Loading...
2007-08-28 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 '-' MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Road August 28, 2007 Summarized Minutes Members: Mr. Fanuele, Mr. DellaCorte, Ms. McEvoy-Riley, Mr. Prager, Mr. McVeigh, ~ Others Present: Mr. Caviglia, Mrs. Lukianoff, Mrs. Roberti, Minutes of August 28, 2007 MINUTES APPROVED SEP ,.21 2007 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Wappinger Falls, NY Chairman Member Member Vice-Chairman Member Special Counsel Zoning Administrator Secretary SUMMARY Public Hearings: Vincent & Jianbo Mulligan -Variance for shed denied. Discussion: Glenn & Wendy Light Luis Merchan Extension: Degnan Site Plan '--' -Public Hearing on September 11, 2007. - Variance for basketball court denied. Applicant granted additional 6 month extension to March 6, 2008 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals \.- Mr. Prager: Mr. DellaCorte: Vote: Mr. Prager: Mr. DellaCorte: Vote: Page 2 Minutes of August 28, 2007 Motion to approve the minutes for August 14,2007. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to approve the site minutes for August 18, 2007. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Appeal No. 07-7353 Vincent & Jianbo Mulli2an- Seeking area variances of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-40 Zoning District. - Where a side yard setback of 25 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposin2 a side yard setback of 10 feet. to allow for a 12' X 30' pre-fab shed with no electric, thus reauestin2 a variance of 15 feet. -Where the code states...in no case shall Accessory Structures be permitted in the front yard the applicant requests a variance for the 12' X 30' pre-fab shed in his front yard. The property is located at 35 Forest View Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-04-848067 in the Town of Wappinger. \... Mr. Prager: Mr. DellaCorte: Vote: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Fanuele: '-" Motion to open the adjourned public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Swore in the applicant. I own a pre-fab shed at an old address which we just sold and was not part of the sale. I would like to bring it over to my current home and add it to my property but due to the topography we are limited as to where we can place it. We were out at your property to do a site visit last week. Page 3 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of August 28, 2007 Ms. McEvoy-Riley: What is on the north east section of your property? ~ Mr. Mulligan: It slopes there more severely and the property there is basically useless. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: It's so private in your neighborhood that I have a problem with it in the front yard. Mr. Fanuele: Swore in witness. Mr. & Mrs. Goldin: Frederick and Diane Goldin, Forest View Drive. Mr. Goldin: Mrs. Goldin: '-' Mr. Goldin: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. DellaCorte: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Fanuele: \..- This will change our neighborhood, this is a huge structure and it will be on a rise from the house and will detract from the private experience of this neighborhood. I have a letter here also from another neighbor who couldn't be here. Also I see a problem mounting on that slope and we are afraid of erosion. We have pictures here and this will rise up above their house and it is a small piece of property. This will also obstruct our view. This is not a shed at 12' X 30' but rather the size of a garage. Also excavating should not be allowed. I have here the letter from the Mrs. VanDe Sande and pictures if I may give them to you. Read into the record the letter from Mrs. Van De Sande of 41 Forest View Drive. We also acknowledge an e- mail from Mr. & Mrs. Christman. Are the Van De Sande's next to you? Yes. We also have a letter from Beth & Jeff Wright. Read letter into the record. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mrs. Goldin: '-' Page 4 Minutes of August 28, 2007 Can you grant the variance even if we don't approve of this? Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Yes. Mrs. Goldin: Mr. Prager: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Mulligan: Mrs. Lukianoff: \. Mr. Mulligan: Mrs. Lukianoff: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Prager: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Mower: Mr. Mulligan: \... This will depreciate our property. We also have a letter from Mr. Foster who is our Highway Superintendent. Read into the record. Is there anyone else in the audience with a comment? I wasn't putting in a driveway just cutting in so that we could get it up into there and then I would plant grass. You mentioned motorcycles the last time that would need to be brought in and out. Because of the grading and curb cut that you would need to create I asked Graham Foster for his impute. Ijust want this for my lawn mower, snow blower and lawn furniture. I just wanted the grading down in order to get the shed in. How would you then get the snow blower or lawn mower in and out of it? I can bring it out the back side. I have stairs there. As far as I know there are no other structures in any front yards on that street. Swore in witness. Hugh Mower, 118 Thornton Terrace. Is there a rendering of that shed because that is pretty steep there? What will this look like? I have a photo of the shed. Showed the photo to Mr. Mower. Page 5 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals '-' Mr. Goldin: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Fanuele; Mr. Mulligan: Mrs. Goldin: Mr. Fanuele: \r Mr. Mulligan: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Mulligan: Mr. McVeigh: Mr. Fanuele: Minutes of August 28, 2007 This looks like a garage. Where on your survey is your property line? This survey is showing a line in the center of the road. My property is where the stake is shown. Can you get this back 50 feet from your property line? Probably but at a greater cost to me. Right after his stakes there is a sink hole so he would need to go back to at least 80 feet. Any more digging will cause harm to all of us. Cedar Hill has a lot of erosion already. If you are putting something in the front it should be at least 50 feet back to meet our zoning regulations. That will bring it back to the comer of my house. The house is about 90 feet back from the front. It actually is 100 feet back. It's still in the front yard if he goes back 50 feet. Then we have the side yard to consider. Is there anyone else with a comment? Hearing none. Mr. Prager: Motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Second the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager: ~ I motion to deny these variances. I don't believe the requested variances would be detrimental to nearby properties. Would an undesirable change occur to the character of the neighborhood, to an extent it will because like we said I didn't see any other Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 Minutes of August 28, 2007 ....... buildings that come in front of the homes on that road. Are there other alternative methods to achieve this, yes I think there are? There is quite a bit of acreage there. I agree it slopes down but I think they probably could find a place in the back to put the shed. Especially since you will not be driving anything in and out of it like you said. The variances are substantial. Would the variance cause adverse affect to the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood? It's questionable and very possible and obviously the difficulty is self- created. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Second the motion. Roll Call: Mr. McVeigh: Denied. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Denied. Mr. Prager: Denied. Mr. DellaCorte: Denied. Mr. Fanuele: Denied. Mr. Mulligan: So your telling me I can't have a shed in my yard? '-' Mr. Fanuele: You can put it in the rear. Mr. DellaCorte: On this shed in this spot you can't, that is our decision and it has been made. Appeal No. 07-7354 Glenn & Wendy Lieht- Seeking area variances of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R - 20/40 Zoning District. -Where a side yard setback of 20 feet is reQuired, the applicant is proposine a side yard setback of 18.2 feet. to allow for a 24' X 32' attached garage with electric, thus reauestine a variance of 1.8 feet. The property is located at 7 So. Fowlerhouse Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-04-576241 in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Light: We have an existing one car garage with an attached breezeway to our home. We want to take the breezeway out and the garage down and rebuild a two car garage. We would have the same side line but we \.or Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 Minutes of August 28, 2007 ~ would go 10 feet longer in the rear. It will not go out further on the side but it doesn't meet current code regulations. Mr. Fanuele: We will come out this Saturday and do a site visit and we will set your public hearing for September 11, 2007. Mr. Light: Thank you. Appeal No. 07-7347 Luis Merchan- Seeking area variances of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-20 Zoning District. -Where a side yard setback of 20 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposine: a side yard setback of 8 feet. to allow for a 32 X 65 foot basketball court, thus reauestine: a variance of 12 feet. - Where the code states.. .in no case shall Accessory Structures be permitted in the front yard the applicant requests a variance for a basketball court in his front yard. The property is located at 107 Caroline Drive and is identified as Tax Grid \.or No. 6056-03-238390 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Fanuele: This had a public hearing and we reserved our decision for this evening. We have a resolution before us tonight. Mr. Prager: Read into the record the resolution. RESOLUTION At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 28, 2007, the application of the LUIS MERCHAN, appeal no. 07-7347 seeking area variances of Section 240-37 of the Town Code, requesting an area variance from the required 20 feet for a side yard setback to a setback of 8 feet to allow for a 32 by 65 foot basketball court, a variance of 1 2 feet, and to allow such a structure in his front yard although the code states that in no case shall accessory structures be permitted in the front yard, said property being located in an R20 zone at 107 Caroline Drive and identified as Tax Grid No. 6056-03-238390 in the Town of Wappinger. '-" Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 Minutes of August 28, 2007 The meeting was called to order by Victor Fanuele, Chairman, and \..., upon roll being called, the following were present: Chairman: Members: Victor Fanuele Howard Prager Thomas DellaCorte Jennifer McEvoy-Riley Patrick McVeigh The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Prager and seconded by Mr. DellaCorte. WHEREAS, this matter was presented by public hearing taking place on June ,26, 2007, July 24, 2007, and August 14,2007, and evidence being submitted by the applicant, personnel from the construction company installing the basketball court on the property, neighbors of the applicant, and the Zoning Administrator, and WHEREAS, the matter has come before the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals on August 28, 2007 for a determination and vote '-" regarding these variances, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: A) The recitations and description of the application set forth above are incorporated herein as to our Findings as if fully set forth in this Resolution. B) The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby makes the following determinations as set forth below. FINDINGS: Mr. Merchan purchased this property in 2003. Mr. Merchan is employed by the company that installed the basketball court on his property which is the subject of this proceeding. That company installed another court on Stonewall Drive in the Town of Wappinger last year which required a variance. Mr. Merchan assisted in the installation of that other court. '-' Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 9 Minutes of August 28, 2007 ~ George Kolb, the Building Inspector and Director of Enforcement for the Town, never told Mr. Merchan that he could install a basketball court or tennis court. During work on the court, Mr. Manzi, an immediate neighbor, intervened and told Mr. Merchan that it was too close to his property. Even after Mr. Merchan knew that he needed a permit, he acknowledged to Mr. Manzi that the Town could make him remove the court, but continued to work on it to completion. Mr. Merchan had also applied for a building permit last year for such work and was denied because of the need for a variance. The neighbors testified regarding the visual and noise effects upon the environment, testifying that on weekends this court is used by 30 to 40 people, both children and adults, from outside the neighborhood. An alternative location for the court on Mr. Merchan's property was not investigated. Mr. Merchan stated first that he did not know that he owned property on the other side of his house, then later claimed that the ~ septic field is there, but never provided any details, measurements, or scale drawings or professional engineering drawings or other credible evidence concerning its location to demonstrate the unavailability of another location upon his property. An argument was raised concerning a prior variance granted by this Board on Stonewall Drive in 2003, on an R40 zoned parcel, 1.33 acres in size. There, a 12% variance was granted, and permits and approvals were obtained. The instant application is located in an R20 zone and the property is .76 acres, and the side yard variance sought is one of 60%. Also, the provided screening there is more comprehensive. The variance here, if granted would only allow for approximately 8 feet from Mr. Manzi, one of the neighbor's, property, and screening would be more difficult or not possible to be effective, and would not eliminate the noise necessarily. The Stonewall Drive property has much more room to provide screening greenery . In balancing the benefit to the owner and the potential effects to welfare of the neighborhood and community, we find based upon the '-'" foregoing that the detriment to the neighborhood outweighs the benefit to the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 10 Minutes of August 28, 2007 ~ owner. The effect upon the neighborhood from the noise is problematic since it draws a large number of non-residents to the area who make noise of apparent sufficient duration, frequency and duration as to cause the neighbors to complain. It also offers a negative visual impact set forth in the yard chosen by the owner, and it is questionable if sufficient screening could be afforded even if the board were inclined to grant the variance. We further question if the court could not have been located on other sections of the property which the owner claimed he did not know he owned, despite his purchase in 2003 and his paying property taxes thereon. The variance is of sufficient magnitude to consider it substantial, as well as its unorthodox location, coupled with the foregoing findings. The basketball court has been placed very close to Mr. Manzi's property, and the obviousness of the court is dramatic. An insufficient showing by the owner of an inability to place the court on the other side of his property, which might not even require a variance, was made. Finally, the hardship is not only self-created, but intentionally invited ~ by the owner. He knew that a variance was needed when he applied for a building permit which was denied the prior year. He even acknowledged to his neighbor that he understood the potential consequence of proceeding illegally requiring the removal of the court in the event that he was not subsequently allowed to keep it in the location at which he was installing it. DECISION In conclusion, we find that the variance is not justified based upon the factors considered under Town Law section 267 -b, and therefore deny the variance application. Dated: August 28, 2007 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Wappinger Falls, New York Victor Fanuele, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Wappinger Roll Call: Mr. McVeigh: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Abstain. Denied. ~ Page 11 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Prager: Mr. DellaCorte: Mr. Fanuele: ~ Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Merchan: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Merchan: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Merchan: Mr. Fanuele: Mrs. Lukianoff: '-' Mr. Merchan: Minutes of August 28, 2007 Denied. Abstain. Denied. Do you understand what has happened? No not really. We denied the application for a variance. So do I have to rip it out? Yes. You have no variance for it and you have no building permit for it. How long do I have to do this? You will need to see George Kolb. Come into the office. Ok thanks. Appeal No. 06-7299 John Deenan - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an HD Zoning District. - Where a lot depth of 300 feet is required, the applicant is proposine a lot depth of 260 feet to allow for a pre-existing condition, thus requestine a variance of 40 feet. The property is located at 1708 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-02-543530 in the Town of Wappinger. (Public Hearing was closed on April 11, 2006. 62 days set to expire on June 12,2006, first extension granted to September 10,2006, second extension granted to March 9, 2007 and third extension granted to September 7, 2007. Applicant is now granting an additional six month extension while they appear before the planning board. This extension would begin on September 8, 2007 and expire on March 6, 2008. '-" ~ -..., ~ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 12 Minutes of August 28, 2007 Mr. Fanuele: 6, 2008. Motion to accept the granted six month extension to March Mr. Prager: Motion to adjourn. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Second the motion. V ote: All present voted aye. Meeting ended at 8:45 PM Res~~c ully SU~bmi,t.~~d' ~ ... .'./. .z;;;) " ~ ,.' / arbara Roberti, -Secretary Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals