Loading...
1991-04-23n Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals April 23, 1991 Minutes Meeting was called to order at 7:30PM n Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Roll Call _ Lehigh: Present - Vice Chairman aFPMMWN Mr. Mr. Brooker: Present Mrs. Roe: Present MAY 2 8, 91 Mr. Sasser: Present Mr. Hirkala: Present - Chairman ZONING MWOPAr1 U Others Present PLANNING MW Mr. Levenson: Zoning Administrator Mrs. Hardisty: Secretary to Zoning & Planning Boards Mr. Hirkala: I think the first item should be the minutes, of February 26 and March 26. mr. Sasser: Made a motion to accept the minutes of February 26, and March 26. %6,,.th corrections Mr. Lehigh: Seconded. Vote: Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Sasser: aye Mr. Lehigh: aye Mrs. Roe: aye Motion carried. Mr. Hirkala: First item on the agenda, Appeal number 1106. Zoning Board of the Town of Wappinger will hold a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 513 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. At the request of Terrence and Lorriane Daley, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421 Paragraph 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit an addition that requires a 40 foot rear yard. The applicant is requesting a 17 foot rear variance, on property located at 2 Mac Intosh Lane and being parcel # 6257-02-580924 in the Town of Wap- pinger. Is the clerk in receipt of all the return receipts? Mr. Levenson: We are in possession of all the post mark white receipts, Mr. Chairman, and 95% of the green cards are in hand. Advertising has been pro- perly made. Mr. Hirkala: Thank you, is there anyone to speak for the applicant in the audience? 4rt. Daley: Yes we are Mr. & Mrs. Daley, and we are requesting a variance on this thing, on our house. Our house original was, well the original zoning on that was 20 feet, in the back of the house and they changed it to 40 feet. Now we don't have 40 feet in the back to begin with, we have 35 feet. So that is why we are requesting a variance. ""Oslo, (2) Mrs. Daley: We have an existing porch to the extent that we want our addition. So we are not requesting any additional footage. Mr. Sasser: So there is something already built there? Mrs. Daley: We have a existing porch there, there is no foundation. But the porch is in existence now. Mr. Levenson: What they are basically doing Mr. Sasser, is the application shows that they are going to square off the building. By butting the addition on. Mr. Brooker: What number of porch is this? Mrs. Daley: It's the second one we had on. We have had a porch there since the second year after the house was built. This porch has been approved and improved twice since than. Mr. Brooker: Mr. Levenson, were they granted a variance last time they improved the porch? %,,;. Levenson: No. Mr. Lehigh: Is there a Certificate of Occupancy on that porch? Mr. Levenson: Yes there is a Co on the complete building. Mr. Hirkala: Does the complete building CO include the porch? Mr. Levenson: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: The rear deck? Mr. Levenson: On the deck that appears there now, there is a CO. Mr. Sasser: Then it is in compliance. Mr. Hirkala: No, I am assuming now that it is a non conforming situation. A legally non conforming situation. Mr. Levenson: That is correct. Mr. Hirkala: Because when a CO is granted, according to what this man has said there was a 20 foot rear yard setback allowed. I am trying to think what the zone was of that area. I don't know of any zone that allows a 20 foot rear yard, or did allow before. �Prr. Daley: They did allow it when the house was built. Mr. Hirkala: If that was in the bonus area, there was one acre zone dropped to half acre, because of the sewage. But the half acre requirement isn't 20 feet in the rear yard. (3) Mrs. Daley: They changed the way the house was suppose to face. Mr. Hirkala: In that case there has to be a variance on it. Mr. Levenson: No. There is no variance, on this building at all. Mr. Hirkala: Do you get my draft? Mr. Levenson: I understand but I wasn't here and neither were you. Mr. Hirkala: I am confused, because when that house was built, it was when in the mid seventies? Mr. Daley: 1973. Mr. Hirkala: In 1973 the 1963 ordinance was in effect, and the rear yard set- back was more than 20 feet, for a half acre zone. That is what I am talking about. Mrs. Roe: It says here that they turned the house around, so now when they built it, r'. Levenson: Don't forget this house was originally facing Baldwin Road, it was turned around. There is an indication that it was turned around at the convenience of the builder, to Mac Intosh Lane. Mr. Hirkala: So when they built the house they screwed up. Mrs. Daley: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: The builder screwed up and what they did was put a CO, the Build- ing Inspector and the Zoning Administrator at the time put a CO on it without getting a variance approval on it. Mr. Sasser: It seems to me, and just correct me if I am wrong, I just want to make sure I understand it. What you are stating your economic injury is that other houses in the neighborhood have improved, and you feel that by not allowing yourself to improve, that this is a hardship. Is that what you have stated in your letter? Mrs. Daley: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: The question I have is, your letter is saying that the zoning was 20 feet, the zoning was never 20 feet that is what my point is. Mrs. Daley: This is what the builder told us. Hirkala: The point I am bringing up is the zoning was never 20 feet. There %P6 nothing we can do about it at this point, but to set the record straight the zoning was never 20 feet. But when the builder put the house up, he took it upon himself to re-site the house, and the Building Inspector and the Zoning Administrator at the time didn't make a issue of it, and let it slide and issued a CO on the house, therefore we have no choice but to leave it as is. n (4) In Mrs. Roe: If the builder had put it the way it should have been they would have enough setback. Mr. Hirkala: Is there anyone in the audience to speak for or against this application? Mr. Knewitz: We live at number 4 Mac Intosh Lane. Mr. Hirkala: You live next door to these people? Mr. Knewitz: Yes. To the side. Mrs. Knewitz: I have prepared this, approximately 11 years ago we had approached Mr. Daley, with a request for a variance of 2 or 3 feet. It was our intention to add a two car garage to the side of the house. Mr. Daley, said he would speak to his wife and get back to us. The next day he came to us and said he and his wife had discussed the matter and that Mrs. Daley, felt that our addi- tion would make their house look smaller. Therefore they both objected to our addition. I would like to compare the dimensions of the two houses. We have a small ranch type house measuring 42x24 feet. The Daley's have a large raised ranch type house. The original size of the raise ranch being built in our com- ,„inity was I believe was 46x25 feet. And it has been my understanding over the years that the Daley's had this house size increased, I don't know the exact measurements but I would guess an additional 4 feet. Now wouldn't it seem that if our addition would make the Daley's already larger house look small, that their addition would make our already small ranch appear tiny. Could this then have some possible bearing on our prudential to sell our house, if we decide to do so. In addition there is a lack of privacy. Their porch is opposite our bedroom window, and therefore our shade is down most of the time. By extending the back of their house we would also lose the little privacy we have on our deck. The extension I would suspect put them in direct line with our deck. Mr. Sasser: Mrs. Knewitz, correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you say your are not increasing the size? What you are doing is enclosing the existing space, there is no increase? There was a discussion about what was being done. Mr. Hirkala: Can I ask, the part, the deck that exist now, when was that screened in? Mr. Daley: About 8 years ago. Mr. Hirkala: Do you have a building permit for that? Mrs. Daley: Yes. `fir. Hirkala: You have a building permit to cover and screen in the deck? Mrs. Daley: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: That was within, (5) Mr. Levenson: I'll check the computer. Mr. Levenson went to check. Mr. Sasser: The addition will bring your house closer to the Knewitz house? Mrs. Daley: No. They never even saw the plans. Mr. Daley, went up to the Board and explained what was going to be done, and that the plot plan was incorrect. Mr. Sasser: So you are not completely squaring off your house? Mr. Daley: No There was a discussion about this with the Board, the Daley's and the Knewitz. Mr. Hirkala: My feeling right now is to table this thing until we get a set of plans. Mr. Daley: He has a set of plans, I went for a building permit, and then he said I had to go for a variance. rMMrs. Hardisty: The Building Inspector has a set of plans. Ffr. Hirkala: I would entertain an motion to table this whole thing until we get a complete application, I don't know what questions to ask. Mr. Lehigh: I think we need a drawing of the house, as it is and the addition that you are putting on. Mr. Daley: He has it. Mr. Lehigh: The thing is we don't have them. Mr. Daley: I understand. Mrs. Daley: Can we speak to what the Knewitz's said? Mr. Hirkala: Well I want to find out if they are finished. The Knewitz, looked at the plans and there was a discussion with the Daley's which Mr. Hirkala stopped because it started to get out of hand. Mr. Hirkala: Based on what we know so far, which isn't a lot, Herb, I am requesting that the Board go along with tabling this until next meeting. Because apparently the drawings here is wrong, and as far as I am concerned I don't see enough information to detail, this drawing here doesn't tell us, and apparently is not what they have. Nor. Levenson: There was an application # 63-73 which was on 84-200 to replace an existing porch. That was dated June 25, 1984 there was a building permit, there is no CO, on the addition. Mr. Hirkala: No CO on the addition? (6) Mr. Levenson: No. But that will come out in the next two weeks, we will be getting all this off the computer Mr. Hirkala: There is no CO on the addition we cannot go any further. Mr. Sasser: Well they are going to tear the deck down, and start from scratch. Mr. Hirkala: I want to see a set of plans, I want to see something, in our records that shows exactly what is going to happen. It has to be a drawing that says something is right. Mr. Sasser: I would agree with that, especially since the drawing we have seems to be a little bit different from what is actually taking place. And we have a concerned neighbor, I think we owe it to everybody to look at plans that have been submitted. Mr. Hirkala: Not only the fact of the concerned neighbor, the fact is that if we grant a variance, we have to grant a variance with cause. And how can we do that if we don't know what the variance will be. Mr. Sasser: Well they have to prove economic injury, and they attempted to do that in their application. r. Lehigh: I think we are going to need a set of drawings to see, exactly where, what they have now and what they are asking for which I don't really know right now. And until we get a drawing, I understand that the Town is in possession of one, and we should be able to get it from the Building Inspector. Mr. Hirkala: You say the Building Inspector has these? Mr. Daley: Yes. Mr. Levenson: Just the file on the addition Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hirkala: But nothing that shows the drawing of the building? Mrs. Daley: There is an enlarged plan that we brought in. Mr. Lehigh: Did you give it to Tim? Mr. Daley: Yes, he probably has them. Mr. Sasser: When are you looking to begin building? Mrs. Daley: Well considering that originally we were told that we, since we had the existing structure that we wouldn't need a variance. We already have engaged a builder. *am-. Hirkala: Who told you that? Mrs. Daley: Asked her husband if he wanted to say who told him this. Mr. Daley: Said he did not want to say. (7) Mrs. Daley: ok, so we went ahead and engaged a builder, and we were told just to put the building permit in front of us and it will be signed. Mr. Sasser: If we table this, when can it be tabled to? Mr. Hirkala: Next meeting. In May. Mrs. Daley: In May? Mr. Sasser: The problem we have is that the drawing we have is not really showing what you have. Mr. Hirkala: It is not representing what you are asking for, you signed it, it's here and apparently you say that is what you are asking for and it's not what you are asking for. Mrs. Daley: But we submitted plans on good faith that they would be here and they are not here. Mr. Hirkala: Wait a second, were the plans made as part of the Zoning Board of Appeals application? This is the Zoning Board of Appeals application here. r. Daley: I came in for a building permit, I brought plans in for a building permit, the building plans. Mr. Hirkala: And you were denied. Mr. Daley: Right. Mr. Sasser: Herb, are you going to see if they are here? Mrs. Hardisty: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: And you were told, we are not getting anywhere here. Mr. Sasser: Well Herb, is going to see if they have them in the building department right now. Mr. Hirkala: Is there anyone else here that wants to talk about this applica- tion? There was someone present who did not give their names, but said that they had no objections to it. But they were interested in the change in the zoning rules, because they lived 5 houses up from the Daleys. There was a discussion about this and they were told that if they had any -,zestion that they could call Herb at anytime. 'err Mr. Sasser: If Herb has the map here, I would really like to look at it so that if possible we could make a decision on this. There was a discussion by the Board about what was asked to be submitted. M (8) Mr. Daley: On the application does it call for a complete set of plans? Mr. Hirkala: No, it calls for as much information as possible. And normally we would accept as a application this here ( referring to the plot plan). But this is not right. Mr. Daley: No. Mr. Hirkala: If this was right I would have no problem. Mr. Lehigh: We also have the question on the CO. Mr. Hirkala: That is another thing, but we also have this thing right here (survey), that survey map could have been altered to show us exactly what you were doing when you made the application. Along with this other drawing, see what I am saying? Mrs. Daley: I don't remember seeing that before. Mrs. Hardisty: We pulled that out of the building file Mr. Daley, you were there when I pulled that out. Because you needed a survey with the application. *r. Daley: If I had known this I would have done it. Mr. Hirkala: Ok. Now the next thing is the question of the CO. If there is no legal CO on what is existing there is no way we can do anything about that. We can't meet on that because there is a law in the Town of Wappinger right now that says, if you are illegal you can't make application, until you are made legal. So some sort of arrangement has to be made, we either have to make the decision based on the information we get, that in order for you to be legal you have to have our approval, and go on from there or some area in between. Now that deck when it was applied for was never finalized. The addition was put on but there was never a CO on the addition. Mr. Sasser: Let me ask you a question, you might know more about this. If in fact they tear that deck down, which they would do prior to building, does that return them to a legal status? They have a CO on the rest of the house. Mr. Hirkala: It might, but in order for us to know that, we have to have that information in front of us. And it has to be part of the application. We can't receive part of the application after the fact, it has to be complete when we vote on it. We can't say pending on this or that. We have to vote on what we have in front of us. Mr. Levenson: Brought in the building file and the only plans were the building detail plans, which had nothing to do with the plot plan. ir�aw-s. Knewitz: Asked about what the zoning for the side yard was. Mr. Hirkala: The side yard for half acre zoning is 20 feet. They are well within that range. (9) Mr. Sasser: The side facing your house is not the problem. Mr. Hirkala: The problem is the rear yard, both sides have plenty of room. They could go out in either direction without any problem. Mr. Levenson: After the addition if the addition is approved, after the addi- tion is put on there is 56 feet between the lot line and the new structure. The Building Inspector and I measured this piece of property, we went out there. Mr. Sasser: So we don't have an accurate site plan? Mr. Levenson: You don't have a plan that shows the structure attached to a building now. All you have are building detail plans. Mr. Sasser: Well in that situation I feel that the only right thing to do is to take this thing to the next meeting. Mr. Hirkala: Are you making that a motion? Mr. Sasser: I will make that a motion. #%W7. Lehigh: Seconded. Vote: Mrs. Roe: aye Mr. Lehigh: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Motion Carried. Mr. Sasser: aye Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Hirkala: So moved, tabled to the next hearing, and would you please get in touch with the Zoning Administrator and be sure that a request for a accurate drawing with the building and addition is made part of the application. Mrs. Daley: May I just say that had we known that we had to have this for the meeting we would have gone ahead and had this prepared for you this evening. Mr. Sasser: Well as he said, this would have been sufficient had it been cor- rect. Mr. Hirkala: You signed it. You should have made sure it was correct, when you signed it. Mr. Sasser: So we have no way of knowing, I have never been to your house I don't know what the neighborhood is like. I can't go by this if it is incor- rect. "r. Lehigh: Herb, there was another question about the CO of what they do have. Mr. Levenson: There is no CO on the porch, that was erected from the building permit of 84-200. Mr. Sasser: The question I had is while they are building this, they have to (10) remove that deck, does that make them in compliance? Mr. Levenson: No. But I would advise them to come in and get a C of O on that, and then going on from there. Mr. Lehigh: I just want to make sure you have everything ready for the next time. Mrs. Daley: Asked about the incorrect drawing. Mr. Hirkala: You are the one who has to say it is incorrect, we don't know that. How is the Zoning Administrator to know if the drawing is incorrect or not. Mr. Levenson: That plot plan was prepared by you, and Mr. Classey and I went out and looked at it, and when we went we measured the rear and side yard, that's all we checked, we didn't check anything else. Mr. Hirkala: You are the ones who signed this. Mrs. Daley: I know I just looked at it very quickly up there and Sasser: I am sure you can get a copy of it. Mrs. Daley: That is what I would like, to see where it is incorrect. Mr. Levenson: Explained that there will not be any notices sent out on the next meeting, since it is a adjourned Public Hearing. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Sasser: Seconded. Vote: Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Sasser: aye Mrs. Roe: aye Mr. Lehigh: aye Motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 8:15PM 'very respectfully yours Gann Hardisty, retary to the Zoning Board