Loading...
02-7117 TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 13, 2002 To: Gloria Morse Town Clerk ~~-w~ ~. O~~~/-t.-. (/./.o......t..~~ :,~2~~.~~~~~'1)..~ II~(~~ i ~ :.. - - - - -'. '..'~\ ~----I; ..,1.', . .,)"., ~~~~/ ~~ .~SS CO~~ ~A 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. 02-7117 Application No. 19920 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 Town Attorney Building Inspector Assessor Zoning Administrator t\~c~\\JE.O \: t.'B \" lf$J'l. 10'J'J~ C\.e.~\( SUPERVISOR JOSEPH RUGGIERO TOWN COUNCIL VINCENT BETTINA CHRISTOPHER J, COLSEY JOSEPH P. PAOLONI ROBERT L. VALDATI .... '," . I f~ - ". :t~.'" AREA V ARIANCE(S) APPLICATION APPLICATION.TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK . Appeal # grJ -1!/1 Date: -l, -o~ Fee: 1I,:rc!J. 00 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF W APPINGE,R, NEW YORK: I (We) X1?\/IO /; XfJr'Z- 41\10 ~blllJ-- l"~ , of (Na::rh of Appellant(s) ~ ) . .~. /0& ~J4 Jj:,~'Ad/fiJ"r~c.<;,A1f' ;'I,~~;~rk) ~;> HEREBY APPEAL TO THE ZONING BO~ OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION/ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, DATED . ,19_ AND DO HEREBY APPLY FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S). : Premises located at IDCP ~ A:~ ~~fth9t;}t:- 'FA-ct::.S, IV;! 12510 i .A (Address of Property) ~.,,) / ' ,i fRo6CP-03- ~7:J.?1 ' ' 6-20L'f3.CJ - i Ii ' :1 (Grid Nos.) , (Zoning District) - I I 1.' RECORD OWNER OF PROPERTY )j/NJI; B', hll1z- fiNO ~i?Aet4-L-. K,frz, _ i . . ,:;? I. ) , . (Name) . , _I" _ L~ - L?~~ 1)~/fLJ u//f/tl,A./d1"L1i17l!.. - I i ',,' ' (if'" (~hOneNUmber)", , I, 'OWNERCONSENT:Dated: I 7 Pi!.- Sign~ture:. p ~-:. V- I ' pnntec('~d ~~ I " ;i 2. V ARIANCE(S) REQUEST: !I ij ! ' , 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. - ~10'-$7. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph) REQUIRED: '7S I r~tJr0:JdJ 5~AcL - / ~~ ~ I APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: c.::;/V' . D ;v ~ . ! . . I ~ Town.ofWappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. . .. Page 2 THUS REQUESTING: . TO ALLOW: "'FO/L /(,.51 I'f11J /If)tJl7ioAf'. 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. . . c110-:87 (Indicate Article, SeCtion, Subsection and Paragraph) i . I i : I REQUIRED: APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: THUS REQUESTING: 5' 11 to ALLOW: --::foiL ~irG\t IJA:):'OJ'\(~. :06' (l(J ','. 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 NEGATNE? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. 1iel1Se ,~ ~/1r'L).: y:;>..1 /F,.7)dYJ ~a- B. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU NEED THE V ARIANCE(S). IS THERE ANY WAY TO REACH THE SAME RESULT WITHOUT A V ARIANCE(S)? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ANSWER. . ;1 h~~~1-alJSnt/n 8b. j.." " - Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance 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 ARIANCE(S) SUBSTANTIAL? IF NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. Il.~ c~ ~ ~ Q.1tJSlIbYJ g (! . D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED~ WILL THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BE IMJ>ACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY OR WHY NOT. Rt.,A-s~. <'<:;~ ~ t r~)~7)e/n . gd. E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR DIFFICULTY SELF':CREATED? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. flt;~ ~CSe&- ~.ItJS72~fY) 0" ~e.. d ! .-" 4. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Check applicable information) ( .) SURVEY DATEp. PREPARED BY , LAST REVISED AND ( )PLOTPLANDATED ( ) PHOTOS }>4DRAWINGSDATED f2-/z,jcl ()QLETTER OF COMMUNICATION WHICH RESULTED IN AP?LICATION TO 7 J THEZBA. ,. -- (e.g., recommendation from the Planning Board / Zoning Denial) . . ~(p / LETTERFROM .ZPn/~ ~{"niA./ DATED: I~ ~ LETTER FROM . DATED:' ( ) OTHER (please list): ji",."' . Variance Application Attachment for David B. Katz Responses to Questions 3a, b, c, d, and e Page 10f3 Question 3a Regarding addition variance If a variance is granted for our addition, the impact on the overall neighborhood would indeed change, however only for the positive. This is based on the fact that the proposed addition is high-end, and a sophisticated design. This proposed addition is indicative of exclusive and expensive neighborhoods. In fact similar to those homes now being built all over Duthcess. River road, Baxtertown road and other roads have house that are similar to what we are proposing. Point in fact, is that on the 50+/- acres (to our south) that abuts our property, such a neighborhood has been investigated and is very possible. We feel it is indisputable that with a dramatic modification to our modest raised ranch, one that is well thought out and beautifully designed, can only have positive impact on the surrounding homes and property values. When you compare this proposed addition, to the existing structure there is no question as to the additions positive impact on the neighborhood. Question 3b Regarding addition variance A variance is needed because without it, the only location to add an addition would be the very end of the house and not even the entire width of the end. The addition would not be able to match the width of the house because new set back requirements are 5' greater than they were at the time the house was built. Specifically the house width is 28' but the set backs would only allow 23'. We are asking for the variance because without it we could only build an awkward addition that would be poorly proportioned to the house and add no real aesthetic value. Additionally it would be a poor use of space both with regard to its impact on the new spaces in the house as well as the awkward visual impact it would have on the outside. Additionally with out this variance being granted it would require us to build closer to the rear of our property (which could conform to current codes- albeit very limiting and not useful) where by making a potential pool site even closer to the property line. We have engaged design and build experts, and feel the layout and use of the property is well suited. These design consideration bring the space request pertaining to set back encroachments to there absolute minimum, while still affording us the opportunity to do work that will be indicative of quality design and construction. When considering the need for our variance request, it is important to note the following information which requires such variance. The fact is, that the zoning set back requirements on our property combined with other extenuating (1 DO-year flood plane, septic location, county road set backs) 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 and as reasonable as possible. Question 3c Regarding addition variance. We are asking for a 18' variance (No variance would be required if it were not for the fact we are on county road. Specifically typical front set backs are 55'. Ours is 75' because of this being a county road) Based on this, the 18' in 75 represents a 24% variance request. If you consider that we are being penalized and restricted for being on a county road and that many of our neighbors houses are considerably closer (than even our proposed is going to be) it should be agreed this is not a substantial request. Again not to be redundant just thorough, all of the extenuating set backs and such do not leave any other options that would be beneficial to us, the surrounding neighbors or the environment. Question 3d Regarding Addition variance In the event this variance is granted, there will be no negative physical environmental condition impact. In fact, quite the contrary. The proposed addition and 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 makes 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 addition 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 the salt is evident by the lost (along Chelsea road) 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. Additional planting that would be done surrounding this proposed addition will only add to the beauty of the environment create more oxygen and more stable ground. The driveway area is not being added to, just repositioned so as to not create more run off. Environmentally and aesthetically there is no question that this new addition along with the changes to our home (which include cosmetic redesigns- taking it from a modest raised ranch to a 'two story farm house colonial') will only positively impact the environment. Question 3e Regarding Addition variance Our need for a variance came about based on the fact that we can build virtually no where on our property without one. The only way to build an addition and conform to local and county setbacks without a variance would be to Slap a small, rather useless structure on the side of our house, which would add little, if any value to our home and no aesthetic, or other value to the environment or community. We are looking to add to our home for the betterment of our lives. This well designed addition will change the entire look of our house from modest raised ranch to a house that is refined and indicative of modern homes. All though these changes are not a requirement, it is a hardship. We would be forced to sell our home because it does not meet our needs. Selling would require us to sell us the house with all the inadequacies brought on by extenuating circumstances (as outlined above) and stringent set backs (based on property configuration and house placement) In selling we would be obligated (ethically) to inform buyers of the conditions and set backs. Letting them know they could have no addition, no pool, no deck it would be unlikely that some one would buy our home knowing all of these facts, a choice we did not have. This would reduce the value of our home and cause us financial hardship. Please consider that this is not a ~ or J4 acre parcel of land. If it were one might consider the limitation more obvious. This is over an acre. It must be agreed that the circumstances and limitations are very extenuating. 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 variances 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 of the property, (who sub-divided) 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. This in our opinion, 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 and the proposed construction and improvement(s) will substantially increase the value to the community. u ., Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application . Appeal No. 1 1 ., I , I. I I I i! .5.. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION I PLEASE.BE ADVISED THAT NO APPLICATION CAN BE DEE:MEDCOMPLETE i . UNLESS SIGNED BELOW. Page 4 i I 1 i THE APPLICANT HEREBY STATES THAT ALL INFORMATION GIVEN IS ACCURATE AS OF'THEDATE OF APPLICATION " , . :1. . , ;, I. I; " , I DATED: \j 1f more than one Appellant) DATED: . /~/c/ / . ~ L 1"1 () I . SIGNATURE ...................................................................................................................... '; .............................................~....................................................................... " i !I " I ( ) YES / eX) 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) 00 IS (ARE) / .( ) IS (ARE) NOT . SUBSTANTIAL. 4. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL / ~ WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMP ACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. 5. THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY ( ) IS / (X) IS NOT SELF-CREATED. j.... Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No. 02-7117 Page 5 CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, IT WAS DETERMINED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BE ( X ) GRANTED () DENIED CONDITIONS/STIPULATIONS: The following conditions and/or stipulation were Adopted by resolution of the Board as part ofthe action stated above: The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to GRANT the variance for addition and porch. ( X ) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED DATED: February 13.2002 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK BY f2&~ ~~ (Cha~an ) PRINT: Alan Lehigh ( Chairman)