 20 years ago. I don't know when the 1000 feet got added. Mr. Henry: We'll strike that. Basically, what became since Vincent Cappelletti couldn't use it himself, he tried to market it. We documented it with the real estate letter that he did actively solicit other uses for the property. There has been an economic hardship for Mr. Cappelletti because the property has been vacant over the last four years. Our proposed project of a convenience store with petroleum sales basically would not adversely affect services of the facilities because a present plot plan is being used to convert the repair facility into a cleaner convenience store operation. The character of the neighborhood would be enhanced by the project as demonstrated by the examples Civil Technologies end Engineering has prepared, a conceptual design of the proposed Sunoco venience store. Basically, I know there was a letter concerning the egivironmental concerns from one of the neighbors. Basically, today because of the cost of clean up and the environmental expense there are new technologies on the market place and I basically brought a sample of what is being done today for fueling stations to protect the environment. (Mr. Henry showed the Board a pipe.) What you have is almost a triple wall for piping. What is being done is called a closed loop system on a tank system. Everything including the pipe is self-contained so if for some reason an inner wall failed there is a back up and then there is another back up. It is all connected to sumps and drains back into double wall .... tanks. I brought all of the specifications and I won't go through them, but companies today can't afford an environmental release. People are going ... the business for environmental security. It is not only the environmental conscious, it hurts their pocket when there is a release at a station. Basically, what is proposed here is Gasland would use the most modern equipment, double wall piping, sumps under the pumps, dispensers. It is all up close loop system. Everything is tilted so if there was a failure, everything filters back into the double wall tanks. So, even if the inner wall of the tank fails you have an outer wall plus a steel spacing. Mr. Lehigh: Suppose you have a nozzle jam Mr. Henry and you get gas flowing on the ground or someone walks away and leaves it_ Mr. Henry: Basically, the pumps today are set with an automatic shut e"'`f. It's preset in the consoles. You would have a spill. You would e 20 gallons or 30 gallons. If the nozzle came out .. well self -serve the nozzle comes out and it shuts off by itself. If someone rips the hose off you have a shut off valve on the hole. Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 6 . Lehigh: One of the things I was concerned with is if you get 200 or 300 cars in there a day and if each guy spills half a gallon and it runs out on the ground, it has to go someplace and it will go to the lowest point and that is the people that have complained, Hark Plaza and so forth. Mr. Henry: Basically, I would say to the Board to go to a busy station and I would doubt you would see a drop of gasoline. Once you remove the nozzle from the thing, and release it, it shuts off. Someone could sit there for a second and hold it, but it would shut off. Basically, on the drive on mats you have concrete. That is why you see concrete on the gasoline islands. The gasoline does not go through the concrete. It doesn't leak through the ground. So, if there is a minor spill it's on the concrete and it would evaporate and go out through you know .. easy dry on it and go from there. It is an a typical problem compared to in the past the tank failures. That is where the problems were, the old piping because of the numerous connections. A farmer would dig a hole and throw a tank in and back fill it with rocks around it. Precautions taken with the proper back fill, pea stone, noncorrosive materials, the tanks have a clad of fiberglass so it's noncorrosive. Most of the concerns .. I prepared a package of specifications for it, but and also that the site would conform or exceed the federal 1998 EPA requirements for underground storage of tanks. W. Fanuele: Do you know what caused the original problem? Sir. Henry: Leaky tank. In the past there were only single wall steel tanks. Basically, they corroded and poor inventory controls. People didn't measure their tanks all of the time. They would be loosing 50 gallons per day, but they never stuck the tanks or had monitoring so it was sloppy housekeeping. Were mandated now to keep daily records of our inventories. They have to be into a certain variance or else you have to report that to the state. The weights and measures comes around and check your records. One of their job responsibilities now is daily inventory reconciliation. Also, they check deliveries against sales. The Laws have been really strict on protecting the environment today. Basically, since January 1, 1987, every tank that goes into the ground today has to be a double walled tank. Likelihood of tank failure is very nil today. Basically, were just asking that the granting of the variance would provide Mr. Cappelletti some needed economic relief. The property in the corner would be landscaped and improved and beautified. Gasland Petroleum lust became a Sunoco distributor. We took an old station, the closest one we could find was on Route 52 in Newburgh, and that is what was done. (Mr. Henry showed the Board a picture of the renovated gasoline station.) I can show you the before picture just to show the quality of work that would be done. Just to give you an example, some of the utilized locations that Gasland has picked up, that is what it looks like today. That is before and after just to see that we worked with the Planning Board. Whatever they require we would comply with. Landscaping, but it's not just going in there and throwing up a sign and yes were in the `%soline business. It would be a major investment into the property. Mr. Prager: O.k., do you have anything else? Anyone else in the audience would like to speak for or against this variance? Anybody on the Board? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? What are we doing on SEAR? V Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1.5, 1995 Page 7 . Fanuele: We would have to define what we would want to be looked at. I don't know right now. We have another appeal or are we holding them both together? Mr. Prager: We are hold this one first. Mr. Fanuele: Do you have any idea ..? Mr. Prager: Not really. Mr. Lehigh: I would say you would have to go for a Negative Dec. Mr. Prager: Yes, mainly because of the environmental .. Mr. Lehigh: Do you have a leak detection system on this? Mr. Henry: On the tanks, yes. There are leak detectors on the lines and on the tanks. That is mandatory by the federal and state Laws. Whoever is more stricter is .. Mr. Fanuele: You have to get site plan approval from the Planning Board. Mr. Henry: Yes, we understand that_ Mr. Ninnie: A lot of the drainage concerns that you talked about Mr. hvigh, about runoff from petroleum products and things like this will e to be addressed. Drainage, catch basins that would have to be so designed for it. Entrances and exits that are one way out onto Old Hopewell, signage on the property so traffic flows smoothly, so there isn't any confusion. There is quite a bit to be done as far as a site plan for the Planning Board. Mr. Prager: We need the Planning Board's input on this. Mr. Fanuele: You still have to get the Planning Board's approval. Were just giving them permission to go to the Planning Board_ Mr. Ninnie: This is one step of many. Mr. Fanuele: I would think the Planning Board might want to make the declaration. Mr. Lehigh: I think that it would be smart to see what the Planning Board has to say. Mr. Prager: Yes, especially about the Negative Dec. Mr. Ninnie: certainly we can't advance to that stage unless we have some kind of clean bill of health from here to go onto the next stage. )"— Lehigh: That is definitely true, but I don't think it is going to thpuse that much of a delay if we ask the Planning Board to look at this and see if they have any information or any input that they want to put in. . Ninnie: 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 8 You don't think it might muddy the water at this point? Mr. Lehigh: No, not really. We have a good working relationship with the Planning Board and we have asked for their opinions before and they have given them to us. Your asking for in my opinion a major variance with the 2500 feet and 1000 feet your looking at in the next variance. I would like to hear some input from the Planning Board myself. Mr. Ninnie: I would have to say that the 1000 and 2500 is basically a hardship based on our circumstances. I think that is the focal point here. Mr. Lehigh: That would be anybody, not just you. Anybody that wanted to open the gas station. We have had denials before for that reason. What were trying to do is work with the owners and the public so to speak and I think the more information that we have, the better the decision we will make. That is really why I would suggest that we get some information from the Planning Board and see if they have any problems. Mr. Prager: Linda, could you write a letter to the Planning Board and ask for their recommendation on this and any input that they have? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. W. Lehigh: Being that both of these variances, one is 1000 and one is 00, in my opinion they should be combined so we have one decision. Mr. Prager: I think the only reason we did that is because the one was up already and then we added the other. Mr. Lehigh: So, if you have no problem we could combine them right now and then give one decision on the whole thing when they come back. Mr. Ninnie: We would like that at least to streamline this thing here. Mr. Prager: I would like to have a motion to .. (combine appeal #1210 and 1213) Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Lehigh: Second - Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: O.k., so it will be sent it to the Planning Board. When is their meet? Mrs. Nguyen: Their next meeting is the 20th. Are you talking about the Planning Board? The 20th. Prager: We should get it back for the 28th. Mrs. Nguyen: Their next meeting is December 4th. Mr. Ninnie: What would the Planning Board want at this point as far as what we have? I can leave this with Linda and the site plan. What more ..? Sao Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Lehigh: I would think that we should give them a whole package of all the information that we have. Mr. Prager: The environmental definitely. Al, what do we need to do to Mr. Roberts: Technically what your doing is referring the matter for recommendation of the Planning Board, which you have authority to do. I would suggest that the applicant and his representative be present to answer any questions and I think you should concur with Mr. Parsons if this can be squeezed on Monday nights agenda. Mrs. Nguyen: They would be on for conceptual. Mr. Roberts: They might have to wait until the first meeting in December. Mrs. Nguyen: November 20th is a small meeting, so I will speak with Bill. Mr. Ninnie: Will that be an informal workshop? I mean your just getting inr)ut. Mr. Lehigh: That is right. Your just giving them the same information mat you gave us. Ninnie: Do they meet at certain workshops on a regular basis? Mrs. Nguyen: You would come in for conceptual. Mr. Prager: You would just get on their normal agenda that they have. Mrs. Nguyen: It is Monday at 7:30. Mr. Ninnie: This Monday? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, I will speak with Bill and I will find out what he says. Mr. Prager: Then, you will notify Mr. Ninnie as far as if it's a go or not a go? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Prager: And if not, it would be what date? Mrs. Nguyen: December 4th is their next meeting. Mr. Prager: You'll need an extension. Roberts: You closed the public hearing, you have 60 days to ... Mr. Ninnie: when does this Board meet again? Mr. Lehigh: The 28th. Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 10 Mr. Prager: Does everybody ........? Mr. Lehigh: Yes, I think so. Mr. Prager: Can we have a motion to close the public hearing? Mr. Lehigh: Your going to close it without a Negative Dec? Mr. Fanuele: You don't want to make a Dec. now until we hear from the Planning Board. Mr. Prager: O.k., then we can't. Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Mr. Roberts: You can adjourn the public hearing pending input from the Planning Board. Mr. Prager: Right, that is what I would like to do. Mr. Lehigh: So moved. Mr. diPierno: Second. te: All ayes. Mr. Prager: We will have an adjournment until Mr. Lehigh: The 28th. Mr. Prager: If they can not get on that meeting it would have to be the next one which is ... Mrs. Nguyen: December 12th. Mr. Lehigh: They have a meeting on the 27th too, don't they Linda? Mrs. Nguyen: I don't have my paper here. The way I remember it was the 20th and the next was December 4th. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a motion to close the public hearing and then there was a motion to adjourn the public hearing. One of them has to be rescinded and clarified. Mr. Fanuele: I made the motion to close. Mr. Lehigh: Yes, he made a motion to close. Mrs. Nguyen: I thought that was a motion to combine the two. Lehigh: Mr. diPierno made the motion to combine the two. Do you want to just adjourn it then? Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion to adjourn until the 28th rather than close. 29 Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes. 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 11 Mr. Lehigh: I was just trying to locate the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Roberts: The Planning Board is _.. Mr. Lehigh: The seventh on the list here. Mr. Prager: The second and the seventh of December? Mrs. Nguyen: November 6 and the 20th. December 4 and 18th. Mr. Lehigh: The Zoning Board is the 13 and the 27. Mr. Prager: Of November? Mr. Lehigh: Wait a minute now, that is the filing date. Excuse me, meeting date is the 20th of November and the 4th of December. Mr. Prager: If you can get on the agenda for next Monday, the 20th then will see you here the 28th. If you can't get in until the 4th, we will :e you here the 12th of December. Now, we have a motion to combine the two, right? Mr. Lehigh: Yes. Mr. Ninnie: Thank you. Mr. Prager: The next item on the agenda was going to be appeal #$1213, but since we combined it we are going to adjourn that until either November 28th or December 12th. Whichever he gets the information back. Discussions. The next item on the agenda tonight .. Mr. Lehigh: Spotted Owl. Mr. Prager: Spotted Owl Corp. We were supposed to make a determination on Appeal ##1208 for an existing undersized lot located at 6 Montfort Road in the Town of Wappinger. We won't be making a decision tonight, but I know the applicants attorney has sent in his comments about the findings of facts that we have. Since I do know the Town .. Yes, Al? Mr. Roberts: Go ahead. Mr. Prager: I know this is important for the applicant and the Town. I am going to ask Mr. Hanig to comment on these changes tonight. while were doing it we will probably go paragraph by paragraph like we started at the st meeting and at that time I will refer comments from Mr. Roberts. The *M16y thing that I ask is because it looks like a big meeting tonight anyway is that you keep it as short as possible and make it as quick as possible. Before I go on I just want to make a couple other comments here that when we get done with the findings of facts tonight and we agree to what they are we're going to have to have the Board adopt them tonight. I want these adopted tonight. Then, .. n M n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 12 Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I think what we want to do is get a direction of where your going because your going to have to do a lot of work between now and the next meeting. The findings of facts actually become part of the decision. Like you indicated this is of importance to both sides. I think the applicant should have an opportunity to be heard. By point of reference, when these were originally drafted they were abstracted from the Memorandum of Law and were to be used as nothing more than a guideline. As we go through this you will see where I don't have any objection to some of Mr. Hanig's comments and there are some situations where I do, which I will defer to the Board to make a decision on. Joel, do you want to start since it is your ..? Mr. Hanig: Sure. Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Chairman, we have two other people here. I would like to see if you could defer this since this is going to be a long drawn out thing. We could go over 1214 and 1215 and first get them done and let the people go. Otherwise they will be here all night. Mr. Hanig: I will leave that up to the Board. Mr. Prager: If it's all right with you gentlemen we will do that. . Lehigh: These are just area variances and they are minor variances. I think we will be here quite a while with you so if we could give these other people a break. Mr. Prager: O.k., lets take the first one here and that is Robert Deshong to discuss Appeal #1214 requesting a 6.7 foot side -yard variance to put an addition on a single family residence located at 248 Pine Ridge Drive in the Town of Wappinger. Could you state your name please? Mr. Deshong: Thank you. I appreciate that. I am Bob Deshong the owner of the residence and my wife Patricia and Joel Sasser who is a close personal friend. I haven't done this so he is assisting me. Mr. Prager: Good, Mr. Deshong just before we go on I just want to mention to you that this isn't the public hearing. Mr. Deshong: I understand. Mr. Prager: All we're going to do tonight is gain information so that we have a better understanding of what you want to do. Mr. Deshong: I understand and what I did is I also took pictures for you to understand in case there are any questions. Mr. Sasser: Gentlemen if I could just speak for one second. I told Pat Bob the five elements that you're going to consider at the public aring and you hear all that your going to hear. They in turn have gone h to a lot of trouble and prepared a lot of expensive items to show you. They are things that I think you would probably want to see. They have taken photographs of the property. They have had a site plan of the property drawn with all the measurements. They have taken photographs of the view of the property toward the adjoining neighbors. They have an a Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 13 architectural rendering of the property should you want to see that and a landscaping plan in order to mitigate any effect to adjoining properties as well. Their looking for a relatively minor variance, under a 10 foot variance or something like that. I can't think of anything else that you would want to see or hear. I think they have provided pretty much everything that you're going to want to consider for this variance. Mr. Fanuele: How big are the lots in this area? Mr. Deshong: .53 acres. It's less than 3/4 of an acre. A little over a half. Mr. Lehigh: I had a question when I looked at the map with this little jot right here. This is open ground in here I take it? And this is part of the house? Mr. Deshong: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: Is that a porch? Mr. Deshong: That is an enclosed garage. Mr. Prager: Where are you pointing to Mr. Lehigh? rOt. Lehigh: Right here on the right hand side. If you look at this little piece that jots out. The reason I was think about that is why he doesn't put it in the back? Mr. Sasser: He has a well in the front and a septic right in the back. Mr. Lehigh: I was just wondering what this was. Mr. Deshong: That is right off the corner of the house. See the house right here? That is right off the street so there is no way I could put it off the street because McCullough Terrace is directly right across here. See McCullough right here? I have maybe 10 feet going out here. Mr. Sasser: See gentlemen, what they're going to do is .. because the septic is in the back and the well is in the front they can't go that way. This is the bedroom on the house now and they both have elderly parents who are now spending more than 8 or 9 months a year there. Their going to enlarge that bedroom to give them a place. Mr. Deshong: This is the space I'm going to put it, right on the end. There is really absolutely no other place that I can put it because the well is here and the septic is in the back. I have actually taken pictures so there is no hardship to my neighborhood. I think it's necessary. I could get a lot of my neighbors who know me and knows how well I take care of my property. I take utmost care of this property. . Fanuele: We have to set a public hearing. Mr. Prager: We will do that in a minute. I want to first see if there are any other comments. Mr. Lehigh: out on that. Mr. diPierno: Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 14 No, no, it is an odd shape property and he straightened me Do the Corbeels go completely around you? Mr. Deshong: Yes, they do. I didn't think they owned it totally alone behind me because prior to them moving into that house in 1978 the four of them: my property owner, the Corbeels, the people on the other side, the Gullo's I believe, and some other people in the other corner all bought that piece, which I consider their right of way. I think if you notice on the property it is called a right of way that they all purchased so I guess nobody else could purchase any of that property so that they would have their privacy. When I purchased my land the guy before he sold it to me, sold them the property so I was cut out a piece of that. I would have liked it, but yes their surrounding me. I would love to buy it. If its for sale I would certainly want to ... Mr. Sasser: Their the owner of record though so that is the person who was notified. Mr. diPierno: You only have to contend with one neighbor really. Mr. Deshong: That is all. That is correct. I'm on the corner. That is gh t . Mr. diPierno: It wouldn't hurt if you had a letter from them. Mr. Deshong: I don't think we will get that. I will explain. In 1978 I put a swimming pool in and as you see it is the only place I could put it because I have a septic in the back of my house. I put it on the left side of my property and the person next to me did not like the fact that I put it on that side of the property. So, we haven't been to kindly and friendly since. I'm perfectly honest about that. Pat and I have no children. we both work and we very rarely have any parties or noise so I can contest to you that we're not partiers in that pool. Since the last 12 years it has been quiet. We do not have a friendly neighbor. Mr. Sasser: I don't think their 8o year old parents will make to much noise on that side of the house. Mr. Deshong: I have no intention to be ... Mr. Lehigh: I move that we be declared Lead Agency. Mr. Prager: O.k., we have a motion for Lead Agency. A second? Mr. diPierno: Second.. Vote: All ayes. Lehigh: I also move at this time for a Negative Dec. Mr. Prager: Mr. Lehigh for a Negative Dec. Can I have a second? Mr. diPierno: Second. Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 15 Mr. Prager: seconded by Mr. diPierno. All in favor? Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: O.k., I will set the public hearing for November 28th. Mr. Fanuele: Can we get it out in time for November 28th? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Prager: Are you familiar with notifying the adjoining neighbors? If not Linda will help you.. Mr. Deshong: I would like to request her to do that. Mr. Prager: The next item of business on the agenda tonight is Dimitrious Diamantopoulos. To discuss Appeal ##1215 requesting a 16 ft. rear -yard variance to put an addition on a single family residence located at 19 Brothers Road in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Diamantopoulos why don't you tell us a little bit about what you want to do_ Mr. Diamantopoulos: Right now in the back of my house there is a deck. I want to get rid of that deck and I want to come out 16 by 20 and I want to t a family room upstairs and a playroom downstairs. Mr. Prager: Who is in the house besides yourselves? Mr. Diamantopoulos: Me, my wife and the kids. That is about it. It is a very simple thing. I'm not going to use any water. I'm not going to do any plumbing. It isn't going to be anything like that. Just heat and the three walls. I got a letter from each of the neighbors. Mr. Lehigh: That doesn't preclude you from notifying them. Mr. Diamantopoulos: Not at all. Mr. Prager: That has to be done. Mr. Lehigh: It is a 16 foot variance that your asking for. It is not going to be 16 feet all the way because the line doesn't run that way. It would be 16 or less according to the map. It says 50 here. It would be 39 from there. That is a 16 foot variance here, it wouldn't be over here. Mr. Prager: Don have you looked at the map? Mr. Close: Yes. Mr. Prager: How far is it exactly from that one corner to that lot line? . Close: Which corner is that Mr. Prager? Mr. Lehigh: It would be the left as you are facing it. Mr. Close: To the left it would be 26.3. Mr. Lehigh: Instead of 39, right? Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Close: To the left is the way I'm looking at it. This left? Mr. Lehigh: Yes, see the 50 foot runs on this line here. You see this says 50 foot from this line. Mr. Close: I'm looking at this number on the left. Mr. Lehigh: All right I see. This is 16 feet here. That gives them 16, but it will be less over here because your 50 foot runs on an angle. See it? Mr. Prager: It would be less footage that he is required so that is o.k. Mr. Lehigh: That is the only point that I want to make. Mr. Prager: Does anybody else have any questions? Can I have a motion for a Negative Dec.' Mr. diPierno: So moved. Mr. Prager: Motion by Mr. diPierno. �Fanuele: Second. Mir. Prager: And seconded by Mr. Fanuele. All in favor? Vote: All ayes.. Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion for Lead Agency? Mr. Fanuele: I make the motion. Mr. Prager: By Mr. Fanuele. Mr. diPierno: Second.. Mr. Prager: By Mr. diPierno. All in favor? Vote: All ayes.. Mr. Prager: We will set this for public hearing for November 28th also. Mr. Diamantopoulos: Very good.. Mr. Prager: At that time we will just present it again and if anybody has any information for or against they can speak at that time. Mr. Diamantopoulos: At that time will I know if I can start? IL W. Prager: Yes, we will make that decision that night. O.k., we can get back to Spotted Owl. (Mr. Joel Hanig, Esq. represented Mr. Murphy.) Mr. Lehigh: This new finding and facts is different from the old findings and facts Al? Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 17 Mr. Roberts: What he (Mr. Hanig) did was he took mine and he showed where he wanted the changes made and he underlined and or put it in bold. For instance on page 3 there was a date mistake and I absolutely agree that the date is correct. Then, starting with paragraph 4 I think Joel should start commenting. Mr. Lehigh: Page 3, paragraph 4? Mr. Prager: Why don't we do this ... Is that the first change? Mr. Roberts: Yes, page 3 it says January 29, 1965 Caputo sold to Cosgrove_ Mr. Hanig: I can probably go through this very quickly because what we did was we took the document that Al prepared and then we took the document that I made changes to and we used the computer to do a comparison of the two and show on this particular form the strikes and the adds. Like the cover sheet says the strikes are shown by bold type underline and the adds are simply shown by bold type. So, starting at the very top under house lot, I am simply asking that it reflect that "the house was constructed prior to 1965" and I don't think there is a question about that. Roberts: I have no objection to his changes to paragraph 3. Mr. Hanig: The next change was the change in the date to correct what was a mistake. Then, in the next paragraph, add the words "garage attached" because clearly the garage was built on the common property line and that is one of the things that we're talking about. Mr. Prager: We discussed it at the last meeting. Mr. Hanig: Yes, we discussed it the last time. Then, paragraph 4, is some of the language that we spoke about the last time I was here. There is a misspelling through out. The word promises is really premises with an e. That really appears about 4 or 5 times_ Mr. Prager: We will take it paragraph by paragraph. Mr. Hanig: In paragraph 4, Al and I disagree about the sentence that I want to take out. What I wanted to put in was "after the composite description the deed reflected that the property consisted of .." and then it had a statement as to the "premises conveyed by Caputo to Cosgrove" and then the "premises conveyed by Gold to Cosgrove setting forth the recording information of such prior deed." That is accurate, what the deeds actually stated.. Mr. Roberts: I'm going to defer that to you. I don't think that the language that I have proposed there is inaccurate. There is no question t at some point and time these parcels were separate. It has been my sition and the Planning Board's position that when there was a composite description there was no indication that two separate parcels were being conveyed. These so called being clauses contained at the bottom of the deed just referenced the prior acquisitions. Mr. Prager: I agree with that. Mr. Roberts: that to you. solo Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995. Page 18 Joel's position is somewhat different and I have to defer Mr. Prager: My own feeling is that it's not that out of line, what you had said Al. To me it is exactly what it was, deed not specifically referenced . (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Hanig, the part that is underlined, deed is not specifically referenced, do you want that removed? Mr. Hanig: That is correct. Mr. Fanuele: Your talking about when you start with the composite description that means the two were described. You have these three dots and quote signs there. Is that in the deed? Mr. Hanig: That is extracted right from the deed. Mr. Prager: Basically, that is right where the being statements are. Is that correct? Mr. Hanig: That is correct. Mr. Lehigh: I think it is just a different interpretation of what Al has "-)ne. I don't think you have to accept it or reject it right now_ ir'`. Prager: Well, we do to a certain extent because I want to try and get M these ... Mr. Roberts: This is going to be part of your final decision. Mr. Hanig: My main object is to disagree with a statement. Al said that the deed did not specifically reference that two parcels were being sold. I disagree with that. It is my position that the deed did reference that two parcels were being sold represented by the two being clauses after the composite description. Mr. Roberts: It is my position that those were the prior acquisitions and what I mean and I should clarify that the deed did not specifically reference that two separate parcels were being conveyed as separate parcels. Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Roberts: There is no question that the being clauses are there and they referenced the prior acquisition. Mr. Prager: That I agree with. Mr,. Roberts: That is for you to defer. *51. Prager: How do you feel? Do you want to leave it? Mr. Lehigh: I would leave it just the way it is. Mr. Fanuele: Just make a note that Joel .. Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995. Page 19 Mr. Prager: Again, this is our document that we're going to have to have ready for the next meeting. Mr. Lehigh: Right, but I don't think we need a determination on that tonight, right? Mr. Roberts: We're just going through. You can decide on this .. Mr. Hanig: The document is whatever document that is part of your final decision. I don't think it is necessary for you to decide the language exactly tonight. I'm only here to explain why I'm requesting it_ Mr. diPierno: What your position is. Mr. Fanuele: It should state here that there is a disagreement. Mr. Hanig: Paragraph 5 is basically the same type of objection because paragraph 5 simply refers to another transfer and instead of saying "the legal description used was", I think it is more accurate to say "after the composite description the deed reflected that the property conveyed consisted of .." And it is basically the same objection as I have to the earlier paragraph. I felt at the end of that paragraph it should also be reflected with regards to the deed from the referee to Dime Savings Bank -',at "the deed and the accompanying documents utilized the two (2) tax id numbers, one for each of the tax lots being conveyed." because that was the deed transfer gains affidavit and one of the other pieces of paper that was along with the deed. Mr. Roberts: I think the word "again" is significant because there is a perpetuation of the composite description from 1987 through the reacquisition of this property by the bank in foreclosure. My point about the word "again" is that it has been perpetrated. He is correct that the tax grid numbers were there. We can't deny that. I can perhaps jump to paragraph 6. I really have no objection to this proposed change_ Mr. Prager: Curiously. "Curiously, the" and start with the legal description. I agree with that. Mr. Lehigh: You agree to strike out curiously? Mr. Prager: "Curiously, the" and let it start it with capitol "t" for the. Mr. Hanig: Then, down at the end again the tax grid numbers were set forth on the deed.. Mr. Roberts: That is accurate. Mr. Hanig: If we go to page 5, I don't think any of us are going to make recision on what is "apparent or inappropriate", but we're simply king about a continuity of the description. I am simply taking out the argument that the description continued the "apparent inappropriate." I think it is really that the description continued the description reference to the previous deed and that basically is what is accurate. V4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page ?_0 Mr. Roberts: Can I clarify that? If you have to refer back to what was the original sentence in paragraph 6, the deed descriptions that were inserted showed that there was a shortage of some 50 feet on the Dime to Murphy. That is the one that I said is "apparently inappropriate" because it appears not to have conveyed the entire parcel. That is reflected in subsequent correction deeds. That is what the comment is there for. Mr. Hanig: The next comment that I have was the sentence regarding "the first time the property is described as two separate parcels" because we believe that it has been always referenced as two separate parcels in every deed. Mr. Prager: There is a reference, but it is not described. Mr. Hanig: It is referenced not described by metes and bounds, but it has been referenced. Mr. Roberts: My point is that there was one legal description for the property conveyed and that the references were just tracing the lineage of title. Mr. Prager: That is how I .. (Too low to transcribe.) .,r Hanig: I disagree with the words that start "in an attempt to leave %Wtle". It either was done or it wasn't done. Mr. Roberts: I will concede "in an attempt" is inappropriate, but it did leave title in Spotted Owl. Mr. Prager: Back up for a minute. You have the house lot in bold. Why is that? Mr. Hanig: Because the original statement simply said that "Spotted Owl sold to Harry and Joyceanne DeCarlo" period. It didn't say what was sold to Harry and Joyceanne DeCarlo. What was sold to them was the house lot. Mr. Prager: Oh, I'm sorry. Your adding that. Mr. Roberts: No objection. Mr. Hanig: Yes, because just to say something is sold without saying what it was sort of leaves it hanging_ Mr. Fanuele: I have a problem. If previously it was one lot, how is it a house lot now? We questioned something on the other page that the deed and composite were together. If they composite together, how could I lust sell the house lot? Mr. Hanig: If you can put in what was previously described as the house t, you can do it anyway that you want, but what was sold to them was $1eeviously the house lot. If you want to Mr. Roberts: what was previously described as .. Mr. Hanig: The house lot, that clarifies it more. n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 151 1995 Page 21 Mr. Roberts: Paragraph 3 really breaks them down into the house lot and to the vacant lot for identification and I probably previously described as and I clarified the situation_ Mr. Prager: Al on that whole next part "in an attempt to leave title to the former vacant .." Mr. Roberts: Wait, I will agree to "in an attempt" being deleted, but "title to the vacant lot" should remain. I don't think he disputes that. Mr. Hanig: I don't. The next paragraph is a brand new paragraph. I felt that the whole lessons of this application was our claim that if not for the actions of Herbert Levenson in stating that these were separate building lots, that they would not have gone forward. They testified to that conversation at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. This testimony was given by Mr. Murphy and Michael Harrington who is a real estate broker. I'm simply reflecting in paragraph 9 their testimony as to what Mr. Levenson told them before they decided to buy the property, which I feel is necessary under a statement of facts. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, that I'm going to defer to the Board specifically. I think the minutes of August 29th will speak for themselves. However, the Planning Board minutes on this matter was made t of the record. I think that topic was also discussed at the Planning and meeting as to what Mr. Levenson did or did not say. In fact he did make some comments. I think the Board has to defer to the Planning Board minutes to get a complete picture. Unfortunately, Mr. Levenson is unavailable and no longer employed by the Town. One of the points I do want to make is it has never been clearly stated precisely what information Mr. Levenson was given. I think that was reflected. That apparent lack of information is reflected in the Planning Board minutes. They refer to two parcels, separate deeds and what have you. Again, that is a finding that you will have to make. If you make that finding then I think you have to go to the next step to incorporate an additional finding as to what was stated at the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Hanig: Mr. Chairman, my prospective is that the testimony was here. This is what my clients relied on in purchasing the property and that this is in essence the critical part of their application to this Board as to reliance upon the statements of the Zoning Enforcement Officer of the Town. That is why I feel that it should be included within the statements of facts simply as to what they testified to. If the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals reflect what they testified to, I think that it will be substantially what I set forth in paragraph 9_ Mr. Roberts: Again, I'm just stating that the minutes of the Planning Board are also part of this record. Mr. Hanig: That is another comment, as we go further, that I have some Onments Mr. Prager: Number 10. Mr. Hanig: Number 10, a question of why "there is no evidence in the record"? It means something that there is no evidence or it doesn't mean n n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 22 kw something, but the statement of fact is that two separate continued to be utilized to identify this property period. been two separate tax grid numbers that have continued to identify this property and as separate tax lots. I don't means to say that "there is no evidence in the record why doesn't mean anything to me. Mr. Roberts: He is probably correct on that issue. tax grid numbers It has always be used is know what it two." That Mr. Hanig: O.k., page 6, what I have written as paragraph 13, I just want to reflect that Schwebel was representing the applicant. He was part of Spotted Owl. Again, we're going to the Planning Board minutes. I disagree with trying to characterize anything that is from the Planning Board minutes unless it is a direct quote. That is why as we go forward, anything that was not a direct quote from the Planning Board minutes, I changed to something that was a direct quote because I feel characterization is inappropriate where there is a direct quote that can be extracted from the Planning Board minutes. That is why I said, the minutes of the meeting are part of the record of the application. In paragraph 14, I noticed just now as I was looking at it where it says Mr. Levenson, a member of the Planning Board. He is not a member of thp- Planning Board. He is the Zoning Administrator. *•-. Roberts: That should be changed to Zoning Administrator. . Hanig: What I did then was then to take an exact quote from those minutes instead of characterizing it. The actual exact quote is that "the subdivision was done prior to zoning change that is not an argument. If he can meet the bulk requirements and get the Health Department to approve it leaving it just the way it is, he can build the house." That is an exact quote taken from the Planning Board minutes. I felt it appropriate to put the exact quote in rather than to characterize what was said, which I didn't believe was a faithful explanation of what was said by Levenson, extracted from the minutes. Mr. Lehigh: Well, Mr. Roberts statement of facts are only a portion of the evidence of what we're looking at. We're also looking at the minutes ourselves. Mr. Roberts: Al, I think the point here is that your going to have to take that information and incorporate that into this, which is the predicate for your decision. Going further, if you want to add to that you may want to add things that were omitted either inadvertently or what have you. Mr. Lehigh: Well, our interpretation is not necessarily verbatim from vour statement of facts,. Mr. Roberts: That is correct. I understand that. sll�. Lehigh: We're taking all that information in, plus his information and we're going going to come out with a statement of facts. Mr. Roberts: That you adopt, yes_ n n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 23 Mr. Lehigh: To quote a statement, if we do in our statement of facts or our determination, that doesn't quote exactly all the words that are in the minutes, I see no problem with that either. Mr. Hanig: All that I'm saying is that Al in his proposal was not quoting something from the minutes, but was characterizing something that I disagreed with or I read the exact quote as saying something different. Instead of just agreeing with his characterization, I put in the exact quote that was taken from the Planning Board minutes. I agree your final statement of facts is your final statement of facts. It may not have anything to do with anything that Mr. Roberts has prepared or anything that I have criticized. Mr. Lehigh: Lets hope it doesn't go that far. Mr. Hanig: It happens that way sometimes. That was the same comment to the new paragraph 16. At the bottom of the page where it says, "At that meeting, Mr. Levenson had stated .." That was not an accurate characterization so that is why I took it out. Because that really didn't have anything to do with the whole purpose of why they were there before the Planning Board. Mr. Roberts: That may not have been the reason why they were before the planning Board, but I think the topic of the lots being undersized was �406arly discussed and that was how the whole meeting had deteriorated to the aspect of whether they could go forward or not. I think at that point it becomes a question of notice to the applicant. Mr. Lehigh: 17 and 21 are the same. You disagree with the way that he stated it and you want the exact minutes in there. Mr. Hanig: That is correct. The other reason too is because when Mr. Parsons was here before the Board he made some statements that were not to my clients recollection as to what happened at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Roberts: Which are you referring to Joel? Mr. Hanig: I think the Board member said something about 17 and 21. What I'm saying is that the proper reference of the Planning Board minutes of the meeting rather than any reference as to anybody saying what happened at the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Parsons said this is what happened at the Planning Board meeting and my client said no it didn't. We looked at the minutes and I think my clients were correct when they said what really happened was different from Mr. Parsons recollection as to what happened at the Planning Board meeting. That is why I feel much more comfortable in reflecting the actual Planning Board minutes rather than extracting anything out of the Planning Board minutes that might be out of context. The same thing with paragraph 20. The quote is really taken right from the Planning Board ... Lehigh: (Not transcribable.) Mr. Hanig: characterization and it does read differently when you look at the quote rather than the characterization. The next .. " .."j wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 24 ~ Mr. Roberts: How do you want that to read? "Mr. Schwebel was informed by Mr. Parsons, a Board member, that a lot realignment..11 Mr. Hanig: "That a lot realignment is basically a subdivision." Mr. Roberts: Yes. Mr. Hanig: That is how the Planning Board minutes read exactly as I put it in quotes. There was discussion then as to what is the nature of the lot line realignment application. The nature was that in essence it is a subdivision application when you start shifting around lot lines between two properties. Mr. Roberts: That is the way it is stated. Mr. Hanig: That was the nature of that discussion. Not so much that he's now before the Board asking for a subdivision. It was that a lot line realignment becomes tantamount to it having the same equivalent information required by the Board as a subdivision application. Mr. Prager: So, you want to take "his application was" out? And the word "and"? ,~~. Hanig: Yes, because that is a direct quote that a lot line ~alignment is basically a subdivision. Mr. Roberts: That is fine. Now, he wants the next paragraph deleted and again I think we should just defer to what those minutes actually says. Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Hanig: Absent direct knowledge from the person who owned the lot. This is now going back to the 1960's. I don't know anybody who was directly involved in that lot conveyance who is going to be here to say why that lot conveyance took place and why that one person bought the other lot. I think if there is going to be conjecture, it is going to be conjectured, but I don't think that is going to serve as a basis for direct knowledge as to why the lot was actually purchased by Mr. cosgrove. Was that who it was back then? Mr. Prager: Yes. Mr. Hanig: It is hard to say why it was purchased by Cosgrove. Did it have something to do with the garage on the property line? Maybe it did. Did it have something to do with a septic problem? I don't know. Maybe it did and maybe it didn't. We don't really know. We're just guessing as to why it was actually done back then without having Mr. Cosgrove here to say this is why I did it. There is no question that Mr. Parsons vocalized his belief as to why it was done. ~. Prager: It was mentioned in the Planning Board minutes. It is part of the record. Mr. Hanig: In paragraph 22, I'm simply reflecting that the application was "to construct a house on the vacant lot" because all that was said in the original proposal was spotted Owl filed for a building permit with the Town of wappinger and it didn't say what it was for. ~ .J wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 25 '-' Mr. Prager: O.k., take that out. Mr. Roberts: No, insert that. Mr. Hanig: Then in paragraph 28, being that Al felt that he wanted to put in some reason given by Mr. Parsons and Mr. Hover. I wanted to simply reflect that even if that was the case, that information was never given to my clients before they contracted to purchase the property from Dime. Mr. Roberts: I don't think it is in the record when they contracted to purchase from Dime.. Mr. Hanig: It is. The official contract date was the day after the Planning Board meeting because that was asked of Mr. schwebel when he was here before the Board. Mr. Roberts: Is that in the August minutes? Mr. Prager: Which minutes? Mr. Hanig: Zoning Board minutes. The Board asked Mr. Schwebel when he signed the final contract to purchase the property. It was the day which ~s the day after that first Planning Board meeting. Mr. Roberts: That is important and I think we should DISCUSSION - Too low to transcribe. Mr. Prager: While we're changing things it's August 28, 1995. (Not August 28, 1993. See #28) Mr. Roberts: I think the testimony referred to is on page 3 of the August 29th minutes at the top. Mr. Prager: That is when Mr. Harrington was speaking, is that right AI? Mr. Roberts: Yes. Mr. Prager: (Reading from the August 29, 1995 minutes.) "I'm an associate broker. I showed them the house and the piece of property and all the relevant information about the property as far as the mets and bounds. Herb pulled the tax maps and that is where it came up that there were two definitions of property and one of th~ questions that vince had was, can I do anything with this other lot? vince arranged to have a meeting and Mark, Vince and myself met with Herb. The specific question was if I go forward and attempt to buy this piece of property will I be able to build a house on this lot. Herb pulled his tax maps and looked at it and said his concerns were around Board of Health approval and provided 1L~~t it could be accommodated that he didn't see any problem. After the ~eting Vince was satisfied that he could get what he expected out of the piece of property and went back, wrote an offer and presented it to Dime and ultimately he purchased two tax parcels_~ Mr. Roberts: That is probably accurate. That mayor may not have been accurate, but certainly he didn't have the deed lineage. -..., "'" Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 26 ~ Mr. Prager: You mean Herb didn't? Mr. Roberts: That is correct. That may be accurate and again your talking about a characterization. I mean if you want to refer specifically to that testimony on that page, that is fine. I don't know if the statement as prepared by Mr. Hanig is completely accurate because we don't know what information was provided to Mr. Levenson. Mr. Hanig: O.k., going back to the question on this September 26th meeting. I believe that is where the Board member asked Schwebel when the final binding contract was signed and he said June 8, 1993. Mr. Prager: Zoning Board? Mr. Hanig: Yes, the Zoning Board, September 26th. Linda, can you send me copies of the zoning Board minutes? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Prager: looking fort What statement was it in there that we're supposed to be ~ Hanig: Mr. Prager: In the september 26th meeting? Yes.. Mr. Hanig: contract.. A question directed to Schwebel asking when he signed the Mr. Roberts: That would have been June 8, 1993, which would have been the day after the Planning Board meeting. Joel your last reference regarding the $16,233.64, do you have a page reference because I think that should be clearly identified. Mr. Hanig: That was submitted on the date of the continued hearing and it was a whole exhibit which was given to the Board. It was testified to by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Lehigh: Yes, we have a final statement. Mr. Roberts: If that number is accurate Mr. Lehigh: He has it broken out as two lots also. Mr. Roberts: say because copy.) The That is the I donlt recall getting a copy of that. I don't know what to I haven't seen that. (Mr. Lehigh shows Mr. Roberts his $130,000 is the acquisition cost. That is with the bank. rest. ~ AI. Hanig: The accounting sheet is the one we took all the numbers from Do you see that there? Mr. Roberts: Then, he has got a separate closing statement to DeCarlo. This is when he sold to DeCarlo. what 11m seeing so far and 11m nott:. trying to be argumentative or anything Joel, but the first closing '-' "'" Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 27 ..., statement is his acquisition cost from Dime Savings Bank and that had a basic purchase price of $130,000. and then they list the adjustments. and what have you. He has attached to it what we call the respa statement, which indicates the various expenses incurred to close that title. Then, there is the cost of improvements to sell. Is this in connection...? Joel is this in connection with the sale to DeCarlo? Mr. Hanig: what is the number? Mr. Roberts: It just says improvement cost on house. Mr. Hanig: That would be in connection with the sale to DeCarlo. That is part of what they had to put into the house to sell it to DeCarlo. Mr. Roberts: The sale to DeCarlo was January 19, 1994. Am I wrong? These expenses were all incurred after the sale date. Mr. Hanig: That is when they paid them. When they occur and when they are paid are two different things. The $6,864.00. Mr. Roberts: Basically, what it boils down to is they bought it for $130,000. and they put $6000. and change into it and sold it for $137,500.00. -.,. Hanig: Actually they bought it for more than $130,000.00 because their acquisition cost were higher_ Mr. Roberts: Yes, I would concede that. I was just trying to simplify it_ Mr. Hanig: So, we did that on our cash flow, negative cash flow was $16,233.00. Mr. Roberts: For the two pieces? Mr. Hanig: For the two pieces, that is correct. For the overall property sixteen thousand ... Mr. Roberts: You can refer specifically to these documents. Mr. Hanig: I think thats it. Mr. Roberts: Even though he is an advocate, I have to commend him for at least making the job a little easier by laying out his opposition the way he did. Mr. Prager: Mr. Roberts: tftt. Lehigh: Mr. Prager: O.k., so the last statement is fine? I would say so. Do we need anything else? No, I next basic step is to try to get these into a ... Mr. Roberts: Yes, if one of you could start drafting something out and then pass it around_ ~ ~ Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 15, 1995 Page 28 ~ Mr. Prager: Do the Findings of Facts and get those straightened out first and then we will have to review them at the November 28th. Mr. Roberts: On the 28th and come to a final decision. Mr. Hanig: Is that when it is going to be November 28th? Mr. Roberts: That is when it was adjourned to. Mr. Prager: Before we adjourn I would like to see a letter written by Linda, thanking Joel Sasser for his many years of dedication. Mrs. Nguyen: O.k. Mr. Fanuele: I make a motion to adjourn. Mr. diPierno: Second. Vote: All ayes_ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. , ~ Respectfully submitted, ~~d~~secretarY Town of wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ~