04-7068
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
PLANNING BOARD
!!!'=-~
'r!~~&~'
!..""",?~~.~-,:~:~~)
'..~',:.
o '.'~
c:..'~.
\~(\~~
.~~ss ~()4ii
~c.~
SUPERVISOR
JOSEPH RUGGIERO
PLANNING BOARD
20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590-0324
(845) 297-1373
FAX: (845) 297-4558
TOWN COUNCIL
VINCENT BETTINA
CHRISTOPHER J. COLSEY
JOSEPH P. PAOLONI
ROBERT L. VALDATI
RECEIVED
JUN 0 9 2005
TOWN CLERK
May 25, 2005
To: Gloria Morse
Town Clerk
From: Barbara Roberti, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Real Holding Corp.
Appeal No. .04-7068
6157 -02-610544
Attached you will find the original Application/Decision & Order
for Real Holding Corp., 239 Agor Lane, Mahopac, NY 10541. I would appreciate it if
you would file these documents.
Attachments
cc: Real Holding Corp.
Mr. Judson Siebert
Zoning Board
Town File
T own Attorney
Building Inspector
Zoning Administrator
RESOLUTION
At a regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger,
Dutchess County, New York, held at Town hall, 20 Middlebush Road, Wappingers
Falls, New York, on the 24th day of May, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Victor Fanuele, Chairman, and upon roll
being called, the following were present:
Chairman:
Members:
Victor Fanuele
Howard Prager
Douglas Warren
Thomas DellaCorte
Jennifer McEvoy-Riley
Absent:
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Prager
Mr DlilllaCortlil .
and seconded by
WHEREAS, by application dated September 12, 2000, Gas Land Petroleum
Company (Real Holding Corporation) sought fo~r variances concerning property located
at Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road; Grid no. 19-6157-02-610544, located in an HB
district; and
WHEREAS on or about March 9, 2001 the Zoning Board of Appeals was
declared the lead agency in this application; and
WHEREAS the Board has reviewed the documents submitted by the applicant,
including the Full environmental Assessment Form dated November 27, 2000
submitted to assist in this review, and having inspected the site;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as follows:
1. The recitations set forth above are incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set
1
forth and adopted herein.
2. This action is an "unlisted action" pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.
3. No significant adverse impacts are foreseeable as a result of the application.
The property is fully developed, although vacant. There is no known
endangerment of any species of flora or other life on the site. There is no
adjoining stream. The property is on a major highway which has over 35,000
motor vehicles traveling by daily. The site is not used for, nor will it have an
impact upon, any recreational or ecological pursuits by the public. The uses of
the property for a commercial operation will not affect energy consumption
significantly. The location is located in the Highway Business district and
congruent with such purposes, and was used extensively in the past for
commercial purposes.
4. The site is not located in nor substantially contiguous to a Critical Environment
Area pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law, Article 8 or 6 NYCRR
Part 617.
5. The site is congruent with the Town's existing plans for the district.
6. There is no significant adverse environmental impact discernible, and an
Environmental Impact Statement is not be required for this action.
The foregoing was put to a vote which resulted as follows:
Victor Fanuele
Howard Prager
Douglas Warren
Thomas DellaCorte
Jennifer McEvoy-Riley
Voting
Voting
Voting
Voting
Voting
Ay<'>,
Aye.
Aye.
^Yil.
Aye.
Dated :
Wappingers Falls, New York
May 24, 2005
2
RESOLUTION
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 24,2005, the referenced application no. 00-
7068 by Gas Land Petroleum Company (Real Holding Corporation) regarding the premises located at
Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road; Grid no. 19-6157-02-610544
was considered and the action indicated below was taken on the applicant's request for various area
variances to the Town of Wappinger's Zoning Ordinance.
The meeting was called to order by Victor Fanuele, Chairman, and upon roll being
called, the following were present:
Chainnan:
Members:
Victor Fanuele
Howard Prager
Douglas Warren
Thomas DellaCorte
Jennifer McEvoy-Riley
The following resolution was introduced by Mr. Prager
Mr. DellaCorte-Var 1&2
and seconded by Mr. Warren r-Var 3&4
WHEREAS, by application dated September 12, 2000, Gas Land Petroleum Company
(Real Holding Corporation) sought four variances concerning property located at Route 9 & Old
Hopewell Road; Grid no. 19-6157-02-610544, located in an HB district; and
WHEREAS, the matter has come before the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of
Appeals on May 24, 2005 for a determination and vote regarding these variances,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
A)
The recitations above set forth are incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this
Resolution.
B)
The Zoning Board of Appeals hereby adopts and determines the application for
variances as set forth below.
DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR AREA VARIANCES
Applicant:
Gas Land Petroleum Company (Real Holding Corporaton)
Premises:
Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road; Grid no. 19-6157-02-610544
Application No. 00-7068
By application dated September 12, 2000, the applicant seeks four variances:
1. An area variance in the amount of 1.47 acres from the 2 acres required pursuant to ~240-18
paragraph F, as the applicant can only provide .53 acres;
2. An area variance in the amount of 47 feet from the minimum lot depth of 200 feet required
pursuant to ~240-3 7, schedule of dimensional regulations, as the applicant can only provide
153 feet;
3. An area variance in the amount of 600 feet from the 1000 feet separation from a residential
district required under special permit regulations pursuant to ~240-52 paragraph A, as the
applicant can only provide 400 feet; and
4. An area variance in the amount of 2,415 feet from the 2,500 feet separation from another
gasoline filling station required under special permit regulations pursuant to ~240-52
paragraph E, as applicant can only provide 85 feet.
A Public Hearing was opened on March 15,2005, which was adjourned to and closed on April 27, 2005.
The applicant also made a submission from Land Resource Consultants updating a report dated April 20,
2001. Additional documents submitted previously with the original application included Notice ofSEQR
Designation of Intent to be Lead Agency, and a Full Environmental Assessment Form dated November
27,2000, Statement in Support of Variance Application attached to the application dated on or about
September 12,2000, a letter dated April 27 ,2005 from the Dutchess County Department of Planning and
Development which objected to the grant of the variances, and a letter to the Board from applicant's
attorneys, Keane & Beane, PC, dated May 18, 2005 addressing, inter alia, the objections from the County
of Dutchess. A discussion session was also held between the Board and the applicant on January 25,
2005.
2.
FINDINGS:
1. The Zoning Board of Appeals acted as the "lead agency" for the purpose of conducting the
coordinated environmental review of the property as required by the State Environmental
Quality Review Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder and the Wappinger
Environmental Quality Review Law (collectively "SEQRA"), and finds this to be an unlisted
action in accordance with SEQRA.
2. By resolution dated May 24,2005, the ZBA, as lead agency, adopted a Negative Declaration
of Significance, thereby determining that the proposed action would not result in significantly
adverse effect upon the environment.
3. The property at issue is located in the HB district of the Town of Wappinger on the comer
of Route 9 and Old Hopewell Road.
4. The property was purchased by Vincent Cappeletti, apparently a principal of the applicant
entity, in 1992. Title was transferred in 1997 to the Real Holding Corporation.
5. At the time that the property was purchased by Mr. Cappeletti, it was a contaminated gaso line
service station which had been in operation for years.
6. Mr. Cappeletti discontinued the use of the property as a gasoline station.
7. After clean-up of the site, he apparently inquired or attempted unsuccessfully to interest a
drug store (CVS) and a donut shop to locate at the property. His attorney related that fast
food sites required at least one acre and had an increased need for water and sewer, all of
which are unavailable at the property.
8. There is the possibility that the applicant, assuming that the variances were granted, would
need further variances in the future depending upon the final site layout.
9. The property is substandard in size in that it is only .53 acres, and has a lot depth of only 153
feet.
10. The property is encumbered by an easement belonging to an adjacent lot.
11. The County of Dutchess opposes the application for the variances because the lot is
substandard, questions the use of the parcel to viably house a gasoline service station again
with a convenience store, which the applicant contemplates constructing, on such a sized lot.
"3
12. In reaching this decision hereinafter, the Zoning Board of Appeals considered the following
factors and made the following determinations:
a. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties by grant of the variance?
NO: The character ofthe surrounding properties would not be affected as they are all commercial in nature.
b. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance?
NO: The lot is of such substandard character, that any commercial development on the property will need
some type ofvariance(s). While the applicant has stated he seeks to build a gasoline service station and
convenience store, even ifanother commercial use comes to pass, at least three of the variances would be
needed.
c. Is the area variance substantial?
YES: The requested area variances are substantial. With regard to the variance reducing the required 2
acres to .53 acres, a variance of73.5%, such a variation is highly substantial. However, in mitigation, the
nature ofthe area on at least three sides ofthe parcel do not readily call attention to the deficiency, and the
existing gas station/convenience store across the road is itself substandard, being located on only .68 acres.
These factors encourage the board to find that this particular variance, standing alone, is not objectionable
despite its size.
With regard to the variance of 47 feet from the minimum depth lot requirement of 200 feet, this
variance is 23.5%, and considering all the circumstances, is not objectionable standing alone.
In regard to the foregoing lot size depth variance, the County of Dutchess has objected to the grant
of such variance, arguing that not only is the property already undersized, but it is even more so in reality
because it is subject to an easement belonging to an adjacent property. However, given the topography of
the property upon which this easement rests, it is improbable that the easement can be exercised for any
purpose which would impede or affect the operations on the applicant's property. Also, as already
mentioned, a neighboring gas station directly across Old Hopewell Road has only a slightly larger and
substandard size and does not seem to experience any problems, nor cause a detriment to the surrounding
area. Concerning the requirement, under special permit regulations, that the property be located 1000 feet
from a residential area, the applicant seeks a variance of 60% or 600 feet, as only 400 feet is provided.
Such is substantial and would normally be denied. Again, however, such is mitigated by the fact that the
property at issue is surrounded by commercial properties on all sides. Thus, the benefit to the residential
area is not realized by prohibiting such a variance, and such variance, standing alone would be granted.
The final variance sought regarding the requisite separation between gasoline filling stations of
2,500 feet under special permit regulations, to only 85 feet, is so extraordinarily substantial as to be
overwhelming and effectively a nullification ofthe legislation itself imposing the separation if the variance
4
were granted. The variance amounts to 96.6%. The legislation was passed imposing this separation
presumably for one or more good reasons to further and protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
community and public. This legislation would be eviscerated by such a variance, certainly as applied to
this situation in which another gas station is located directly across the road, the specific situation sought
to be avoided by the statute. This variance, standing alone, must be rejected.
The difficulty is compounded by the fact that the variance is in addition to the other three variances
which seek substantial alterations. While we have observed that none of the other three individually or
perhaps cumulatively should be rejected, when those are added to the request for the 2,500 foot special
permit variance, it becomes even more compelling to deny the application as to that variation.
d. Will the proposed variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the district?
NO: The variances will not have an adverse effect or impact of this nature.
e. Is the alleged difficulty self-created?
YES: Although the lot in its present dimensions was not created as such by the applicant, after purchase
by the applicant, he sought to use the property for other purposes, voluntarily allowing the prior use as a
gasoline service station to lapse in order to pursue other commercial purposes. The applicant's business
judgment was demonstrated to be erroneous as these turned out to be impracticable, compelling him to now
seek the variance concerning use as a gasoline service station. In addition, there was no evidence
submitted that he has made any attempt to buy any adjoining property or part of it for the purpose of
creating a sufficiently large property to provide for potential commercial uses other than a gasoline service
station or to sell the property to an adjoining property owner.
CONCLUSION:
Each of the first three requested variances alone is not objectionable. The fourth requested variance
concerning the 2,500 foot separation is objectionable. The first three variances should be granted in order
to allow or encourage use of the property for a commercial purpose in view of not granting the fourth
requested variance.
DECISION:
It is determined that the requested variances for an area variance in the amount of 1.47 acres from
the 2 acres required pursuant to 9240-18 paragraph F is granted; that the area variance in the amount of
47 feet from the minimum lot depth of 200 feet required pursuant to 9240-37, schedule of dimensional
regulations, is granted; that the area variance in the amount of 600 feet from the 1000 feet separation from
a residential district required under special permit regulations pursuant to 9240-52 paragraph A, is
granted; and the area variance in the amount of 2,415 feet from the 2,500 feet separation from another
?
gasoline filling station required under special permit regulations pursuant to 9240-52 paragraph E, is
denied.
C) The question of the adoption ofthe foregoing Resolution was duly put to a vote on roll call, which
resulted in the following:
Voting Aye.
Victor Fanuele
Voting Aye.
Howard Praeger
Voting Aye.
Douglas Warren Aye. Var. /I 1,2,& 3
Voting Nay. Har. /I I,
Thomas DellaCorte
Voting Aye.
Jennifer McEvoy-Riley
The Resolution is hereby duly declared adopted.
Dated:
May 24, 2005
Wappingers Falls, New York
/1 7ING BOARD OF APPEALS
~/~~
By: Victor Fanuele
(,
~': . ,
,.
I
j
, I. :
. ,
I
j'
I
/'-
Cif
..CJ' .- . ,...
c;/-OO ~ .
,O._^,,: '; '.L.~ '/)',
TUV.~v,.j~
DL/--'/ a {-C:
\Rlrcg~fi~~~A VARIANCE(S) APPLICATION
APPL~*1JQNI~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN (jF w A~5~R>UTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK
ZONING p..~~ APPINGER
TOWN 0
Appeal # 06 - ~(j(Pl.r
Date: ,Cd t 300
Fee: ,1lJ 5.00
Receipt
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK:
I (We) Gasland Petroleum Co.
(Name of Appellant(s)
78'5 Broadway; Kingston, NY 12401
(Mailing Address)
,of
( 845) 3'31 - 7574
,
(Tel. Nos. Home/Work)
HEREBY APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE
DECISION/ACTION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, J?ATED Sept 1 2' ' ,21~.3 0 0 0
AND DO HEREBY APPLY FOR AN AREA V AlUANCE(S).
Premises located at Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road
(Address of F!roperty)
19-~157-02-61~~44
(Grid Nos.)
HB
(Zoning District)
1. REC6RD OWNER OF PROPERTY Vincent Cappelletti
(Name)
51 Hillside Trail; Mahopac, NY
(Address)
10541.
,
OWNER CONSENT: Dated: 9/11 / 00 Sign~ture:
Printed:
2. V ARIANCE(S) REQUEST:
VARIANCE NO.1
(Phone Number)
See Authorization
Letter Attached
, I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A
V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
, Article V, Sectiori 240-18 Paragraph F
(IndicateArticle, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
REQUIRED: 2 Acres
APPLIC~(S) CAN PROVIDE: O. 53 Acre
THUS REQUESTING: Variance for 1.47 Ac.res .
.".
'f
I ."
I
s'
.i
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance A~catioll
Appeal No. J -70& 0
, Page 2
r '
TO ~LOW: Continued use of Pre-Existing Non-Conforming Lot
'\
VARIANCE NO.2
I (WE) HEREBY'APPL Y TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A
V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Arti~le VI, Section 240-37 Schedule of Dimehsional Regulations
{Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph}
REQUIRED: MinimumLotbepth 200 Feet-
APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: 153 Feet
THUS REQUESTING: 47 Feet
TO ALLOW: Use of Existinq Non-Conforminq Lot
3. REASON FOR APPEAL (Please substantiate the request by cllZswering'thefol/owing
, questions in detail. Use extra sheet, ifnecessary):
: A. IF YOUR V ARlANCE(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.
See Attached
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..
See Attached
:
I
"
II
~. . .
, .
/
"
."
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
. Area Variance Application
(R1~~~~W~[Q) Appeal No. . ~.
Page 2 A
V ARTANCE NO. 3
NOV G b 21111l!
ZONING ADMINiSTRATOR
TOWN OF W!~PPINGER
I (WE) HEREBY'APPL Y TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A
V AlUA..NCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE.
Article 8, Section 240-52 Paragraph A
(Indicate Article, Sectioll, Sllbsectioll alld Paragraph)
.REQUIRED: 1000 Feet ~r?m residential district.
APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: 400 Feet
THUS REQUESTING: 600. Feet
TO ALLOW: Issuance of Special Use Permit and Re--establishment of
gasoline filling station use on non-conforming lot.
VARIANCE NO.4
I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A
V ARl.AL~CE(S) OF THE FOLLO\VING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDI1'!ANCE.
Article 8, Section' 240-52 Paragraph E.
(Indicate Article, Sectioll, Sllbsec;tioll alld Paragraph) .
.I
REQUIRED: 2,500 feet between qasoline fillinq stations
APPLICAL'\fJ'(S) CAN PROVIDE:' 85 feet
. .
THUS REQUESTING: 2,415 feet
TO ALLOW: Issuance of Special Usepermi t and Re-establishment of
gasoline filling station use on non-conforming lot.
, .'.
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area V ariance ApplicatioJ.l
. Appeal No. 'CO ':' 7f1/t
. 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. .
See Attached
D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED. WILL THE PHYSICAL ,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DIST.RICT BE
IMP ACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY OR WHY NOT.
See Attached
E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR
DIFFICULTY SELF-CREATED? PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL.
See Attache~. ,
4. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Check applicable information) .
(x) SURVEY DATED 6/8/87 ,LAST REVISED 1/28/93 AND
. PREPARED BY Garv R. LaTour, L'. S.
. ( )PLOTPLANDATED
( x ) PHOTOS
(x) DRAWINGS pATED 5/12/00
( x) LETTER OF COMMUNICATION WHICH RESULTED IN" APPLICATION TO
. THE ZBA.
(e.g., recommendation from the Planning Board / Zoning Denial)
LETTER FROM DATED;
LETTER FROM Fire Inspector/Zoninq Admin. DATED: Aequst 2000
,
( ) OTHER (please list):
.,.
ST ATEl\-fENT IN SUPPORT OF V ARrANCE APPLICATION
The Applicant, Gasland Petroleum Co., seeks variances from certain dimensional
requirements set forth in Sections 250-18. and 250-37 of the Town Code (pertaining to lot size,
lot dep~ maximum building coverage. and impervious surface coverage) and Section 250-52
(pertaining to the siting of a gasoline station in relation to residential and gasoline station uses).
The Applicant asserts that th13 requested variances should be granted.
With respect to the lot size, lot depth. maximum building coverage and impervious
surface coverage variances, the Applicant submits that the variances sougl1t are modest in nature,
given the condition of tlte existing lot, its location, the. proposed use and the character of the
surrounding area. With respect to the variances regarding the siting of a gasoline station use, the
Applicant similarly submits that, given the condition of the lot and the nature of the commercial
conidor in which it lies, these variances are not substantial.
An applioation of the standards Bet forth at Section. 267-b(3)(b) of the Town Law of the
State of New Yorkcorifirms that; onbalanoe;~theva:nMCeStna::y be issued (thus enabling
appropria...., development oftbe subject lot) without a consequent detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding area. In this regard, the applicant sets forth as follows:
A. TIle oharacter oithe neighborhood and/or nearby properties will not chango due to the
issuance of the requested variances, because the lot is of pre-existing, non~
conforming size aJ.1d has historically supported a gasoline station use.. This site
contained a gas station for many years, and will continue to maintain the same use El5 .
a petrolcu:tn dispensing :facility. Such a use is fully consistent with those found along
the US Route. 9 commercial corridor. In fact, it is similar in use to the Seven-U.
across Old Hopewell Road. a commercial opetation which has gasoUue :tilling pumps
attendant to 1:b,e convenience store operation. Tn a.ctdi'tion, an lU.liornobile dealership,
another autombtive-relate~ commeroial operation, is located across Route 9.
Significantly, no undesuable change Will ooour booaU$c the improvements to. the lot
will result in Ii boarded-up facility being oonverted to a clean, mOdem facility,
thereby enhanc.ing its appearance; putting the property to essontially its intonded use;
and placing a use on the property which ~s oonsistent''With ~the.rs found in. the atea.
B. The benefits sought by the Applicant cannot be achieved by iOme other method.
feasible for the Applicant to pursue. other than the requested relief. Variances are
necessary.to allow the property to be put to its intended use. There is no way to reach
the same result without a variance because the ~ito is pre-existing, non-conforming in
terms of area and therefore will not allow any other use to beaocepted under the
Zoning Code.
~(gt[gQ~J~[Q)
~FP 1:-{ .?nnn
,
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
. ,.. '. .
,i
-...............
C. As set forth above, the Applicant asserts that the variances sought are not substantial.
This is particularly the case inasmuch as sufficient spa.ce exists, On the lot in its
present condition, to fully support the proposed \.l.Se.
D. The requested variances will not have an adverse impact effect on physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because:
a. The New York State Department of Environmen.tal Conservation
("NYSDEC'') regulates and monitors underground storage of
petroleum products. New petroleum product dispenSing equipment,
including tanks, must conform to cu.rrent United States
Environmental :Protection Agency ("EP AU) and NYSDEC guidelines
and, therefore, impacts are non-existent.
b. A similar facility within tho same district/neighborhood is presently
sited to the nQrth of the subject lot.:. specifioally, tho Seven-I!. It is
respectfully submitted that no adverse impacts are posed by the
Seven-II opel'ation and, similarly, will not be cast by the use fur
which the varianoes are sought.
c. Iti addition. with- respe,et to thesitiiis'oftbfs use~ the Seven-ll poses"
the same variance distances from a residential aroa and has the same
oonsequent impacts as the proposed use, which the Applicant
respectfully submits are non-atiste.ot. AS to tbe siting distances
between gasoline station uses, it is respectfully submitted that public
safety will not be impacted. Agai.n, the lot will be developed. in
accordanoe with stringent BPA and NYSDEC.standards. In addition,
siting of this use on the opposite side of Route 9 from the Seven-l1
will not create traffic oonflicts and/or issues. Again. the proposed
use of the property is that for which it was committed for many years
'a,nd is consistent with appropria.te development along the US Route 9
corridor. '
E. The need for the variances'is due to the implementation of ourrent zoning regulations.
It is not self-created but, instead, stems frOIll the, pre-e:Jctstin,g, non~co:t,Uorming
conditions. '
In sum, an application of the statutory standards compels issuance of the vllriances
so~ght. The Applicant teserves the right to suppletnent 1:b.is statement during the course of the
Zoning Board of Appeals' review of this application.
-2-
. .
.
..
, ,
. . ,.
I,'
j
, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Varianc~ Applicati0l1
Appeal No.
"
Page 4
5. SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION
, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NO APPLICATION CAN BE DEEMED C01v.fPLETE
UNLESS SIGNED BELOW.
THE APPLICANT HEREBY STATES THAT ALL INFORMATION GIVEN IS
ACCURATE AS OF THE DATE OF APPLICATION
SIGNATURE
Ii g P Jt-t: ,/DAT~r;;
, (Appellant)
1 /;'/00
( I
SIGNATURE
DATED:
(If more than one Appellant)
....................................................................................................~..........,......
, '
...................................................................~......................................~............
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY,
1. THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL I (') WILL NOT PRODUCE AN
UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
( ) YES. / ( ) NO, SUBSTANTIAL DET~NT 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) (') IS (ARE) / ( ) IS (ARE) NOT
SUBSTANTIAL.
4. TH:e PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL / ( ) WILL NOT HA VB AN ADVERSE
EFFECT OR llvfP ACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN
THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. '
5. THEALLEGED-D~FICULTY ( ) IS / ( ) IS NOT SELF~CREATED.
. ". ...
IJ./!;.J (1/751-To1 12
, ...pROJECi 1.0. NlJMOE?
"
617.20
Appendix C
Sla[e Envlronmenlal Quality Revlow'
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
.c,~p 1 .'~ 2000 For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PARTZQMPlIOiJ~Ri1Il'1Hgl'pAAmAJN (fo be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
SEQR
.1
l. ).P .dL~'f - -. PINGER ld 2, PROJECT NAME
Civil Technologies & Enqineerina. P Gasland Petroleum Waooingers Falls
J, PROJECT LOC,l.noN: Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road
Waooinaers Falls. New york Counl'( .
Mu"lclp~J11y
~ , PRECISE LOC). nON (Sileo I ~dcro~J and road InlcrJoc(lonJ, promlnanl lancm;lfk3. olC" or proylda map}
Southeast Corner of Intersection of Route 9
and Old Hopewell Road.
s. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
ONaw o E,xpanJlon ag Modlllca(lon/aller~l1on
6,' DESCRIBE PROJE.:T BRIEFLY:
Replacement of Existing, Sub-Standard Building.
~.- ...
7. AMOUNT OF LAND ).FF:::CTE:J:
Inlll~lIy 0.53 ~cr!l3 Ulllmalaly 0.53 acr03
a. WILL PRoposeD ).CiION CO/.lPL Y WITH EXISilNG ZONING OR OTHER E<IS.ING U,HO USE RESinlCilONS7
OYaJ mNO II No, dOJcrlbo brlclly ,
Zoning, Dimensional
9, WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
o Ruldanll~1 o Indu31tlal (3 Cqmmcrclal o AQrlc:Jllura .0 P;rl<lForC3UOpan Jpaca o Other
DaJcrlca:
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNOING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVEiiNl.IENiAL AG~.'1CY (FC:DEML
STAiE OR LOCAU7 . . . . .
Or.J ~No II yc;, 11;1 a9oncY(3) and permlUapprQval3
11, DOES ANr AS?ECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURREHTLY VAUO PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ~
OYaJ [1g No II yc.s, IIJ( aQClney no1ma and parmlUapprov~1
. 12. ),5 A RESULT OF PROPOSC:O ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL ReaUIRE /;lOOIFICATlON7
0'1'0 a9No .
I CERTlF( THAT iHE It/FORMATION PROVIOEO ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BESi OF MY KNOWLEOGE
""n."",,.. .'M" Mitch If.:.:l~ O~I~ 1/1,/00
I ,
o5l;"II"r.: ~.~~ . ~
.
II (he aclion i5 in the COJ5lJI ArcJ., and you are <l slJlc ilgcncy, complct'e the
Co.ul.:ll A:;::;cssmenl For'm belorc proceeding ~ilh lhis assessment
OVE;:;:
. ,
,.
'J'
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
r:~3
. -'"
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
20 Middlebush Rd. P.O. Box 324
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-0324
CONSTANCE O. SMITH
Supervisor
MARK J. LIEBERMANN
Fire Inspector
Office: 914-297-1373
Fax: 914-297-4558
Wednesday, August 09, 2000
James McCann - Project Engineer
Civil Technologies and Engineering, P.c.
1376 Route 9
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
RE: SUNOCO GAS STATION SITE PLAN
Rt. 9 and CR 28 TM#-6157.02.510544
(Rig~~~~~tW
SEP 1 3 2000
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN Of WAPPINGER '
Dear James,
In reference to the above project, prior to requesting Site Plan approval from the
Planning Board, the following variances before the Zoning Board of Appeals will have to
be granted.
Section 240-37- Dimensional Reaulations in HB Zone:
Lot Depth: 200 feet required and your plan provides 153 feet
Maximum Building Coverage: 25% required 1 10.39% provided.
Impervious surface: 75% required 1 74% provided.
Section 240-52
(a) No gasolirle filling station shall be within 1000 feet from boundary of any residence.
(b) There shall be a minimum of 2.500 feet between gasoline filling stations.
cc: Planning Board - Conceptual file' # 00-3024
AI Roberts> Jay paggi > Dan Wery >Tatiana Lukianoff >ZBA
'. ~..~ .>, :_r:-. ".1' .
~ ~ .' I .
'~P.ll.2000 11:03AM
KEANE & BEANE
REAL HOLDING CORP.
51 Hillside Trail
Mahopac, New York 10541
Chainnan Alan Lehigh and Members of the
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Wappinger
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Re: Application of Gasland Petroleum Co. -
Premises toca.teda:t Route.9 and OlcrHopeWellROad
Dear Chainnan Lehigh and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals:
f
NO. 506
P;2/7
Wd~~~~'W~[Q)
SEP 1 3 2000
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
I am the President of Real Holding Corp., the record owner of the real property involved
in the above-referenoed application, bearing Grid No. 19-61S7-02~S10S44.
This letter serves as authorization and consent for Gasland Petroleum. Co. to proceed with.
an application before the ZQning Board of Appeals seeking variances from certain dimensional
requirements set forth in the Town Code.
.Respectfully: submitted,
REAL HOLDING CORP.
V-
Vincent Cappelletti
President
9500/17/136643 VI 9111/00
J\t r;
SENECA '
PP.EPARIO IN COORDIkATlON WITH
LAND RESOURCE
CONSULTANTS, INC.
LAND Pf.AHHlNC .. ENWlOHIIEHTAl COHSIA lINC SfJI1,\Q;S
B Non""'- Jlo<sd, ~hJ:o'"n..HI'VJ Yor.l; 12603
r.!./)'= B~6-~6!1-0~B7
y
ROAD
mJ
o
o
~
~
[OHAW!( DRIVE
OQUOIS DRIVE
n
>
~
C1
>
o
:>:l
;l
:11
Companies
GA8,LAND PETROLEUM C.q./R~AL HOLDING COR,p'
ROUTE 9
TOWN OF W AP!>JNOER. NY
Designed
Drown
Checked
Approved
Scale
Project No.
Dote
S.M.C.
S.M.C.
T.J.O.
R,E.Iv\.
1"=250'
01N496
04/19/01
A-4