Loading...
1995-11-01m Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Novi=llbo 1995 Ork ,aop Agenda - 7:30 P.M. Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls; N.Y. Approval of September 12 & 26. & October 10 & 17. 1995 minutes_ UISCUSSIWJ Spotted owl Development Corn. - To discuss Appeal »1207 for an existing under:=_-ec lot located on Montfort Road in the Town of Wappinger. 11 r i Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals November 1, 1995 Workshop - Minutes Members Present Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Others Present u Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, N.Y. Mr. Lehigh: Member Mr. diPierno: Member Mr. Albert Roberts, Town Attorney Mr. Donald Close, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Linda Nguyen, Secretary to the Z.B.A. APPAoViD Dov 2 a 1996 PLANNING 80!,7.7 L Mr. Prager: It looks like the Town clock is a little slow. It's around 7:30 P.M. So, I would like to call the Zoning Board of Appeals of Wappinger to order. Can we have a roll call please? ROLL CALL - All present. Mr. Prager: As everybody know we're hear tonight for a discussion on Spotted Owl Development Corp. I just want to check that we have all of our information in line. Before I do that, we do have some minutes from previous meetings on September 12 & 26, October 10 & 17. Could I have a motion? I think we had better take them individually since some people weeren't here for certain meetings. MY`. Lehigh: September 12th to be okayed. Mr. Fanuele: Second_ Vote: All ayes. Mr. Lehigh: September 26th, o.k. Mr. Fanuele: Second. Vote: All ayes. Mr. diPierno abstained because he wasn't present at that meeting. Mr. Prager: October 10th? Mr. Fanuele: I will make this motion. Mr. Lehigh: I'll second it. Vote: All ayes_ Mr. Prager: And October 17th minutes? Mr. Lehigh: I will move that .. 4W Prager: Motion by Mr. Lehigh. Mr. Lehigh: With corrections_ Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 1 Mr. Prager: Do you want to make the corrections? Mr. diPierno: I'll second it. Mr. Lehigh: Corrections are on page 7. "Mr. Lehigh: It was stated at the last meeting that we had told him he was within a thousand feet of a residential area. We told him at that time we couldn't grant him a variance. Even if we varied the 2,500 feet, we couldn't grant him a variance because he is still within a thousand feet of a residential area." Then, the last sentence. "He still wouldn't be able to operate even if he had the 2500 foot variance." Mr. Prager: O.K., motion made by Mr. Lehigh with corrections and seconded by Mr. diPierno. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Prager: The next item of business is to discuss Appeal #1207 Spotted Owl Development Corporation for an existing undersized lot located on Montfort Road in the Town of Wappinger. Everybody have all the material? Everybody read it? Mr. Roberts: Could you note for the record my appearance, Mr. Hanig, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Schwebel? lr. Prager: Yes. Do you want to start, anybody? (Asking the Board) Mr. Roberts: (Speaking to Mr. Hanig) Why don't you make a statement of your objections? Mr. Hanig: It was my understanding that Mr. Roberts had previously filed his own version of findings and facts for this Board_ Mr. Roberts: Draft. Mr. Hanig: I had mentioned that I disagreed with some of the phrasing and some of the findings that are in there. The only way that I know to go about it is really to go through page by page. Mr. Prager: Fine. Mr. Hanig: I'll talk to the Board and tell them what my problems are. We can start with page 2. There is nothing wrong with page 1. on page 2 where it talks about deed history, go down to where it says from January 29, 65 to 87. The two parcels were .... Mr. Prager: Yes, o.k. Actually it is under June 29, 1965 and under that is January 291 1965 to June of 87. Hanig: 87 by Cosgrove. My objection isn't to the first sentence. My L6ection is the second sentence. The information that we have should be reflected in here that the Cosgrove home was built on the house lot prior 14 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 2 rd June 29, 1965. I think that is relevant to when the house was built in that it was built on that lot before the Caputo lot was sold to Cosgrove. Mr. Roberts: I am not quite sure if I understand your comments Joel. Mr. Hanig: Where it's just a blanket statement. It's conceived that the Cosgrove home was built on the common property line on these two parcels. That is not really quite a true statement. Cosgrove's home was built on the Cosgrove lot at a time when Cosgrove was only the owner of the house lot and not the vacant lot. That is important to be reflected here. Both lots were not in ownership when that house was built. That was reflected by the Town records. Mr. Roberts: I believe that is a correct statement. Mr. Prager: I do too. Mr. Roberts: How do you want to phrase it? Mr. Prager: Basically, the house was built on Cosgrove's lot. Mr. Roberts: No, that is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that the house was built prior to the acquisition of the second parcel. . Prager: That is correct_ Mr. Hanig: And that it was built on the Cosgrove lot. Mr. Roberts: But, I think it was built over the lot line. Mr. Hanig: I don't think so. The garage was an after added structure. I do not believe it was built over the property line_ Mr. Roberts: That is not clear in the minutes then. I don't know when the garage and the house .., but it's one unit at this point and time. Mr. Hanig: Now it is. Mr. Roberts: Well, it was back then when it was constructed. The garage was built prior to the acquisition of the second lot. Mr. Hanig: I don't know that. I am not sure that ... Mr. Lehigh: Let me ask you a question. Do you have any proof that it wasn't? Mr. Roberts: I'm trying to find it in the minutes, but I believe that was conceded that the dwelling, including the garage, was built on the lot line. *yr Hanig: Well in the Planning Board minutes, I guess you asked Mr. Schwebel who was sitting next to me, was the garage built at a separate time? You raised that issue yourself at the Planning Board. Mr. Schwebel said, "It appears from my professional opinion the building to be an 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 3 dition. We believe it has been there more than 10 years." That is the basis of my recollection that the garage itself was built at a separate time. Mr. Roberts: I believe Mr. Hover also noted that the Cosgrove's had built on the property line and that was the reason for him purchasing the lot. Mr. Hanig: That is the question. Where does that appear? Mr. Roberts: Page 12. Mr. Hanig: I know we get into it later on, but I have never seen any statement to that affect. Mr. Roberts: Page 12. Mr. Hanig: Page 12 of? Al, that is page 12 of what ..? Mr. Roberts: August 29. It is a little convoluted, but you start reading on the fourth line_ Mr. Hanig: I am not sure that I have those minutes. I know I was on distribution for the minutes of ... Mr. Roberts: August 29, 1995, those are the minutes that you asked to be d. Mr. Hanig: If it's possible, could I see a copy of those minutes? (Mr. Roberts hands Mr. Hanig his copy of the August 29, 1995 minutes.) Mr. Hanig: I don't know who Hover is, but he seems to support what I'm saying. It says, "I remember the time that he said when they built the garage, the garage was over the property line and he had to buy the two pieces of property. That was back in the mid -sixties." Mr. Roberts: Joel the point of that is whether the house and the garage were built simultaneously is irrelevant. The garage was built prior to him acquiring the second lot and I think that is what your statement is. Mr. Hanig: Well, you see that is what I can't tell. I can't tell that the garage was built by him prior to him acquiring the second lot because this man didn't say that they built the house and garage. All he said was that they built the garage and the garage was over the property line and they had to buy the two pieces of property. Then, it says in the mid -sixties ... because the property was transferred on January 1965. This man didn't define whether or not the garage was built before the transfer or after the transfer. It certainly wasn't Mr. Cosgrove who came in with personal knowledge of this or Mr. Caputo who came in with personal knowledge of this. This was somebody who is a neighbor, who is now going I— recollection going back twenty or thirty years. Based upon this mans collection, I don't see how a finding could be made saying one way or the other that the garage was built either before the man purchased the second lot or after the man purchased the second lot. */ Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 4 Mr. Roberts: Well, go back to your objection to the point in question. The statement is it's conceded that the Cosgrove's home, now the garage and the dwelling portion of the house are one unit and they were built on the common property line of these two parcels. That is all it says. Your the one who made the point_ Mr. Hanig: That is right. What I'm saying is your the one who is urging this finding. Mr. Roberts: What is inaccurate about it? Mr. Hanig: What is inaccurate about it is the house was not built on the property line. The house was built on the Cosgrove parcel. If there was anything built on the property line at some point and time, it was a corner of the garage. Mr. Roberts: Be that as it may, it is one unit. The home being the house and the garage_ Mr. Hanig: It became one unit, but the question of the timing of when that garage was built is something that isn't certain from what is here before this Board. Mr. Roberts: The finding isn't in disagreement with what your ggesting. if you want to make it the house and garage or the garage attached to the home was built on the common property line, that is fine with me. Mr. Hanig: I think if you want to say that the garage which was attached to the hone. Mr. Roberts: That is fine with me. That is up to the Board to make the finding. Mr. Hanig: It should be clear that the home was built before the date of that transfer because there is no question about that. We all know that the home was built before the date of the transfer to Cosgrove. Mr. Prager: (As he wrote down what Mr. Hanig had just said, he said it out loud.) The house was built before the acquisition of the second lot. What did you say about the garage? How did you want to put that? Mr. Roberts: After the word Cosgrove insert the garage attached to the home. I also point out to the Board in the August 16th minutes, page 6, there is a statement by Mr. Kossow which I think is taken out of context. He is saying, we wanted to avoid a situation where the garage was on the line. That is taken in context of why they wanted the lot line realignment_ Hanig: Yes, that I ... There is no question. .... On this ;;�-rrection ... the correction is going to say, the house was built before the transfer to Cosgrove and the garage attached to the house was built on the common property line at some point and time. n Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 5 r. Roberts: Wait, wait, I don't know that the house was built prior to the transfer to Cosgrove. Mr. Hanig: I believe we do. I believe that it was stated in the Assessor's record. I think we have a copy of the Assessor's record. Mr. Schwebel: The house was built in 63. Mr. Roberts: Yes, that was after he sold it in 62. Mr. Hanig: No, 62 is Gold to Cosgrove. Mr. Roberts: That is correct and the house was built in 63. Mr. Hanig: yes, which was after ... Absolutely right. Mr. Roberts: That is not what you are saying Joel. Mr. Hanig: Yes, it is. Caputo to Cosgrove is 65. The house was built in 63 which is two years before they got the other lot, before they got the Caputo lot. Mr. Roberts: Yes. Mr. Hanig: I know that there was documentation on that somewhere. i 1Wr. Roberts: I don't know if that is in the record. Its not in this record because even back in the Planning Board minutes there was a question. What relevance does that have? You have the acquisition of the lot in 62. You have the acquisition of the vacant lot in 64. Somewhere in between the garage was built_ Mr. Murphy: They hadn't divided the property so, it wasn't on another persons property. Mr. Roberts: That is right. For the record, I will concede that the house was built between 62 and June of 65. I don't think that is a relevant point. Mr. diPierno: According to Joel's letter dated June 16, page 2, it says the house was built in 1962. Mr. Roberts: June of 62 was when it was acquired. I'm pretty sure the c/o was later then that. That c/o is not in the record. Mr. Schwebel: Did they issue c/o's back then? Mr. Roberts: Yes, I think that is when they started. Mr. Hanig: Al has agreed that it was built between times. I don't think f have to split hairs over it. Paragraph 4, Cosgrove to Capobianco. If can take a look at that deed of Cosgrove to Capobianco. I have it right here. While there was in that deed a combined legal description, the deed did reference that the legal description was the premises of Caputo to Cosgrove and the premises of Gold to Cosgrove. So, I don't IM Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 6 ree that it didn't reference the two parcels with being sold. Mr. Roberts: I think what my statement says, that it did not specifically reference that two were being sold although it did give the recording information, which is what you just repeated. Mr. Hanig: I think it goes beyond that. There is a consolidated legal description. No question about it. There is a one perimeter description, a composite description and I agree with that, but what it does says at the bottom of the deed, "Being the same premises conveyed by Caputo by Cosgrove" in one paragraph and then gives the deed ... liber page of that deed. Then, in the second paragraph being the same premises conveyed by Chauncey Gold to Cosgrove. So, it's giving two separate parcels that have now been combined into a single legal description. so, it is referencing two parcels specifically by deed reference, but one legal description. So, I disagree with your statement that the deed didn't specifically represent that two parcels were being sold. Mr. Roberts: What it did Joel ... This is going to be up to them to decide. What it did do is reference the recording information of the prior acquired parcels which were now consolidated into one metes and bounds description. Mr. Hanig: I don't think it did. If in fact there was no intent to name two separate parcels, you and I both know very well that those paragraphs n't even need to be in there for it to be a legal deed transferring tle to property. It could have been transferred by metes and bounds alone and did not need those additional paragraphs. Mr. Roberts: That is true. I think you will agree that it is the custom and practice to reference the prior acquired recording information in every deed. That is the practice in Dutchess County and has been ever since you and I have been practicing. I disagree with you on that and that will have to be up to them to make the final .. Mr. Lehigh: He made his point, lets move on to the next one. Mr. Hanig: That same objection is going to carry thought because that same split, I believe took place in some of the other deeds too. Lets take paragraph No. 5 where it's going to be Capobianco to Capobianco. Let me pull out my copy of that deed. You have a single description, you then have the same premises conveyed by Caputo to Cosgrove. Another paragraph stating the same premises conveyed by Gold to Cosgrove. Then, a third paragraph referencing being the same premises conveyed by Cosgrove to Patrick and Joanie Capobianco. Again, this was a deed that could have referenced the entire parcel in just a single metes and bounds description and did not, but went a head to further show that these were two separate lots comprising the consolidated description of the metes and bounds description. My objection is the same objection to the statement that it is simply that the description was the composite description. It wasn't comply the composite description. There was further description stating t this composite description consisted of two separate lots. Mr. Roberts: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with that. I have the deed in front of me. There are two references to the earlier deeds. There is 0 Ln *4/ Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 7 1r401so a reference to the Cosgrove's to Capobianco, which is a consolidated deed. Normally if your going to transfer separate parcels you identify them as parcel 1, 2, 3 in a deed. That hasn't been done. That is just a reference to the recording information. Again, I have to defer to the Board to make that finding_ Mr. Hanig: I disagree with that. Mr. Roberts: Well, we're in disagreement, but they're going to have to make that decision. Mr. Hanig: The next one, acquired by Dime Savings Bank by virtue of foreclosure proceedings. That is a good question whether the deed from referee to Dime does because it simply is saying we're selling 4 Montfort Road described in Schedule A. I don't have a Schedule A. It's showing simply that it's one tax grid number being sold instead of two tax grid numbers, which is the case in this particular situation. It's probably the composite description, but the copy that I have is not readable. Mr. Roberts: Which date are you referring to? Which paragraph are you referring to? Mr. Hanig: The referees deed to Dime. Mr. Prager: Dime Savings to Murphy? i0rr. Murphy: No, Leonard Klein is referee to Dime. I think that is the one that Al is referring to. It says, the property was thereafter acquired -- Mr. Prager: Oh, I have it. Mr. Roberts: But, I think you have to go back to the previous deed to understand that the title acquired by the bank only used the composite description. Mr. Hanig: That is what I'm saying. Mr. Roberts: The deed in foreclosure from Klein to Dime Savings Bank just used a metes and bounds description. That is all that was in there. Then, you go ... Mr. Hanig: Lets stop right there with the one on the referees deed. Unless what I am looking at is difference. Maybe yours is a better copy than mine. The description ... is the composite description in reference to one tax grid number instead of two tax grid numbers? So, there is a tax grid number missing from the reference. Rather more commonly known as 4 Montfort may very well be. I'm not sure. I thought it was maybe 4 & 6, but it could very well be. Roberts: We don't know. That is all thats in .. Mr. Hanig: ........ at the E & A form and then wound up adding the second tax roll identifier to make it two lots on the E & A form that was filed in order to get the deed filed. So, they couldn't get away with filing 0 M 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 8 kwhe deed simply with one lot identification because it was required on the E & A form, which is a form that goes to the Assessor's office together with a copy of the deed that both tax grid numbers be referenced on that deed to show that this was two separate tax lots being conveyed. What we have is a referees deed. A referee basically signs whatever is put in front of him that is prepared by a bank attorney because a referee really doesn't know what he is signing. When it comes to being reviewed and one is really being conveyed, obviously the real property tax people said no, you don't just have one lot here, you have two lots. They require that the second tax grid number be added to the E & A form that gets filed with the deed. i still have my position that the recording documents stil.1 show two lots being transferred when these recording documents are being read together with each other. Mr. Roberts: My only comment is that there was one lot that happened to have to tax grid numbers that never got changed. I already indicated in previous statements to the Board that we have no understanding of why there were two separate grid numbers. That gets done by the County and assigned by the County. Mr. Hanig: There is no question that the deed utilized the composite description. I can agree to that.. Mr. Roberts: And I will agree that there were two grid numbers. Hanig: And accompanying documents utilized two tax grid numbers. One r each of the lots. Mr. Roberts: That is essentially accurate. Mr. Hanig: Yes, each of the tax lots. O.K., lets then go to number 6, which is Dime to Murphy. (Mr. Hanig couldn't find his copy of the deed.) To a large degree there is a lack of further description in the deed. Mr. Roberts: That is correct. Mr. Hanig: Where the Schedule A has a consolidated description and it says ending further described as parcels A & B. Then, parcel A is described and parcel A I guess would be a single lot description. I am not a surveyor and I haven't matched that up, but I would guess that it's a single lot description and then there was not a separate page for parcel B attached. Then, it refers to again two tax grid numbers. Mr. Roberts: Gentlemen, I would like the record to reflect that the two grid numbers.were handwritten in. Mr. Prager: I was just going to bring that point up because I believe at a past meeting that was brought out. Did we ever decide who wrote them? Mr. Roberts: No, I have noway of knowing. yr. Prager: I don't remember reading anything in the minutes. Joel you don't know ...? 29 . Hanig: No, I don't_ *40 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 9 Mr. Prager: How that writing got in there anymore than at the bottom of Schedule A it's written in as and as being further described as parcel A & B. It looks like the same handwriting. Mr. Lehigh: Wouldn't the title company come up with something on that when they researched it? Mr. Roberts: Yes, they did. Mr. Hanig: She did say something when she was here. All that she could say was that it was done and that is all she knew was that it was done. Mr. Roberts: It was done and there were several correction deeds that were filed several months thereafter. The point that I would like to make is that had not the composite description been included Mr. Murphy would not have required clear title to the so called two separate lots as he is alleging. He would have only acquired one to parcel A. Quite frankly, my personal review of that indicates that there was a problem with the metes and bounds description in parcel A. That is irrelevant because it's covered pretty much .... I guess we can move on_ Mr. Hanig: If we talk about paragraph 6 then, I want to talk about ... Roberts: What changes do you want because ..? Mr. Hanig: That is what we're going to talk about. Mr. Roberts: They're looking at this as a guide and if we can agree, they can go forward. If we can't agree, they have to decide. Mr. Hanig: The word curiously I object to because ... Mr. Roberts: Fine, strike it. Mr. Lehigh: Now, we're back on the finding and facts? Mr. Prager: Now, we're back on paragraph 6, like the 5th line down. Mr. Hanig: (Too low to transcribe.) The only addition I would like to make to paragraph 6 is a statement that both tax grid lot numbers were referenced in the deed_ Mr. Lehigh: You want to add that? Mr. Roberts: They were handwritten in as opposed to typewritten in. Mr. Hanig: I don't care how it is said. *`--. Roberts: I don't know what bearing it has on Mr. Fanuele: I get the feeling here, looking at this and critiquing it right now without coming in with a document saying this is what I don't agree with. I haven't got time to sit here and have to critique this in 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 10 kw front of the meeting right now. I will not have a standardized copy that everybody would agree on. We're all taking notes and trying to catch what you have got. Why don't you critique this and put it in writing and then we can review it. Mr. Hanig: I have been on trial for two solid weeks now and I really haven't had the time to sit and look at this. I must apologize to the Board. Mr. Fanuele: That is fine. Maybe we should just adjourn or make a decision now, if you haven't got time. Mr. Hanig: I will do whatever the Board wishes. Mr. Roberts: How many more objections do you have? Mr. Hanig: Basically, there are two more paragraphs to go in language. Then, there are some semantics. That is basically it. It's up to the Board. Mr. Prager: I know at the last meeting, in fact we mentioned to you Mr. Murphy, if there were any changes or anything that your attorney would like to talk about that it really should have been given to us before this P-eting so we could have a clear understanding of what your talking iut. If you feel that you could sum this up, you can continue. I just don't want it dragging on too long. It gets a little confusing. As Mr. Fanuele had mentioned, I am trying to write notes here. Hopefully I am getting it the way it should be. I want to make a fair and honest decision for you and for ourselves. I just don't want to have our notes wrong and somebody getting something different. Mr. Lehigh: I think it's a point well taken. Mr. Hanig: The end of paragraph 6, both tax grid numbers were referenced in handwriting on the deed. That is a true statement. Seven is no problem. Number 8, where it talks about continue the apparent inappropriate description Mr. Lehigh: Wait a minute lets get the one down first. Mr. Prager: Both tax grid numbers were handwritten on deed. Mr. Hanig: Seven is not a problem. Paragraph 8, where it uses apparent and inappropriate. Those words I object to. There is no question the description for parcel A continued the description reference to the deed from Dime to Murphy. Mr: Roberts: I think that characterized the situation. There was a problem with the metes and bounds description_ Hanig: I don't have any surveyor who says there was a problem with that. Mr. Roberts: The documents speaks for itself Joel. M Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1_995 Page 11 Mr. Lehigh: I think he has made his objection, if he wants to make it any other way than orally then, he should submit something in writing otherwise we have heard it and lets move on to the next. Mr. Hanig: Just for the record, I do object to apparent and inappropriate. The other words I object to is counsels conclusions that where it says, the deed contained a revised metes and bounds description before you could transfer the original house lot in an attempt to leave title to the former vacant lot Spotted Owl Development Corp. That is more argument than anything else. I don't mind the revised metes and bounds description transferring instead of purporting to and transferring the original house lot to .... whatever it is. To Spotted Owl or whatever. The question of purporting to is argument and the words attempt to are argument also, I feel. I mean it is going to be up to the Board to decide what the factual decision is and not the argument of purporting to or making any attempt to do this or whatever. Mr. Prager: So, you want to strike purporting? Mr. Hanig: Yes. Mr. Lehigh: I disagree with striking. I think it should be something he contest. I don't think we should strike anything. I'm agreeing with V -4c. I think we should have something in writing. It's getting too t:h. I'm going to sit down and try to figure out exactly what you want and what you need. I really think we're going to need something in writing. Mr. diPierno: I agree with Mr. Lehigh. Mr. Hanig: In paragraph 10, I think that the way that it's phrased seems to put a burden on me. I think that it's a clear statement and that was made in the earlier paragraph that two tax grid numbers continued to be utilized. If there is going to be a statement in paragraph 10, I think there should also be a statement saying that nor the Town of Wappinger nor the Assessor have come forward to explain why two separate tax grid numbers continued to be used for the premises. I don't think it's totally my burden to explain one thing when the Town has failed to come forward to explain on the other hand why the tax grid numbers continued to be used continuously for purposes of identification up until the present date. Mr. Roberts: Number one, the grid numbers are assigned by the County Real Property Tax Department and secondly, paragraph 10 is nothing more than a statement. Mr. Prager: Statement, thats the way I would take it. Mr. Roberts: I have a correction to number 11. It is the Town of Wappinger Planning Board. I apologize for that. �!. Hanig: I have a very easy suggestion for paragraphs 13 through 22. My suggestion is simply a statement that the minutes of the Planning Board's meetings, June 7, 1993 and August 16, 1993, have been incorporated by reference into the proceedings before the Zoning Board of Appeals. n 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 12 When you start taking one quote here and one quote there, there is no question in my mind, I'm going to have to submit a letter to the Board of all the quotes that I want to see within the findings before the Board. Mr. Roberts: I think you should do that Joel. I think those minutes are important and I think it's this Board's duty to read them and understand them in context of this whole issue. Mr. Hanig: That is exactly why I object to isolated paragraphs being quoted that you submit to this Board when I believe that if there is going to be anything that the entire proceedings before the ...... that the minutes of the Planning Board should really be appended to this particular decision for reference purposes. There is no question, there is a lot of colloquy before the Planning Board. The question of what was said there is something which really has to be a totality rather than isolated sentences. Mr. Roberts: Joel we stipulated that these minutes would be part of this record_ Mr. Hanig: That is correct. Mr. Roberts: They're already part of the record. Once they are in idence, this Board has a duty and obligation to review them and extract atever evidence or believe whatever evidence they deem is appropriate. If you have something that you want to add, I suggest it be put into writing. Mr. Hanig: I guess I will have to do that. I think it's unfair to take up the time of this Board tonight and go through those minutes of the Planning Board meetings and say this is what I like, this is what I like, this is what I like. That would be unfair. Mr. Roberts: This was generated from our word processor just to give them a guide. It was presented. I did not know you were not going to attend the last meeting, but I did give your client a copy. It was done for the purpose of you reviewing it, commenting, adding or subtracting anything. Mr. Hanig: I will give the Board my requested extracts from the Planning Board minutes. Mr. Roberts: At this point, if your going to do it, give them in writing all your specific additions or deletions to the proposed findings. At least give them a frame work because there is a lot of material that has to go into this decision. Mr. Prager: That is basically why we wanted to have this workshop tonight so we would have all the information in front of us and then at the next meeting make the decision. Now, it doesn't look like we're going to be le to do that. Mr. Hanig: Al, is this on Word Perfect? Mr. Roberts: I haven't got a clue_ 1140 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Hanig: Because if it is, I could get the disk from you and I could have the strikes and adds done right off the computer in my office and it would be very visible at that point and time what my requested strikes and adds would be. Mr. Roberts: (Instructed him to speak with certain people from his office that could assist him-) Mr. Hanig: One way or the other, I will give this Board a document with the strikes and adds that would be very visible on the document showing which items I would like to strike and which items I would like to add. It will be done within the word processing format. The Board can then decide what they would like to do on the different items. I can do that and it won't be a matter of ._. Mr. Prager: Will we be getting that like this week? Mr. Roberts: What is your trial commitment? Mr. Hanig: Trial commitment is I will be finished with the trial at the end of next week. I will be finished with the trial next Thursday. I do have a free day Tuesday, Election Day. We are not working Election Day. M*-. Roberts: Can you get it done on Tuesday? Mir. Hanig: I believe I can get it done on Tuesday. Mr. Roberts: Being an Attorney I know what being on trial does. Mir. Lehigh: It sounds like the December time frame would probably be best. Mr. Roberts: Do you want to postpone it beyond the trial date? Mr. Hanig: It would be my preference. Mr. Murphy: Could we have a short discussion. Mr. Roberts: Sure. (Nr. Murphy, Mr. Schwebel and Mr. Hanig leave the room.) Mr. Lehigh: Another thing, we're going to have to see what our time limits are on this. Mr. Roberts: They will consent to it. Mr. Lehigh: If they consent to it, then that pushes the clock back. Roberts: Right. (Nr. Murphy, Mr. Schwebel, and Mr. Hanig return.) Mr. Hanig: I have no problem extending to any additional time that the Board needs. Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 14 Mr. Roberts: Joel, the ball is in your court. If you can get it done on Tuesday, we can work around on that frame. If you need additional time, you will have to let us know. Your the one that is on trial. Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Hanig, you said you have no problem extending the time that the Board needs. The Board is giving you the time to state your case. It isn't putting the burden on us that we need the time. If you need the time, we are willing to entertain the extension. If you don't have the time then, we will close the case and we will make the decision based .._.. Mr. Hanig: I understand that, but it really does work both ways. I mean I have been before the Zoning Board's for many many years and I have never had a problem with extending the official date by which a Board has to make a decision. That is all I am saying is that my consent is needed and I am giving my consent. I am not saying that because I am doing the Board any favors. I am not doing the Board any favors. I am doing it for purposes of the record so that there is never an argument that there is any time limit that has gone by because my consent wasn't obtained - Mr. Roberts: He doesn't want to be forced into you having to make a decision to comply with the time constraints. Fanuele: We want to give him enough time that he needs to present his case knowing that his time table is busy. Mr. Prager: You've made a decision when your getting your paperwork back to us? Your answers, your questions, your changes. Mr. Hanig: Yes. Mr. Prager: That will be? Mr. Prager: If I can do it Tuesday, Al will know Wednesday. Mr. Roberts: What they're looking for is to schedule a meeting. If I can interject Joel, they have devoted tonights meeting to going through the information and rendering a decision. I think they want to set another date aside specifically for that purpose. Mr. Prager: Exactly. The 15th is our next meeting. Mr. Roberts: Do you have a big calendar that night? Mr. Prager: Yes, an adjourned public hearing, a new public hearing, and three discussions that night. So, it will be a while that night. Mr. Hanig: Whatever the night the Board wants_ Lehigh: December 12th is the first meeting MIXED DISCUSSION Mr. Prager: November 28th? That would be our normal Tuesday. Is that M o.k. with you Al? It's a Tuesday night. Mr. Roberts: I'll make it o.k. 144 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1. 1995 Page 15 Mr. Prager: You gentlemen o.k.? Mr. Hanig: O.k. Mr. diPierno: (Too low to transcribe.) Mr. Prager: We can't because we're going to have the ones that is for discussion for the 15th. Mr. Fanuele: We could set it for a public hearing for December 12th. Mr. Prager: That night, the 28th, all information will be here that we can .... Mr. Lehigh: Well, you want it here before then. Mr. Hanig: I think it will be here well before ... Mr. Prager: Well, we will have it here before then. You are going to get it to us so we have it before that night. % Mir. Roberts: You will send the original to Linda with a copy to me. Linda is the Secretary of the Zoning Board. Mr. Hanig: O.k. Mr. Roberts: Linda, you will distribute it to the Board members? Mrs. Nguyen: Yes. Mr. Hanig: What I will do is send to Linda at least a half of dozen copies. The reason is I have found when you do strikes and adds on a computer, the more you photocopy them the worst they look. So, for her to make a photocopy of my photocopy may make it very difficult to read. Mr. Prager: Is there anything else you gentlemen would like to mention? Mr. Roberts do you have anything? Anybody on the Board? Time wise, do we have to get an extension or anything? Mr. Roberts: Yes_ Mr. Lehigh: Yes, you definitely have to give him an extension. He agreed to getting his verdict on the 28th and the extended time. Mr. Hanig: Yes. Roberts: Before he leaves, are you going to be able to put in writing a decision on the 28th? You are going to have to ... Mr. Lehigh: That is why I suggested the first week in December, the 12th. 4 Wappinger Zoning Board Minutes - November 1, 1995 Page 16 Mr. Roberts: Your going to meet and your going to have to go over that information and make a decision based on what you find the facts are and then you have your check list and you have to give your reasoning. It's going to wind up being partially typewritten and partially handwritten. Mr. Fanuele: After we hear from him on the 28th, how long do we have to make a decision? We don't want to make the decision now before we hear the ... Mr. Roberts: What Mr. Lehigh asked Mr. Hanig was, do we have until the 28th? What I am saying is you may need a couple of days beyond that to get a typewritten decision written out. Mr. Hanig: Granted, I have no problem with that. Mr. Roberts: Linda, I'm going to take this, (Findings and Facts) make a copy and give it back to you. Mrs. Nguyen: O.K. Mr. diPierno made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Fanuele: Second. e: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:36 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, Linda N¢Juygn, secretary of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals