02-7132
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 26, 2002
To: Gloria Morse
T own Clerk
/~~f~. ..A.-'?i. ti. ~
/~'" -'~\
r ~ . ,
/0 .. i>=J'
lit- _~~~
'0\ . ~.
?~~
\t~s~;,,"
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: Eric Rotger
E & S Overhead Doors/DJT Reality Corp.
Appeal No. 02-7132
Attached you will find the original Application/Decision & Order
for E & S Overhead Doors/DJT Reality, 1131 Rt. 9, Wappinger Falls, NY.
I would appreciate it if you would file these documents.
Attachments
cc: Mr. Eric Rotger
Zoning Board
Town File
T own Attorney
Building Inspector
Zoning Administrator
RECEIVED
JUL 0 1 2002
TOWN CLERK
SUPERVISOR
JOSEPH RUGGIERO
TOWN COUNCIL
VINCENT BETTINA
CHRISTOPHER J. COLSEY
JOSEPH P. PAOLONI
ROBERT L. VALDATI
c
ffi1~~~~W~[Q)
AREA V ARIANCE(S) APPLICATION JUN 0 (:; 2002
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
APPLICATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal # {f),2 - 1/32
TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK Date: (!)(", -00 -oZ
Fee: ~2..1J-cJ,n)
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, OWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK:
,19_
Premises located at
.
61t;
1. RECORD OWNER OF PROPERTY
Pc
(;;t 1'2930
Dated: h. ~ ~")-Signature.
Printed:
~~r~~)
OWNER CONSENT:
2. V ARIANCE(S) REQUEST:
VARIANCE NO.1
I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A
Vr\RIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
<""~ ~O-:;l
(Indicate Article, Section, Subs tion and Paragraph)
"
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance Application
Appeal No.
Page 2
I
REQUIRED: 7'? ~ ~ R1e>.LI ....~ ~
APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: I, ,,,,. ~~ ~
THUS REQUESTING: ~.~~ ~~
TOM.LOYf:_r~
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.
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
REQUIRED:
APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE:
THUS REQUESTING:
TO ALLOW:
3. REASON FOR APPEAL (Please substantiate the request by answering thefollowing
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. ,
;~~~~~~~ ~ 2,9 ~
'\ L1 E. ,,, t:'p!F ~
, ile:.
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance Application
Appeal No.
Page 3
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. tJ .
_Fa>&.1~ tvJL aJC2(7~ fS;l,crz:,
j .
C. HOW BIG IS THE CHANGE FROM THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN THE ZONING
LAyn IS THE REQUESTED AREA V ARIANCE(S) SUBSTANTIAL? IF NOT, PLEASE
EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.
~~~~~~~-m=
D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED, WILL THE PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BE
IMP ACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY OR WHY NOT.
~~~ ~A~"b~~
E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR
DIFFICULTY S~-CREATED? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL.
:gollO, ~ rr LV< t<4:ln:;p
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance Application
Appeal No.
Page 4
4. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Check applicable information)
( ) SURVEY DATED
PREPARED BY
, LAST REVISED
AND
( ) PLOT PLAN DATED
( ) PHOTOS
~DRAWINGSDATED l. l.Jlo:r ~ q,,/1~1
r;: ,,~.
( ) LETTER OF COM C ION WHICH RESULTED IN APPLICATION TO
THE ZBA. (ho DP~F?J~
(e.g., recommendationfrom the Planning Board / Zoning Denial) ~"WLlO -.61 Flu;;:..
LETTER FROM . DATED:
LETTER FROM DATED:
( ) OTHER (please list):
5. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION
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:
SIGNATURE
DATED:
(If more than one Appellant)
;
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance Application
Appeal No.
Page 5
.......................................... ...... ............... ...... ........... ................ .....................
... .......................................... ........................................................................
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 DETRIMENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEARBY
PROPERTIES.
2. THERE ( ) IS (ARE) / (,q IS (ARE) NO OTHER FEASIBLE METHODS
A V AILABLE 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) / (~IS (ARE) NOT
SUBST ANTIAL.
4. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL / cxS 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 / C>4 IS NOT SELF-CREATED.
~- 'f ..s
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance Application
Appeal No. {);2 - 7/32-
Page 6
CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, IT WAS DETERMINED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE
BE ( x) GRANTED ( ) DENIED.
CONDITIONS/STIPULATIONS: The following conditions and/or stipulations were adopted
by resolution of the Board as part of the action stated above:
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to GRANT the variance to allow the
C'ommprC'i.<l1 hl1i 1 fling f"n rpm.<lin l' 6" from front yard Retback. (SEE
LEGAL DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR APPEAL No. 02-7132 ATTACHED).
( X) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED.
DATED: June 26, 2002
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK
BY~ ~~~
(Ch' an)
PRINT: Alan C. Lehigh
DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR AREA VARIANCE
(Appeal No. 02-7132)
Applicant:
DJT Realty Corp. (a.k.a. E&S Overhead Doors)
Premises:
1131 Route 9, Wappingers F alls, New York
Tax Grid No: 6157-04-664039
By Application dated June 6, 2002 (Appeal No. 02-7132), DJT Realty Corp. (a.k.a.
E&S Overhead Doors) submitted an Area Variance Application for a variance from the front
yard set back requirements of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Code. The premises are
located in a H.O. (Highway Office) Zoning District which requires a Seventy-Five (75) foot
set back from a State Highway. The property fronts on U.S. Route 9.
FACTS:
The premises were the subject of a Site Plan Application to the Planning Board to the
Town of Wappinger, which resulted in the Planning Board granting Site Plan Approval by
Resolution dated March 3, 1997. The March 3, 1997 Site Plan Approval authorized the
conversion of a vacant 1,610 square foot one story building for a retail showroom. The
original vacant building, as per Site Plan dated October 7, 1996 and last revised January 21,
1997, indicated that the subject building was located 2' 8" from U.S. Route 9 (the site also
contained a two-story apartment building with four 2-bedroom apartments).
Sometime after the Applicant received the Site Plan Approval, it determined that it
was in its best interest to demolish the existing 1,610 square foot building and replace it with
a new building. The Applicant first applied for a demolition permit to raize the 1,610 square
foot building and then applied for and received a Building Permit to construct a new building
0:\ W APPINGE\ZBA \E&S\DECISION.DOC
Final June 25, 2002
to replace the structure that was demolished. The Building Permit issued to Applicant was
issued without benefit ofa revision to the Site Plan Approval approved on March 3,1997 and
accordingly, the Building Permit was issued in error.
The new Building Permit was issued for a two story building containing
approximately 5,000 square feet with a building footprint of approximately 2,500 square feet.
The new building was to be constructed essentially over the foundation footprint of the
building that was demolished.
Construction of the replacement building has commenced pursuant to the erroneously
issued Building Permit, a new foundation constructed and various materials have been
delivered to the premises in furtherance of the construction of the new building. A Stop Work
Order was issued by the Town of Wappinger Building Department after the Engineers to the
Town noted that the new building had not been authorized by the Planning Board. A new Site
Plan has been prepared which shows that the new foundation wall is located l' 6" from U.S.
Route 9, as opposed to the prior foundation wall which was located 2' 8" from U.S. Route 9.
This has exacerbated the previous non-conformity with respect to the front yard set back by
14 inches.
FINDINGS:
In reaching this decision hereinafter, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the
following factors and made the following determinations:
1. How will the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties change?
Will any of those changes be negative?
Answer: The character of the neighborhood will remain the same. There will be no negative
changes. The building that was demolished was located approximately 2' 8" from U.S.
Route 9; the new building will be l' 6" from U.S. Route 9. While the new building is
2
O:\WAPPINGE\ZBA\E&S\DECISION.DOC
. ~
approximately I' 2" closer to US. Route 9, the increase in non-conformity is minimal and
will be hardly noticeable.
2. Can the benefit sought by Applicant be achieved by any method other than the
requested variance?
Answer: No.
The Building Permit was inadvertently issued by the Town of Wappinger Building
Department. In reliance on the Building Permit, the Applicant commenced construction and
ordered building materials in furtherance of the construction of the new building. The new
building to be constructed will be much more aesthetically and architecturally pleasing than
the prior building and will generally be a major improvement over the building that was
previously demolished.
3. Is the requested Area Variance substantial to nearby properties?
Answer: No.
While the front yard set back for the H.O. District requires that a building be Seventy Five
(75) feet from a County or State Highway and the Applicant is only providing l' 6" set back,
the previously existing building provided only a 2' 8" front yard set back. The close
proximity of the old building was apparently the result of the widening of US. Route 9 in the
early 1960s. It is determined that the decrease in the front set back from 2' 8" to l' 6" is not
substantial.
4. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood?
Answer: No.
3
O:\WAPPINGE\ZBA\E&S\DECISION.DOC
"
The proposed new building will be a significant improvement, both aesthetically and
architecturally over the building that previously existed. A new septic will be required,
which will be built to current more stringent Health Department regulations.
5. Is the difficulty self-created?
Answer: Yes.
While the alleged difficulty self-created, it was done so under the mistaken belief by both the
Applicant and the Town's Building Department that a new Site Plan Approval was not
required. Although the building foot print of the new building is slightly larger than the
building foot print of the prior building, the Applicant has shifted the new building further to
the north, thus complying with the minimum side yard set back requirements for a H.O.
District and the overall impact to the properties in the immediate vicinity will be positive
rather than negative because the new building will be both aesthetically and architecturally
more pleasing.
CONCLUSION
After taking into consideration the benefit to the Applicant, if the variance was granted
as weighed against the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood, the Zoning Board of
Appeals has determined that the requested Area Variance will be:
Granted Denied
DECISION
The Zoning Board of Appeals voted to grant the variance to construct a new building
replacing an older building that was demolished, pursuant to a Site Plan entitled "E&S
Overhead Doors" prepared by Oswald & Gillespie, P.c. dated May 23,2002.
4
O:\WAPPINGE\ZBA\E&S\DECISION,DOC
(
r'b
d of Appeals,
The question of the adoption of the foregoing Decision was duly put to a vote on roll
call, which resulted as follows:
Alan Lehigh, Chairman voting Grant
Gerald diPiemo, Member voting Grant
Victor Fanuele, Member voting Grant
Howard Prager, Member voting Absent
Douglas Warren, Member voting Grant
Dated: June 25, 2002
Wappingers Falls, New York
Alan Lehigh, Chai
Town ofWappinge
5
O:\WAPPI NGE\ZBA\E&S\DECISION.DOC