Loading...
2007-04-24 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS April 24, 2007 '-" Agenda Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MEETING DATE: April 24, 2007 TIME: 7:30 PM Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Approve minutes for March 27, 2007. Approve minutes for April 10, 2007. Discussions: Appeal No. 07-7342 Michael & Christine McGuiean- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-15 Zoning District. - Where a rear yard setback of 30 feet is reauired, the applicant is proposine a rear yard setback of 20.8 feet. to allow for a 21 foot above ground pool, thus reauestine a variance of 9.4 feet. The property is located at 99 Ardmore Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-03-286415 in the Town of Wappinger. ~ Appeal No. 06-7340 Brian & Irene Moodv - Seeking a Use Variance of Section 240-37 in the District Zoning Regulations for an R-40/80 Zoning District. Applicant is seeking a Use Variance for the continuance of a pre-existing non-conforming use as a two-family residence where only single family residences are permitted. The property is located 29 Middlebush Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-01- 394824 in the Town of Wappinger. ~ 1 '-" '-' \...- Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 1 MINUTES Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals April 24, 2007 Summarized Minutes Members: Mr. Fanuele, Chairman Ms. McEvoy-Riley Member Mr. Prager, Vice-Chairman Members Absent: Mr. DellaCorte, Member Others Present: Mrs. Lukianoff, Mrs. Roberti, Mr. Caviglia, Minutes of April 24Mm9tES APPROVED t1AY 0 8 2Dn7 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Zoning Administrator Secretary Special Counsel SUMMARY Discussions: Michael & Christine McGuigan -Public Hearing on May 8, 2007. Brian & Irene Moody -Discussion on May 8, 2007. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals '-" Mr. Prager: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Mr. Prager: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Page 2 Minutes of April 24, 2007 Motion to approve the minutes for March 27, 2007. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to approve the minutes for April 10, 2007. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Appeal No. 07-7342 Michael & Christine McGuiean- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-15 Zoning District. - Where a rear vard setback of 30 feet is reauired. the applicant is proposine a rear vard setback of20.8 feet. to allow for a 21 foot above ground pool, thus reauestine a variance of 9.4 feet. The property is located at 99 Ardmore Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6257-03-286415 in the Town of Wappinger. ~rs. ~c(Juigan: '-' ~r. Fanuele: ~rs. ~c(Juigan: ~r. Prager: ~rs. ~c(Juigan: ~r. Prager: ~r. Fanuele: ~rs. ~c(Juigan: \.- Our entire yard is on a hill and we will need to dig out whatever we wind up doing but the further we get away from the rear property line the steeper the hill. These are pictures of your yard? Yes. Is that a garden in these pictures? Yes. It will go there after we dig out more. If we go within 10 feet of the house it will need to be dug out close to four feet. This seems to slope down away from your house. We will come out and do a site visit this Saturday on April 28, 2007 and we will set your public hearing for ~ay 8th, 2007. Please stake out where you want to put the pool. Yes I will, thank you. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3 Minutes of April 24, 2007 \...- Appeal No. 06-7340 Brian & Irene Moodv - Seeking a U se Variance of Section 240-37 in the District Zoning Regulations for an R-40/80 Zoning District. Applicant is seeking a Use Variance for the continuance of a pre-existing non-conforming use as a two-family residence where only single family residences are permitted. The property is located 29 Middlebush Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-01- 394824 in the Town of Wappinger. Present: John Sarcone - Attorney Brian & Irene Moody Mr. Sarcone: The correct address is 29 Middlebush Road, the other address is their primary residence. We have submitted a comprehensive review and application for this board. My clients never felt that they were doing anything wrong with this property. As part of a compromise and in seeking your approval they are willing to give up the commercial use on this site and to only continue the 2-family use. My clients bought this as an investment for their kid's education. So here was a perfect opportunity for them. There was a place for this man to have his business, to park his vehicles there and to have rental income which paid the mortgage on the place. The plan is that when the mortgage is paid off from the rental income, they will sell it and they will use those proceeds for their children's education. If they are forced to comply with the existing zoning and go back to a one family not only will they lose that rental income but they will also have to sell the place and convert it back to a single family home and we have provided the cost of what that would cost. Approximately $58,000.00 to convert it back and in addition to that we provided an appraisal of the difference in value from a single family to a two family in selling it. This is generally a HB, commercial neighborhood and we provided evidence of that. Right next door is some kind of warehouse with a large garage door and other business's near by. ~ Mr. Moody: I bought this about 16 or 17 years ago and before I bought it I came to Town Hall and spoke with Mr. Levenson who was the Zoning Administrator at the time and also to Mark Liebermann who is still here. We told them what we wanted to do and we were told it would be ok since the building is already set up for it. We lived in the home until we outgrew it and moved to a family home nearby. Everything was ok for the last 15 years until recently. Mrs. Moody: We sold pagers and telephones for years and even sold them to the town. We even donated them every year to the recreation department for the summer camps. Mr. Moody: We have been good members of the community for years and now the same use that we have had for years that the town used we are now told we can't use. This would cost a lot of money to convert this and it \.- '-' ~ '-'" . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Prager: Mr. Moody: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Moody: Mrs. Moody: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Moody: Mr. Sarcone: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Sarcone: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Sarcone: Mr. Moody: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Sarcone: Page 4 Minutes of April 24, 2007 would reduce the value of the house then. I'm not trying to make a million dollars, I'm a school bus driver. Who lived there when you bought it? There were two apartments and a business for the previous owner and I believe it was being used as a daycare downstairs with an apartment upstairs. When did you purchase it? In 1991. We put a shed up and made sure we got all the right permits and they have come to our property from the town. The last I Yz years has been hell and we are $20,000.00 in debt for legal fees and we are at a point now where we can't afford to proceed and we can't afford to lose. We saw the thank you letters from the town. We have paid commercial taxes for the property all along and always got permits for signs, sheds, etc. We did all the right things and everyone knew what we were doing. Their initial option was to challenge the building department determination and go to court but they didn't want to do that. They are good neighbors, we met with the building department to try to find a way to do this where everyone is happy and it can be in compliance. What's you definition of existing non-conforming, do you have proof? It's in existence pre-dating zoning. The two-family home pre-dates zoning? Well yes we submitted it. Quite honestly your current Fire Inspector told us he remembers when he was a little boy growing up that there was a business there and the people who ran the business let his uncle work for them as a cab driver for their company back in the 50's. People who have been in the town a long time know that this has had these uses for a long time. You mention that this needs evidence that it was pre-existing and I haven't seen any yet in the documents presented. You mention it a couple of times but that would take it back before 1963 zoning. We submitted previously when we had an interpretation and that was abandoned. We had presented that evidence there and I believe Ms. McEvoy-Riley mentioned that she had seen some of those letters we presented. But we are here in a way to say we would like a Use Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 Minutes of April 24, 2007 ~ Variance, we presented the evidence to show the extreme hardship that it would cause and we believe we have met the criteria and they are willing to abandon the commercial use aspect of the property. Mrs. Moody: Yes and we will have to pay to have those RV's stored elsewhere but that is the lesser of the two evils if you will allow us to have the two- family. We are trying to come up with a compromise. Mr. Moody: That is an expense that we could handle. To renovate the building and make it less valuable then it currently is; it's just something we can't do. Mr. Fanuele: I would like to go on record that I haven't seen anything saying it is legal non-conforming and that this goes beyond 1963. If you have something re-submit it. Mr. Sarcone: I will resend what we had previously sent if you want to make the determination based on that then they would be that they are continuing to enjoy the uses of commercial plus the two residential. At this point they are willing to seek the use variance and voluntarily discontinue forever the commercial use they have been enjoying. I would be happy to re-submit those. Mr. Caviglia: This is a Use Variance and nothing else before the board. The other types of variances are not being applied for; we are sort of beyond that. This has specific criteria. There would be nothing precluding them to present that at a public hearing but at the same token I don't know how relevant or not that would be. \., Mr. Fanuele: I just want proof because at more than one time he says it is a pre- existing legal non-conforming. Mr. Sarcone: That is our position from the beginning. Mr. Caviglia: The criteria is different for a Use Variance vs. an Area Variance and that was dismissed. Mr. Sarcone: It was abandoned. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: You need to prove a hardship, that you can't get a reasonable return, that it won't affect the character of the neighborhood and that it was not self-created. Mr. Fanuele: I would like to discuss this with Mr. Caviglia. Mr. Caviglia: For advice of legal counsel? Mr. Fanuele: Y es. We will set May 8th for further discussion. Mr. Sarcone: Can we set a public hearing? \...... Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Fanuele: \w. Mr. Caviglia: Mr. Sarcone: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Sarcone: \w. Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Sarcone: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Prager: Vote: Meeting ended at 8:30 PM ~ Page 6 Minutes of April 24, 2007 I'm not comfortable yet to set a public hearing. Will you be submitting anything else like business tax returns, etc. showing the viability of the property for any legal purpose or are you just relying on the appraisals and the cost to go to single family vs. keeping it as it is? I'll have to discuss the business records with my client but to the extent that they are available and existing I will supplement that application right away. The main focus here is that they bought this in good faith and have been using it in the capacity that they have been using it all along since 1991 and now there told oops its single family and you now have to suffer this loss and it is a big loss to convert it to a single family. It is over $100,000.00 of loss of a place that is only valued at $290,000.00. All their equity would be shot. So you'll give us some financial information. I'll supplement with what I can get from the clients but I think the application adequately portrays those differences as far as the appraisals are concerned and the contractors quote as to what it will cost to convert a portion of it. The most significant factor is the rental income goes to pay for the overhead. Not to mention if the use variance is granted then they will have to find an appropriate place for the RV's to store them and pay rental and work an office out of another location. Their giving something up here trying to compromise and get along with the municipality and not come here with their fists up saying their going to fight. I request a discussion with counsel. No problem we want you to feel satisfied and we will be back on the 8th and hopefully we will set a public hearing. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Res~lY SU~ (?~~ / /' ~';:--:./- Barbara RobertI, :secret r ~ <<-><{) Secretary - Zoning Board f Appeals