Loading...
1992-10-13MM Town of Wappinger Zoning Board 1',ctober 13", 1992 Vivs.o4int.tes Members Present Mr. Nasser: Mr. Le:iiah : ',Ir. Brookt?r others present Chairman Member Member I P P M W VS I W P_;=,ge . JAN 26. 1993 Town Hall 210 Middlebush Roan ZONING BW OOFAM Wappinger Falls; N.Y. PLANNING BOW 0 Mr. Hirkala: Vice Chairman Mr. Bitterlich: Member M:. Levenson: Zoning Administrator Mrs. Hardisty: Secretary to the ZBA --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Mr. Sasser: Called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. For expedience sake; we have 3 set of minutes to approve. August 11th, August 25th and September 221-.d, 1-',,92. Dojos anyone on the Board have any comments or corrections? Mr. Leigh: I reviewed the minutes and found no problems with them. I Crake, a motion that we accept all three sets as written. Mr. Bitterlich: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. otion carried. ---------------------------------- ------------- ---- ------------------------- Mr. Sasser: The first appeal tonight is Appeal 4 1142 - at the request of Timothy Mansell, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421.6 of the Town of Wappinuer Zoning Law, where you are required to maintain a lot of 40,000 square feet. and you are showing 37,773 square feet, therefore requiring a 2,227 square foot variance, caused by the Planning Boards requirements of a 25' 1_ict1 of way, on property located on Theresa Blvd. consisting of 2 plus or minus acres and being parcel j6257-03-410067 in the Town of Wappinger. i,Ir. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, I ask a second call, the applicants representative isn't present. ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Mr. Sasser: Let's move forward to Appeal *1140 - at the request of Vincent Cappelletti, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 444.6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law, where you are required to maintain a 2500 foot separation between gasoline filling stations, and you are showing a minimum of 200 foot separation or, your proposal, on property located on Route 376 & Maloney Road and being parcel #825 -02-560850 in the Town of Wappinger. They are also requesting a variance of Article IV Section 444.1 where you are required to maintain 1000 feet between driveways and residential boundary lines, and you _are only showing a separation of 70 feet, therefore requiring a 930 foot var- iance on the above parcel. Has there been proof of publication? wI Levenson: Yes ir. law Mr. Hirkala: Made a motion to accept proof of publication. `46-nU. Lehigh: Seconded. vote: all ayes. Mr. Nasser: Can yoLI step forward and state your names please. Mr. Healey; Jr.: Box 527 Route. 52, Holmes, N.Y. 12531, I represent Mr. vappel- litt.i. would you like my phone number sir. Nr. Sasser. Please. mr. Healey: 878-6140. Mr. Sasser: And you are Mr. Cappelletti? :sir.Cappelletti: Yes. Mr. Sasser: Does the Board have any question regarding this? Has everyone on t.e Board received the letter from Richard Cantor? Letter dated October 9th, 1992 on file, copies were given to the ZBA at this meeting. Mr. Sasser: Does everyone have a copy of the letter from the DOT, their _7om- ments? ( letter on file). At this time Mr. Sasser read the letter. Mr. HE�aley nd Mr. Cappelletti, are you aware of the comments from Mr. Cantor? Mr. Healey: I just received the letter at this time. MLS. Sasser: Then read the letter. (copy attached). Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, I ask that my comment letter of October Sth, 1992 be entered into the record. ( copy attached). Mr. Sasser, read Mr. Levensons comments. Mr. Sasser: Does this Board have any comments? Mr. Lehigh: I kind of think you are asking for an excessive variance on all ti�lc nieces. we can't grant you the special use permit anyway, that has to go tc the Planning Board. Mr. Sasser: They requested two variances, one is the distance between them and a iir. Lehigh: 930 and 2300. Mr. Saz5ser: Right one is the driveway and the other is the distance between filling stations. +r. Brooker: My feelings is I agree with Mr. Lehigh, this is a much, much too *%w_-xc=ssive. This is way beyond the Zoning. Let's see what the rest of the Board. has to s -7.y. Pagp 3 Mr. Sasser: I would like to inform Mr. Cappelletti, of the things we are con- =dering now, perhaps your attorney has already cone so, JhUt r will do so as well. There are 5 t=rings that this Board considers when listening to a requect. one: Is whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of tle neighborhood. or a detriment to nearby property, would be created with the granting of the variance. Number two: Is whether the benefit sort by the ..pplica:nt can be achieved by some feasible method other then a variance. :lumber --hre�.: Whether the requested variance is substantial. Number four: Whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the physical on environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Number five: Whether t}le alleged difficulty was self created, if it was does not necessarily procedure the granting of the variance. Those are the 5 issues the Beard coin - siders and they weigh those in making a decision. Do you have any comment, tliat you would like to make" Mr. Healey: Yes we would. First Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Board is aware that Mr. Lieberman owns the gas station in the vicinity, as a matter of .fact he is the closest gas station to the site. So I can understand. why ire is trying to destroy it. Which kinds of leads me into part of the 5 commen`c- you had mentioned. As far as would this be a detriment to the area, if anything it _s going to promote the industry in the area, it is going to bring another business in the area, which would put competition on Mr. Liebermatn's prices. 1 am sure he is upset about that. Before I even address those 5 points, I would like to say that we have a letter here from Stewart Farms, this is in the same r<<c,de as Cumberland Farms, their main use is as a convenient store. Their -ational sales of gas is 17 of their entire business. Whether you consider this a filling station or not, I can't see how --------- , this is really a +convenient store. Convenient stores have gasoline filling service. If this was considered as a convenient store, with the accessory use as a filling station; it appears to me that the zoning would come under the use of the main building, which is a convenient store. And as such we wouldn't need a variance at all, becauEe a convenient store does not violate 444.1 or 444.6 of the code. So I think a determination has to be made, are you going to call us a convenient store or are you going to call it a filling station it has to be one or the other. Sasser: I disagree with that especially if you are going to be selling gasoline there, and you will be selling groceries there also. It is both a convenient store and a filling station. I think the intent of the Law is to determine what the uses are in the business. We cannot ignore the fact that you are selling gasoline there, there will be gasoline tanks and people will b7-- coming b 7-- coming in there just for gasoline, no matter what the percentage of the busi- ness is gasoline sales. That is my feelings. Hr. Healey: But the principal business, is it agreed that it is a convenient store, it is not a filling station. Mr. Hirkala: Your request here is not a determination of what the differences between a principal and a non principal business. The request here is for relief from a portion of the Zoning Law that specifically separates filling stations. You can't deny the fact that you have a filling station, you said y, --:u can't separate the two. You can separate the two because our ordinance sepa- .ates them. My feeling is if you want to separate the two the proper place to ,**Mw do tl-at is o request the Town Board to change the Zoning. lkfte ' J r 4 Rdr. Sasser. Even ould be a whole in fact if you were looking for just a convenient store, it thing, you wouldn't need a variance at all. Mr. Healey: "Where are accessory uses, and according to the code the accesti.ery use comes under the principal use. Mr. Sasser: Will Stewarts consider going forward with this without the gaso- line? Mr. Healey: No. ii Cappelletti: Read the letter. ti.r. Sasser: I was just handed a letter. This is from Tom Lewis, the real estate representative from Stewarts, to Mr. Cappelletti. This is dated June 23, 1992. Dear Mr. Cappelletti, as per our discussion today we would like to enter into an option agreement with you for your .93 acre property that borders on Route 376 and Maloney Road. if you can obtain a variance to Article 444.6 that there should be a minimum of 2500 feet between gasoline filling stations, we will tilen proceed to try an obtain site plan approval for the Town. Even though I think Stewart shops are clearly an accessory use since gas is only 38°„ of our business, our experience with Zoning Boards has been such that we are not pre- pared to spend the time necessary to obtain a variance. Please let me know how you make out, sincerely, Tom Lewis. Mr. Healey: We can use that letter in support of one the criteria that is out- lined. If we do not get the variance, Stewarts will not purchase the land. i,low nation wide is what the filling station business is, this is really a con- venient store. It does have a filling station, they sell oil inside and some other things, but it is not a place that sells oil, it is a retail store for convenient stores. Sasser: Well I cannot speak for the other Members of the Board, but I -er- talnly have to see this as a filling station. Mi. Erocker: I agree. Mr.Lehigh: It has the gas tanks in the ground, and the gas pumps, and the added exposure of gasoline. I have to consider it a gasoline filling station. Mr. Hirkala: I have before me the Zoning Law, and it says neighborhood business permitted accessory uses, and no where in there does it says filling station. That is the Town Law, regardless or what Stewarts says it is an accessory to their business, or you say it is an accessory use to their busi- ness, the principle use and accessory use is outlined in our Zoning Law. And the Zoning code doesn't say filling station as an accessory use. .sir. Healey: But filling stations is permitted in that area. Mr. Bitterlich: By special use permit. Mr. Hirkala: By special use permit with a 2500 foot separation. And you are as'-ing for a 2300 foot variance on one hand, which is excessive, you have to admit that, that is somewhat excessive. Plus the fact that I don't .see on the map he -e, what zoned there are on both sides, prepared by your people: but I Page r since researched it, and the zone to the north is residential, the bordering roperty, and the property to the west bordering it is residential. Now our ode reqs -: ire: a separation between driveways, of filling stations and residen- tial property, which is, the amended request brings it up to a 930 foot vari- ance. From 1_000 feet. I mean both of these are excessive. You will Have to gn a long way to convince me that there is some justification for a variance of that magnitude. Mr. Healey: I would refer to the letter from the DOT, they have reviewed this p'_an and they don't have an objection to it. Mr. Hirkala: But that is not the code the code of the Town of Wappinger has nothing to do with the DOT. They approve your curb cuts, our codes are designed to protect the residential areas of the community. Mr. Gasser: Do you feel this will be an enhancement to the residential area of the community? MY. i3ealey: Yes, the whole neighborhood. There is gas station across the street; there is a strip mall opposite this. Mr. Sasser: I am familiar with that mall, and the concern I have there is that a dreg store that was there is now closed, they had problems keeping the convenient store that is there, they had a number of businesses there, that have gone into that plaza and are out of business. In fact I believe there are vacant stores in there now. Why do you think that opening a Stewarts shop On the opposite corner will enhance that area? 1114WMr. Healey: As far as from a business standpoint that is a determination that Stewarts Farm made. They came to us, and they must have done their homework. Mr. Sasser: I understand that perhaps from a business point of view, they believe that it maybe in their interest to open it, but how do you feel it would be a benefit to the people that live in that area? Mr. Healey: There are residential zones in that area and I am sure that they are going to use the convenient store, as stated just north of that is a residential area, there is a place for them to buy groceries. The reason why the other businesses failed I don't know. But I do have confidence that Staw- arts Farm feels this is an investment, they must feel that they can serve thi.. area as a convenient store. It certainly will not burden the area anymore, it is not going to pull in any outside traffic from Route 9, whatever goes up 37E; is going to stop there. The character of the area is such that this is basi- cally a section of 376 that is developing commercial uses. We have many com- mercial uses in the area. Mr. Sasser: You are putting gasoline tanks and gasoline filling station very close to residential apartments. There is apartments that are bordering that area on the north side. You are putting it right up against those apartments. Mr. Healey: But that is not an objection that you have in your code, the abjection is that is to close to the 2500 feet of Mr. Lieberman's gas station, +!I Eas;er: I am not making an objection, I am concerned about how this parti-- �t;�_ar i ;� al wil:1 benefit the neighborhood, that is one of the criteria that n we (consider. And the concern tial I have is that you hat will be looking down on that gas station. I ail egal o�Dj act-- on, it is a concern have with regards -.17at kind of area. Page E -low Have 3, story apartments not �ayin t.iat thi" 1. d to this gain,-, forward and Mr. Healey: I have Seer? Stewart Farms and they are ?feat places, these pec-ple a lot sof money, and I think that, that is an area that calls for They are going to do a decent job. I see the Hess station down i ly arc- +: ey put Jn plants they did a lot of landscaping The Plann-rlg Boar. e 1as a right to require that, and I airs sure they are going to do that. cir�g to change the character of the area? xx . Hirkala: I don't think that, that is the question. The question is whet. -.e2: or not our Zoning Law is valid. Mr. szasser: The second concern I have about the neighborhood is that Maloney Read is a very small two lane road, that is winding and curving and any traffic coming off of the road, dead ends on Route 376. It is very difficult at tires for traffic in that area both turning into Maloney Road and coming out. I woui-d believe that this Stewarts shop would have a significant impact on the traffic. Mr. Healey: I would assume that if they are successful that there would be some impact on the traffic. But this is something I would say refer to the DOT let- ter, they have said that this is ok, they have no objections. Mr. Hirkala: No, they did not say it was ok, what they said is please refer t:_) if the plan is approved. It is up to us to make the decision, and if we Take the decision, they have no choice but to grant the permit. They have no choice but to grant the permit, and their review will be in the best interest of w'nat you have to offer, versus what their requirements are. They can't `ell y()u no. Mrs. Hardisty: Mr. Chairman, the DoT only handles Route 376, Maloney Foad is Town: Road. Mr. Brooker: I think we are spinning along here, what the Zoning Law is, it i_ very specific on this. If they want the Zoning Law changed then go to the Town Board and have the Zoning Law changed. Iyer. Sasser: Lets go forward with the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Levenson: The issue is not Mr. Lieberman, owning the gas station, the issue is that there is a gas station across the street. It could be owned by X,Y or Z. The Zoning Law is very specific, there shall be 2500 feet, between gasoline filling stations. One line, it has 12 words in it, that's all it says. Mr. Healey: Mr. Chairman, I realize what he said is true, but that Law was adopted in 1990, before statutory changes. I would like to ask this Boar;.; what, detriment is this going to cause. Mr. Levenson: Mr. Healey, I just want to tell you something. I was a party to the changes that were made in 91, that were adopted in 92, and they have no, reference to the wording in the Law. It has reference to the technical I�Nwoperanion of the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am a member of the committee, and - that committee made sure that they did not step into a specific Zoning Law. r' arce 7 They talked about structure of Zoning Boards, the times in which Decisl.oll and ?rders have to be filed. Flow they are to be filed, etc.. 1.4r. Healey: I beg to differ with you, if you read the legislative intent on that effective changes it was to avoid litigation, especially in the area of area variances. That's what the purpose of that was. Mr. 'r_irkala: I disagree, I disagree totally. That was not the soul purpose of �t. That was on the side, thrown in after the decision was made to clarify what was put into Law by the Courts. Mr. Healey: And to relax the requirements that were required under the old Law, in order to obtain a variance. It was to clarify what was a benefit to the applicant and what is a detriment to the area. And that is what comes out of those 5 criteria. Mr. Hirkala- I think what this gentleman is telling us is that our Zoning Law is no longer valid. And request has to be looked at in the light of what that person wants to do. Mr. Healey: I would like to ask the Board, what would be the objection of hav- ing this other station, convenient store, station within 2500 feet of Mr. Lieberman's property? Mr. Sasser: Well, at this point no one said there is an objection. what we stated is that by the Zoning Law it is not allowed. And I can only speak f_;r myself at this point, and I am concerned about the effect it is going to ave on the neighborhood, both in traffic and appearance. I am concerned with the driveway being so close to the residential driveway, I am concerned about the number of other vacant stores in the area, and the fact of opening another wo, ld have on that area. Those are all things that we now consider, and we weicih them. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Hirkala: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Sasser: Is there anyone here that would like to speak regarding this' No one in the public have any comments on this. Does the Board have any comment:? Mr. Hirkala: The gentleman brought up the fact of justification for what we are saying, as far as any objection that might exist, with two gas stations being there. I would bring the gentleman to the purpose of section of the ordinance, Section 100 statement first, and make that part of the record. mr. Bitterlich: I don't see where that is necessary. Mr. Hirkala; It is necessary because the applicant requested an answer from, the Board. And we can't deny him an answer number one, we have to give him some justification. �ft„rir. Bitterlich: He is asking us to justify our Zoning Law. Page 8 'woo Mr. Hirkala: Well that is what I just did. By making the statement of purposes . part of the record for this hearing. Mr. Sasser: Gentleman, I have a problem with your proposal at this point in time right off the bat. I believe that there is going to be a detriment to the community, I believe there is a danger, I believe that a gasoline station will adversely affect that neighborhood. At this point in time I don't believe +--hal-- 1 hatI could vote for it. Ready for the comments from the Board. Gentlemen do you have any further comments? iir. Healey: Just to clarify issues, your comment about the detriment to tale neighborhood, that addresses the issue of the driveway being 1000 feet within a residential neighborhood? Mr. Sasser: That is correct. Mr. Healey: And what about the 1.500 feet? ?sir. Sasser: I believe that there is a very substantial variance that is being requested, I also believe especially given light that the, Mr. Lieberman, has voiced an objection to it, and I think he has a valid objection. I don't think that, ne is protected by the Zoning Law, I don't think, I haven't seen anything to convince me that this should be granted. Any more questions from the Board? Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion to close the public hearing. ir. Bitterlich: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion for a Negative Declaration. Mr. Bitterlich: Seconded. P..oli call vote: Mr. Lehigh: aye Mr. Hirkala: aye Mr. Brooker: aye Mr. Bitterlich: aye Mr. Sasser: aye Motion carried. Mr. Lehigh: Made a motion that in view of the excessive variance of 2300 feet for the closeness to another gas station, and the 930 foot driveways, that tlii::. variance be denied. Mr. Sasser: Al, I would like to add to that if I may. It is my feeling that an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood, with regards fumes, lighting and traffic. I believe that this variance request is substantial, I also know that this difficulty is self created, and in weig- iling those factors I would like to amend your motion to include those and this is n(Dt to be approved. Mr. Hirkala: Can I add one other item? Al? ',Ir. Lehigh: Go ahead. Mr. Hirkala: In light of the statement made by the applicant, I believe it ilas Page 9 to be part of the record; and part of the resolution that the Town Board in its .-'writing of the Zoning Law in 1990, went through a great amount of `4Study, and holding open public hearings and open meetings had determined legislatively that this is what they wanted. If there has to be a variance it should be a lot less substantial then what they have requested. Mr. Sasser: I have no problem including that wording in the resolution. Would accept that as your, motion? Mr. Lehigh: Yes. Mr. Brooker: Seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Lehigh: deny Mr. Hirkala: deny Mr. Brooker: deny Mr. Bitterlich: deny Mr. Sasser: deny Motion carried. Mr. Sasser: Your application has been denied, this will be written tomorrow and a copy sent to you, and filed with the Town Clerk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sasser: Next item on the agenda is Appeal #1142 - at the request of Timothy Mansell, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421.6 of the Town of Wap- pinger Zoning Law, where you are required to maintain a lot of 40,000 Sq. Ft., and you are showing 37,773 Sq. Ft., therefore requiring a 2,227 Sq. Foot var- ance, caused by the Planning Boards requirements of a 25' right of way; on %bpproperty located on Theresa Blvd. consisting of 2 plus or minus acres and bei,, -Ig parcel 46257-03-410067 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Buckley and Mr. Mansell were both present. Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Chairman, I own property on Theresa Blvd. can I excuse myself from this decision? Mr. Sasser: Ok. At this time Mr. Lehigh stepped down. Mr. Sasser: For your information, I received a letter today from Mr. Foster. If you remember we questioned at our workshop regarding Theresa Blvd. Theresa Blvd. is a Town Road. Has there been proof of publication? Mr. Levenson: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: Made a motion to accept proof of publication. Mr. Bitterlich: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Sasser: Gentleman, you are part owners of this property, right? Mr. Mansell: Right now I am the owner of about .6 acres which is located on Page 10 Theresa Bled. In 1989 I conveyed 1.5 acres to a party, with an agreement with hat party, that they would convey back to me a half acre of that property, so hat I could. subdivide. What Happened, when I applied for the subdivision originally, if you look at the original map, there was 40,065 Sq. feet for lot =1; and 40;001 Sq. feet on lot 42 and I was ok. That was conveying the 25' right of way on Theresa Blvd. to the Town. Pursuant to the letter I received from the Toni, that was dated October 10th, 1989 saying that they required the deed for the 25' right of way. So at that time I didn't have a compliance problem of 40,000 Sq. feet. (the letter of October 10, 1989 is on file, it came fr,Dm Mr. Paggi). Subsequent to that the Town decided that we had to also deed 251right of way on Cedar Hill Road, which is part of lot #1. That caused me a loss of about 3,000 Sq. feet short of the 40,C00 Sq. feet required for lot -2; because the agreement I have with Faro and Nelson is that I will not reduce the size of their lot below 40, 065. Mr. Sasser: Ok, so you gave a strip along Cedar Hill Road which means you had to set yours back further? Mr. Mansell: : rhat is right. Mr. Buckley: We were suggested to come before your Board by the Planning Board, because this is one of the last items to do to get approval for this subdivi- sion. Mr. Sasser: Excuse me Mr. Buckley, are you purchasing that lot? Mr. Buckley: No, I am sorry, Mr. Mansell lives in South Carolina, he just hap- %Wpened to be in New York on this given date. I have been working for him as his- agent. isagent. M. Levenson: We have a letter on file. I�Ir. Bitterlich: What you are saying is that 3,000 so odd Sq. feet is a result of the Town requiring that right of way? Mr. Mansell: Correct Mr. Hirkaia: When you bought this property the lot lines were to the middle of the road, is that what happened? Nr. Mansell: That is right. Mr. Hirkala: Then the real property law changed. Mr. Levenson: For the benefit of the Board I have the 88 filed map. This is known as the Hamilton subdivision. This is what Mr. Mansell owns, from here oven- is 1.5 acres. You will see the note on the top of this map, lot 1 is tc become part and parcel of the lands of Mansell, it is not a buildable lot in its state. I have a signed copy of the agreement. 14r, Sasser: well if you include the area that is the right of way it is a Luildable lot. *4✓ lir . Levenscn : The Town owns it by use. 11#46e '13 age 11 1.000 Mr. Sasser: Ok. lets move forward with the public hearing. ,r. Bitterlich: made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Hirkala: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. m-. Nasser: Is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak for or against this? Mr. Hamilton: Theresa Blvd. I sold the property in question to Mr. Mansell. At tiie time I hired Eric Gardell to prepare a subdivision map which I have here. That was based on the deeds that were in existence at the time, and the lot limes went to the center of the road. Both on Cedar Hill Road and Theresa Blvd. I approached Mr. Mansell about subdividing because I had this odd shaped piece of property. The piece of property was not worth much except to him. The pro- perty that he lived on at the time was less then 2 acres, and he couldn't sub- divide it. My parcel that I wanted to sell to him was less then one acre so it was not buildable. But if he purchased this piece from me his total piece would he more then 2 acres, and he in turn could subdivide, to have 2 lots on more then one acre. It turned out to be that, based on the lot lines going to the center of the road, the combined piece was 2.2 acres. Now I just did a quick calculation here and if you take 251off Theresa Blvd., and Cedar Hill Road that is 4 tenth of an acre, which brings the total parcel down to 1.8. I am very much in favor that he be granted this. Because as I said we both entered into tizis in good faith. Mr. Sasser: Thank you very much Mr. Hamilton. Is there some one else? Mr. :Marcello: I have adjoining property on Theresa Blvd. Lot 2. When I origi- nally bought my lot I had come to the Town to find out what the story was, which I investigated, and they told me that the lot next door to me was not buildable. And it couldn't be because it was 1.1 and .6 acres on the Town Map. Mr. :Nasser: That is correct it is not a buildable lot. Mr. Marcello: The combined lots were not buildable. The tax maps shows them a. �.1 and .6. Mr. Levenson: The tax map is not a basis to go on, you have to look at a survey that is endorsed by a land surveyor. Mr. Marcello: I spoke to Mr. Logan at the time and he conveyed to me that, that 25`in front of lot 1 was deeded to the Town prior to the purchase. Sasser: And your feelings regarding this? Mr. Marcello: If it is under 40,000 Sq. feet I don't think it should be granted. Mr. Sasser: Thank you Mr. Marcello. Is there anyone else? �kwM>. Nelson: Mostly I have a question, more then an objection to the variance. ra4gF J 1-11r. Sasser: Dr) you live on Theresa Blvd.? Ms. Nelsen: Yes, I bought the property from Mr. Mansell, the acre and a half. I wasn't notified of the hearing and I don't know why. I found out from the neighbors. I don't know why I wasn't notified of it, but in addition to that, my mortgage varies a little bit from the map, my agreement says, along the front of Cedar Hill Road I own 136.46 feet not the 150. 136 from 150 shows the 25' right of way, that also is going to change to variance. Mr. Sasser: I am a little confused. First I am confused about which lot is yours. It is on the corner of Cedar Hill and Theresa Blvd.? I thought that lot was owned by Mr. Mansell. MS. Nelson: No, I own that. mr. Mansell: That's the lot, I sold that, that was my home, I sold it to Ms. Nelson and Mr. Faro in 1939. But I was in the subdivision process at the time. They agreed to convey the half acre back to me. Mr. Sasser: I follow you, I am sorry. Ms. Nelson: I don't have a problem with that as long as I am not left with legis then 40,065 Sq. Ft. Mr. Sasser: well this will not effect the size of your lot at all. lls. Nelson: My only problem is that this supposed subdivision map that I have, *,,haws along the front 150 feet inclusive of the 25' right of way, so I should Piave 125 feet, not including the 25' foot right of way. Mr. Sasser: I don't think and correct me if this Board feels different. But that's really not the matter we would take up here. Mr. Mansell: Your 40,065 is exclusive of the right of way on Theresa Blvd. Ms. Nelson: But if you look at the survey map, along the front of Cedar Hill it says 150 feet. The reason I am questioning this is the mortgage I have says 11.6.46 feet inclusive of it. Mr. Mansell: Those metes and bounds were provided by your surveyor when you purchased the property. Mr. Hamilton: The map shows the distance along Cedar Hill Road as 136.46 plus 1=:.52. Somebody is ignoring that 13 feet. So there is 150 feet. wis. Nelson: so that maybe an issue that we need to discuss at a later date. Mr. Hirkala: That is a situation between you and your batik and your mortgage. Ms. Nelson: Isn't there a requirement that I be notified? Mr. Sasser: Yes, you should have been notified. I think at this point it would )e appropriate for us to ask, if you would being you are here, to waive that �:iUt1Ce . Page 1' Ms. Nelson: The only reason not is because the other owner, is not my husband, ,,,,.e is the co-owner of the home he is not here. I don't have any idea what that right give_; me. Mr. Hirkala; Was there notification, of the public hearing, do we have proof of p.tblication? Mr. Levenson: Both parties were in my office several times. Mr. Hirkala: Was there notification under the Law? Mr. Levenson: We didn't prepare the list. Mr. Sasser: Did you sent a certified letter to this property owner? Psi_ -r. Mansell: No, and I will tell you why. Because in the instructions given tc) me on how to send the notice out, it said adjoining property owners. This to me was the property in question. Mr. Sasser: They are an owner. Mr. Mansell: Well they own part of the property that we are talking about. We are a part and parcel of this whole deal, and I had a phone conversation with Mr. Faro. and Mr. Faro has also been here to the Town Hall discussing this with Mr. Levenson. so they are aware of, and they own part of that property. Levenson: And they are parties to this agreement. Mr. Hirkala: Mr. Faro is the co-owner? Ms. Nelson: Yes. Mr. Hirkala: And Mr. Faro, the co-owner has been in discussing this situation with you? Mr. Levenson: Yes sir. Mr. Hirkala: And you did notify him of the public hearing? Mr. Levenson: I told him. Mr. Sasser: Perhaps it might be in our best interest to adjourn this hearing; tc either get his consent of notification or for us to clarify with our Town Attorney, that proper notification has been given. Mr. Mansell: I think we complied with the letter of instruction saying adjoin- ing property owners had to be notified. Mr. Sasser: You might very well be right, but we are not convinced of that, and we need to get a legal opinion. Mr. Mansell: This creates a problem for me, one problem being that I do live in 1#4" South Carolina, the other problem is that part of the agreement that I Have Page 14 with Mr. Faro and Ms. Nelson is that this process would be completed in 3 years )f the date of the agreement that I made with them, which expires on November 8th of this year. Mr. Hirkala: We could move it up. Mr.Sasser: We can, if fact we are going to have a meeting next Tuesday night. Mr. Hirkala: If I might add, it might be detrimental to you if we don't adjourn the public hearing, because if we do find in your favor and they sue, you are not going to meet that November 8th date anyway. Mr. Sasser: Gentlemen, I think at this point I am going to have to insist that the public Bearing be adjourned. We hold a public hearing next Tuesday night, and I have no problem with adjourning this until that time. It is in every- body's interest both the Town and your best interest to make sure that this has been done right. I suspect it has, but I'm not willing to take that chance, that it is being done incorrectly, and subject the Town to a law suit. I think we are talking about another 7 days, which is not going to cause you a hard - whip. Mr. Mansell: I will not be able to be here. Mr. Hirkala: You have a agent. Mr. Mansell: Ok, Mr. Buckley will be here instead. Just for the record I would like to say, that I think we have done everything we could do to comply **�ith the requirements of the Town. It started out that it looked like we had plenty of property as Mr. Hamilton said, and then with the changes in the Zon- ing Laws, and the requirement of the deeding to the Town and so forth, this has created a hardship for me, where I have less then the required 40,000 Sq. feet. Mr. Sasser: As I said before I don't think necessarily that you have not com- plied, I think you may have, but I have to make sure of that. I would also would like to tell you from my own personal point of view that at this point in time of this hearing, I am leaning toward granting you this variance, I don't have a problem with it. But I do have a problem with going forward with it, if I am not sure that we are doing it correctly. I will speak to the Town Attorney to find out from him what needs to be done. In fact I will try and speak to him first thing tomorrow. Herb, I will speak to you. If in fact they are required to give additional public notice, what is the time delay? Mr. Levenson:: Not less the 5 or more then 20 days. 111r. Sasser: Which means you still have time to get it out for next Tuesday meeting public hearing, for everybody again. so no matter what you will be able, in fact I suggest that you do that, just to avoid and problem tomorrow morriin g. You find out who all the adjacent parcels are, and you send it to everybody again for next Tuesday night. Mr. Hirkala: Made a motion to adjourn the public hearing until we receive clarification for our Attorney. Set it for next Tuesday night. �ivtr. Brooker: Seconded. Page i5 All *. Sasser: �t:st maks sure you get those notices out. 11-. Levensun : Make sure you come into the office tomorrow. Mr. Sasser: Iii the situation I am not going to go to the Town Attorney at this �DoLTit, if yott send those proper notices out tomorrow, there is no point in cir g tc nim. Levanscn: I am meeting with Al, I will speak to him tomorrow. Aid you will contact them. Hardisty: Can I ask a question? Er. Sasser: Yes, Gay. Hardisty: Does he have to send it to everybody or just to Faro and Nel-,on? Everybody else seems to have been notified. And this is a adjourned public iear-Lng and they don't get notified. Mr. Levenson: You have the people here now, all you have to do is notify Mr. Faro. Mr. Hirkala: What about Ms. Nelson? Sasser: She is notified, she is here. _qtr. Levenson: Mr. Faro. tr. Sasser: That is the only one you have to notify. M-. Hirkala: Mr. Faro has to get legal notification. Mi.. Sasser: That is, correct and you will be on the agenda for next weeks meet- ing. Then we can go forward. Bitterlich: Made a motion to adjourn. r. Srooker: Seconded. Vote: All ayes. xleeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Very respectfully yours, 4GaAnn Hardisty,Se y Zoning Board of Appeals M Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals tober 13, 1992 , enda - 7:30 P.M. Approval of the August 11, 1992 Minutes. Approval of the August 25, 1992 Minutes. Approval of the September 22, 1992 Minutes. Public Hearings In Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, N.Y. Appeal 1142 - At the request of Timothy Mansell, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 421.6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law where you are required to maintain a lot of 40,000 square feet, and you are showing 37,773 square feet, therefore requiring a 2,227 square foot variance, caused by the Planning Boards requirements of a 25' right of way, on property located on Theresa Blvd. consisting of 2 plus or minus acres.and being parcel n6257-03-410067 in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal -r 1140 - At the request of Vincent Cappellitti, seeking a variance of Article IV Section 444.6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law, where you are required to maintain a 2500 foot separation between gasoline filling stations, and you are showing a minimum of 200 foot separation on your proposal, on property located on Route 376 & Maloney Road and being parcel X6259-02-550850 i the Town of Wappinger. ey are also requesting a variance of Article IV Section 444.1 where you are required to maintain 1000 feet between driveways and residential boundary lines, and you are only showing a separation of 70 feet, therefore requiring a 930 foot variance on the above parcel.