Loading...
1992-07-14`'own of Wappinger Zoning Board July 14, 1992 Minutes Members Present Mr. Sasser: Chairman Mr. Lehigh: Member Member Absent n Page 1 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, N.Y. Mr. Hirkala: Vice Chairman Mr. Brooker: Member Mr. Bitterlich: Member MPPM@PnnD Others Present 92 1 1. Mr. Levenson: Zoning Administrator AW Mrs. Hardisty: Secretary Zoning Board Meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.`� Mr. Sasser: First item approval of the June 9, 1992 minutes. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to accept the minutes. r. Brooker: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Sasser: First appeal tonight is Appeal # 1135 - At the request of Christine Seman, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421 requiring a 10 foot rear yard and the applicant's existing above ground pool is 7 and a half feet from the rear yard line, therefore requiring a 2 and a half foot variance on prop- erty located at 59 Robert Lane and being parcel #6158-04-915083 in the Town of Wappinger. Has there been proof of publication? Mr. Levenson: Yes, there is proof of publication, and we have received all the green cards back. Mr. Hirkala: Made a motion to accept proof of publication. Mr. Lehigh: Seconded. Vote: all ayes. Mrs. Seman, was present. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to state, that all you Members now are now working under the new rules of July 1st, 1992, as adopted by the Legislature last year. ,,,,,Mr. Sasser: Ms. Seman, will you tell us a little bit about what you are looking for. You have an above ground pool that is currently existing and has been there for some time now? Page 2 n I*Wmrs. Seman: Yes, it has I have been able to trace it back through 2 previous owners. I purchased the house 7 years ago, and when I purchased the house I thought that everything was fine. Two years ago I requested a building permit to build a deck from my enclosed porch to the pool, and it was upon inspection of the deck that we found out there was no C.O. on the pool. It was then we also found out that it was to close to the property line. Mr. Sasser: Any questions of the Board? Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, just for the record I inspected the site and there is no other place to put the pool. Mr. Hirkala: The only concern that I would have is that the installation is proper as far as the electrical inspection. Mr. Levenson: Yes, the Building Inspector is ready to issue a C. of o. once the variance is granted. Mr. Sasser: Does the Board have any other questions of the applicant? I would like to open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak either for or against this? Mr. Peace: I live across the street. I've lived there 29 years, and that pool has been there a long while, and I see no reason not to grant the variance. There is plenty of room. Ir. Sasser: Is there anyone else in the public who would like to speak? (There was no one else). Mr. Hirkala: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Brooker: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Hirkala: Seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Lehigh: aye Mr. Sasser: aye Motion carried. Mr. Brooker: Made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Hirkala: I will second that motion but I request that you add on to that motion that if the pool is moved, that it be placed in a position that conforms to the Zoning Laws. Mr. Brooker: My motion to grant is to include Mr. Hirkala's request. y4,Roll call vote: Motion carried. Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Lehigh: aye Mr. Sasser: aye gn Page 3 In �,,,wir. Hirkala: If I may for the record, it might be added into the approval, just so people know, this is for people with a set back that are second and third owners. Not realizing that what they brought wasn't in compliance. Mr. Sasser: Next item, Appeal # 1136 - At the request of the Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 473.2 of the Zoning Law of the Town of Wappinger, to allow parking spaces ten (10) feet by eighteen (18) feet, where the required parking spaces must be at least ten (10) feet by twenty (20) feet, on property located on Route 9 and being parcels #6157-02-707773 & #6157-02-766660 in the Town of Wappinger. Do we have proof of publication? Mr. Levenson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have proof of publication and we have receive the majority of the green cards back. Mr. Hirkala: Moved to accept proof of publication. Mr. Lehigh: Seconded. Vote: all ayes. Mr. Palmer, Mr. Lehrman and Mr. Adams were all present representing Alpine. Mr. Sasser: I assume that everybody on the Board received, the letters I requested. I requested a letter from Ray Arnold, the Planner, I requested a etter from Mr. Paggi, the Engineer, and do we have a letter from the Fire department? Mr. Levenson: I did not receive that. Mr. Sasser: You have copies of those letters, and I would like them attached to the minutes. You are requesting a reduction in the size of the parking space by two feet? Mr. Lehrman: The stall length. Mr. Sasser: Does the Board have any questions? Mr. Lehigh: I have a question to start out with. In the back and part of your presentation, you are saying that you are going to, if you cut down on the number of parking spaces the length of two foot, then you were going to increase the amount of landscaping and buffer area. This is part of your sta- tement? Mr. Lehrman: That is correct, to allow for more greenage on the property. Mr. Lehigh: My question to you is, I don't see an amount of money, that you are going to save by cutting this down, and I don't see an amount of money in com- parison with the landscaping that you are going to have to do extra. I would be interested in some kind of a statement on this. %w Mr. Lehrman: I do not have those figures, and an analysis of that has not been done. Mr. Lehigh: You state that it is a hardship to build the extra length on the cm M Raymond H. Arnold, A.I.C.P. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS PLANNING & ZONING STU ffeI�f� (n ff P Wffir LAND USE REPORTS a4no t;URKY STREET, YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, July 8, 1992 WL - 1992 ALPINE33. ZBA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall 20 Midd.lebush Road ZONING ADMINISTRATOR Wappingers Falls My 12590 re: ALPINE (COMtiONS) SHOPPING CENTER site plan by: C T Males Associates dated: May 18, 1992= last revised: as indicated sheet: 6157-02 parcel: 707773 W.,F. properties 6157-02 parcel: V. & I. Ivanoff parcel SUBJECT: Request for Variance.- Size of Parking stall Gentlemen. The above captioned Request for Variance has been referred to this office for bomment and concerns. Please be advised: a. The 10 ft. X 20 ft. parking stall standard was set in the earl Years Zoning in the Town of Wappinger (1960 to 1979). Automobile size at that ti e required both the width and'the length as set forth in the ordinance. . b. The standards also required a 25 ft, aisle width between rows of parking spaces, effectively requiring a 65 feet "parking module" for two rows of automobiles. c. since 1975, automobile sizes have been reduced to the extent that the 20 feet depth appears excessive, especially for large parking area, similar to the size in the instant application. d. In the case at hand the applicant has 'designed the parking lot on the basis Of 18 feet deep stalls, maintaining the 10 width, and providing 26 feet of intervening aisle width. (effectively a 62 feet "parking module") e. I have no basic objection to the granting of the requested variance on this site. Res ctively submitte low Jft2oond.H. Arno , AICP Consultant Cc: Engineer to the Town 1 Attorney to the Town 1 Zoning Administrator Applicant 't PAGGI & MARTIN Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors 54-56 Main Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 on 914-471-7898 June 29, 1992 Zoning Board of Appeals JUN 29 Town of Wappinger 1552 P.O. Box 324.,-1-,-('--, Wappingers Falls, New .York 12590 FLAI"AING & ZONING Attention: J I oef Sasser, Chairman Reference: Alpine Site Plan Dear Mr. Sasser::.-.,. I have reviewed the Alpine Companies request for a variance in the length of the parking stall from 20' to 18'. Upon review of this request, I would recommend to the Zoning Board that the engineering impacts concerning- this request are minimal. , , r:. Please note for the record, that the Developer has proposed increasing the width of the parking aisle from 25' to 26' and has not asked for a decrease in the width of the parking stall. Therefore, I would see no problem in granting this variance. If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.:-:, Very truly yours, Joseph E. Paggi, Jr:,. P.E. JEP:Iaw cc: Raymond Arnold Mark Liebermann Herb Levenson Albert P. Roberts, Esq. 92-003(4) Joseph E. Paggi, Jr., P.E. Ernst Martin, Jr., P.E., L.S. In Page 4 %ftparking spaces, and you claim it is a hardship, I would like to know how much of a financial hardship. Mr. Adams: Can I supplement that remark. I understand the question Mr. Lehigh, but on July 1st the standards for area variances changed, and I am sure you are familiar with the new standards. The old standards in extent of practical difficulty which necessitated a financial consideration or dollar consideration was abolished. Mr. Levenson: Correct. Mr. Adams: So considerations such as dollars and cents as it relates to area variances no longer are pertinent under the prevailing standards. The key question that you have to ask now is which impact is related to this variance. Is it compatible with the neighborhood? I think it is self evident that the neighborhood is a shopping center so it is compatible with that. Another ques- tion, how substantial is the variance, at first look it seems to be 10%, because we are going from 20 to 18 in terms of length, but we are also, and I don't think it was mentioned we are increasing the width of the isle. Mr. Paggi's letter addresses that. So it is either 10% or 5 % it isn't a very substantial change. The other thing you have that I think is important, we submitted to you the engineering studies, and shopping center studies that show the national standards, are somewhat less then what is currently used by the Town of Wappinger. ( He then gave an example of some of the variances that were granted in the area). Ir. Sasser: Just so the people know, some of the information we received was from Mr. Ray Arnold who is the Town Planner and Jay Paggi, the Town Engineer, they both indicated in letters that they have no objections to this action either. Mr. Lehigh: I am not saying I have an objection to it, I only asked a question. I know you are not coming in here and asking for a reduction just for the heck of it. I know that dollars and cents mean something to you, and that is what I was getting at. Mr. Adams: We just didn't anticipate that type of a question, because of the new standards those considerations are on longer appropriate. Mr. Hirkala: I can understand what you are saying, but the concern I have is not so much the new standards, but the fact that utilization of the new stan- dards are use to circumvent the intent of the Zoning Ordinance itself. Your statement, said you have a request, and to me sitting on this Board, a request for no reason, means you don't agree with the Ordinance. If you agree with the Ordinance and have a need for this request, then come to us and explain the need. That doesn't mean we are not going to honor that request, it just mean we would like some information before we just give you a rubber stamp. That is my feeling on the subject. I am not necessarily against granting, specially in view of the recommendations of the Engineer and the Planner. I would be dead set against granting 10 foot to 9 foot in width. 20 to 18 foot you are probably right. But I would like to know if an applicant comes in front of this ,Board under the new standards, that we at least have the right to ask them why. Mr. Lehigh: He says here he has a hardship and I don't see a hardship from 18 to 20. em Page 5 In Mr. Adams: I think what we are saying is because the length of cars have shrunk -ou are going to have 2 feet of space sitting there wasting away. Why waste all hat space, when it can be put to other uses. Mr. Lehigh: Using your own words, you are not doing that, because you are going to increase the amount of landscaping. Mr. Lehrman: We are trying to decrease the amount of impervious material. Mr. Lehigh: Just clear that up for me. Mr. Adams: I think the aesthetic are a proper considerations. I think that is what we are saying, would you like to look at paving or would you like to look at landscaping? Mr. Palmer: One of the other problems that we have, and I am sure you are all familiar with the site. We have a site that comprises about 70 acres which I think we are only using 22, because the north end of that site 40 some on acres are just wetlands. For what is going into the site we have a very limited amount of space to work. During our work with the Planning Board, we satisfied certain non wetlands as no build zones, as a benefit to some of the neighbors we took out about 3 and a half acres for the Losee Road people, of otherwise usable parking area, we gave that back to the people. The Zoning Ordinance also requires X amount of parking per G.L.A., and we are having a very difficult time with our limited space getting enough parking to satisfy the Ordinance. That is why this reduction allows us additional parking spaces. And as you indicated we have made no attempt to change the 10 to 9. r. Lehigh: You are making some sense because you are coming out with a hard- ship. Mr. Palmer: And that's one of our problems, to get enough spaces into this very limited site. Mr. Sasser: An economic benefit, plus an aesthetically more pleasant site, in my mind eyes is a very valid reason for someone to come before the Board. Mr. Hirkala: Can I address that statement? I sitting here listening to the esteem counsel here, we are right back to the same question I brought up before. If this disagreement, and I am no necessarily saying I am against your request. This disagreement with the size of the parking space, that should be addressed at the Ordinance level, with the Town Board. It seems to me you come before the Zoning Board of Appeals, for a reason, and the reason being not that you disagree with the Ordinance, but that you have a problem meeting the Ordi- nance. And this is a request for us to grant relief, so you can do the project, while not meeting the requirements of the Ordinance. The parameters of which we come to that decision have changed, but the basic reason you came hasn't changed, it still exists. The fact that the Ordinance says one thing and you are requesting relief from what the Ordinance says. I am not in disagreement with what he said, with the qualities of the project, or the qualities of the request, but I still disagree with the fact that the sole purpose of economic gain and aesthetic beauty is reason enough to leave the Ordinance without going to the Town Board for a change. If the Town Board had wanted that to happen, „they would have written that into the Ordinance. So I am not saying this M Page 6 0 houldn't be granted, but perhaps as a matter of precedent, from my point of view it should said and it should not be a reason why we grant a variance. That is my feelings. Mr. Sasser: Let me explain, a legislative change can come from neither this Board or the Planning Board. Mr. Hirkala: The way I see it the arguments that are coming forth right now are once again not to say I am going to disagree with the request, but the argu- ments that are coming forth right now are better presented to the Town Board, not the Zoning Board of Appeals. If economic gain, was the sole purpose of granting variances or aesthetic values are very relevant, what's good to one person is good to another, and economic gains is not why we are here. Mr. Adams: I just have one brief comment. I think if you look again at the new standards that became effective on July 1st, I think the rule of practicality comes into greater play, are these standards practical, do they need to be applied in all instances, are there reasons for parting from them, and if so what is the impact. I think what we are really talking about, is it practical to observe a standard that no longer holds any value. You are right we have alternatives, we could go to the Town Board, just as easily as the Zoning Board of Appeals, we chose this, because of the precedent that has been set else- where. Again you are not set by that precedent. Mr. Hirkala: One other thing, the fact of the precedent for the record. The .act that the northern end of this property is unbuildable is a known fact to hese people to begin with. There was a discussion on this. Mr. Hirkala: I happen to agree that this variance should be granted, but along with the variance being granted, I think a request should go to the Town Board to review that portion of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sasser: Any more question from the Board? Mr. Brooker: Just that we have letters back from the Planner and the Engineer, that they have no objections to this. Mr. Sasser: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this project? Mrs. Ivanoff: Losee Road, I would like to ask the Board to approve the request, because any reduction in black topping is an improvement. There will be a more buffer zone for the adjacent property owners. Mr. Sasser: Any one else? Mr. Collins: Losee Road. I support Mrs. Ivanoff's statement. I would ask that there be some condition made. There was a future parking area, that is adjacent to her property, that if they didn't get the variance, to get the smaller par - *,,king spaces they would have to build an extension. Mr. Sasser: That is a matter for the Planning Board. `4rr Page 7 n *% Mr. Collins: No, because it is directly tied to this request. If they get the smaller size, they don't need that extra parking lot. Mr. Sasser: That is a decision of the Planning Board. Mr. Collins: I think it would be very nice if you listen to me. I would ask that you would make a conditional approval of the reduction of the size of the stall, grant them what they want. And what they want is not unreasonable. But condition it on extending the no build area, into that corner that use to be the future parking lot. Mr. Sasser: That is strictly a Planning Board issue. Mr. Collins: Then I should say that I object to this? Mr. Sasser: Only if you feel that way. Mr. Collins: I don't. Mr. Sasser: Then you shouldn't say it. I believe you should be addressing the Planning Board. Mr. Palmer: There is before the Planning Board something that is known as a future reserved parking area. I believe that if the Planning Board at some time makes a determination that the parking that is in there now is not sufficient hey may make us build the additional parking. Mr. Levenson: The other thing that parking area will be a bonded parking area with a 5 year letter of credit and a performance bond personally guaranteed by the Alpine Co. Mr. Hirkala: And what is not being said is the fact that, that request for a variance was before this very Board. And they were requested to go back to the Planning Board knowing they had the right to request the Planning Board to reduce the parking, provided they show the future parking. Mr. Levenson: The applicant came to the Planning Board, and asked for that when they were doing a Phase I. There was one building involved. They have now acquired 10 additional acres and are now building a 100,000 sq. foot building on the 10 acres. They are now asking the Planning Board to give them permission to come to this Board for a variance and they are going to reserve the parking area. Mr. Hirkala: This is the same variance they asked for before. There was a discussion on all of this. Mr. Lehrman: We are asking for this variance to work with the site to keep it as nice as possible. Mr. Hirkala: Where is the future parking going to be? *Ar Mr. Lehrman, pointed out on the model where it would be. Mr. Hirkala: Is the future parking going to be accessed by going off site? M Page 8 ,%Wmr. Lehrman: No, sir. M Mr. Lehigh: The Planning Board can grant the number but they can't grant the size. Mr. Adams: Mike, we have to build the additional parking if the Planning Board tells us to. There was a discussion on the previous plans that were first presented 4 years ago. Mr. Hirkala: This is a whole new plan? Mr. Lehigh: There is nothing off site. Mr. Hirkala: So you increased the size of the square footage being built? Mr. Palmer: The original plan was for a two Phase project. Then it was reduced to a one Phase project. What was formally Phase II is all being done at on time. Mr. Adams: The size was from 202 to 208, I believe that is what you are asking Mike. Mr. Hirkala: What you are telling us is that the plan that you came before the Tanning Board before is completely gone, and this is a whole new plan? Mr. Palmer: Yes. It is not completely gone, but it has changed. Mr. Levenson: There is nothing off site on this one. Mr. Lehrman, showed on the model what the old plan looked like. Mr. Hirkala: So what you did, you purchased the Ivanoff property and build there. Mr. Lehrman: We purchased another piece of property to accommodate the tenant. Now we don't have to worry about the easement, everything is contained in a site. Mr. Sasser: Are there any other comments from the public? Mr. Collins: I am not sure if my comment was answered. Mr. Lehigh: Well I think it was because we just spent 20 minutes on it. Mr. Hirkala: What you are saying is that if we grant the variance, they shouldn't build the future parking? Mr. Collins: And more so that, that area, may I point this out on the model? What I am talking about, there is a no build area that goes along here. It is very nice, but what we would like is to have that extend to 300 feet, the same amount as is over here. Mr. Sasser: I understand your request but that is an issue for the Planning 2M Page 9 **w8oard not the Zoning Board. n Mr. Collins: This whole piece of property, has to do with parking space and stall size. Because they only have this, and they will build this here if you don't grant the variance. Mr. Levenson: No, no. That is wrong. The size of the stalls has nothing to do with this area. These stalls whether they are 18 or 20 foot long, have to be reserved by the applicant so that in the future when we go out to look at the site and we don't have enough parking, we go back to Mr. Weiser and tell them to build this. Because you don't have enough parking space. Mr. Collins: If you grant the variance they will never need to build this. Mr. Levenson: That is not so. We are talking about an 18 foot stall as to a 20 foot stall, we are not talking from a 10 to a 9. If we were talking about a 10 to a 9 I would agree with you. But we are talking about the length of the stall, we are not changing the size of the stall. The width will not change. Mr. Collins: Are you saying that, even if you grant the variance, there is the possibility that they are going to build this? Mr. Levenson: The Planning Board may insist. Mr. Collins: we don't understand that. tr. Hirkala: What don't you understand? Mr. Collins: Because we have been told for four years that this will only be built, under the circumstance that there if not enough parking spaces. Mr. Lehigh: I think you should go back to the Planning Board. Mr. Levenson: Hold it Al, the statement that was made by the Planning Board, was that they wanted this for the future reserved parking, set aside and bonded by a letter of credit with a personal guarantee from the developers that if the Planning Board directed the Zoning Administrator to go out a do a survey, and there wasn't sufficient parking, that we could go to the developer and say, you have to build the spots. Mr. Sasser: That is a Planning Board issue. Is there anyone else in the public that would like to be heard on this matter? Mr. Halen: One gentleman said he want to use it for aesthetic to increase the landscaping, the other gentleman said economically they wanted to utilize it so they can get more parking spaces. It didn't seem to jive. Mr. Lehrman, explained what they were doing. Mr. Collins: May we have the 300 foot buffer? Mr. Sasser: That is a Planning Board issue, we are only here to consider the length of the parking stall. Mr. Hirkala: The number of parking spaces required is 1470 is that true? n Page 10 **wmr. Lehrman: That is true. n Mr. Hirkala: In other words, the paved parking provided is 1,065 spaces it says here. Mr. Lehrman: That includes everything except for the future parking. Mr. Hirkala: So you are going to build 1,065 spaces at this time. Mr. Lehrman: That is correct. Mr. Hirkala: That is not how I read this, it says you are providing 1470. Mr. Lehrman: We have the ability to build 1470. Mr. Hirkala: If the Planning Board so requires? Mr. Lehrman: Correct. Mr. Sasser: Any other questions from the Board, and questions from the public? ( there was no more questions). Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Brooker: Seconded. *4Wote: All ayes. Mr. Brooker: Made a motion to grant the variance 10X18. Mr. Lehigh: Seconded. I would like to make a stipulation that this is presented to the Town Board Mr. Levenson: This is a Planning Board matter. Mr. Hirkala: Let him finish, I think he wants the Town Board notified to change this. Mr. Levenson: You have to write a letter to the Town Board requesting the change. Mr. Sasser: Al, before you stipulate that in the motion, I don't think that is necessary. The Town Board is in the process of doing that, and have invited us to their meeting for the purpose of that input. Mr. Levenson: If the Board directs me to write the letter to the Town Board I will do that. Mr. Sasser: Can the motion stand as originally stated? Mr. Lehigh: Yes. Roll call vote: Mr. Lehigh: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Hirkala: aye, with a statement, that I think this Page 11 *awdpplicant has not been totally above board with us, in presenting this plan, and I would take a hard look at any other request that comes before us from the same applicant. Mr. Sasser: I would like to vote aye, and I would like to state my reasons why, I believe they have complied with all the areas we must consider. Number 1. it does not change the character of the locality. Number 2, there are no alternative methods to consider, however to do this would not be beneficial. Number 3, I think the degree of the variance is minimal. And I believe that those three out of five certainly lead me to vote in favor of approving this. This decision will be written within 5 days, and copies sent to you. Mr. Brooker: Made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Lehigh: Seconded. Vote: all ayes. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M. M M Very respectfully yours, GaAnn Hardisty, tary Zoning Board of Appea s n M Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals July 14, 1992 Agenda - 7:30 P.M. 1. Approval of the June 9th 1992 minutes. Public Hearings n Town Hall 20 Middlebush Rd. Wappinger Falls, NY 1. Appeal # 1135 - At the request of Christine Seman, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421 requiring a 10 foot rear yard and the applicants exist- ing above ground pool is 7 and a half feet from the rear yard line. Therefore requiring a 2 and a half foot variance on property located at 59 Robert Lane and being parcel #6158-04-915083 in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal # 1136 - At the request of the Alpine Company of Poughkeepsie, seek- ing a variance from Article IV Section 473.2 of the Zoning Law of the Town of Wappinger, to allow parking spaces ten (10) feet by eighteen (18) feet, where the required parking spaces must be at least ten (10) feet by twenty (20), on property located on Route 9 and being parcels #6157-02-707773 & #6157-02-766660 in the Town of Wappinger.