Loading...
02-7116 " . TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS s.' .~~=~O~'~'~.'~~'(~.'~.'I''\ ! -- ,'" ,,~\ 01' . '. "oj:)\ I 1-1 II '.' . - "~'II 0" --.''- c::.\~~/' '.A(\', .' ~) "~~.'- '-">..~..~~~ ~SS CO~~ ~/:..<oii SUPERVISOR JOSEPH RUGGIERO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-0324 (845) 297-1373 TOWN COUNCIL VINCENT BETTINA CHRISTOPHER J. COLSEY JOSEPH P. PAOLONI ROBERT L. VALDATI February 13, 2002 To: Gloria Morse T own Clerk From: Michelle Gale, Secretary T own of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Re: David & Debra Katz Appeal No. 02-7116 Application No. 19885 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 fl,€.c€.\\I€' 0 tt.~ \ " 1~1 10'l'J~ G\..E.i\\<. .. ; '-7 ,.; ,-." :."-1. "" AREA V ARIANCE(S) APPLICATION APPLICATION.TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF \V APPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK . Appeal # 0;2-1//(0 Date: 0/-/1-0:J. Fee: ../I <ff' {), DD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF W APPINGE~, NEW YORK: I (We)1:fNID 73. nf}~ AND Yr1JlA L. i'5&"iZ- ' of : ~ (NOf"e of Appel/anl(s) 1a,('l!eCf;af- . /AJlH1tJ/rEJ!S "fALLs. ~'/ ,~'fI ) . i812) ZZIo-I2.\1o . (Mailing Address) '. (Tel. Nos. Home/Work.{8'\'>)/oZ'l-t<>"}S HEREBY APPEALTO THE ZONING BO~ OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION/ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DATED . AND DO HEREBY APPLY FOR AN AREA V ARlANCE(S). 19 : , - Premises located at /blR (J1-I~t.beA 'iiOA{) JAJAPPINlg.s-F.;A.A.LS. ~\.l \ZS,-c' (Address of Property) "iJ ~ .' L90lOLo -03 - ~(O14ll . 'h - .=10 (Grid Nos.) (Zoning District) , 1. RECORD OWNER OF PROPERTY /YhltD 13 '/'if1Tt...- ANO 7)eeM L f7AT'Z- /? // J .' r:- (Name) . .> lo(P (.1JIeLSFfi noM IfJfPitJ(JCRS '-I7;us' , . (Address) (Phone Number) . OWNER CONSENT: Dated: jJ fZ- Sign~ture: ~ -:::f pnnt/ ;:z~ ~ ~- 2. V ARlANCE(S) REQUEST: V ARlANCE NO.1 I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A V ARlANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ' REQUIRED: APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: d10 -37. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph) 00' i<4::A~ fAreo ~lat Se-T~AL~ Se1bALL ~." I' :j.. . . . ,: r ~ Town.ofWappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. Page 2 THUS REQUESTING: At-.,) \~i JA-t.\'ANLt . TO ALLOW: %IL. J/'J-bllovNO %()t- '(!o/J$712.ucn~ . ! I ; VARIANCE NO.2 I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONIN:G ORDINANCE. . I I (Indicate Article, SeCtion, Subsection and Paragraph) REQUIRED: APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: THUS REQUESTING: 10 ALLOW: ,.'. 3. REASON FOR APPEAL (Please substantiate the request by answering the following questions in detail. Use extra sheet, ifnecessary):' A. IF "lOUR 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. ~ ~ /'I/7J9(!I/E!iJ: es;u~71oAJ .:B 0... . B. PLEASE EXPLAIN \VHY YOU NEED THE V ARIANCE(S). IS THERE ANY \V A Y TO REACH THE SAME RESULT WITHOUT A V ARlANCE(S)? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ANSWER. . ". :r~€ ~ J'Jm'Jt!.Ijgf): QU~7JCJAJ ~b. ~...' .... "., " .i ! I " I. I' ! ~ I ! i I I I: ! i ! I 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 VARIANCE(S) SUBSTANTIAL? IFNOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. ?lPAse' Se-t An-kJJefJ: t)ue577t>N ~. 'I D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED, WILL THE PHYSICAL ENVIROm.1ENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BE IMP ACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY OR WHY NOT. "11~ ~ ~; au~7}aAi f5d. E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR DIFFICULTY SELF':CREATED? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. . ~: ~ ~~/'IrD: 41JS7JL!YV Se.... ;, ! ., j 4. LIST.OFATT~CHMENTS (Check applicable information) ( .) SURVEY DATEp PREPARED BY , LAST REVISED AND ( ) PLOT PLAN DATED ( )PHOTOS C)QDRAWINGSDATED n./Z9/c1 ( ) LETTER OF CON1MUNICA TION WHICH RESULTED IN APPLICATION TO THE ZBA. . (e.g., recommendationfrom the Plapning Board / Zoning Denial) LETTER FROM Zt>AJIAJt- de/tn, N . DATEn': LETTER FROM DATED: / /;IP/oz, I ' ( ) OTHER (please list): j/.' Variance Application Attachment for David B. Katz Responses to Questions 3a, b, c, d, and e Page 1 of 2 Question 3a Regarding pool variance If a variance is granted for our proposed pool, the impact on the overall neighborhood would indeed change, however only for the positive. This is based on the fact that the proposed pool will be high- end construction, sophisticated in design, a quality in-ground shotcrete pool. This proposed pool is indicative of exclusive and expensive neighborhoods. Dramatically different than pools (particularly aboveground) of past years. It should also be noted that in the surrounding neighborhood(s) much more expensive homes are being built. And in fact on the 50+/- acres that abuts our property, such a neighborhood has been investigated and is very possible. We feel it is indisputable that with a pool that is well thought out and beautifully designed. There can only be a positive impact on the surrounding homes and property value. When you consider this pool, in comparison to a common above ground 15' round (which would be allowed without any variance), there is no issue as to which would positively and which would more positively impact the neighborhood. Question 3b Regarding pool variance A variance is needed because without it, the only location to build a pool or any structure (deck) would be directly in front our garage door. There is no way to accommodate this pool with out a variance. Based on the fact that the zoning 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 and different from those at time of construction) is 4.1% of total lot area. If you consider the house is non- conforming, it is even less. Additionally the only place (for any kind of deck, pool, or addition) available (area) is less than 11/2% of the total property acreage. With its location being 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. This location is less non-conforming then what we would ideally want (which is where our above ground pool is now located). The design was done to be as conforming as reasonably possible. Question 3c Regarding pool variance. We are asking for a 14' variance (and 4' if you consider original 40' set back, when original c/o issued), based on a 50-ft rear yard set back requirement. This is a 20% or less (considering original set backs) request. Not unreasonable or substantial when you consider the following: Our entire rear property line is only 45' from the rear of our house. Secondly the neighboring property is 50 acres of horse farm and in no way will this pool 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, to the rear and south of our home. This stream requires a 100' buffer on our property, as it likewise does on the neighboring parcel. Therefore no house or structure, may ever be built, within 200ft plus from the rear of our home. Considering we are asking for a 14', variance adjacent to a 200' distance that will never be built in, our request is not unreasonable or substantial. Question 3d Regarding Pool variance In the event this variance is granted, there will be no physical environmental condition impact, in fact, quite the contrary. The proposed pool and surrounding landscape help to minimize erosion that would otherwise be a potential problem if they weren't there. Not to mention the substantial reduction of road salt that making it to the stream. Or should we say would make it to the stream if it were not for the creative and attractive way this area will be developed. Specifically if the proposed pool were not in place, There would be a direct and straight path from Chelsea road to the rear of our property and into the stream. This would increase the salt saturation in the stream to the rear and south of our property. The presence of this salt is evident by the lost (along Chelsea road) 30 or 40-year-old stand of spruce and red pine, specifically do to the road salt which has only increased over the years. Additional planting that will be done surrounding this proposed pool will only add to the beauty of the environment create more oxygen and more stable ground. Question 3e Regarding Pool variance Our need for a variance came about based on the fact that there is virtually no where to build on our property with out one, the only available property is in front our garage door. Furthermore, the set back requirements on our property combined with other extenuating (1 DO-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 a very small portion of total lot area. If you consider the house is non- conforming, it is even smaller. 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 or pool construction is very small in comparison to the total property. Its location is on the garage side of the house. Not the most Practical (you could not use the 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: First, the proposed construction and improvement(s) will only increase the value of real estate in the community and will in no way have any negative effects. Secondly, 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 take responsibility for (at the very least) not notifying us (as potential buyers), as to what could and could not be done with this property. In our opinion, these were facts which were very obvious to professionals and may have ethical ramifications that we are left to deal with. A grave hardship is caused if we can not develop our property in an attractive and useful manner. Furthermore, the development we have done thus far serves as a clear example of quality and sophistication that we plan to carry throughout the proposed construction and improvement(s). IL ! . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application . Appeal No. Page 4 ; I I , , , I , ,. I I I I Ii 5. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION ,i I I 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 . DATED: \\~\o~ SIGNATUREX' ~ . d Y)Jfa:i ( (If more than one Appella ~ DATED: \\4.\.;>2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . I ............................................:~....................................................................... ! I. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1. THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL / (X) WILL NOT PRODUCE AN . UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ( ) YES / (X) NO, SUBSTANTIAL DETR.Th1ENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEARBY . PROPERTIES. 2. THERE ( ) IS (ARE) I (X) 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) ( ) IS (ARE) / '(X) IS (ARE) NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 4. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) \VILL I C.~) \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 I (X) IS NOT SELF-CREATED. ~.,... Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. 02-7116 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 in-ground pool. ( X ) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED DATED: February 13,2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK BY: ~2f!;/~,z PRINT: Alan Lehigh ( Chairman)