The URL can be used to link to this page

487 ~"s. . . . J,,-'~ Auu ~iVEt,ONING BOARD 9F APPEALS- TO\VN OF 'WAPPINGER : 1980 ACTION ON APPEAL ELAINE H. ~iIJWDEH A ppelhnt ..c.+..Qnj,.s.~._CQ.D1i:t.;'JJ.,gt i,gn....Q.Q.;"p...:____.__._._ Addr-...3S...._._..J~.. O_,-_IiQ?C_ 26 ........H2.E.~w~ ;1:1-__y':un ct i.Qn.I.....ri ~~_..Y 9..E~........!.~_5 ~2_._....._.....J..:!:'E!:_~~.~E. c~ li 63 56 - 0 1- 0468 30 ) ~~..,=~....:..~., . ~ Appeal No. 487 D;1ted August i3tJl. 1980 At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appe:1ls on -~.__.._.___....AuCJ.us.t....l.2.tb._....___) % 9..wL, Appeal No__._4S.1__ was considered and the following action on th: requot for: [] A VARIANCE, o A SPECI.>\L USE PERMIT, 0 AJ.'l INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANO!, o Al'l APPEAL AS Ai.'l AGGRlEVED PERSON(S), was taken: - I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determi.ned that strict appliotion of the Ordinance would not produce undue hardship for these reasons: a. The property In' would not yield e rn if limited to the .use permitted under the ,use: ......_ .' ~ ----.'- - --- . - b. The hardship ....--A..~Jil.IU~["JJtt..I_18IMlt!ItJ~lutJ*nPMIIl!!MJ!U.m!@I""I!HIHI . . .. 'J r}lu~~ 1'1 _.il..lll.!:.lLi.i.ht.j...J.t.~...~~.....1.}l.A~",.1.k;J~~"J_..ia~liJllilltf1Jl- _.i.s........ . - ~_l.f- c:r ea ~gS!...gY__:t:t1EiL.8-'p''p'e! 1an.t.._1:.!L_12.21...,Son forminq wi tl} Town of. Wa ppi,nge:r l2Y.:!..;Lg+-I1SJ_~g.,~j.,*-~.m.~p._t..~.....!.P...1l.ot.._~..lJ:P..P.l.Y..:!.!}g_..!!.....fQ..~~i9..!1.. s.urvey . . . Co. .The variance lliI w~ change the character of the district, beca~: _Q..tper . ho..us.e.s....in..j;.h~....y..j.~.iJ)..i..t.Y....Jll~~.t-. t.h.~.....l?~.t.;QE.9.~_..~J~JJ.y.i.:f~.men 1; ~_:. ---....------..--...-...-.......--.-.-.-.....--....-.-.-- ....................................................-...............-...-.-.-...... Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 8lrr;;1U::rUl1 ~e denied and that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer ~be confirmed f!!t~i. JI~YJWIU:t 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of t.ie Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be dero.ied, pursuant to article ......................., section or subsection .........-....--, paragraph .....-............................. of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the: En~ :forcement Ofike:r 0 be reversed D.be confirmed, because: .......__._ ,/ --...--....-..-....--.-.-.--- -- .--..-..-----.........-..-- ...........-----.....---.....--.---.--..........-----..................-...----. J. INTERPRETATION: The Bord adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as reque::.ted in your appeal: .................................~_.....................__.......__._..__ ........_......__...........................__...........................................................................04.................................._............._...._.....__..........__________ ............................................--........................................................................... ...............................................................-.........................-..-...-...--..--..--.- .............................................-.................................................................. ........ ..............................................................................................---..---...-.-- .;.. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of t~e Board) the following dec:sion was made on your ~pe::ll: ........................__......................................................... ..... .... ..... ......................................... .............................................................___......_._. '" - .............................. ....-... ......... ......... ...... ........ ...... ........., ........ ......... ..-...... ..... ..... ..... ............. ..... ................................-....-.......... ..........-.-............-.......---. . ... .........-.................................... .............. ................................ ..........................:..:.. .::.....<J..... ...................... .....................................---.............--..- . oy~~.. ................H.... ................................. ...............................-......_....._.......__....___ RECEiVED ~UG 13 1980 ElAIKE. K. SKOWIlEl Ch:ti.rm.:1J Zoni:1g Board of Ap?::J.!s TOWN OF w""AppnTGER Appeal No. ~K-7 '\ , .\ . NOTICE OF A'PPEAL Date ~~:/~{') . . " APp~llant Gc"'X\ \ Z:Ee.-' (O'f\ST1c-'..~C_TTC\\ (--e;-ePAddress <PO 2?r-/, ;;)b ~~C~"l?LL ~ C\ ~\'j \~S~~ TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: I,.. ~\SEP ~S\1?\{c_$on c- 0(2) P , appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, dated J,^N~ \ -; , 19S5o, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of. Appeals for:~VAR~~cE,E:lA SPECIAL USE PERMIT,t:]AN INTER- PRETATION OF THE' ZONING ORDINANCE,DAN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON{~). (check , , p~o~er one)~."in connectio~ with'p~emises located at ~8 MtlWSiNthlt S~bJ~\~~ _e-Z.O .~SC,- 0(- o,t.fr;,VO . Town O/;:;;~~9:r~O~~y. (zoning dist.) , (grid no.) . ,1:. ,.PROVISION (~) O~_' THE, ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED ttr--h~-nr '3'Lt. -~~~~tb~,^'- ~.. ~O .-{ev-\- W\\~~ s(-{e~-\- \s (article, section or subsection and paragraph) S~ 4v\'\;~ 2. TYPE OF APPEAL, (CoIJlplete relevant section). * 11;) A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the follo\'ling reasons: '~ 1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: ~E. t\au.S'2.... \ ~ LO\$ P ~ \E t'tn.D \ ~ ~ \.- \ bt0 meDr u...) \ '\\-\ \tT'E-.- 0\ \ \ t e t+G'"t lSe.s. O~ ""'\t\ E ~~ 1:::> 2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate v1cinity of this property and ,in this district because: 3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: b. A SPEC~_L USE PE~lIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article , section or subsection , paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the above premises: c. INTERPRET~TION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because: d. AGGRIEVED PERSON{S) an appeal is requested because: :: 3. OTHER REr'L1\RKS: (Use extra sheets if necessary) . {<Signature ~iJ ~Jjv, the ~otice of App~al. ~ 7he required plan must accompany ~ T?P? ':'!-~.~:I~~ ~?~ ~).s:::'~:r~:s:!:~:.:: :'~~ ':':~ ~8:7~ -.?':": '_~, :-.-..... ~C~? ...."',. '-I";-=:: T..C<"_?-.~; ~~~"'..j-;?:-. ?,"-~J . .....".,..."......,-~ ....".. -..-- - _.._-..-- --- ~:.... y -.._'~'~ 6....IU ":"1.. /:. '~I:.J '_f~ vl t L~'.V .!. :''!!:.. i'..;':,~!i.j.-f? ~D f I '.- . '- '7".,:~,",... p,<~:':tl!'"""~ J TO'-'JJ../ :JF W,q ff / Ale, [I< 5 02.Q/J...J R 6 E ElJs E t"} €. J..J r ~ ;8- .. l...5et.o" -o4'.cJO j.j /00.01 ' , --/I . ~, 'l..lb ./ C:r AiO ~ . 1.\0 ~ ~ti CS"I 'LIt ...... -- , - roo . 'oJ (,01 AJ9 7 ~ '" -s 1.\{ '- IS) ..... t1~ tIll 'l\tI :? - t'IP N ____ ,~ t1.t ~---. · t.t~ ~.-- o '::( ," 1.'1.1.1 10.7 .L OT N(7 - ..p STO.e.1"7 0f.WE.~ I'I ~~..o J ~~~\ I~ -> } I \ LJR/t/~ -I ~a:::/Y.5-:g LJ~/V~/ij 70 $ P/'9t/~zf iEGE. )J D W.5. },jJJ7E.R ...5t..l '::;:. ,F/1!ST F~'.)O c"f GARII~ Eft.. ;l P/l.cf'EJZT'I i -\..j- \4JlT€ It.. 1"7.-9 'K H/-".L.. ..oR/vc: ?/i/L::U//-;7Y -LJL//-7/LS ) CORRECT TO: ~ 8ER~A1)ETn: 5clfwART z. h/Jl.JG$ ~A)...\K cO 1"1 P AU L/ LI c. E.IJ 5 E n 1.J E 0 F JJ tW L.(lJeK )~ArYI ~ ~ E RS AS BUILT MAP OF SURVEY .- . LOT NO. a MOCCASIN HILL TOWN OF WAPPINGER SCALE 1"=50' DUTC HESS ca, NY JU t-J E 9 \ 9 t)O , . RICHARD G. BARGER, PE.8 L.S.. ZONING BOARD OF ApPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 121590 TEL. 297.62157 LEGAL NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTION 513 OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE ~ APPEAL # 487, AT THE REQUEST OF CRONISER CONSTRUCTION CORP., SEEKING A VARIANCE OF ARTICLE IV, SECTION 421, FRON'l'YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT, R-20 DISTRICT OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE TO REMAIN AT A FRON'l'YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET WHERE 35 FEET IS REQUIRED, ON PROPERTY BEING LOT 8 OF THE MOCCASIN HILL SUBDIVISION, BEING PARCEL # 6356-01- 046830, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. SAID HEARING ""TILL BE HELD ON THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, 1980, AT THE TOWN HALL, MILL STREET, WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK, BEGINNING AT 8: 00 P.M., AT WHICH TIME ALL INTERESTED PERSONS WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. SIGNED: JCSRPH E. LANDOLFI, CHAIRMAN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER DATED: JUNE 24TH, 1980 TOWN OF FISHKILL . RECEIVED JUL 2 5 \980 108 MAIN STREET FISHKIL.L.. NEW YORK 12!524 July 22, 1980 Mrs. Betty-Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Town Hall Wappingers Falls,. New York 12590 Dear Mrs. Russ: The Zoning Board of Appeals,'at its July 21,1980 meeting, reviewed the Appeal applications of Cronise~ Construction Corp., Nos. 487 and 489, Lot Nos. 8 and 9 of the Moccasin Hill Subdivision. The Board agreed that it has no concern regarding the 30 foot front yard setbacks whereas 35 foot setbacks are required. We thank you for giving us the opportunity to review these appeals. GR:eo Very truly yours, ~~ Gilbert Richter, Chairman Town of Fishkill Zoning Board of Appeals (~C,' K ~"-~~ 7/cJ?/;O )? 1-1 RECEIVED JUt. f 5 t980 TOWN OF FISHKILL 108 MAIN STREET FISHKILL. NE;W YORK 12!524 J u 1 y 1 4, 1 980 Mrs. Betty-Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 Subject: Appeals Nos. 487 and 489, Croniser Construction Corp., Grid Nos. 6356-01-046830 and 055835 Dear Mrs. Russ: ~- The Planning Board, at its July 10, 1980 meeting, reviewed the information forwarded concerning the above subject appeals. The Town of Fishkill Planning Board has no objection to the granting of these two variances. Very truly yours, t~ O))c>n~ Elleen O'Donogh~e Secretary to Planning Board , - The regular meeting of the zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 8th, 1980 beginning at 8:10 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill street, wappingers Falls, New York. ( Members Present: Charles A. Cortellino, Acting Chairman Donald Mc Millen Howard prager Members Absent: Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman Carol A. Waddle Others Present: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Betty-Ann Russ, Secretary Mr. Cortellino noted that it was the procedure of the Board to hear all the appeals and then the Board takes a recess and reconvenes at which time they mayor may not render a decision on each case and that the appellants would probably get the actions next week or they could call the office. Mr. cortellino then asked the secretary if the abutting property owners had been notified. ( The secretary replied that the Appellants and abutting property owners according to the records in the Assessor's office had been notified. Mr. cortellino then noted that the Board would hear Appeal # 491 first as the appellant was from New Jersey. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal # 491, at the request of Alex T. K. Shen, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.2 of the Town of Wappinger zoning Ordinance, to permit him to erect a 41 by 6' free-standing sign for the A-Kitchen Restaurant, to be located on property owned by John and Minnie Sokol on Route 9, being parcel # 6157-04-604495, in the Town of wappinger. Mr. cortellino read the legal notice. Mr. Alex T. K. Shen and Ms. Ning Chow were present for the Appeal. Mr. Gunderud noted that the sign would be placed on someone else's property. l Ms. Chow noted that their property was setback off Old Route 9 and the building is setback further and that there is no where ( ( l zoning Board of Appeals -2- July 8th, l~80 '-, . on their property to put it where it can be seen from Route 9 and also want for safety reasons, would be able to indicate where to turn in off of Route 9. Mr. Cortellino then asked where on the Sokol property the sign would be located. Mr. Shen replied according to the requirements. The Board then looked at the drawings and discussed possible locations for the proposed sign on the Sokol property. Mr. Me Millen asked if there were other signs. Ms. Chow replied that there was one sign on their property even though a variance was granted previously for two. Mr. cortellino then commented that if it was granted there might be a time limit, realize that right now peo~le may not be aware of the location but in say two years, customers would be aware and the business would be built up. Ms. Chow replied that the sign now would help them to get started. Mr. Me Millen noted that he questioned the location, what about the other end. Ms. Chow replied that they talked to this owner (Mr. Sokol) and out of two sign locations would like to at least get one. Mr. Shen noted that they felt okay on the one end, but need a sign on the other. Mr. Cortellino then asked if they would advertise in the local papers. Ms. Chow replied that they didn't know yet. Mr. prager asked about lights on the slgn. Mr. Shen replied that there would be a timer. Mr. Me Millen asked if it would be 75 feet off the road. Mr. Cortellino added that it couldn't be on the State property. Mr. Gunderud replied that it would be on private property, 25 feet from the line. Mr. prager then suggested that it be left up to Mr. Gunderud ~oning Board of Appeals -3- July 8th, 1980 on the location of the sign. ( Mr. Cortellino then asked about how late the light would be on. Ms. Chow replied 9:30 p.m. during the week, 10:30 p.m. on the weekends. The Board then suggested that the time limit be 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10:30 p.m. on the weekends. Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard for or against the Appeal. No one present wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m. ( Appeal # 474, at the request of Poughkeepsie Datsun, Inc., seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 422, paragraph NB-6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to operate a motor vehicle sales, repairs and service part sales business on property located on Route 9, adjacent to Grossmans' Lumber, being parcel # 6157-02-607850, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. Mr. John Hartmann of Poughkeepsie Datsun, Inc., Mr. John Sullivan of Edmond Loedy - Registered Architect and Mr. Keith Cappolino of Merrit~Meridian Corporation were present. Mr. Cortellino noted that the new location would be next to Grossmans and asked if the existing building would be closed. Mr. Hartmann replied that it would be closed and that he presently leases the existing site on Route 9 (by Greer Toyota) . Mr. Cortellino then asked if repairs would be limited to Datsuns. Mr. Hartmann replied basically Datsuns although they would service any used cars which they might sell. Mr. Mc Millen then commented that motor vehicle sales, services and repairs were all normal parts of that type of operation. zoning Board of Appeals -4- July 8th, 198.0 "'""'. "" ( Mr. Cortellino then asked if they would expand the parts depart- ment. Mr. Hartmann replied that expansion was the object of the larger building. The Board then looked at the site plan. Mr. Mc Millen asked about a floor plan. Mr. Hartmann replied that they did not have one at this time. Mr. Mc Millen then asked about oil separation. Mr. Sullivan replied that provisions would be made and this would be addressed as part of the Planning Board's review and approval of the site plan. Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. No one present wished. to be heard. ~ ( The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Appeal # 482, at the request of David Lynch, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 413.2 of the Town of wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct a 26' by 12' carport to be attached to an existing garage and to be located within three feet of his sideyard lot line, o!l his property on 7 Plaza Road, being parcel # 6257-01-320992, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. No one was present in behalf of the applicant. Mr. Gunderud noted that the property is located between Plaza and Central Avenue. The Board noted that they would table this until Mr. Lynch was present. ( ~oning Board of Appeals -5- July 8th, 1980 ( Appeal # 483, at the request of Alfred Kutka, seeking a variance of Article IV, sections 414 and 414.1 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to erect a 561 antenna (Tower-Mast & Antenna), the total height being 771, on his property located on Osborne Hill Road, being parcel # 6156-02-509634, in the Town of wappinger. Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. Mr. Alfred Kutka and Mr. Howard Blonder were present. Mr. Cortellino noted that this would be 77 feet and asked what was the height of the property. Mr. Kutka replied 340 feet. Mr. Mc Millen then asked where the antenna would be. Mr. Kutka replied about 100 feet from the road, midway between the property, 130 feet and that he was across from the Osborne Inn. He added he has for single band, two additional frequencies would require another antenna, group of frequencies permitted by the FCC, want to have another two bands, to support. ( Mr. Cortellino then asked why he needed this. Mr. Kutka replied that he did phone patching for overseas calls, present band in two years will be useless except for a couple of hundred miles. Mr. Kutka then made reference to various frequencies, 14, 21 and 28. Mr. Cortellino then asked how much interference there would be. Mr. Kutka replied that the Board could go to his house, doesn't bother the tv, fault of the tv manufactors, the FCC is trying to educate the public of this fact, trying to get a law thru to put device on the tvs, $34.00 a tv. Mr. Mc Millen commented that he was aware that it was the responsibility of the operator to get a trap and put it on the tv. Mr. Kutka replied that if you are running within the limit it is the responsibilityof the tv set owner or stereo owner. ( Mr. Gunderud noted that the variance request was for the height, the placement on the lot seems okay. ( July 8th, 1980 ~,~. Mr. Kutka then commented that if he was forced to put it at the permitted height it will cause interference. -6- zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Cortellino commented that there was a repeator at Mount Beacon. Mr. Kutka replied that this is good for 50 to 60 miles, for Midway Islands communication would never do on Mount Beacon. He then noted various frequencies he operated, mainly South America and the Continental united States in the summer. Mr. Howard Blonder then commented that he lived in the Town of poughkeepsie and belonged to a club and noted that there was a 12 year sun spot activity which can affect reception and that he was here in support of Mr. Kutka. Mr. Kutka noted that the antenna was 26 feet from tip to tip' and that he was asking that there be a change on the antenna restriction. ( Mr. Cortellino replied that there is a present requirement on height and variances would have to be obtained if the antennas exceeded this and that only the Town Board could change this section of the ordinance and that there is a zoning committee looking into various requests. Mr. Blonder then commented that operato~provide many public services and this should be considered. Mr. Mc Millen then suggested that they get the various clubs together, sign petitions and ask for a change of the zoning ordinance, follow it up with the Town Board. Mr. cortel1ino then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m. Appeal # 485, at the request of Lucinda Locke, seeking variances of Section 411.2 and 412 of the Town of Wappinger zoning Ordinance, to permit her subdivide and obtain a building permit for property located on New Road, a private road, being parcel # 6156-01-171580, in the Town of Wappinger. ( Zoning Board of Appeals -7- July 8th, 1.980 ( Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. Donald and Lucinda Locke, Mr. Ira pergament-Attorney at Law, and Mr. Peter Hustis-Land Surveyor, were present. Mr. Peter Hustis then showed the Board a sketch of the property and noted that it is also called Valentine Road. Mr. pergament noted that the property is on a private road, the Lockes need a variance to complete the existing house and the Zoning Administrator has indicated that in 1970 a portion of the property was sold to Clark, there is a question as to whether it was subdivided, portion remaining by Williams (owner of the property) is a legal entity, and the Town has been treating it as a separate grid, been taxing it separately. Mr. Hustis noted that the map shows the separation, been paying taxes on two parcels. Mr. pergament noted it meets the requirements except it is on a private road. ( Mr. Cortellino commented that it appeared that they were trying to rectify the situation. Mr. pergament noted that the Lockes were the contract vendees, they want to somplete the existing structure. Mr. Cortellino then asked what existed there. Mr. Hustis replied that it was a block structure, a shell, it is at least 15 years old, appears to have been used on weekends, there is a well and an outhouse on the property. The secretary then explained that the property and one of the abutting owners was within 500 feet of the Town of wappingerjFishkill line and that in view of this, the Appeal was refer.red to the Dutchess County Department of Planning and the Town of Fishkill and the Town of Fishkill had advised that they would not have a response back before July 21st, 1980 and that in checking with the Attorney to the Town about this, he suggested that the Board not act until a response had been received or the 30-day referral period elapsed. ( ( ( l Zoning Board of Appeals July 8th~~980 -8- Mr. Corte11ino commented that he would like to hear from the Town of Fishki11. Mr. Mc Millen noted that this was the public hearing, the Board gets input would probably wait for Fishki11 and then make a decision. The Board then noted that the next meeting would be held on August 12th, 1980. Mr. corte11ino then asked if anyone present wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m. Appeal ~ 486, at the request of Croniser construction, Corp., seeking a variance of Article TV, section 477.21 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, with regard to a driveway grade exceeding 15 percent in one section and 4 persent within ten feet of the road, on property being lot 8 of the Moccasin Hill Subdivision, being parcel # 6356-01-046830, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Corte11ino read the legal notice. Mr. Raymond Croniser, Mr. Frank Cross-Attorney at Law and Mr. Kenneth C. Russ of Richard Barger, F.E. & L.S.'s office, were present.. Mr. Cross presented the Board with photos of driveways in the Moccasin Hill Subdivision and noted that the subdivision was approved seven years ago and that they had received suggestiomfrom the Highway Superintendent. Mr. Croniser commented that on lots 8 and 9 these had been corrected, cut down, raise on drives and have revised plot plans. , ~. Mr. Gunderud noted that he had not seen the revised plot plans, the Zoning Ordinance says not to exceed to 12 percent if extreme could go to fifteen, allowed up to fifteen percent, these lots did exceed, use two foot increments. Mr. Corte11ino then asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. Zoning Board of Appeals -9- July 8th, 1980 ( Mr. Pappalardo noted that he lived in the back of these lots and the water drains on his property and is causing problems. Mr. Russ replied that the whole back area drains that way, the roads and improvements are on bonds and if the drianage pipes are broken and not functioning this should be brought to the Town Board's attention, an easement exists and the pipes are not accepted until the roads are turned over, if the Town Board is advised they can tell the developer to fix them. Mr-. Cortellino then suggested that Mr. Pappalardo wri te the- Town Board and get on the agenda and they will probably ask Mr. Lapar (Engineer to - the Town) and Mr. Horton (Highway Superintende-nt) to look into it. Mr. Pappalardo then commented that he had no objection to the setback of the house but was concerned about the drainage. Mr. Cortellino then asked if anyone else wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. ( The hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m. Appeal # 487, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421, Front yard Setback Requirement, R-20 District of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a newly constructed single-family house to remain at a front yard setback of 30 feet where 35 feet is required, on property being lot 8 of the Moccasin Hill Subdivision, being parcel # 6356-01- 046830, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. Mr. Cross presented a plot plan to the Board and noted that lots 8,9, and 10 had been staked at the same time, lath indicated 37 feet, footings and foundation put in, only assumption that we can make is that children moved the stakes, virtually impossible to tell how this happened. zoning Board of Appeals -10- July 8th, 1980 ';" Mr. Russ noted that it was a long straight street. ( Mr. Croniser noted they were inspected, staked off, laths on both sides, don't know what happened, there was water in the back and tried to keep as close as possible to the 37 feet on the laths. Mr. Cross added that you don't have interference on sight distance. The Board then looked at the plot plans. Mr. Russ added if they had been above grade, might have picked up. Mr. Mc Millen noted that there were then two houses which needed setback variances. Mr. Gunderud noted that his inspection records indicate it was low, check on the final and on the preliminary was a note a foundation survey was required, might have been remiss at time of framing but this was to have been supplied, the notes on the plot plan are to be complied with. ( Mr. RusS noted that his office does not receive copies of the plot plans with the conditions. Mr. Gunderud replied that these are given to the applicant.' Mr. Russ noted that he didn't understand what these requirements were, ,don't see them and the burden is on the builder to comply~ Mr. Cross noted that this has happened and are asking the Board to exercise ,some discretion. Mr. croniser noted that the stakes were there, laths were in, put four stakes in, two in the front, two in the back. Mr. Russ noted that four lots were staked out the same day. Mr. Cortellino then asked if anyone present' wished to be heard. No one present wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m. l Zoning Board of Appeals -11- July 8th, 1980 ( Appeal # 488, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 477.21 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, with regard to a driveway grade exceeding fifteen percent, on property being lot 21 of the Mocassin Hill Subdivision, being parcel # 6356-01-139914, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cross noted that they had spoken to the Highway Superintendent about this, there had been a lot of rock and now proposed to have a holding area on the bottom of the driveway. Mr. Russ noted that there are older subdivisions in the Town with steep drives and this one was approved in 1973, the regulations have changed since then and that Bill Horton does not have the authority to approve drives in excess according to the new zoning ordinance and this is a problem on these older subdivisions. Mr. Cross noted that they had a conference at the site, trying to act in good faith, bringing to the Board's attention. Mr. Cortellino asked if they had a buyer. Mr. Cross noted that they had a contract, have committment dates. t Mr. Cortellino then suggested that there be a waiver on the deed absolving the Town of reponsibility. Mr. Cross replied that he did not see this as a particular problem. Mr. Gunderud then commented that this is a difficult lot, in fairness think Mr. croniser has made an effort to make as gradual as possible. Mr. Russ commented 50 foot, pave 30, Bill Horton suggested that off the Town road an area be made to pull a car off. Mr. Robert Ferguson noted that he was an attorney for the Gadionniexs and that several points occured to him, that if many drives have the problem have to demonstrate it is unique, secondly; several variances are needed, feel he went in with his eyes open, this is a horrible lot, what will the grade be. Mr. Mc Millen replied 15 to 22 percent. Mr. Cortellino asked what was Mr. Ferguson's interest. Mr. Ferguson replied has house on lot 21, causes hardship, intrudes, grades are very steep, feel a retention wall of 18- to 8 or 9 feet sh~uld be put in to hold the fill material in, concerned this will cause problems for the other lots. ( c. l zoning Board of Appeals July 8th, 1980, -12- ~ -:, Mr. Gunderud noted that lot 21 was not next to Mr. Gadionniex. Mr. Ferguson commented that they feel this will cause a problem, feel the zoning ordinance set standards, have to justify a variance, should be restricted to protect adjoining lots. The Board then noted that there were standard notes on the subdivision map with regard to drainage on other lots within the subdivision. Mr. Gunderud then noted that he had made a site inspection of this lot, could see some erosion but none had entered on lot 19, water runoff, standard note on subdivision to allow runoff from one lot to another. He added that the Town Engineer picks up difference on elevations, don1t know if there is a problem, may be a potential problem. Mr. Ferguson added that a tremendous amount of fill was put on the lot. Mr. Gunderud added that within the bounds of the subdivision, water flow natural, house was put back 115 feet rather than the original 140 feet, but this is within the requirements of the ordinance, but if variance is not granted, will not get a C.O. Mr. Cross noted that at the insistence of Mr. Ferguson clients asked for six loads of fill, now complain. He added that this was an approved lot, was not identified as an unbuildable lot, some of the items being raised are not germaine, might be a civil action between owners. Mr. Ferguson noted that he was registering opposition to the proposed driveway, variance refers to the minimum needed to make use of the 'lot, feel a retaining wall is necessary. Mr. Cross noted that they had proposed a space out front. Mr. Ferguson noted that with this grade and a paved drive, feel a retaining wall is necessary, inside the boundary line. Mr. Cross noted that the driveway was not causing problems, now wants a retaining wall. Mr. Croniser noted that there were large rocks, the drive will stay. . Zoning Board of Appeals -13- July 8th, 1980 ( Mr. Mc Millen asked if they could pitch the drive. Mr. Croniser noted that they had discussed this with Bill Horton, wants water to drain to the catch basin. Mr. Mc Millen noted that it appeared that this would be pitched away from Mr. Ferguson's clients, will stay on lot 21. Mr. Ferguson commented that they wanted a retaining wall. Mr. Mc Millen then suggested that it be pitched, discharged on their own drive (lot 21) to the catch basin. Mr. Al Sanchirico noted that he lived across the street and was concerned about the grade, if car comes down the drive, could slide across into my property and that he had some drainage problems already and that vehicles have lost control: Mr. Cross noted that they proposed a holding area. ( Mr. Sanchirico added that he was also concerned as the kids play in the street, object to the variance, grades should be cut down or a guard rail put in, something to stop the vehicle if it somes down the drive and feel there are other alternatives. Mr. Gundeiud noted that the ordinance required two off-street parking spaces per dwelling. Mr. Cortellino asked that when the building permit was applied for and exceeded the grades why was a variance not sought at that time. Mr. Cross replied that the highway superintendent said he could live with it. Mr. Cortellino asked if anyone else present wished to be heard. No one wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m. Appeal # 489, at the request of croniser Construction Corp., seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 431, Front yard Setback Requirement, R-20 District of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a newly constructed single-family residence to remain at a front yard setback of 30 feet where 35 feet is required, on pr~perty being lot 9 of the Moccasin Hill Subdivision ,being parcel # 6356-01- 055835, in the Town of Wappinger. r ( ( ( zoning Board of Appeals -14- July 8th,'~-980 Mr. cortellino read the legal notice. The Board noted that this appeal had been discussed along with Appeal 487 earlier in the meeting and did anyone wish to be heard. No one wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 9:43 p.m. Appeal # 492, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., seeking a variance of Article V, section 520 of the Town of wappinger zoning Ordinance, to permit a newly constructed single-family house to remain at a ground floor elevation which was not approved on property being lot 17 of the Moccasin Hill Subdivision, being parcel # 6356-01-121882, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice. Mr. Gunderud then noted that a new as-built plan had been presented and accepted by the Highway Superintendent and the Engineer to the Town and this is no longer to be considered. The secretary then noted that the appeals on lots 8' and 9 had also been referred to the Town of Fishkill. NEW BUSINESS: Appeal # 493, at the request of Hans R. Gunderud, Zoning Administrate seeking an interpretation of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, with regard to the number of permitted uses in residential and non- residential districts. The Board noted that they would discuss this during their recess. The Board then asked if anyone was present for the appeal of David Lynch, Appeal # 482. No one was present. The Board then recessed at 10:10 p.m. and reconvened at 11:00 p.m. ------ " zoning Board of Appeals -15- July 8th, 1980 With regard to Appeal ,# 474, at the request of poughkeepsie Datsun, Inc., a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. prager to recommend the issuance of a Special Use Permit subject to conditions of site plan approval by the Planning Board. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 482, at the request of David Lynch, a motion was made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, that the requested variance be denied. Motion Was unanimously Carried By Those Members Present With regard to Appeal # 483, at the request of Alfred Kutka, a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. prager, to grant the requested variance. Motion Was unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 485, at the request of Lucinda Locke, s motion was made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Mille, to deny the requested variance on the basis that this is a self-created hardship by Williams and was illegally subdivided by Williams. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 486, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. Prager, to table action until the next meeting. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeals # 487, at the request of croniser Construction Corp., a motion was made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to table action until the next meeting. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 488, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., a motion was made by Mr. Prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Milleng to able action until the next meeting and that a conference be held with the applicant, the Building Inspector, the Highway Superintendent and the Engineer to the Town. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present / zoning Board of Appeals -16- July 8th, 1980 j , , , '( with regard to Appeal # 489, at the :r:equest of cronise;--- Construction Corp., a motion was made by Mr. Mc Mille, seconded by Mr. prager, to table action until the'next meeting. Motion Was unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 490, at the request of Croniser Construction Corp., a motion was made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to table action until the next meeting. Motion Was Unanimously Carried, By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 491, a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. prager, to grant the request variance and permit the sign to remain on the Sokol property for a period of one year, the setback of said sign shall be checked by the Building Inspector and the sign shall not be lite after 10:30 p.m. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By hose Members Present with regard to Appe~l # 492, at the request of croniser Construction, Corp., a motion was made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to table action. ( Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present with regard to Appeal # 493, at the request of Hans R. Gunderud, Building Inspector/Zoning Administrator, seeking an ainterpretation of the zoning Ordinance, the Board indicated that they would not act on this until the rest of the Board was present to discuss and confer. The Board then indicated that the minutes of the June 10th, 1980 meeting were acceptable. A motion was then made by Mr. prager, seconded by Mr. Me Mc Millen to adjourn. Motion Was Unanimously Carried By Those Members Present The meeting was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. l Respectfully submitted, ~:~::<ecretary br APPROVED 8/12/80 / ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 121590 RECEIVED DEe 1 0 1980 ELAINE H. SHOWDE~ TEL. 297.6257 December 10th, 1980 / ... Mro Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Town of Wappinger Town Hall - P.Oo Box 324 wappingers Falls, NY 12590 RE: Appeals #~ 4$9 at the request of Croniser Construction corporation. Dear Mr. Gunderud: At the December 9th, 1980 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen that upon reconsideration the requested variances be granted subject to signed affidavits by the purchasers of lots 8 and 9, said affidavits to be acceptable to the Attorney to the Town, and these are to be submitted prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and further, that all required approvals be obtained and any work that remains to be done is completed prior to the issuance of the Certificates of Occupany. The motion was secQnded by Mr. cortellino and unanimously carried by those members present at the meeting. br Very truly yours, (~=~ cc: Jon HQlden Adams, Attorney to the Town Raymond croniser, Appellant Francois Cross, Attorney at Law William C. Gross, Attorney at Law Kenneth stenger, Attorney at Law William P. Horton, Highway supe~in endent Rudolph E. Lapar, Engineer to th own Thomas E. Logan, Assessor Elaine H. Snowden, Town Clerk Mr. & MIs. Nolan Mr. & Mrs. Schwartz