Loading...
02-7114 ,.' TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 13, 2002 To: Gloria Morse T own Clerk /"'fw~ ~./.. ..., .~ ,~. >~' ,/.!~. ':. 0~~~~~ :....(~. ~\~ " ._ ~~. 'I O\~.i~ c:. . .'~ .~fiii):)j ~ss -co~ ~SI ~-~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-0324 (845) 297-1373 From: Michelle Gale, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Re: David & Debra Katz Appeal No. 02-7114 Application No. 19888 Attached you will find the original Application/Decision & Order for David & Debra Katz, 106 Chelsea Rd., Wappinger Falls, NY. I would appreciate it if you would file these documents. Attachments cc: Mr. & Mrs. D. Katz Zoning Board Town File T own Attorney Building Inspector Assessor Zoning Administrator ~€.c€.\\I€.O ft.'O \" ~1. ,t.I~ C\f;,.~~ \O~.. SUPERVISOR JOSEPH RUGGIERO TOWN COUNCIL VINCENT BETTINA CHRISTOPHER J. C;OLSEY JOSEPH P. PAOLONI ROBERT L. VALDATI .-~ I ]>€.L \L- . l . r' ,:' ~~ t: · . . AREA V ARlANCE(S) APPLICATION APPLICATION.TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF 'tV APPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK . Appeal # 02- 7f/Y Date: t)/- t) -02- Fee: '1 b>O- Od TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF W APPINGE,R, NEW YORK: I (We) ]/IJ{;O 13. If.4r-r- .lidO U~,.4 L. /fF}fZ.- , of f) (Nal~~ _of Appellant(s) .~. ctr1 . /0& Cil~LseA ,fo/lf)~ WAfRAlb'dS.:r;;/...t-s,AJV ,(8"1s) B3~'29oo /rB~s) Z2.(P-IZ.I~ (Mailing 'Address) /z6'0 (Tel. Nos. HomerWorkJ(S<lS) "'Z'-~o7~ . ( U-.eK H') HEREBY APPEAL TO THE ZONING BO~ OF APPEALS FROM THE " DECISION/ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DATED-:rA~ ~ ,..z.ooz- AND DO HEREBY APPLY FOR AN AREA V ARlANCE(S). Premises located at IDu CHeLSeA foA-A WA pp/N~6 F.tftLS NY' (Address of Proper~) , (P05LP _ b3- ~<.t>7 . . L'" 40 ~o . i (Grid Nos.) (Zoning District) . 1.. RECORD OWNEROFPROPERTYj),4.JID "B: f7AT'Z- AND y~\o(7A .L ~A,'t.- , . (Name , D~ e.h e:\ Sr:'~ A () fS (Address) . . OWNER CONSENT: Dated: /~ ft ~ , /. Signature: / rY l' Y--- ,/'j~ /, Printed:' //~/I/ ,~ 1?' ~ L /' ../ // I 2. V ARIANCE(S) REQUEST: VARIANCE NO.1 I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. c!~O-~7 (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph) REQUIRED: 60 I l?e/1e y,c,dJ 5~rMd:-- APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: ' ~7' 4e7J/Z L/Aeo / J:.-' I . '. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals . . Area Variance Application Appeal No. Page 2 THUS REQUESTING: 013' IAtl';rJt~ . TO ALLOW: ,4N . eX/'f:,TlN6"= WOc>O Z>EC-K- TO .LE/nl'9//J. VARIANCE NO.2 I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. '. . . I ! (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph) REQUIRED: d5) ~'.1JE Iyf;~h ---..s&~8Ar;kJ APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: ~ 0 I 'f" THUS REQUESTING: ..... TO ALLOW: Slff/E . J;t-CK. /0 7~f/t1;;{.. .... 3. REASON FOR APPEAL (Please substantiate the request by answering thefol/owing questions in detail. Use extra sheet, ifnecessary):' A. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED, HOW WILL THE CHARACTER OF . THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NEARBY PROPERTIES CHANGE? WILL ANY OF THOSE CHANGES BE NEGATIVE? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. h~AS~ ~ /f/T/gel:/EZJ ..9/ee7'": OUF?TION ~a.. B. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED THE V ARlANCE(S). IS THERE ANY WAY TO REACH THE SAME RESULT WITHOUT A V ARlANCE(S)? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ANSWER. . Ae-~ <;;ErE" , ,4m4t!I/t=.t:J ,SdEEr: a~577oN Sb ~ ~ ~,' "7' ! I I: Ii !! Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Vanance Application Appeal No. Page 3 C. HOW BIG IS THE CHANGE FROM THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN THE ZONING LAW? IS THE REQUESTED AREA V ARlANCE(S) SUBSTANTIAL? IF NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 11.e/JSIE :=efE ..41714t!-rfft:J ~: OtlF!77U.:N 5 ~ D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED, WILL THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BE Th1P ACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WffY OR WHY NOT. /tF./I$E ~ /'117/1CtteO <~, OU~77--' icY E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARlANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR DIFFICULTY SELF~CREATED? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. . A:.e,:;se- ~€ ,4/lI'9(!!1EO ~.' ~e$77c/y) ~L 4. LIST OF A TT A:-CHMENTS (Check applicable information) ( ") SURVEY DATED" PREP ARED BY , LAST REVISED AND ( )PLOTPLANDATED ( ) PHOTOS p<l DRAWINGS DATED /z/ ~ 1/0 I ( ) LETTER OF COMMUNICATION WHICH RESULTED IN APPLICATION TO THE ZBA. " . (e.g., recommendation from the Planning Board / Zoning Denial) " I L~ In?_ LETTER FROM 2C,.JI~c.r AdmIn. DATED: ~ LETTER FROM " DATED: " ( ) OTHER (please list): ~.. . . Variance AlJlJlication Attachment for David B. Katz and Debra L. Katz Responses to Questions 3a, b, c, d, and e Page 1 of2 Question 3a. Regarding deck variance If a variance is granted for our existing deck, there will be no character change positive or negative to the surrounding neighborhood. Predominantly because the deck has been in existence since the first spring (1986) the house was built. All of the neighbors with views to my rear yard have been seeing the same view for 15 years. In fact there is extensive planting surrounding this deck, that has over the years, provided more (as it matures) privacy and beauty for all parties. It should also be noted that this deck makes a vet}' unusual presentation and is vet}' beautiful. Most people who see our back yard area call it the 'countt}' club'. The fact is, if this deck were to be removed there would be a vet}' big and boring view of the rear of our house. This would have a tremendously detrimental and negative impact on the neighborhood, whereas the deck does not. Question 3b. Regarding deck variance A variance is needed due to the fact that without our deck, we have no egress out of the exiting sliding glass doors (which were present when the house was completed) and therefore no use of (what has been for 15years) our main entertaining area. Which allows us the ability to entertain and Bar B Que, out of our kitchen and dining room. Additionally, this is and has been our major access to our highly developed, usable and attractive back yard. Furthermore in the event that this deck were not allowed, it would cause a great hardship in so much as it would render our property virtually ~ has useful as it now is. Whereby restricting our ability to feel comfortable, as we have grown accustomed to, for the past15 years. It would also depreciate and significantly reduce the resale value of our home. There is no way to reach the same result without this variance based on the fact that our house is 45feet from the property line. The rear setbacks at the time the house was built (1986) were 40' they are now 50'. At 40 feet it seems absurd that the house would have been sold with an upper level access and no ability to build said access. Now with 50 ft, it encroaches on our inside living space by 5 feet. It seems reasonable that what has been in existence and vet}' attractive for 15 years, would do nothing negative if it stayed and everything negative if it were not. Question 3c Regarding deck variance. We are asking for a 23' rear yard variance (or 13' if you consider original 40' set back, when original c/o issued), for the 50-ft set back (originally 40 when house was built and c/o issued.) Although at first this seems substantial, you must consider several points that validate the rationale for allowing the requested variance. One is that our entire rear yard is only 45' from the rear of our house. Secondly that the neighboring property is 50 acres of horse farm and in no way does this create an offensive presentation. Additionally it should be noted (as it is on the attached drawings) that there is a stream with a 100-year flood plain. As this stream causes a 100 ' buffer on our property devoiding us the opportunity to build, it likewise creates the same on the property to our rear or south. The point is that no house or structure will ever be allowed to be built within 200ft plus or the rear of our house. Now considering we are asking for 23' variance in what could be conceived as a minimum of 200' it is no longer substantial. Question 3d Regarding deck variance In the event this variance is granted, there will be no physical environmental condition impact, in fact, quite the contrat}'o The existing deck and surrounding landscape help to minimize erosion that would otherwise be a potential problem if they weren't there. There is also a substantial reduction of road salt that makes it to the stream, or should I say, that would make it to the stream if it were not for the creative and attractive way this area is developed. Specifically if the deck were not there, there would be no reason to have the surrounding well designed vegetation. If the vegetation were not there the road salt from Chelsea road would increase in its saturation to the stream to the rear and south of our property. As it is, we have lost (along Chelsea road) a 30 or 40-year-old stand of spruce and red pine, specifically do to road salt. This road salt has only increased over the years. Question 3e Regarding deck variance Our need for a variance came about or was made evident to us when we went to refinance and found we were in violation of building ordinances. This came, as a grave shock as we thought this (deck) was part and parcel of the original requirement for C/O. Specifically when we bought the house it was brand new and there was no front step (preventing access out of the front door), no rear deck (preventing access out of the rear dining room sliding doors). Both situations were unsafe and required immediate construction. These combined with the need for a lawn, we took on as our responsibility to meet final clo requirements. It was our understanding (albeit naive) that when the building inspector came to our house (in '87 to speak with us about unrelated issues) and made no mention of the deck (which we sat on) that all was in accordance with what we believed to be the arrangement and understanding. We had no reason, nor did anyone, official or otherwise give us any reason to think that our home was in any violation. This combined with our receipt of a final clo lead us to believe only one thing, that the process was complete. There was no indication for us to think anything but that all was as it should be. However now being far more informed and educated in these specific matters, it would not be hard for us to understand how some one might interpret this situation as self inflicted. However, again it should be noted that the violation was not done intentionally or deliberately or with malice. More to the point, this deck has been part of our home environment for as long as we have been in the home and as long as the home as been built. It is creating no hardship or offense to any of our neighbors. Furthermore the set back requirements on our property combined with other extenuating (100-year flood plane, septic location) issues, render our property virtually useless unless requested variance(s) are granted. The potential building envelope on our 1. 14 acre parcel, including the existing structure (which is non- conforming by present set back requirements) is 4. 1 % of total lot area. If you consider the house is non- conforming, it is even less. This is obscene. The property never should have been parceled off this way. Considering that with 50+ acres available on the original property (from which it once was part of) it could have been arranged in a much more responsible and reasonable manner. Additionally the only place for any kind of deck, pool, addition available area is less than 11/2% of the total property. Its location is on the garage side of the house. Not the most Practical (you could not use garage), logical or attractive spot for a deck, or pool. It should also be noted that based on all of the prior information, the following should be considered. Although it is true we bought the house (and some say buyer beware), we believe both the real-estate agent, original seller/owner (who sub-divided) of the property, and town planning, should (at the very least) take responsibility for not notifying us (as potential buyers), as to what could and could not be done with this property. , .... I Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. Page 4 ; I 1 '\ , , : I r ; 1 I I: 5. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION .1 '! ! . PLEASE BE 'ADVISED THAT NO APPLICATION CAN BE DEEMED COMPLETE UNLESS SIGNED BELOW. THE APPLICANT HEREBY STATES THAT ALL INFORMATION GIVEN IS ACCURATE AS OF'THE DATE OF APPLICATION ' / SIGNATURE /~ <;/7 ./j \ ..-----./ 1/ - (Appetlant) / / SIGNAT~/>('~ )~.::.: 0- A(p\;\ (If more than one Appellant) DATED: 1/1/02- j , DATED: \\~\OL- .................................. ................. ...... .......... ........... ...... ................................. .............................................~....................................................................... i , FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1. THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) \VILL / (X') WILL NOT PRODUCE AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ( ) YES / (X) NO, SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEARBY' , PROPERTIES. 2. THERE ( ) IS (ARE) / (><) IS (ARE) NO OTHER FEASIBLE METHODS AVAILABLE FOR YOU TO PURSUE TO ACHIEVE THE BENEFIT YOU SEEK OTHER THAN THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE(S). 3. THE REQUESTED AREA V ARIANCE(S) (X) IS (ARE) / '( ) IS (ARE) NOT . SUBSTANTIAL. 4. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) \VILL / (~\VILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMP ACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. 5. THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY ( ) IS / ()() IS NOT SELF-CREATED. ~j'" . . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. 02-7114 Page 5 CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, IT WAS DETERMINED THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE BE ( X ) GRANTED () DENIED CONDITIONS/STIPULATIONS: The following conditions and/or stipulation were Adopted by resolution of the Board as part of the action stated above: The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to GRANT the variance for deck. ( X ) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED DATED: February 13,2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK BY ~ 'L~ (Chai,a;;;;n) PRINT: Alan Lehigh ( Chairman)