Loading...
2002-11-12 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 Minutes of November 12,2002 MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals November 12, 2002 Summarized Minutes Town of Wappinger Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Members Present: Mr. Lehigh, Mr. Prager, Mr. Fanuele, Mr. diPierno, Mr. Warren, Chairman V ice-Chairman Member Member Member Ie;;"'. --.:: - F~?::' :~: = _.::~~ ~U'I \' , r ')0'" "l.c ~,tO.:..,~ Others Present: Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Lukianoff, Mrs. Roberti, Town Attorney Zoning Administrator Secretary SUMMARY Public Hearing: Zacarias Mendoza Adjourned to December 10,2002. Discussion: Mr. McGimpsey F ernwoodlHettinger Public Hearing on November 26,2002. Public Hearing on pecember 10, 2002. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ~ Mr. Warren: Mr. diPiemo: Vote: Mr. Warren: Mr. diPiemo: Vote: Page 2 Minutes of November 12, 2002 Motioned to approve Minutes for October 22, 2002. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motioned to approve Site Minutes for October 12, 2002. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Appeal No. 02-7146 Zacarias Mendoza -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R - 20 Zoning District. - Whereas a rear yard setback of 40 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposina a rear yard setback of 36 feet for a 22 X24 foot aarage, thus reauestina a variance of 4 feet. - Whereas a side yard setback of 20 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposina a side yard setback of 15 feet for a 22 X24 foot garage, thus reauesting a variance of 5 feet. The property is located at 436 All Anaels Hill Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6357-03-072064 in the Town of Wappinger. ~ Present: Mr. Prager: Mr. Fanuele: Vote: Mrs. Mendoza: Mr. Lehigh: \.. Mr. & Mrs. Mendoza Motion to open the Public Hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. We are looking to put in a two-car garage because we have five vehicles and do not have another garage. I didn't see the lot line marked off and I wanted to see how far off the lot line the garage would be. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ~ Page 3 Minutes of November 12,2002 Mr. Mendoza: When Mr. Fanuele came out that Saturday it was clear, but in the back there is a white picket fence that outlines where the property line is. Mr. Lehigh: Ok. We also didn't have the measurements of the existing house, do you know them? You may be over the size that you are allowed to have for that lot. You are only allowed to build on 15% ofthat lot. Mr. Mendoza: We don't have them with us. Mr. Lehigh: Tania, do you feel the house and the garage is ok? Mrs. Lukianoff: There wouldn't be a violation because the proposed garage is not there. Mr. Lehigh: But the house is bigger than it should be now. Mrs. Lukianoff: The house has a CO so basically that's that as far as the house goes. Mr. Lehigh: \. Mr. Fanuele: The house is almost 3000 SF and you want to add almost another 1000 SF with the garage. I would defer it to the Zoning Administrator to see if there is a problem with coverage on the lot. Mrs. Lukianoff: I would have to check into that with the Tax Assessor to see what the square footage that they have on record is and what the lot is precisely. Mrs. Mendoza: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Mendoza: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Prager: Mr. Warren: Vote: '-' We purchased the house five years ago and the original garage was already converted into living space. I think before we grant you a variance we will need to find out the measurements on this. I would like to adjourn this to November 26, so we may look into this. That day we will be away. Can you make it the next meeting? Ok, we will adjourn until December 10, 2002. Motion to adjourn to December 10, 2002. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals \.r Page 4 Minutes of November 12,2002 Appeal No. 02-7148 Thomas & Lorraine McGimpsey -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R - 20 Zoning District. - Whereas a rear yard setback of 5 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposina a rear yard setback of 2 feet for a 8 X 10 aluminum storaae shed, thus reauestina a variance of 3 feet. - Whereas a side yard setback of 5 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 2 feet for a 8 X 14 wooden storaae shed, thus reauestina a variance of 3 feet. The property is located at 20 Ardmore Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-01-251511 in the Town of Wappinger. Present: Mr. McGimpsey Mr. McGimpsey: When I put these two sheds up I didn't realize that I needed five feet. I am refinancing now and find that I'm in violation. I would like to get everything right and set the record straight. \. Mr. Lehigh: Mr. McGimpsey: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. McGimpsey: Mr. Prager: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Prager: Mr. Warren: Vote: \r.,. Mr. Prager: Mr. Warren: Is this the only violation on the property? There were several others, but they have all been addressed or are in the process of being finalized. Ok, because we can't grant a variance when there's an open violation on the property. What's behind these sheds? It belongs to my neighbor Bill Pisano. All that stuff is his. Let's look at this. How's Saturday at 9:00 a.m. for a site visit. We'll set the public hearing for November 26, 2002. Motion to set the Public Hearing for November 26, 2002. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to declare us as Lead Agency. Second the motion. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 Minutes of November 12,2002 \.,. V ote: All present voted aye. Mr. McGimpsey: Thank you. Appeal No. 00-7071 Fernwood Floral Garden Style Ine.fR.B. Hettinr:er. Inc. - Seeking a use variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations and 240- 16 (C) (3) Article IV Application of Regulations, Nonconforming use ofa building. The property located at 51 Myers Corners Road. is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-02-899988 located in the Town of Wappinger. Present: Rocco Trenkler Helen Hettinger Keith Carlson Mr. Trenkler: We gave you a narrative the last time we were here and I sent the information you requested to the Town's Planner. ~ Mr. Lehigh: Yes and we have a letter back from him stating that it is a good use for it. His letter is dated November 12, 2002 and I will read the letter into the minutes. Memorandum from Dan Wery, Town of Wappinger Planner: As requested, we have reviewed the following materials in connection with the above captioned matter: 1. Letter from Helen Hettinger, dated 10/03/02; 2. Letter from Rocco Trenkler, dated 10/11/02; and 3. Informal site plan, received by our office 10/28/02. The site is currently used as an office supply and office machine repair business ( H. B. Office Supply). In his letter, Rocco Trenkler, president ofFemwood Floral, indicates among other things, that no substantive changes to the site are proposed; that there is adequate parking for the site; that most business is conducted over the phone; and that in a typical business day there are no more than 2 or 3 on-site customers and 2 outgoing deliveries of flowers. '-" Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals '-' Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: \.,. Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Fanuele: '-' Page 6 Minutes of November 12, 2002 With thirteen parking spaces (as depicted on the submitted site plan) there is more than adequate parking for a florist, which, using the 1 parking space per 150 S.F. parking standard for retail uses, requires 10 parking spaces. Based on our own research and experience, we estimate that a 1,482 square-foot retail florist would generate between four and five vehicle trips during the peak hour of business. The traffic impacts associated with this use would therefore likely be minimal, and would likely generate less traffic than many other retail uses. Does anyone think we ought to go out and look at it? (No.) Does anyone on the board have any questions? (No.) Any questions from the floor? Regina Pace, 53 Myers Comers Road. The last business that was proposed for there, you said they had to do a sewer hook-up. That I don't remember, but that could be my memory. You also said there had to be a buffer and the blacktop had to be removed from the front of the building. Was that us or was that the planning board? You guys. I don't think we ever got that far. I think that might be the planning board. He will have to go before the planning board when he leaves us. Under the law there is supposed to be a 20-foot buffer between residential and commercial property. Well there's no buffer now, what kind of a buffer are you seeking? At least 10 feet of shrubs, high impact shrubbery. Also Mr. Fanuele you had suggested that it be brought into conformity as looking like a house. The problem is that he is not changing the structure of the building. If he were changing the structure I would say he would have to come more toward a residential area. But using it as is. . ... Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals '-' Mrs. Pace: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Trenkler: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Pace: Mr. Fanuele: Page 7 Minutes of November 12,2002 You also told them that they had to remove the sheds. They haven't done that either. That might be a condition, we can look at that again. Do you need the sheds? I would prefer not to comment at this time. I still have the option to go for an article 78, correct, take them to court? Of course, but actually it would be us if we granted the variance. As far as the buffer goes maybe we should go out there and look at it. The law says 20 feet for a buffer between residential and commercial structures. The law says 20 feet between residential and commercial zoning I believe. ~ Mrs. Lukianoff: I think these are items that are addressed by the planning board during the site plan process and they consider the buffer. The professionals review items that are required by the code. Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Roberts: Mr. Lehigh: Mrs. Lukianoff: '-' Mr. Roberts, the question was brought up that between a piece of property zoned commercial next to a piece of property zoned residential, it says it needs 15 to 20 feet of a buffer. Does that apply to this non-conforming property in a residential zone? Not in and of itself if that's a factor to consider of this board. It is part of the planning process. A variance is somewhat of a different set of rules. You have to apply the circumstances of the site to the proposal at hand. That's why it would seem to me that before you consider anything you have to get the proposal and a recommendation from the planning board. We will send it to the planning board then. Their meeting is next Monday on the 18th of November. The owner of the property should be there on Monday. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 Minutes of November 12,2002 ...., Mr. Lehigh: So we will set the public hearing for December 10, 2002 and no site visit is necessary. We will wait for recommendations from the planning board. Mr. diPierno: Mr. Prager: Vote: Motion to adjourn. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Meeting ended at 8:00 PM ~ Respectfully Submitted, C2~/ Bar ara Roberti, Secretary Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals ~