Loading...
99-7011 . TOWN OF WAPPINGER P.O. Box 324 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY 12590-0324 ~~:~-~~~ .!/~. "'/! A .P.o;~~, p;~..~O'./"5'\.. N.-. C;!.~'1 f/~4 .'. ..,~~\~ /0; '.. \\ ... . '. :' . '. " I I '.' C". ...." '>'1 ~ II '''--'-':1 'I, 0' ....;.!~! ~~b~.. ,'/-'o.~ ~~~~ ~~~-=c;...~ ~%~ ~SS CQ.:;;.,:, --~~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Telephone: (914) 297-1373 Fax: : (914) 297-4558 To: Elaine Snowden ~- From: Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Original Application / Decision Curtis & Krystyna Ginader Date: May 27, 1999 Attached you will find the original Application / Decision & Order for Curtis & Krystyna Ginader - Appeal No. 99-7011. I would appreciate it if you would file these documents. cc: Mr. & Mrs. Ginader Zoning Board Building Inspector Fire Inspector Assessor Town Attorney Town File RECEIVED AREA V ARIANCE(S) APPLICATION MAY 2 7 1999 APPLICATION TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK ELAINE SNOWDEN TOWN CLatK ~~ie~al # q~?J;~ Fee: S"(). Receipt ~fI1? . Cbt2edJ TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK: I (We) CurtiS F. C-iinacJer " Kru~f)a ''6. G/'nacl~r ,of (Name of Appellanf(s) /3 M,"na DR. w~p'n0.~r:s ~ Il~ ~y ,2Cf7-o3<6/) ~q~-D311 ( ailing Address) (Tel. Nos. Home/Work) HEREBY APPEAL TO THE ZONING BOARD 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 13 M,' n a DR. UktPf/r7qif:5 Fa //6 ) JJ Y I rf}. 590 / (Address of roperty) ~ {,Q /57 - 0 ~ - q 7LfgDo J'(. ;LO (Grid Nos.) (Zoning District) X. 1. RECORD OWNER OF PROPERTY (Name) (Address) (Phone Number) OWNER CONSENT: [ffi fE (t; lED \Yl [E WJ 2. V ARIANCE(S) REQUEST: ~2 'I 9 VARIANCE NO.1 "ON'N NISTRATOR I (WE) HEREBY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR A V ARIANCE(S) OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. Zonin ' Law Sect~cn LfJ.-o,,~{3 ndicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph) REQUIRED: 10.+00+ se'-fba~ (SI'de) APPLICANT(S) CAN PROVIDE: 3 fee.<I- (r; in Lhe5 A THUS REQUESTING: (p +e e+ f.o t' () ~he S Dated: Signature: Printed: H1::CEIVED l\~R 2 7 1999 ,i\ii.,iJG & ZONING , 6hed TO ALLOW: eXp-hn-4,' ..5~ra~e:) +0 ~~ CU fre.tJ+ OSI 0 0 pr-oper . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Varianee ApRlieation Appeal No. 99-'70/( Page 2 I Y1- 1- 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: ~\ill APR 2" 1999 70NlNG ADMINISTRATOR 3. REASON FOR APPEAL (Please substantiate the request by answering the following questions in detail. Use extra sheet, ifnecessary): Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Ap lication Appeal No. -7011 Page 3 C. HOW BIG IS THE CHANGE FROM THE STANDARDS SET OUT IN THE ZONING LA W? IS THE REQUESTED AREA V ARIANCE(S) SUBSTANTIAL? IF NOT, PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY IT IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. , !he '~~\Je'S-4(.d va:no..n~ is & -Leet+ & inches, li- i~ 0. 6obs-+a.n~d...R . . ImpCtt..'4- ~:) '+hl:. Il~~.~ ~~~JL ~,ovr p(l)per-~ ~{'q-h(( \/CLnCLnL~ /5 NDT Or-an 'rl. 'lhe..r<-. I C'f"h CLt') "e. Clf) d\Ye'c.'ttDn b.t+LL\.C{ r'\ 4hL hou 6.t- D--nd prCre(~ U.l'tQ.5, LUe have. ~ o..r~'v (.. hQt{5 0 nd -te . ''t . 'J.L +0 u4 '-W'\e s ~ n 4' id". . "r4-<.-H.J m Ci. )( \ YY\ \ 7... e... use CL blL .5 P (1 Ce... CL,'0 0. so.. {e.. 0 (:>.e r\ elf e tl ''0 r pt Ct U ' D. IF YOUR V ARIANCE(S) IS (ARE) GRANTED, WILL THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BE IMPACTED? PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL, WHY OR WHY NOT. . i-r --th-c."a.~'ClVl(e 15 ~Y-a..n--kd "t-here. LL'Ii\1 b<:. tJO Irnpac.~ ~~~(;;;,r~~~~'~~d~~~~en-\<<-.O C:Dn~dj"n5 in'tbe- E. HOW DID YOUR NEED FOR AN AREA V ARIANCE(S) COME ABOUT? IS YOUR DIFFICULTY SELF -CREA TED? PLEA~E EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER IN DETAIL. r 'lhe.- QLLt.e,,<\- 5Y\ed S,-K was SeleC<k~~~;~I(Se a+- Ic4.S~ '(Y\pac.~ +0 u~lJ....bu... (plt1.Ll Clt-ea) . .' .' . b.e-5~ Ch--CLUll1~ CLC\C \ed6't- a.~'~l-,u..n"f- of $\;Jp~ ~I I ev~l\ n.s 4. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (Check applicable information) ( v) SURVEY DATED m 5 J q 0 , LAST REVISED ~ AND PREPARED BY6("Q'j, 'Ra;\I n~ I 'Ie look: ins Y"Y)a() olE ~ ~ G IW ~ ill) (l/fPLOT PLAN DATED ;l J ~ <1 J q<g ..> I , APR 2" 1999 ( 0'PHOTOS ( ) DRAWINGS DATED)NfNG ADMINISTRATOR ( v)LETTER OF COMMUNICATION WHICH RESULTED IN APPLICATION TO THE ZBA. (e.g., recommendation from the Planning Board / Zoning Denial) LETTER FROM P~\ r~~d~ DATED: LETTER FROM m r Ie::: 1...' b ,- rY) (J. n n DATED: :J~~~~C;9 ( ) OTHER (please list): [Ri. ~ ~ ~ ~ \Vl [E rID . APR 2 i 1999 10NING ADMINISTRATOR Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance App1hcAlion Appeal No. 7'1-'lrJ/1 Page 4 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 SIGNATURE C? ~.~ , tfppellant) DATED: ct/u/t/ SIGNATURE U. : -:!:flc" /J_Ji ACid.t 1, DATED: If / ~ J f(fj ~ore han bne /:1ppellant) I , ......... ........................ .................... .......... ...... ... ...... ....................................... ........ .... ............... .................. ... ......... ...... ...... ... ... ... ... .................................... . FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 1. THE REQUESTED V ARIANCE(S) )>() WILL / ( ) WILL NOT PRODUCE AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >x. YES / ( ) NO, SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEARBY kR6PERTIES. 2. THERE ~ IS (ARE) / ( ) 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). The~ Shed LLl/) k J/l)Of/.eC{ iD mL~r f'Ae Y'e?!/Alyec{ /0 fi. Selbd.. 3. THE REQUESTED AREA V ARIANCE(S) .9<J IS (ARE) / ( ) IS (ARE) NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 4. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) 9Q 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 / ( ) IS NOT SELF~CR?ATED. flit; 1" mIS- bJ/)~1 hlAi Id"lJg ptr"md {iearly Slzikd Q". /0/1, 5jje)'tU'd s~/!J~[J; /Or- _ flJe SA~d,; is retulred I Th~- aff.c//anls chos€_+o {jnp~e. -thiS rep(.(f/??/m/Jf; (ffi~(0~~W~[Q) APR 2" 1999 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application Appeal No, qCj-?tJ// Page 5 70NING ADMINISTRATOR CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, IT WAS DETERMINED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BE ( ) GR*N~9 (~DENIED. CONDITIONS/STIPULATIONS: The following conditions and/or stipulations were adopted by resolution of the Board as part ofthe action stated above: See Attached summarized minutes from the May 25. 1999 ZBA Meeting. Pages * The Board was willing to grant a smaller setback: however. the appellants would not accept moving the shed at all. ( ) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED. DATED: 5"/:2:;--199 / I ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YpRK BY: PRINT: SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS ~tl DAY OF _"^~~ / , 1991( ~Ollll ~SL: .~,rit/ (Notary Public) ELAINE H. SNOWDEN NOl'ARYPUBUC, STATE OF NEWYORK NO. 14-3753190 QUALIFIED IN DUTCHESS COUNTY ~'V COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.~. ~. ~.o6 . . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - May 25,1999 Page 4 Mr. Lehigh stated that is not the issue before the Board. Mrs. Ginader stated Laws are in place for safety reasons. They have a shed on their own property that none of their neighbor's care about except the Zoning Board. Mr. Fanuele stated Home Depot put up a shed and totally ignored the Town of Wappinger Zoning Laws. They knew 10 feet is required, but they chose to ignore that. Mr. Ginader stated they chose to ignore it because they did not want to go through the variance process. It made common sense to them to put the shed in the existing location because it looks the nicest there and it is out of the way. She asked the Board to made a decision so she could get home to her children. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. diPiemo seconded the motion. V ote: All present voted aye. Mr. diPierno made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Fanuele made a motion to deny the side yard setback variance as requested by Mr. & Mrs. Ginader. Mr. Fanuele stated the Ginader's could help get Home Depot on line by having the..... Mrs. Ginader stated the people came from New Hampshire to put up the shed. They, Mr. & Mrs. Ginader, told Home Depot where to put it. Mr. Ginader stated Home Depot has no responsibility for what is happening. They told Home Depot where to put the shed. Mr. Fanuele stated it is the Ginader's responsibility. They chose to ignore the rules. Mrs. Ginader said yes, so they would not have to go through this. Mr. Fanuele felt anybody that chooses to ignore the rules is wrong. If you do not like the rules, you can not arbitrarily ignore them. Mr. Ginader stated they can appeal the Law or change the Law because sometimes the rules do not make sense. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Mr. Fanuele: Denied. Denied. Mr. diPiemo: Mr. Lehigh: Denied. Denied. . . Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - May 25,1999 Page 5 Mr. Prager: Absent. Vote: All present voted to deny the variance. DISCUSSIONS 1. Mobil Oil Corp. - On- The-Run Convenience Store - To discuss 4 variance request to construct a new convenience store. The property is located on the comer of Route 82 and Route 94 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Romig, Esq., Mr. Virbickas, PE, and Mr. EI lamel, were present. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated they have been before the Planning Board for site plan approval. They have submitted applications for 4 variances. No.1, they are seeking a 58 foot front yard setback in lieu ofthe 75 feet which is required for the building. No.2, they are seeking two additional illuminated building sign, whereas only one is permitted. No.3, they are seeking a variance for the size ofthe freestanding pylon. The existing pylon sign is approximately 48 sq. ft. Mr. Lehigh asked for a copy of the sign permit for the existing pylon since it is over what is permitted. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated what they want to do is take the existing sign and lower it down to a monument sign which would be less imposing. The last variance they are seeking, No.4, is a rear yard variance for the proposed building. A 25 foot rear yard setback is required and they are proposing a 12 foot setback. Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a letter from the Planning Board recommending the variances. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated the Board sent a recommendation for the front yard variance and the size ofthe pylon sign. At the last Planning Board meeting they discussed the rear yard setback. Because the property is on a comer lot, the Code gives the applicant the election of where a rear line is. The property is odd shaped. They felt it would be best to let the Board determine where the rear line is located. Ifthe Board feels the rear line is next to the building, then they have their variance request in place for that. Currently the existing structure is a 19 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a variance for that since 25 feet is required. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated there is no variance for that. He believed the reason there isn't a variance is because they decided at that time that the rear yard was not near the building, but instead near the septic area. He showed the Board a plan of the propose monument sign. Mr. Fanuele felt the whole monument sign is part of the sign (including the stone). Mr. Lehigh asked if they have a permit for the existing pylon. Mr. Romig, Esq. stated there is an existing permit for the sign, but not for 48 sq. ft. He believed, at some point the Zoning Administrator had taken the basic sign and did not include the pricing as part of the square footage. Mr. Fanuele was concerned that the proposed pylon would block the sight distance.