Loading...
2001-04-24 ,. \., ~ ~ j MINUTES Zoning Board of Appeals April 24, 2001 Summarized Minutes Members Present Mr. Lehigh, Chairman Mr. Fanuele, Vice Chairman Mr. Prager, Member Mr. diPierno,Member Mr. Warren, Member Others Present Mrs. Lukianoff, Zoning Administrator Mrs. Gale, Secretary, ZBA A MINUTES PPROVeo JUN 12 2DDI Page 1 Town of Wappinger Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY SUMMARY Adjourned Public Hearing William Curtin, Jr. Public Hearings Gregg Buddenhagen Wendy Scott & Lou Mazzuoccolo Variance Granted Variance Granted wi Conditions-plant trees for screening Variance Granted for pool - shed variance withdrawn Minutes approved: March 30, 2001 - Site Visit April 10,2001 - ZBA Meeting April 14, 2001 - Site Visit Motion to approve: Mr. Prager Second Motion: Mr. Fanuele All In Favor: All - Aye Motion to Open Public Hearing: Mr. diPierno Second Motion: Mr. Prager All In Favor: All - Aye Page 2 First Item: \..- ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal No. 01-7090 WILLIAM CURTIN. JR. - Seeking area variance of 6.8 ft. for minimum side yard setback of25 feet from Section 240-37 for R-40 Zoning District. Applicant has 18.2 ft.. Property is located on 1 Erin Sue Dr. and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6057-04-989490 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: Called Mr. Curtin, but first asked Mr. Fanuele to address the items he asked for. Mr. Fanuele had copy of the building permit for shed, but noted did not have the original application for the Building Permit. Meeting and recorder were paused to find the Building Permit Application. Original application could not be located. Mr. Lehigh: Opened meeting and recorder was turned on. Mr. Fanuele: We have a problem here, can't find Building Permit Application, don't know what the Building Permit application said. I don't really know what the specs were on the Building Permit - don't know ifit was valid or not valid, all I have here is an As Built plan which is inaccurate, the building permit is incomplete, it doesn't give me the Building Permit number. I can't vote on this. ~ Mr. Lehigh: Would you vote in the affirmative or in the negative that's up to you but you should vote one way or the other - not abstain. Mr. Fanuele: If I abstain - I have to give a reason why I abstain. Mr. Lehigh: Yes - Now we're back to you Mr. Curtin, do you have anything else to add. Mr. Curtin: I'm just trying to get my CO for my pool. Mr. Lehigh: I know what you're trying to do, but we were - two problems we had the CO on your shed, is right on the line - I don't know how you got, but you got what you got, nothing I can do about that, if you were to come into this body, we would not grant it, do you understand what I'm saying, so I have a problem with it to start with, second of all, your pool is not where it should be so, we're trying to figure out if this is something that somebody said "go ahead and do" or when you got your building permit for it, you were told to keep it a certain distance away from your line and so forth. I going to ask you again for the reason for that, because I don't really remember - you didn't mention it at the last meeting we had. I thought you gave a reason for it. Mr. Curtin: There was a reason, they ran into a problem along the border, there was a big pile of debris the contractor buried there. '--" Page 3 \... Mr. Lehigh: See I knew - you did mention it, you just refreshed it in my mind. So they moved it for that reason, in other words, the property had been filled before, that helps me. Does anybody else have other questions? Does anybody in the audience have any questions? (No response) Mr. Lehigh: I'll take a motion on NEG DEC. Mr. diPierno: So moved Mr. Warren: Second All in Favor: All- Aye Mr. Prager: I make a motion to close the Public Hearing Mr. Warren: Second All In Favor - All: Aye Mr. Prager: Well as far as I'm concerned, since the paperwork's not there, can't really blame Mr. Curtin for that - I notice it's only one portion of that pool that is lesser amount than it needs to be on the sideyard for that reason, I vote to Grant the variance. ~ Mr. Lehigh: Motion to Grant the variance, do I have a second? Mr. diPierno: Second Roll Call Vote: Mr. Warren - Granted Mr. diPierno - Granted Mr. Prager - Granted, and I also like to mention beyond that, it is only 28% variance and it's only on that comer, it's not the whole pool that's involved. Mr. Fanuele: I'm going to Abstain, because of incomplete information, to me..... Mr. Lehigh: I am going to vote For a variance, it looks to me like the Building Dept. let us down a little bit on this, and we'll have to take that up with the powers that be there. I would like to say, I don't think this will be detrimental to any nearby property and I don't see any other way of having the pool without a variance, the requested variance is not substantial and I think the reason the pool was moved was because of the fact that it couldn't be installed in the right spot because of the debris. We'll have that order signed. Mr. Lehigh: I would say to the present Zoning Administrator, we're not admonishing her in any way, because she was not here at that time. '-" Page 4 \.... Next Item Appeal No. 01-7092 GREGG A. BUDDENHAGEN - Seeking an area variance of 5 feet for minimum side yard setback of 10 feet from Section 240-37 for R20 Zoning District. Applicant has 5 feet. Property is located on 56 Kent Rd. and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6258-03-454016 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: 1'd like to have a motion to open the Public Hearing. Mr. diPierno: Motioned to Open Public Hearing. Mr. Prager: Second the motion All in Favor - All: Aye Mr. Prager: Michelle, all the mailings are in? Mrs. Gale: All the mailing are here, we have everything. Mr. Lehigh: We went over and looked at this property, do you want to reiterate what is you want and we'll go on from there. '-' Mr. Buddenhagen: At the last meeting, I had mentioned to everybody present, that our reason, there are a few reasons for why we want to locate the shed on our property where we submitted the plot plan and the application for and there were actually quite a few reasons, for us it the most practical, the most economical, the most pleasing and as far as security goes, the location where it will be - will be using the present lighting that's on the house, that will light up the whole entry way to the shed. In addition, there were a couple other locations on the property that we did consider. I know when you came out, there were some other spots that were looked and mentioned might be alternative locations, we actually have. .. were the wooded areas are - we have drainage problems in the wooded area on the right side of the property, if you're looking at it in the front, where the pond is, in the back - we have water in that backs up from there. We have to clear trees, which would obviously be quite costly we're trying to do it as economically reasonable for us, and also more importantly - preserve the environmental factor of the property. In addition, there was another location that we considered and actually have future plans for a gazebo, which you haven't, seen any paperwork on yet, so the shed would be most useful in the location that was staked out. We originally considered that location and a different position for the shed, which would have put us even closer to the property line than the requested variance so we changed the position of the shed, moved the location a little bit closer to our house, giving us a little more of a buffer from the property line. We reduced the size of the shed, we originally placed an order for a ~ Page 5 ~ 12' x 16' shed and we reduced that to a 12' x 10' to give us that little more space. Anything smaller than that wouldn't suit the needs that we have right now, so we tried to make some accommodation. Mr. Lehigh: This is marked 10' x 16' here.. Mr. Buddenhagen: Well, the 12' x 16' was the original plan that we had, because of the Zoning requirements and where the property line is located, before bringing it to the Zoning Board, we ourselves, reduced it to a 10' x 16' to be more reasonable, to make a more reasonable request of you. Mr. Lehigh: Howard, do you.... Mr. Prager: I know we mentioned this at the site inspection that it is a large variance - 50%. Mr. Lehigh: I thought the position in front of that wooden patio would have been an excellent spot for it, one that the neighbors would never have seen at all. Fifty percent does seem like a large variance, would you work with us on that a bit? \w. Mr. Buddenhagen: Well, the location that you mentioned on the opposite side of that patio there is what we were considering for the gazebo, so where the pond is, the garden and that picnic area there, that would be a better place for us for a gazebo, than to put the shed there. Like I mentioned before, we had some concerns because we'd have no lighting in the shed we're not planning to have any electric or anything like that, we would utilize the utility that's already there. Mr. Lehigh: Well, to me, the gazebo is something that is beautifying for the property, something like that, if that were my property I would want it somewhere near that pond, so you could seen the pond and see what was going on rather than the other spot. Mr. Buddenhagen: But we wouldn't be tucking it right back against the property line in that spot, but it would be in that area, I don't know the exact dimensions ofthat area, but I'm going to venture a guess, that it probably somewhere around 20' without looking at any diagrams. That would pretty much take up, regardless of how far we put back in the wooden area, which wasn't my goal, to tuck it away, but to leave it out where it doesn't interfere with the view from the deck and from the sunroom and the balcony from the back of the house. Because ifit comes out any further, ever with the shed there, we would have some obstruction of the view of the property from there. Mr. Lehigh: Any other questions? Mr. Fanuele: How about some screening there. Mr. Lehigh: No - that's why I thought ifit had gone in front of the patio, we wouldn't have.. wouldn't need.. just put it right there. '-" Page 6 ~ Mr. Prager: I know you don't want to remove any trees, if you remove that one tree right in the comer, you could move that shed right over, at least a couple of feet. Mr. Buddenhagen: Which...? Mr. Prager: It would be southwest comer (showing Mr. Buddenhagen on the map) Then you could at least move it over or toward the road a little you could at least get by it. Fifty percent to me is too substantial. Mr. Lehigh: Anything else? Mr. Buddenhagen: The only thing I'd like to mention is the neighbor on the side, where the shed is proposed, I sent the letters out that I'm required to do, I spoke with each of them and showed them the plans, everybody pretty much knows exactly what we're looking to do, the requested variance and the people that would be affected by it, didn't have any issues with it, so I just ask that be taken into consideration by you all making the determination, I know it's 50% - I actually have 5 ~ feet, I know that's not substantial, that extra half foot, it's just that the people it would affect, I spoke with them they have the opportunity to come and talk to express opinions and questions here at the meeting and nobody saw fit to do that, so I respectfully ask that be considered by each of you in making the determination on our request. ~ Mr. Lehigh: That's a nice statement, the people that live next door may move out tomorrow and somebody else move in, then they're going to be stuck with a view of that shed. I couldn't possibly give you a 50% variance without you putting some kind of screening in there around, such as trees, or a fence - other than looking at that shed. You stated before, when I asked you "why don't you put that shed in the back a little bit", you said you didn't want to see it - but still you want to put it in line where your neighbor is so he's going to look at it. - the consideration should be for your neighbor, because he's not getting the use out of that shed. Mrs. Buddenhagen: I'd like to intervene, I'm Mrs. Buddenhagen there is a tree line, where the shed would be. Mr. Prager: Yes, I saw that.. . Mrs. Buddenhagen: Their garage is next to our yard, it is not their plate glass window, it is not their dining room area that views our side of our yard, it's their garage. Mr. Buddenhagen: It was in a position that wouldn't be. . ..my concern is that every time I look out my balcony or my sunroom - I have no choice, I'll be looking at the comer of that shed. Those folks where we're proposing the shed location, they wouldn't be looking at it every time they look out their window, that was something I had discussed with them, I showed them exactly where we wanted to lay it out.. if they had any suggestions I had sent a cover letter along with the notice of the Public Hearing, ~ Page 7 \.. explaining in detail what we're looking to do, also inviting anybody, if they wanted to come over, give us a knock on the door, give us any suggestions, I would understand their concerns and respect their concerns if they said "we're going to look out and see the thing" or whatever the case is, I certainly would respect that - I understand what you're saying "we don't want to look at it" - it's not that we're not going to see it when we look out, it's just in a more useful location then where it was mentioned by some of the members. . . Mr. Lehigh: What I'm saying is a little screening here would help me. Mr. Buddenhagen: OK Mrs. Buddenhagen: There are trees, there are bushes existing there, their growing, we can add more bushes in there. Mr. Lehigh: That's all I'm asking. Mr. Buddenhagen: I would even be willing to consider putting in some stockade fence panels along the property line. I don't know ifthere's a requirement for distance from property line on a fence or an application for a permit is needed? That's absolutely reasonable. Mr. Prager: I think you had mentioned, maybe you could refresh my memory, if you were to put this into the back of the property, could a truck even get back there? ~ Mr. Buddenhagen: No - it would have to be carried in, right where we're proposing it now, I have to have it assembled, which is additionaL.. Mr. Prager: Then my questions is - is there any way it can be put in without it being built? Mr. Buddenhagen: No - no way can it be built and delivered because of the trees that we have right offthe driveway. (Conversations between all parties overlapped and were inaudible to recorder). Mr. Fanuele: There's numerous other places where you can put it. Mr. Buddenhagen: You should tell me where those numerous places were and I'm sure I can give you a reasonable explanation for why we can't put it there. Mr. Fanuele: You don't want it there. Mr. Buddenhagen: I don't think you would expect us to put a shed in a location that has a drainage problem, where we're going to have water seeping into the shed and ruining the property that we're trying to secure in there. I mean reasonably speaking, I don't ~ Page 8 ~ think anybody in here would do that. The shed is a $3,000 investment put the items we're going to putting in there, I really don't want water coming into it, that's one consideration for two of the locations is drainage, then we have issues with the trees, like I said at the original meeting when we viewed the property, we considered moving here, the property was listed as "Park Like" setting, it truly is a beautiful piece of property, the last thing I want to do is start taking trees down, to facilitate the location of the shed, even where the trees are that property in there is some kind of water run from there, and god only knows where the thing goes maybe to the pond, we got roots obviously from the tree a considerable amount of work involved and cost involved and that's unreasonable, not possible for us to do that. Mr. diPierno: What are you going to keep in your shed? Mr. Buddenhagen: Basically, lawn tools and right now we have a two car garage that we can't put a half of a car into, we have all of our lawn tools in there, garden supplies, seeds, whatever mower, snow blower.. .. Mr. Lehigh: The area where you're putting it...I think if you just screened the area.... then I could live with and I think the people next door. Mr. Prager: I probably could at that point, I think in fairness to our Zoning Administrator, explain what you expect for screening. '-' Mr. Lehigh: Yes, definitely. I like to see side of it is going to be (that's the long side- 16') at least 3 pine trees, even bushes, something that's going to grow up 4'-5'. Mr. Prager: What would you have - 5' now? Mr. Lehigh: I don't think they have to be that high now - something that going to grow. Mr. Buddenhagen: Something similar to the bushes that are in place now? Mr. Lehigh: I don't remember what's there. Mr. Prager: I just don't remember.... Mrs. Buddenhagen: They're about this high - their Canadian Evergreens. (Went on to explain where the trees are to the members). Mr. Lehigh: I remember some trees being there, that was an open area between your neighbor and you where that shed is going. Mr. Buddenhagen: Right, along the property line those trees are spaced, there's probably 3 maybe 4 feet between them. Mr. Lehigh: I don't think you'd want to put them in closer than 3 feet, they'll fill in '--' Page 9 ~ Mr. Fanuele: If you would look at Mr. Curtin's property even though he's in violation with the shed and the trees that he put there, I would think that's the kind of screening that you want. Mr. Lehigh: She's got some there, they're just going to add to it. The whole line down by the house has got the evergreens trees so you extend them down to the shed. Two or three. Mr. Prager: Three would be better. Mr. Buddenhagen: That's fine Mr. Lehigh: Need Motion ofNEG DEC. Mr. Prager: Motioned for NEG DEC. Mr. diPiemo: Second motion All in Favor - All: Aye Mr. Prager: Motioned to close Public Hearing ifthere's no people to speak? Mr. Lehigh: Anybody from the audience want to speak? ~ (No response) Mr. diPiemo: Second All in Favor - All: Aye Mr. Lehigh: I need a motion? Mr. Prager: I make a motion to grant the variance, as long as there's screening of at least three evergreens - 3 ft. high. Mr. diPiemo: Second All in Favor - All: Aye Roll Call Vote: Mr. Warren - Granted Mr. diPiemo - Granted Mr. Prager - Granted Mr. Fanuele - Granted Mr. Lehigh - Granted ~ Page 10 ~ Next Appeal: Appeal No. 01-7093 WENDY SCOTT & LOU MAZZUOCCOLO - (Variance for shed has been withdrawn.) Area variance for 27 feet of minimum rear yard setback from Section 240-37 requiring 50 feet rear yard setback in a R40 Zoning District. Applicant can provide 27 feet, thus requesting a 23' variance. The property is located on 12 Ever~reen Dr. and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6258-04-514269 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lehigh: 1'd like to have a motion to open the Public Hearing Mr. diPiemo: Made motion Mr. Prager: Second the motion All in Favor - All: Aye Mr. Lehigh: We went out and looked at the property, did away with the shed, and the pool - still need 23 feet - right? Ms. Scott: Yes \.." Mr. Lehigh: Anybody have any questions? Mr. Prager: I know by looking at it from the Site Inspection there doesn't look like the another area for it, again with the farm behind you and where it is I don't think it's going to be seen. Mr. Fanuele: The property is kind of odd ball shaped, the pool will look best where you want to put it with the variance, you could probably squeeze it somewhere else, but it would look best where you want to put it. Mr. Lehigh: I wouldn't put it any closer to the deck. Being that we've been there - Does anybody in the audience want to comment? (No response) Mr. Lehigh: I like a NEG DEe Mr. Warren: So moved Mr. Prager: Second .. \....- Page 11 All in Favor - All: Aye '-" Mr. Prager: Motioned to close Public Hearing. Mr. Lehigh: Second All in Favor - All: Aye Mr. Fanuele: Moved to grant variance Mr. diPiemo: Second Mr. Lehigh - Roll call Vote Mr. Warren - Granted Mr. diPiemo - Granted Mr. Prager - Granted Mr. Fanuele - Granted Mr. Lehigh - Granted - I think it's a minor variance, I don't think the pool can go any other place, it won't have any impact on the surrounding area so, we'll sign that order tomorrow and you have your variance. '-' Next Item: Mr. Lehigh: The Zoning Administrator would like to bring a conceptual in front of us. CONCEPTUAL Richard Heady 30 Dugan Lane Wants to add and addition onto house. Will need variances. Had variance for deck within 5 years. Mr. Heady: I have five kids, this was my grandfather's house.. Mr. Lehigh: How long is the addition? Mr. Heady: I want it 50 feet by 30 feet. Mrs. Lukianoff: Depending on what the Zoning Board of Appeals - if the addition..... which would you be more open to? '-' Page 12 \.... Mr. Prager: What would the difference be if you went the other way 50' that way and 30' this way? Mr. Heady: There's no other house around me, my neighbor is here she has 6 acres, she doesn't have a problem with it. (Showing to the Board members on the map Mr. Heady is explaining the location of his house).. .. Mr. Lehigh: The house as it sets right now is Non-conforming on that property? Mrs. Lukianoff: It did have a variance... Mr. Lehigh: What I'm getting to.. is this when you have Non-conforming property, you're not allowed to increase that Non-conforming more than 50%. Mr. diPiemo: What's the dimensions of this. Mr. Heady: This house? - It's 26' x 30', which is small- there's seven of us. My grandfather built it. Mr. Lehigh: How big is the property all together (I know it's odd shaped). '-' Mr. Heady: It's not even an acre. This is all woods here. Mr. Lehigh: Who owns that property? Mr. Heady: The Town of Wappinger Mr. Lehigh: Before we give any opinion here, we better check our 50%.. .I'm pretty sure I'm right. Mr. Prager: Yes, let's do that. Mr. Lehigh: That shoots you down right there..What you're supposed to do is become conforming. Do you know what I'm saying? Mr. Heady: No Mr. diPiemo: If you're Non-conforming, you can't do any construction that's going to make your property even more Non-conforming. Mr. Fanuele: What's the zoning here? Is it R40 or R20? \....- Page 13 ~ Mr. Heady: I think it's an R20. Mr. Fanuele: Ifit's an R20 than this is..... Mr. Heady: Why can't I build is it that I'm?... Mr. Lehigh: No - it's because the Law says, what you're going under is the law, the Building Code of the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Heady: Well, my neighbor put an addition on. Mr. Lehigh: I know I'm getting into neighbors and I'm telling you why, I'm telling you what I believe the law says. Mrs. Lukianoff: You're right about that. Mr. Lehigh: They may not be Non-conforming, they're lot may be big enough. Mr. Heady: You have to go by the lot? Mr. Lehigh: Yes ~ Mr. Heady: How could I find out about that? Mr. Lehigh: I can tell you right now you're Non-conforming, just by looking at it. Mrs. Lukianoff: It's probably grandfathered ifit pre-dates Mr. Lehigh: Yes, there's no numbers for them to turn down, it can't prevent you from increasing the size of it, up to 20 or 30%, in other words, this .. Mr. Heady: It's 26 x 30 Mr. Lehigh: So it's what 200...., so you can't increase 50% more than that, you could have an addition half the size of this with no problem, even with this and this the variance would have to be granted. At least you could do that. Mr. Heady: I could do thaLI could do two floors than, right? Mrs. Lukianoff: The square footage would be... Mr. Lehigh: The square footage that will kill you. Mrs. Lukianoff: Now, how about a variance for that? '-' Page 14 '-- Mr. Lehigh: What I would do, if you make an application, then I can go to the attorney and say this is what he wants to do, what do you say, can he or can't he - and than I take it to the attorney and the attorney can tell me whether you can do that or not, if you can go up to the second floor build it that high - go up to the second floor with just variances, if you're granted variances well then I wouldn't have any problem going back and telling you that you can do it, but I don't want to tell you that and have you put $20,000 out and get sued and tell you to take it down. Mr. Heady: OK Mr. Lehigh: Do you understand what I'm saying? The problem is that land is small and you're non-conforming, if you weren't non-conforming you wouldn't have a problem. If you weren't non-conforming you would just get your building permit. (More dialog continuing out of range of recorder). Mr. Heady: What if I go the same size that my house is now? Mr. Lehigh: You can't go the same size, but you can go up to 50%. It doesn't say 50%. Mr. Prager: They must have taken that out, I can't find it. It used to be in there. Maybe that was use. '-' Mrs. Lukianoff: That was the use. That was also the intent, when you have commercial than you could claim up to 50%. Mr. Lehigh: I think we ought to run it by Mr. Roberts, tell him... Meeting ended at 8:30 PM Respectfully Submitted, ~.~ D cx/a.4- Michelle D. Gale Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals \....r