Loading...
2001-01-23 MINUTES MINUTES APPROV~D ~ FEB 1 3 2001 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals January 23, 2001 Summarized Minutes Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY Members Present Mr. Lehigh: Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. Warren: Member Mr. Prager, Member Mr. diPiemo: Member Others Present Mrs. Gale, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Mrs. Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator SUMMARY Minutes to Approve: January 3, 2001 January 9, 2001 Approved Approved with corrections noted. \.- Public Hearing: Henry & Gail Arnold - Variance for deck Discussion: Kevin Davis & Eileen Lithco Montegari & Morse -Variance for shed - Variance for house First Item: Appeal No. 00-7075 Henry & Gail Arnold - Seeking an area variance for front porch/deck, reduction of setback required by 3'. The property is located on 96 Helen Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-02-823871 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: Addressed secretary - all mailings received? Mrs. Gale - Yes Mr. Prager: Motioned to open public hearing Mr. Fauele: Second -.., Mr. Lehigh: All in Favor ~ All: Aye Mr. Lehigh: Motion for Lead Agency? Mr. Prager: So moved Mr. Warren: Second Mr. Lehigh: Explained findings on site visit to Mr. Arnold, - need a 3 foot variance Require 35 feet - you can provide 32 feet. Mr. Arnold: That's correct Mr. Lehigh: Any questions? Mr. Prager: No - this variance is minimal- we looked at property, don't see any problems. Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Arnold, state your case for the record. ~ Mr. Arnold: We want to put a deck on front of our house, it's 8' 8" x 13' laterally, we have 32 feet set back, it's an open deck with railings, ground level with no steps. Mr. Fanuele: It's ground level and need 3 feet. Mr. Lehigh: Is there anybody in the audience? No response Mr. Lehigh: I'll entertain a motion for a NEG DEC Mr. Prager: Make motion for a NEG DEC Mr. diPiemo: Second Mr. Lehigh: All in Favor All: Aye Mr. Lehigh: Need motion to close Public Hearing Mr. Prager: Motion to close Public Hearing \. Mr. Warren: Second ~ Mr. Lehigh: All in Favor All: Aye Mr. Prager: I make a motion to approve the variance Roll call vote: Mr. diPiemo - Granted Mr. Warren - Granted Mr. Lehigh - Granted Mr. Prager - Granted Mr. Fanuele - Granted Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Arnold you have your variance, you'll receive notice in the mail in a couple of days. Next Item: Appeal No. 00-7073 \wr Kevin M. Davis & Eileen P. Lithco - Seeking an area variance of7 feet to have existing shed remain where it is. The property is located at 41 Alpert Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-02-749667 and is located in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: Tell us what you need? Mr. Davis: We moved from Fishkill, my wife five girls and myself on Oct. 11, 2000. Three weeks before that, Mr. Nisgor original owner for 30 years received A notice from Mr. Lieberman, who had inspected the property and he was advised that the shed, which has been in place for 24 years was too close to property line, so prior to closing we needed a clean title in order to close. We purchased the home and go ahead with a variance later. I inspected the shed - it's on level ground, to move it would put it askew, it's about 3-4 feet from property line. Mr. Lehigh: We don't grant variances for 3-4 feet, we have to know exactly. We should know where the line is comer is aligned differently, closed Comer to the line. After consulting with Mrs. Lukianoff, Mr.Davis notes survey map Shows 2.9' from property line. Mr. Prager: That's a very substantial variance -70%. \.... ~ Mr. Fanuele: How did you get the mortgage with a violation - usually they don't Do that? Mr. Lehigh: If you don't have a CO - they don't let you sign. Mr. Davis: Mr. Lieberman had prepared this document basically approving Everything for the property, existing storage shed we were going To renew the Building Permit - the CO that was already issued Had expired. Mr. Davis showed the letter from Mark Lieberman dated October 6, 2000, addressed to Mr. Howard Nisgor, he received this He's trying to close. Mr. Prager: You said the CO had expired or is it that the Building Permit expired? Mr. Davis: That's what expired. Mr. Prager: It says a CO was issued, expired for an 8 x 12 storage shed, to be Renewed after closing. ~ Mr. Lehigh: I never heard of an expired CO. Mrs. Lukianoff: As you can see - October 6th date, I was on vacation - Mark was Doing inspections. What happened - there was a request for a CO Search - since now a part CO search is a visual drive by, Mark made The visual and noticed the shed appeared too close. We asked for an "As Built" Survey - spoke to a very excited Mr. Nisgor - basically he said the shed was 24 years old and it is in excellent condition questioned if the shed was newer. Shed was repainted and re-roofed, the shed is among trees. Spoke to Mr. Davis as well as Mr. Nisgor as to the possibility of moving shed to back of property. \.... '-' Mr. Lehigh: So there is no CO issued on that? Mrs. Lukianoff: I think there was a CO issued - the problem is that originally When Mr. Nisgor got the building permit, the shed was not Placed in the position it was supposed to be - the ground was A little more level- and 24 years ago there wasn't the visual Conformation prior to issuing a CO. Mr. Nisgor came to me And told me the new owner would be duty bound to resolve This issue - and that was the last I heard from Mr. Nisgor. Mr. Davis: He had already purchased the home and was anxious to sell, We were working on getting the girls in school. The shed does not seem out of place, it's close to the deck And pool- that's where all the pool supplies go. The fear Of moving the shed, it's heavy and it's old and to move it Would cause damage. Mr. Lehigh: Usually the sheds are built to be moveable - they build them Someplace else and then moves them. Mr. Davis: It is 24 years old, the top is re-shingled, but the bottom has rotting, I have some pictures. '-' Mr. Lehigh: Let me take a look at the pictures. Mr. Prager: It's right on the ground, it's not on a slab? Mr. Davis: No - you'll see the bricks that are holding it up - to level it off. Mr. diPierno: What concerns me is this is a very large variance. Mr. Prager: The owner, he didn't build this himself, or did he buy it? Mr. Davis: No - he said he purchased it. He said he put a new roof on, last Summer. It fits into the area, not an eyesore. The neighbors don't Seem to have a problem. Mr. Prager: I understand that - unfortunately we have certain rules we have To go by. Ifit's a foot, or a couple of feet, but we're talking 7', Actually it's more - 7' 3". Mr. Lehigh: It's a very large variance. Mr. Fanuele: This had a Building Permit back in 1976, the shed was built - but It never received a CO is that what we're talking aQout? '-" '-'" Mrs. Lukianoff: I can't tell you for sure - I believe the only problem was the Location of the shed - I think the CO was given. Mr. Lehigh: Without regards to the location? Mrs. Lukianoff: Because, back then it wasn't the same as now - where we Ask for "as builds" and follow up on it - and even before CO searches were done, without visual inspections, now we Do CO searches that include a visual inspection of the premise. You get plots that show you one thing and then when Done - you have something completely different. Mr. Lehigh: If he had the CO on it, legally we cannot grant him a variance Because he's already got a CO on it, I have to check with the Attorney on it. Mr. Prager: Is there any paperwork that you might be able to find? Mrs. Lukianoff: I can ask the Building Dept. to check into it Mr. Davis: You can see where the property line starts out front, it's only one quarter of the shed, it's only the front end comer - the back comer is probably a good 5' from the property line. ~ Mr. Prager: What you ought to do is get the exact footage, from the Inside, out. Mrs. Lukianoff: I did write the outside company asking for the verification, They sent me a copy. Mr. Lehigh: If there's a CO - I don't think we need to. I would be against Granting him a variance ifhe's already got a CO. Mr. Fanuele: Ifhe didn't get a CO - it's been sitting there for 24 years Without being inspected for a CO. Mr. Davis: The original owner was emphatic about this, he kept Paperwork - if this required a CO, I'm sure he'd have it. Mr. Lehigh: Does he have any sales slips on that shed, if he keeps all His documents? Mr. Davis: Yes - I'll ask him Mr. Prager: If you can find it - bring it in. '--' ~ Mr. Lehigh: We need to schedule a Site Visit for Saturday, January 26th at 9:30 AM. (At site visit - Mr. Lehigh scheduled a Public Hearing for February 13, 2001). New Item: ALFRED MONTEGARI/TOBY MORSE - Seeking an area variance of 3 feet for house to remain on lot, house is located 3 feet over side yard set back. The property is located at 26 Fleetwood Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6156-01-249806 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Fanuele: When do you plan on moving in? ~ Mr. Montegari: Construction began in May - we had a problem with lot in September, house was set on foundation - all pre-fab, foundation is pre-fab, Sal had stopped by, by looking at house he said house is too low, on Sept. 29th Sal put a Stop Work Order, he requested to have engineers get involved, re-survey the lot, alternate plans - 37" too low, excavators made many errors, The cost is $40,000 to start raising the house, we can't do until we get the Stop Work Order lifter - also found it was 3' too close to sewerage plant. The property behind us is her morn's property, next to us is the Town, in front is the Town, to garage end south side is Bob Herman's property, They're the only neighbors. Mr. Fanuele: What is on the Town property? Mr. Montegari: Sewerage Plant is on the end of Fleetwood Mr. Prager: Stop Order is on it - you raised the foundation? Mr. Montegari: No - we couldn't do anything, there's a Stop Work Order, getting the variance is our final step. Mr. Prager: At this point, you have block up? Mr. Lehigh: He's got the foundation up, house is sitting on it. Mr. Montegari: Prefab foundation, the house is set on it, we were 2 weeks away from moving in - now we have to raise it Mr. Prager: How many inches do you have to raise? \....r '-'" Mr. Montegari: 37" - excavators claim they did nothing wrong, it's all on paper, they did it wrong. Mr. Lehigh: The only variance you're asking for is the 15' to 12' that's a 3' variance. What about the depth? Mrs. Lukianoff: Those are all ok, it's only the side variance. Mr. Lehigh: The depth, we don't have a problem with? Mrs. Lukianoff: You mean the depth of the house? Mr. Lehigh: The depth of the foundation Mrs. Lukianoff: There's no set back - that's engineering Mr. Prager: You've got a Stop Work Order, anyway Mr. Montegari: That's right Mr. Lehigh: That's what I wanted to know, we're not going to go through the whole thing, give him the 3' variance and he needs 37" ~ variance for the depth too Mrs. Lukianoff: No - that's being addressed - the engineers are working on it. This is they need the 15', they're at 12'. Mr. Lehigh: Do we need to take a look? All: No, we should set a Public Hearing. Mr. diPiemo: Is there anything we can do to expedite this? Mr. Prager: Set the Public Hearing Mr. Lehigh: Need a motion for Lead Agency Mr. diPiemo: So moved Mr. Prager: Second Mr. Lehigh: All in Favor? All: Aye '--' ~ ~ '-' ~ Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Prager: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Lehigh: All: Mr. Lehigh: Mr. diPierno: Mr. Prager: Mr. Lehigh: All: . I'll entertain a motion for NEG DEe So moved Second All in Favor? Aye Set a Public Hearing for February 13, 2001 Need motion to adjourn? Motioned to adjourn Second All in Favor? Aye Meeting ended: 8:00PM Respectfully submitted, L/A,J .. / 1/ .u r". J tl ( ./ C tvU--CZ f'.. \0 ~z..c Michelle D. Gale, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals