Loading...
2002-05-14 Zoning Board of Appeals May 14, 2002 Summarized Minutes Members Present Mr. Lehigh, Mr. Fanuele, Mr. diPiemo, Mr. Prager, Mr. Warren, MINUTES Chairman Vice Chairman Member Member Member Others Present: Mrs. Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Gale, Secretary SUMMARY Public Hearing: Discussions: Mr. & Mrs. K. Gibson Mr. & Mrs. 1. Kilkenny Mr. Michael Mancuso Mrs. Seaman Mr. & Mrs. Merrill Minutes to be Approved: April 9, 2002 Mr. Prager: Motion to approve Mr. Warren: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye Town of Wappinger Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Variance Granted PH set 5/29/02 PH set 5/29/02 PH set 5/29/02 PH set 5/29/02 '-' APPEAL No. 02-7121 Mr. & Mrs. Kevin Gibson - Seeking an area variance of Chapter 240, Section 20 of the Zoning Code in R-I0 & R-40. Whereas 50 ft. of frontage is required, the applicants are proposine 25 ft. frontat!e. thus requestin2 a variance of 25 feet to allow access over a rit!ht of way. thereby creatine 25 feet of fronta2e. The property is located at Sprint! Street. Chelsea. NY and is identified as Tax Grid No. 5956-04-970470 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Prager: Are the mailings all in order? Mrs. Gale: Yes Mr. Prager: I make a motion to open the public hearing Mr. diPiemo: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye '-" Mr. Lehigh: We have a letter also to enter into evidence from the Town of Wappinger Planning Board, dated April 3, 2002 - does everybody have that? All Board members: Yes Mr. Lehigh: Yes - it's in favor of the variance. Mr. L. Paggi: The project is located on Spring St. in the Hamlet of Chelsea at the end of Spring St. where it meets Liberty, and what the proposal is to do - is to provide access to an existing parcel, what currently exists is there are four lots - there's a lot at this location (pointing out on map Mr. Paggi provided for audience and Board members) a lot at this location, both of them occupied by existing dwellings, there's currently a vacant parcel in the middle and there's this fourth parcel that has a new home constructed on it. This home takes access through a right-of-way that's granted over the center piece and over this existing dwelling's property, here. (Showing the map to explain how four lots will be made into three lots by moving right-of-way to be part of applicant's property). The reason we're here for a variance - even though we're creating frontage where none existed prior - it's still less than what is required by code, so a variance is still required. ~ ~ Mr. Lehigh: Any questions? (N 0 response) Mr. Lehigh: We need a motion on a NEG DEe? Mr. diPierno: So moved Mr. Prager: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye Mr. Lehigh: I need a motion to close the public hearing Mr. Prager: So moved Mr. Warren: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye Mr. Lehigh: Would you like to make a motion for or against? ~ Mr. Prager: I move that we grant the variance Mr. diPiemo: Second Roll Call Vote: Mr. Warren - Granted Mr. diPierno - Granted Mr. Prager - Granted Mr. Fanuele - Granted Mr. Lehigh - Granted '-' DISCUSSION: '-" APPEAL No. 02-7122 Mr. & Mrs. John Kilkenny - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in R-20/40 Zoning District. Whereas a rear yard setback of 50 feet is required, the applicant is proposin~ a rear yard set of 33 feet to an existin!! above ~round pool remain where it is. thus requestin~ a variance of 17 feet. The property is located at 110 Osborne Hill Rd. and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6156-02-557753 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: Come up and explain what you're looking for and why. Mrs. Kilkenny: All I can say is when this pool was put up we were totally unaware of the fact that it needed a permit, it wasn't until we applied for an extension on our house, which we've been granted a permit for, that this came into play, that's why we're applying for it now, it's been up for over 10 years, as I recall- I remember a tree fell into it, the insurance had to take a look at it, that's my reference as far as the time goes - we apologize for our ignorance as far as not being aware of the fact that it needed a permit and we'd greatly appreciate if you could see fit to let it remain. Mr. Fanuele: Howald is the house? ~ Mrs. Kilkenny: It's about one hundred years old - we're adding to the back portion of the house, the side near the pool. The pool, I only have a ten year reference from the insurance letter that shows where a tree fell into it and it was an estimation needed for an insurance company, that's my only reference, back in 1992. Mr. Prager: Did you own it at that time? Mrs. Kilkenny: Yes we did Mr. Lehigh: Has it been there longer than that? Mrs. Kilkenny: Yes, it's an older pool, we've been maintaining it, it's in good condition we use it every year, we've got kids, four. Mr. Prager: You have the pool put in? Mrs. Kilkenny: Yes the pool was put in during our occupancy. Mr. Prager: Do you know approximately when? '- '-' Mrs. Kilkenny: It would be around eleven, twelve years ago, I think it's thirteen years we had the property now, as I said we weren't aware we needed a permit at that time. We do have thirty-three feet back there we have a neighbor - he's got privacy fencing between ourselves and them, he's got no problem at all with it. I don't know the man's last name - it's been Bob for twelve or thirteen years, now. We're dealing with two other permits that are in play, as well. Mr. Lehigh: With the other permits, do you need a variance on them as well. Mrs. Kilkenny: No - no we don't, the only one that came up was this pool. The Building Inspector doesn't have a problem with it, the only thing is we might have to put some guard rails up around the end of it, if we leave it there, I believe it has to be 47" from the top of the pool to the ground that had been discussed. Mr. Lehigh: We'll have to come out and take a look at it. Does anyone have anything else to say? Mr. Fanuele: The driveway there, was there when you bought the property? Mrs. Kilkenny: Yes, everything was there, the way it is, except we put the pool in. '-' Mr. Prager: How large is your property? Mrs. Kilkenny: It's one hundred, ninety-seven or ninety-eight feet, it's just 1/1 0 off the acre. It's 190 something this way, and 197' - it's pretty square. Mr. Lehigh: We'll take a look at it? Saturday morning. So you'll have the public hearing on May 29th. I need a motion for Lead Agency Mr. Warren: So moved Mr. diPierno: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye '-" '-' APPEAL No. 02-7124 Michael Mancuso - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in R-20 Zoning District. Whereas a side yard setback ofl0 feet is required. the applicant is proposine a 2 foot side yard setback thus reauestine a variance of 8 feet, and whereas a 10 foot rear yard setback is required. the applicant is proposing a 1.5 ft. setback. thus requestine a variance of8.5 feet to have a 10' x 14' wood shed on property. The property is located at 85 Scott Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-04-732407 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: Could you just walk us through why you're doing this? Mr. Mancuso: The reason was in the back of my yard about a 15 ft. section of it is on an upgrade and it levels out again about another 15 ft., the backyard is all fenced in if you're looking at the property on the left side of my yard is a town easement and I know I can't put in front of there because people do come out to clean it and I have noticed on a heavy rain it does flood over, if I bring it off the hill in far enough it's going to be very close to my pool and I would be nervous if somebody were to go in the backyard they would possibly jump in the pool. Mr. Lehigh: Where is your pool? Mr. Mancuso: It's right directly behind the house. \. Mr. Lehigh: On the plot plan could you show us? Above ground, in the ground? Mr. Mancuso: (Showing on plot plan where the location of the pool is). The beginning of it is 25 ft. from the house and it extends back, it's almost in the middle of the yard. Mr. Lehigh: How far is that from your rear lot line? Mr. Mancuso: I would say probably about 50 ft., - I've got a 15 ft. level spot and it down grades for about 15 ft. and then it levels out again, if! was to put it on that level spot, back far enough where I would not need a variance, I would be nervous that someone would go on the top of the shed and jump into the pool. Mr. Fanuele: The easement is on the other side? Mr. Mancuso: The easement is on the other side of the property - yes. I drew a line - that's the easement it goes down both sides of the property. Mr. Prager: Yes - I see what you mean. \...- '-' Mr. Mancuso: It stays above ground, it's all open then it goes underground out to the street. I did stake it out, where I would like to put it, and told my neighbor. Mr. Lehigh: The shed is not there now, right? Mr. Mancuso: No, I just put four stakes in the ground and showed my neighbor, this way he could see it, and behind me is woods. Mr. Fanuele: We could see the stakes? Mr. Mancuso: Yes Mr. Prager: If you could also put a line where your property line is so we can see it. Mr. Mancuso: It's fenced in. It's my neighbor's fence. Mr. Prager: So that's their property line that we'd be looking at. '-' Mr. Lehigh: I was just wondering if you considered a smaller shed or. . . Mr. Mancuso: With the hill, there wouldn't be that much of a difference, if I come out 10ft. it would be teetering on the hill I would have to build a wall or cement blocks. Mr. Lehigh: I think we're going to have to come out and take a look at it. We'll put you down for the 29th (May) for the public hearing. I need a motion to be Lead Agency. Mr. Prager: So moved Mr. diPiemo: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye ~ '-' Appeal No. 02-7125 Kevin and Mary Seaman - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in R-20 Zoning District. Whereas a side yard setback of20 feet is required. the applicants are proposine a 10 foot side yard setback. to have a new 24' x 15' pool installed. thus requestin~ a 10 foot variance. The property is located on 44 Amherst Lane and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6057-04-857461 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: I need a motion for Lead Agency. Mr. diPiemo: So moved Mr. Warren: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye Mr. Lehigh: The pool is not there now, right? Mrs. Seaman: We didn't buy it yet so we're able to do something different if we need to. \.. Mr. Prager: I noticed this is on the short side of the lot, is there a reason for that? I noticed there's like 150 ft. on the other side. Mrs. Seaman: Central Hudson has a 100 ft. easement, the entire back of my property, I can't build on and it's also hills, I'm on three tiers of property, obviously I wouldn't put it in my front yard, my side yard is all driveway and the entire back yard is Central Hudson lines. I submitted two plans, Plan A - would put the pool right along side of the house, going right in this area, Plan B-1 would put a smaller pool that would knock it back into the hill, I have to put a retaining wall. Mr. Prager: I noticed there's a shed over here - that's in there now? Mrs. Seaman: Yes Mr. Prager: That's going to be illegal, do you have a permit for that? '-' \.... Mrs. Seaman: When we bought - it was there, but we would break it down, it's just a toy shed. Mr. Lehigh: You're going to have to do something, because we cant' give you a variance unless the property is in compliance. We're going to come out and look at this on Saturday. Mrs. Seaman: I can have my husband mark the area. Mr. Lehigh: A couple of stakes and a line where the pool would be. Mrs. Seaman: If this is not approved could I go ahead with Plan B, which is a smaller pool and I would only need a few feet variance, rather than the 10ft. - I would actually only need. . ... Mr. Lehigh: Which plan would you wish if you were to. . .. Mrs. Seaman: I would prefer the 10ft. variance, it just a better spot for the pool. '-' Mr. Prager: The only thing is with the 10 ft. it is a 50% variance, if you've got another idea - you might want to let us see it. Mrs. Gale: It's on the variance application as Variance 2. Mr. Prager: Would you have him put a retaining wall? Mrs. Seaman: Yes - because it's a hill. Mr. Fanuele: The neighbor's property who's on the side of the pool, how far is the house from the property line? Mrs. Seaman: The actual house I do not know, but in between our house is a little bit of property, his driveway and then his house. We do want to put up a wall, as far as a sound barrier and a little privacy, because I do have three children and because we're up high, I think the sound travels down a little bit. Mr. Prager: Did you say you would not be there Saturday? Mrs. Seaman: We'll be in and out on Saturday. Mr. Lehigh: We put your public hearing down for May 29th . '--' '-' Appeal No. 02-7126 Gustave & Patricia Merrill- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in R-20 Zoning District. Whereas a side yard setback of20 feet is required. the anplicants are proposin~ a 13 foot side yard setback. to have an existin~ pool remain where it is. thus requestin~ a 7 foot variance. The property is located on 9 Tor Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-02-865807 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: This pool is up, right? Mrs. Merrill: This pool has been existing for 20 years. We purchased it from Murmac in September of 1981 and it was installed in April of 1982. Back then we were told, in ground pools needed permits, you did not need it for above ground pools - and people back then plugged their above ground pool in with an extension cord, which we didn't do- my husband is an electrician and we had done it properly. We are refinancing our home and when the refinancing had done the title search, which was done in '92 which we don't understand why this wasn't picked up in '92 - this house has cleared title 3 times. Mr. Prager: I think these title companies are ripping everything off, as far as I'm concerned. They don't do what they're supposed to do. '-' Mrs. Merrill: I called the ones that did the title search in '92 - they did have a copy of a letter from the Town that said violations exist, but nothing was listed on the violation. So everything went through - we're refinancing again - they gave us a list of things that we needed to do, so that's why we're here and if we don't get everything closed by June 10th we lose our rate - locked in at a percentage rate. Mr. Prager: IfI'm looking at it correctly, I'm looking at Tor Rd. from the back of your house, it would be on the right rear. Mrs. Merrill: If you stand in front of our house on Tor it's to the left of the house, in between 7 and 9 Tor. There's a natural border of gigantic 20' - 30' hemlocks. Mr. Lehigh: There's a shed with the house also. Mrs. Merrill: Yes - that was put in by.. . .Sallooked at everything and the porch was listed as a violation shed was existing and said we didn't have to apply for a variance, because it's been there - before we bought the house. Mr. diPierno: How old is the house? '-" \..,.. Mrs. Merrill: Built in 1967, and the reason the pool went where it was because there was a circle, there somebody had put a pool there taken it down, so when Mermac came in they said put it right there. Mr. Prager: Do you have a deed that said it was built in 1967, I did a lot of work there and as far as I know.. ..., could have been in '67. Mr. Lehigh: You're located on 9 Tor Rd. - was one of the first houses. Mrs. Merrill: Yes - it was one of the first one's that went in, it was like the fifth, sixth. Mr. Lehigh: But you don't have a variance for that shed as of right now? Mrs. Merrill: Well, Sal said I did not need one. Mr. Lehigh: Regardless of what Sal said, how long has the shed been in there? Mrs. Merrill: We moved in '79 - the Clark's were there for five or six years we believe it was the Brewster's that put the shed in-I don't know how long they lived there. \.,. Mr. Fanuele: After '67... Mrs. Merrill: We moved in '79, the Clark's must have been from '71 to 70 something, from '67 to '71 or '72 that's when.... Mr. Lehigh: Zoning came into effect in 1963..so whether the shed was covered or not, I don't know. Really, rather than get messed up the whole thing should be done. Mr. Prager: Get the variance for the shed. Mr. Lehigh: Actually you don't need a variance, they can just move it - it's not that far to move it. Mrs. Merrill: You can't move it - the person who had it used to keep a horse in the shed. Originally there was fencing around the property and the fencing came down when the wife got mad at the husband, they were going through a divorce. Mr. Lehigh: Is the shed worth anything at all? Mrs. Merrill: It's a good storage shed, the lawn mower, the tractor. \.,. \..- Mr. Lehigh: To grant you a variance you're not supposed to have any violations on the property, that's the law. Mrs. Merrill: That's what the Building Inspector said.. ..but I guess not. Mrs. Gale: I talked to Shelley today after that letter she gave me, she said Sal is doing something with the other.. .the shed and the porch. Mr. Lehigh: Why don't you get a letter from him, telling us what he's doing and why he finds it legal. Mr. Prager: We'd like him to know that the Zoning Ordinance was in effect since 1963, it came after that, unless there wasn't anything about sheds at that time, ifthere was - it's illegal. Mr. Fanuele: Would the original owner get the building permit..... Mrs. Merrill: I don't think that was in there - and the porch, the porch was there when we bought the house, because the Clark's put the porch on. \r Mr. Lehigh: What did he say was wrong with the porch, because actually there's not supposed to be any violations on the property before we could even consider. . .. Mr. Prager: Maybe it was the CO? Mrs. Merrill: When we refinanced in '92 what happened was - they said violations existed they didn't site us on anything, - they didn't list anything, but then we got a letter from and I showed Sal a receipt from - they cited us for the garage - they didn't see the garage, now the Clark's didn't put on the garage, we believe the Brewster's put on the garage, and we were cited for the garage - no CO on the garage. Why did he catch that in '79 - but the caught that in '92 the porch was still there, the shed was there, the pool was there. Mr. Lehigh: It may seem like we're coming after you, but if we go ahead and grant you a variance and somebody complains about the variance or decides to complain about it. . . Mrs. Merrill: Which one? ...,. \.... Mr. Lehigh: The one that you're asking for - the pool. If we go ahead and grant that without you being in conformance then they can throw the whole thing out, they can Article 78 it, throw the whole thing out and you could go through the whole thing again. So what we'd like to do and what we're trying to do is to get everything ironed out - if we get some information from Sal that you don't have any other violations on the property, and if you do, you're going to have to clear those up, before we grant you a variance, that's the law. Mrs. Merrill: Ifwe had known that we would have come here with all that information here tonight. Mr. Fanuele: When do you have to get the refinancing? Mrs. Merrill: We have to close by June 10th if we don't close by June 10th which means we come back on the 29th (May), if that was approved, we could go ahead and get the closing done. ~ Mr. Lehigh: Let's hope it works like that - I can't promise you anything if everything is alright with the building department, it's probably alright with us. We'll put the public hearing down for May 29th. We have to have a motion to declare us Lead Agency. Mr. diPiemo: So moved Mr. Warren: Second All in favor - all present voted - Aye Mr. Lehigh: We'll do a site inspection on Saturday. Respectfully Submitted, Michelle D. Gale Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals ~