Loading...
1986-01-14ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 14TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES TOWN HALL MILL STREET WAPP. FALLS, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 14th, 1986, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Caballero - Chairman Mr. Landolfi Mr. Hirkala Mr. Cortellino Mrs. Waddle Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Caballero asked if all the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Caballero stated, we will hear each individual appeal. We will allow time for the person who is making the appeal to give us all the information that he feels is necessary for us to make a proper decision, then we will allow time for someone in the audience that is concerned to give us their reasons why they are here and what they feel should be for or against the appeal that we are hearing. We may or may not render a decision this evening on the appeal. Mr. Caballero then asked for a motion on the Minutes of the last meeting. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to make a motion that the minutes be tabled until the next meeting to give us the opportunity to read them. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero stated, at this time I would like to have the Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals send a letter to Joe Landolfi thanking him for his excellent work done on the Zoning Board of Appeals for the last two years on behalf of the rest of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Caballero read the first appeal: Appeal #862, at the request of Michael Donnell, seeking a variance of Article IV, §400.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a Certificate of Occupancy to be issued for an addition, deck, and swimming pool constructed without a building permit on property located on 22 Kent Road, and being Parcel #6258-03-256048, in the Town of Wappinger. Vincent Cuccia, Attorney for the Donnell's was present. Mr. Cuccia stated, Mr. & Mrs. Donnell applied for a building permit with respect to a swimming pool and a deck which was added to their property at 22 Central Avenue in 1982 without a building permit. Page -2- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Waddle stated, we have 22 Kent Road, now you are saying they are living at 22 Central Avenue. -1 LMr. Cuccia answered, 22 Kent Road, Central Avenue is my address. When they applied for the building permit they were turned down by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Cortellino asked, what building permit? You mean after the fact. Mr. Cuccia answered, after the fact, yes. Mr. Cortellino asked, they didn't apply before? Mr. Cuccia answered, no, they applied 2 months ago. They were turned down and the Zoning Administrator indicated that she was relying upon Article IV regulations §400.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which indicates that, among other things, it says that where an applicant has received written notification that there was an existing violation of the Zoning Ordinance, no permit of any type shall be issued until it is cleared up. So, she was turned, and we are making the appeal before this body. Mrs. Waddle asked, are you saying that he tried to correct the problem that was there in that the swimming pool and the deck was put in without a building permit and he came in and tried to get a building permit, have her issue a building permit so he could clear up a violation? Mr. Cuccia answered, he was turned down. Mrs. Waddle stated, I don't even know what this gentlemen is doing here. The fact that he built it but he was trying to clear up the violation. a found Mr. Hirkala stated, lets ask the question of how it came about that he needed, he u out he needed the permit when he didn't need it before hand. Mr. Cuccia answered, obviously ignorance is no justification. We are not saying that that is an acception in the law. He acted in good faith and honestly believed that he didn't need a building permit for the swimming pool, and he constructed it, and there is no dispute about that. Mr. Cortellino asked, I have in front of me that Zoober put in the pool. Mr. Cuccia answered, that is correct. That is what I was told and he advised them. Mr. Cortellino stated, and you said that he put in the pool. Now, who put in the pool, Zoober or Mr. Donnell? Mr. Cuccia answered, Zoober put in the pool. Mr. Cortellino asked, and you implying that Zoober did not know a building permit..... Mr. Cuccia stated, he didn't advise him that he needed a building permit. We have all the other documents, the electrical inspection was completed. We received an eletrical approval. We have Board of Underwriters approval for the swimming pool. Mr. Cortellino stated, who are not a Town funtionary. ``Mr. Cuccia stated, right, I am not suggesting that they are. In any event, the point I am making is that the pool is in strict conformity with all the requirements of the Town. There are no violations with respect to the pool and it conforms with the rules Page -3- January 14th, 1986 and regulations of the Town except for the fact that he didn't get a permit. There are no setback violations. The pool is well constructed. It is not a safety hazard or anything else, so, the only violation is the fact that he didn't get a building permit. Mr. Cortellino stated, we have no way of determining it because no building permit was obtained. One of the reasons for the building permit is for the Building Inspector to examine every facet. Now, if I'm putting in the pool, god knows whats underneath the pool once the pool is up, of course, without the building permit I don't know what has transpired. What about things that are enclosed, I don't know what is in there. It is the Building Inspector's job to determine whether it meets with the building code. Once the thing is constructed, what is behind these walls I can't tell you now, I would have to go through the building permit for this building. Mr. Cuccia stated, in any event, you are quite right, you can't look underneath the ground and there is no way of determining that. However, our position is that this statute is a kind of a catch 22 situation because on one hand is says that they can't issue a permit once you are in violation until you clear up the permit. Mr. Cortellino stated, generally that statute was no for a cast like this. Let us say that you have a sign that is in violation and now you want to expand your business, until you straighten out the sign violation we won't consider the expansion of a non -conforming business which you are entitled to a 50% until that violation is removed. It is not to be retroactive to correct or when you decide to, "to become honest". Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Cuccia, when did it come to your clients attention that they were in violation. Mr. Cuccia answered, it came to their attention because they were in the process of selling the house and the buyers requested a building permit for the swimming pool and to naturally we were unable to provide them with that. So, they can't sell the house unless they get a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to the pool. Mrs. Waddle stated, but there is a Certificate of Occupancy in the file. Mr. Hirkala stated that it is a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. I don't know what this means, I don't know who wrote this up. There is no signature. Mr. Kriegsman stated, I can't sign it. Mrs. Waddle asked why it is dated 1/4/77? Mr. Kriegsman answered, that is when I was prepared to issue, but I can't. here Mrs. Waddle stated, but you weren'tfin 1/4/77, so how can you be prepared to issue it? Mr. Kriegsman answered, he has a new building CO in January 4th, 1977, its a new building. Now, we have a pool and deck and enclosed porch which will be alteration 85-358 and that is open, that has not been signed off. The reason we have the 85-358 is because he made the application at this present time and that application has been denied by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Hirkala stated, and it was denied because of §400.1. Mr. Kriegsman answered, that is correct. Mr. Hirkala stated, because they can't issue a permit as long as there is a violation. Page -4- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Cuccia, as you stated before everything that has been done there is within our Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Cuccia answered, yes, with respect to setback, construction, electrical approvals. Mr. Hirkala asked, With respect to setback everything is fine. I have a problem with this thing here that says there is 114 feet of measurements and there is only 100 foot space to put it in. Mrs. Waddle stated, on here you have 30 feet on each side of the house, that is 60 feet. Mr. Donnell stated, there is 135 feet of property. Mrs. Waddle stated, but it says 100 foot frontage. Mr. Donnell stated, that is the frontage, that is by the road. In respect to where the pool is....... Mrs. Waddle stated, I am talking about frontage because you have your sideyard as 30, your other sideyard as 30, the house is 54. It goes back and out. So, you have enough, so you are not in violation. Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Kriegsman if he went out and looked at the site. Mr. Kriegsman answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Kriegsman, the only problem with it is that they didn't get a permit to build this pool and deck? Mr. Kriegsman answered, that is my problem. Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that a building permit, that the Building Inspector be allowed to issue a building permit upon his satisfaction on inspection. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Mr. Caballero stated, the motion is that we are authorizing the Building Inspector to issue him a building permit. Once he is satisfied with the setbacks and so on he can issue a CO. If they don't meet our code he will have to come back for a variance. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to authorize the Building Inspector to issue a building permit. It would have to conform and at his discretion he will authorize a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like to give an explanation for his no vote. Mr. Cortellino stated, it has been pointed out that the only reason he is applying for the building permit is because apparantly the buyer of the house is aware that there are regulations, otherwise, he would have never applied. There is not even a question of being, after the fact being aware that it would be required, Now we are rewarding Page -5- January 14th, 1986 people in the Town who do things illegally, I find it difficult to believe that Zoober Pools who puts pools in the Town and comes for permits all the time was, I don't know the circumstances how they could put in this pool without applying for a building permit. We are rewarding people who, for whatever reason, have not gone through the procedure and other people who go through the procedure perhaps can't get the pool exactly where they want because we are enforcing the Zoning Law. So, I find it not improper, not irregular, I find it going against my grain to take this person off the hook for 3 violations. I find it hard to believe that no one knew about a building permit in this case. Mr. Hirkala stated, I agree with Charlie, but the alternative here is, to me there is no alternative. The fact of the matter is, that the Building Inspector can make the inspection. If he finds something wrong then, my motion is not directing the Building Inspector to issue a permit. My motion is to direct him to make an inspection and upon his satisfaction issue a permit. If he is not satisfied, there is no permit. If he has to knock the wall out to inspect an electrical outlet than that is what he has to do. Mr. Cortellino stated, Mr. Cuccia has been a resident of this area for a number of years. He lives in that area. Hopefully a lawyer he knows the laws and he does it properly, but I am taking him as an example in that area. He decides he likes Wappinger, he came out of New York, but he like Wappinger and he is going to live here forever, so why he should he bother with a building permit. He will call Zoober, I want a pool, you said you didn't have a pool, now what happens, he just puts in the pool. Are we going to encourage people, professionals included from constructing. Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't consider that encouragement. What I consider that is reasonable approach to the problem. 41 Mr. Caballero stated, I think I have, for the essence of time, I think we have 4 ayes, I am going to close this hearing. Appeal 4862 is therefore closed. Mr. Caballero stated, for the benefit of my Board I am going to ask that any comments or questions asked of an appellant be asked after permission from the chair so that I can get a full disclosure for whoever is appealing without him being interrupted. Once he has finished his presentation we will take questions from the Board. Mr. Caballero then read the next appeal: Appeal #863, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of Article IV §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 10' x 50 (plus addition) mobile home with a 14' x 52 or 24' x 44 mobile home on non -conforming property located on Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel #6256-02- 852766, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Tibbetts, applicant & Robert Lusardi, Attorney from the firm Maccarini & Lusardi, Route 52, Carmel,.NY. Mr. Lusardi stated, this is an application on appeal from a denial of a building permit from the Town of Wappinger building department with respect to Lot A. We have 2 matters on. That is lot #14. There is presently, on this particular site, a mobile home that is of course a non -conforming mobile home for 10 years since 1961. It is a very old mobile home. It is 10' x 50'. The people would like to install a new mobile home. They make mobile homes generally larger these days. It is very, very difficult, if not impossible to get a mobile home 10 x 50, but generally speaking, the more modern mobile homes run 14 feet wide instead of 10 feet wide and 60 feet long instead of 50. But also they make double wide trailers which are shorter in length but wider, so instead of having real long trailers, 60 feet you would cut that size down to 44 feet and what Page -6- January 14th, 1986 Cooper Road Trailer Park is asking is this Board's permission to install, to replace that on particular unit with either a 24 x 44 mobil home or the alternative if that is not Y acceptable a 14 x 60 foot mobile home. Now, the previous mobile home was 10 x 50 but also has a porch which was 6 x 10 feet, so really the additional square footage that we are asking is minimal. It does, however, increase the size of the unit that was there to the proposed unit, and that is basically what we are requesting in this application. Mr. Caballero stated, I would like to entertain any questions from the Board. Mr. Cortellino asked, was there a problem in here about the number of trailers in the past? Mr. Lusardi answered, that is another application that we have, a separate application. Mr. Caballero stated, we must address this issue here on this particular appeal. Our intent is to make that property more conforming not less conforming than it is a present time. Mrs. Waddle stated, I am assuming that if you put in a 14 x 52 or 24 x 44 mobile home there will not be any addition onto it. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, I would not allow any additions. Mrs. Waddle asked, not even a porch or a deck or anything. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, a small deck.to get down. Steps to get in and out. Mr. Lusardi stated, what she is talking about is the steps up and there if a platform to step in. Mr. Hirkala asked what unit was going to be replaced. Mr. Caballero answered, 14. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am trying to determine whether this has any bearing on the previous request that they gave us. Mr. Cortellino stated, that is what I am trying to determine but I can't. Number one, I don't recall the exact circustances, but if there is a problem that it is out of a variance, if you want to use that word, then we are in the same bind as were previous, that we cannot something if there is another violation on the property. Is there another violation on the property is my question? Mr. Lusardi answered, no. Mr. Caballero asked, do you know of any violations on this property? Mr. Kriegsman answered, the original problem started out that we had more trailers on the site than was originally approved and I could not approve any other trailers until I knew which trailer belonged to which site because we are dealing with a legal ownership of a habital space on an assigned space and it has be anchored according to the State Law. So, if you say you are bringing in this particular mobile home and putting it on Lot or space #6 the two have to go together and if you take and put that on the wrong lot I am lost. What we needed is the original approved site, number one, and then based on that we knew what the space was and the number of bedrooms and adding up the number of bedrooms we knew what size septic tank was approved by the Health Dept.. Page -7- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Waddle stated, that is not what we are asking. We are asking how many trailers were supposed to be on the property. Mr. Kriegsman answered, we never knew. Mrs. Waddle stated, we want to know what was approved and what is there now. Mr. Kriegsman stated, when they increased the size of the trailer they added extra bedrooms. Mrs. Waddle stated, we are not talking about the size of the trailer, we are talking about how many trailers were allowed on that piece of property and how many have they got now. Mr. Lusardi stated, the most recent letter that we have from the Zoning Administrator, the former Zoning Administrator, Ms. Young, was that her opinion 13 trailers were the permitted number of trailers on that park. There are now 13 trailers on that park. If you notice on the site plan there is one vacant spot on lot #4, there used to be a trailer there up to a year ago that had been removed and there was an attempt made to replace that particular trailer with another trailer and at that particular point we ran into difficulties with the building department, a questions as to how many trailers are authorized on that park. Mrs. Waddle asked, how many trailers do you have in that park right now? Mr. Lusardi answered, 13 trailers in the park. Mrs. Waddle stated, it says here that there are 17 trailers in the park. Mr. Lusardi answered, once upon a time there were, those 4 were removed. Mrs. Waddle stated, so you are allowed 13 trailers. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, a total of 14. Mrs. Waddle answered, no, it says 13 trailers. Mr. Lusardi stated, we are talking about a separate application now. The next application is to ask you to allow...... Mr. Caballero stated, we do not want to go into the next application until we finish this here. Mr. Lusardi stated, this application, there are 13 mobile homes on that site and every document that we have received from the Town indicates that 13 trailers is the number that they have indicated as authorized. What we are doing is replacing one of those 13 trailers. Mr. Landolfi stated, there is a concern about, not only the number of trailers of concern but also the property itself and I believe we talked about getting a reading from the Mr. Logan's office to kind of support in any way what are they being taxed for here to kind of verify. This property has been in question for some time so there are several concerns I see immediately here, one again, we are still disputing the number, two, how this was rpoperly broken down and according to my figures here, the calculations, the one trailer that he is trying to bring in obviously would exceed the number and I take acception to the fact that we can't get a trailer to somewhat conform a little more to our Zoning Laws. I think they can build you a trailer what ever size, I can get a car wahtever size. Page -8- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Tibbetts stated, i differ with you because according to HUD specifications all new mobile home units must be 14 foot wide. Mr. Landolfi stated, then we may have to take another trailer out. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, why should we deny young people decent housing. Mr. Caballero asked, is there anybody in the audience that has anything to say in reference to this appeal, for or against. Mr. Hirkala asked, on that previous appeal that was in before us on November 12th, what lot were you requesting to put, repace a mobile home. Mrs. Tibbets answered, Lot A. Mr. Hirkala asked, and there is presently no trailer on Lot #4? Mrs. Tibbetts answered, exactly. Mr. Hirkala asked about the aerial photos. Mrs. Waddle stated, this is a memo dated June, 1984 in which, let me just read you part of this, and this is from Pam Farnsworth who was our former Zoning Administrator: As I understand from the Building Inspector, he has clarified the need for a building permit application to install or replace a mobile home, with Mrs. Tibbetts. Because there is more than one mobile home on the three Tibbetts' parcels than our records indicate are allowed as non -conforming on two of the three parcels, he has denied the building permit for Lot 410. The Biulding Inspector asked that Mrs. Tibbetts prepare an agreement that there would be only thirteen mobile homes or seek administrative approval for more to get a building permit for lot #10. Currently, there are 14 mobile homes on their 3 parcels. To the knowledge of the Building Inspector, there are no (or very few) certificates of occupancy for the units in the park. I don't know if that has been corrected at this point. That is June 21st, 1984. (Mrs. Waddle continued with the memo) I highly recommend any procedure that would require a site plan. Since mobile home parks are subject to Town Board approval for a Special Use Permit, the Town Board could go through process of approval for the existing, non -conforming site, plus the additional third parcel. Because of the expansion onto a third lot, the matter could be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals under §404.2 for an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision that a non -conforming use of the land cannot be expanded. Or, the Town Board could accept the two non -conforming parcels and consider the third lot alone as a mobile home park request. The total acreage of the three lots is approximately 3J acres when at least 5 acres are required for a mobile home park. Again, the Zoning Administrator's denial could be be appeals..... Although the Zoning Board could act on these appeals without site plan or sketch of the property and its uses, it is more likely that at least a sketch will be required. It the Town Board should decide to consider a Special Use Permit for the ull mobile home park as though the three parcels were "raw" land, and the lesser acreage was allowed, the 142,035 square feet of all three parcels would allow 7 mobile homes per §443.12. The section refers to allowing the same number of dwelling units as would be allowed under the the residential zoning district (R-20). Because it has been a non -conforming mobile home park for 12 units, I recommend that the Attorney to the Town be consulted should the eventual number that might be allowed be substantially changed. It all the units were "double units" per §443.13, each would require no less than 10,000 square feet, so 14 units might be allowed. Meeting setback and other requirements might impact the number of lots possible. For single units the minimum lot area is 6,500 square feet. Now, when I look at a 14 x 52 that is a double wide. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, no, that is a single wide. 24 x 44 is a double wide which could be construed as a regular house. Page -9- Mr. Lusardi stated, it is a mobile home. January 14th, 1986 There is different construction standards. Mrs. Waddle stated, they bring it in in 2 and it is the size of a regular ranch house. Mr. Caballero asked Mrs. Tibbetts if she had anything further to say in reference to this appeal. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, the mobile homes, we have always had 13 mobile homes on the lot. They were there since 1963 as far as I am concerned, the tax records, I have approval. THe only thing I want to do is to replace the old homes that need replacing with some up to date homes. I want to improve the park. It will improve the neighborhood, it will improve the living conditions, and I want to improve the park, but I, apparently, and its a nice lot, the lots are not crowded like some of the parks in the area. I personally can't see where the problem lies. We have always had 14 units, we have always had 13 units in the circle. It blows my mind. Mr. Hirkala stated, you say you have always had 14 units, and yet we have aerial photos that show something different. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Lusardi if he had anything further to say. Mr. Lusardi stated, as far as that one particular lot is concerned, which is a limited scope of this application, no, that is our application on Lot 414. I would also just raise at this time an additional question which will be, for your consideration, an interpretation of the Zoning Law whether putting a larger mobile home on the site is in fact an enlargement of a non -conforming use. I certainly can understand were adding an additional trailer to the mobile home park would be an enlargement of a non -conforming use but slightly enlarging an older trailer that was part of the same number that was non -conforming, I would just ask you to consider that question as well and this appeal should be deemed necessary. Mr. Caballero stated, at this time I am going to close the public hearing and I will entertain the Board's discussion and a motion. Mr. Landolfi asked, have CO's ever been obtained like it was recommended. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I have requested this from the Building Inspector to come inspect the homes on the property and it was denied. Mr. Lusardi stated, I will indicate that I have occasion, last year, when this problem arose to have discussions with the building department and I was told by people in the building department that the files on this park in the past are either non-existent or cannot be located and that we weren't able to get assistance in finding out which one of these mobiles homes have not received Certificates of Occupancy, if any. I will indicate that under the previous Building Inspector up until a couple of years ago we were getting building permits on a regular basis for the new mobile home park when the new mobile homes were being brought into the park. It was with the change of administration that this particular question came up. Mr..Lusardi asked Mrs. Tibbetts, when was the last building permit you received. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, we received a building permit for Lot #4, which was when the unit was ready to be put in was cancelled, and we have complies with every stipulation. We have given the Zoning Administrator and the Building Inspector, it has been going on for a year and we have complied with every demand they asked and it kept going from - one step to the other and it is very discouraging. Page -10- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Hirkala stated, Mrs. Waddle just found a piece of paper that shows the aerial photos dated 1966 and there were 13 trailers so as far as I am concerned 13 trailers are what they have coming unless something else could be brought in. Mr. Caballero stated, I want to close the public hearing and discussion is going to incur from here on is strictly on the Board so that we can render a decision. Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am looking at is the posibility of requesting certification as to the availability of trailers as far as size is concerned. They are saying here that the trailer that they have to put on it is 14 x 52 and what is on there is 10 x 20. Mr. Cortellino stated, 10 x 60 with addition. Mr. Hirkala stated, so there is 560 square foot and they are telling us that they have to replace it with a 14' x 52. Mrs. Waddle stated, they are saying 10 times 50 plus an addition? Mr. Hirkala answered, 60 square feet. They have 560 square feet. Mr. Caballero asked, and the new trailer would be how many feet? Mr. Hirkala answered, 14 x 52. Mr. Cortellino stated, one would be 728 and the other one would 1,056. Mr. Landolfi stated, again, I am still hung up over a couple of things like the actual size. I am wondering if we are able to allow, my interpretation, we would be making a non -conforming lot more non -conforming. I have a concern with that. I don't know the last time an on site inspection was done by either our Building Inspector or whatever. Maybe that should be done to test the footage that is there quite possibility. I think we are hung up on the number. I am more hung up on what the footage of the total square footage represents and perhaps even what tax wise would be assessed, I have got a concern with the CO's if in fact that letter, I understood Carol reading, was recommended that she get CO's and I don't know whether that has been done. I would like to see some of those things cleaned up before we even try to render a decision and I think I would feel a little better whatever way we go. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have to agree with Joe in a way because the memo from Pam, which was dated 1984 said there was 14 mobile homes there when there is supposed to be 13 mobile homes there and I think that would have to be cleared up before we could even reach a decision on anything else. Now, they have another appeal here. I think it hinges on this what we do with the next appeal to replace this mobile home. I don't see how 2 of them could be replaced because one of those trailers have to come out of there. Mr. Caballero stated, I see this in a little more simplicit matter. I feel that we are to get this property in more conforming not less conforming and because of that this appeal would have to be denied. Whether less trailers have to be put in that park or smaller trailers put in the park to stay the way it is now, thats up to them, but the Board can make a decision on this appeal. I will entertain a motion. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we have to make some recommendations to that the Building Inspector has to get out there and get the full story on the whole thing. Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling on the subject is that we don't have enough information to make a decision. Page -11- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Waddle stated, I will make a motion that we table this and the Building Inspector goes out and makes a full inspection of the property and gives us a report at our next meeting as to the area of what the trailers are, what the conditions are out there. I think we need some information from the Assessor on what they have been taxed and I think we need all the Town offices that are involved in this to cooperate so that we can get all the information we can to make this piece of property more conforming. Mr. Caballero stated, before we get a second I would like to hear from the Building Inspector. Mr. Kriegsman stated, it all started when I went out and made the inspection that you are talking about. Fist I discovered lots which were not recorded as the map originally showed. Second, I have more premises then were supposed to be there. I didn't know how they related to the Health Dept. requirements of the septic tank and fourth, there were extensions made an various of these dwellings which were never applied for with permit and approved because you cannot build onto a structure which is approved by the Federal Government. So, I had all of these violations and I asked the owner, please give me a new site plan show me the legal lots, each and every dwelling with the size of the building so we can determine the size of what you have there and then we can relate it to what the Federal Governments present day standards are and then I can say that I can meet NYS building code requirements as far as mounting each one of these things in place. Mrs. Waddle stated, you haven't been listening to me. I said you will have to get with them and you will have to issue us a written report. We want to know what is going on there. We want to know exactly how many trailers, how much property is around the trailers. I really don't care at this point about the Federal Government or anything else you have to do as the Building Inspector. We want to bring that piece of property into conformity. What is the size of the trailers out there. How much property is involved, how many trailers are out there, that is what we want to know. Mr. Caballero stated, any of them in violation, site them for violations. Mrs. Waddle stated, the Federal Government and State Codes are part of your job but they don't belong right here when we are talking about just plain raw land and property and how much income of property is bringing back. We just need from you what I have just stated. I am sure Linda can type it up for you in the morning and we ask you to go out and bring that information back to us at the next meeting so that we can make some kind of decision on this piece of property. I also ask Linda, please get in touch with the Assessor's office to see what the property is being taxed for and get any information you can from Mr. Logan. I am sure he will be glad to help us in this. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero stated that the hearing is closed. Mrs. Waddle stated, why don't we take care of the other appeal now so they don't have to wait around and I will make the same motion on Appeal #851 to table it at this point until we get the information that we requested in this last hearing. Page -12- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Caballero stated, I am going to call the Unfinished Business, Appeal 4851. I hope that the people who are in the audience, the other appeals do not mind so that we can hear the second appeal that these people have here. Mr. Caballero read the appeal: Appeal 44851, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeeking a variance of ALL. T" §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 12 x 60 (plus additil mobile home with a 14 x 60 mobile home on non -conforming property located on Cooper known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel 446256-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Lusardi, Attorney and Mrs. Tibbetts were present. Mr.,Caballero asked, do you want to make the same motion on this appeal? Road Mrs. Waddle answered, I would because I can see wasting the barrister's time at this point. We need the same information to make a decision on this appeal. Mr. Lusardi stated, what we do ask the Board to consider at this time is copies of the tax assessor's records for this property and I would just indicate to the members of the board that there are actual 3 grid numbers on this property as opposed to 3 tax parcels. No as to Parcel 2766, which is the larger parcel, the tax records in the Town of Wappinger indicates that in 1964 there were 13 trailers on that one parcel. However, on the adjoining parcel the assessor's records indicate an additional, Parcel 47794. Mrs. Tibbetts stated that it is the back lot. Mr. Lusardi stated, and that would constitute the fourteenth trailer. kae Mr. Hirkala stated, the part where you said the first part was 13 trailers. Mr. Lusardi answered, correct. Mr. Hirkala went on, now you went, with respect to the back lot, what are you going to say about that. Mr. Lusardi answered, one additional trailer was noted in the tax assessor's records for 1963. Mr. Cortellino asked, you are talking about what is shown as parcel 2. Mr. Hirkala stated, that was 1963. In 1964 you show 13 for the first parcel 3. Mr. Lusardi answered, correct. So, it is our position that as far as pre-existing non- conforming uses is concerned that parcel #3 is entitled to the 13 and that is where the number 13 has been derived but the additional 14th trailer relates to that back parcel. I would submit to the Board copies of the tax records in that regard. Mr. Hirkala asked, on your tax records, on that first parcel, on the third parcel#3, was the one story house considered a part of that. Mr. Lusardi answered, no, it is noted 13 trailers, the house is noted separately. This has a shed here, it has a dwelling also on that parcel 2766. It says dwelling and it has 1-1-B, type 2, year built 1928, condition P, it has an assessed value of $6,500, kw and then it notes 13 and right next to the 13 is trailers and it says see attached sheet and it gives a description of the various trailers -and the model and so forth. Page -13- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Hirkala asked, that was in 1964. Mr. Lusardi answered, it is dated, the notice is dated April 30, 1964. Mr. Hirkala stated, there are 12 pads here. Where was the 13th one? Mr. Lusardi answered, those are not pads, those are actual trailers. Mr. Hirkala stated, except for one there that shows an empty pad. It is a vacant slot. Now, where was the 13th trailer. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, we pulled one out in the back to relieve the congestion. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think we are sitting back in the same position. I think I will have to agree with her motion, I want to see..... Mr. Lusardi stated, we submit that we have documentation that according to the Assessor's records 13 trailers there, and subsequent inspections, according to this tax map of 1973 and 1978 & 1975 were no changes noted except there was 17 trailers there in 1973 and subsequently 3 were removed. Mr. Hirkala stated, that doesn't tell me anything because the Assessor doesn't look at the property every year. Plus the fact that means that you have to pull one of the trailers off the other lot. This is a mess. Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Lusardi, basically I think we are going to end up in the same sivation here and I would allow you to make another statement again. 4 � Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I have tried my darndess to work with the building department on ki this problem. Everytime I present something that they demand they come up with another stumbling block and it has been going on for a year now and I do think we have complied with every request we have asked for the aerial map, we weren't able to look at it. I have asked Ms. Young for it and it wasn't available.. Every information we have researched ourself. I am not after doing anything illegal, that is why I am here. That is why I came, we have asked for every mobil home we have removed, we have come for a building permit and I just don't see why just to give someone up to date decent housing instead, and improving the mobile home, improving the neighborhood in the Town why we have to have so much heart ache and expensive situation. I really can't see it. I am not doing anything illegal, I am just asking to ......I don't think the Town would like to see, I don't live there. I have a person pride in my property and I hope the Town does as well. Mrs. Waddle stated, that is why we are going through this. Because, obviously through the years there have been illegalities on the property and....... Mr. Caballero stated, the property is not 5 acres so it is a non -conforming piece of property. Mr. Lusardi stated, it is pre-existing non -conforming. It has a right to continue. It was purchased a pre-existing non -conforming. Mr. Caballero stated, we don't deny that. You can improve it as long as you don't make it less conforming. Page -14- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Tibbetts stated, you are forcing us to make a slum. Mrs. Waddle stated, no, we are not forcing you to do anything at this point. Mr. Landolfi stated, I recommend that we table this for the same reasons as we...... Mrs. Waddle stated, I had made the motion before. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, we have been tabling this for a year. You are forcing me to keep a slum there instead of offering people decent housing and I don't think that is fair -to the Town. Mr. Caballero stated, I can understand your feelings but we are regulated by our Zoning rules our Laws in the Town and this is the format in which we can solve your problem. The Board wished to table this matter until they get certain information for them to make a decision on your request for an appeal. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, this was tabled last December for the same reasons. Mr. Caballero stated, I can guarantee you that.the next time we hear this hearing we are make decision. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I have requested the building department to come out and give me CO permits. They refused. Mrs. Waddle stated, the Building Insepctor will be out to see you. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, he has been there with the Zoning Administrator, with the Fire Inspector, they have all stood there and they know the park inside and out. I can assure you they do. Mr. Caballero stated, going back and forth is not going to help the situation. I have a motion on the floor to table this for the reasons so stated by Carol and a second. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to take a break. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. The break was called at 7:55 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 8:00 P.M.. Page -15- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #864, at the request of Klassen Builders, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 22 foot sideyard setback while 25 feet is required in an R-40 zone on property located on 9 Schuele Drive, known as the Pine Hollow Subdivision, Lot #13, and being Parcel #6258-02-798715, in the Town of Wappinger. Otto Klassen was present. Mr. Klassen stated, actually I think it was a little misunderstanding between me and the previous Zoning Administrator because on the previous map she marked down 20 sideyard, that is on the lot right next door and actually this is the second time in 25 years I am before this Board. The last time was I need a variance to be 15 feet away from the rear line but I gave the lot additional property out of the Town of Fishkill. Mr. Caballero asked, but in fact at this time you need a 3 foot variance? Mr. Klassen answered, correctly, actually it is 25 inches. This number stuck in my head. Mr. Hirkala stated, she has this in an R-20 zone. And what is this R-20 or R-40? Mr. Klassen answered, R-40. Mr..Hirkala stated, what she did was assume it was an R-20 zone. What he is saying is that 20 foot something was in his mind when he laid this thing out figuring that he had plenty of room and now he finds out he is in R-40 zone. How many houses did you build on this street? Mr. Klassen answered, this is the second one. Mr. Caballero stated, basically what you are asking for is 3 foot variance to construct a house. Mr. Klassen stated, the house is up. Mr. Cortellino stated, it is up and it is after that the fact that it was determined that it is a different zone. R-40 rather than R-20. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Mr. Caballero stated, before I pass on the motion is there anybody here to speak against this appeal. There was no one. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Page -16- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Caballero read the next item: Appeal #866, at the request of Pizza Hut, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit the operation of a restaurant on property located on Route 9 & Old Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-572017, in the Town of Wappinger. Jack Railing, Barger, Campbell, Gray & Railing was present. Mr. Railing stated, it is a proposed Pizza Hut restaurant located on Route 9 & Old Route 9, 1.32 acre parcel. I believe you have the site plan that illustrates the proposed, it has been before the Planning Board and I believe you have their comments relative to its acceptablity to them. Mr. Hirkala stated, so what you are telling us is that this has already been to the Planning Board. Mrs. Waddle answered, yes. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Railing, do you have any problems with any of the conditions that the Planning Board....... Mr. Railing answered, no, I have not. The only thing that we accepted at the Planning Board was a reservation relative to the roof, Pizza Hut was going to make their final decision which they haven't made as yet and a statement that I made relative to the drainage which I am working out with the Town Engineer. Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that has any objection to this appeal. There was no one. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to issue the Special Use Permit pursuant to the Planning Board recommendations, it meets the approval of all agencies involved in this. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal #867, at the request of Edith & Edward Hennerman, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 17 foot sideyard setback while 25 foot is required in an R-40 Zone on property located on DeGarmo Hills Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-747839, in the Town of Wappinger. George Bolding, Contractor was present. Mrs. Waddle stated, is there any reason why the addition or the solarium or whatever you would wish to call it couldn't be put on the back of the house? Mr. Bolding stated, there is a big blue spruce tree that for one thing, there wouldn't be enough room without cutting the tree down. Page -17- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Waddle asked, if the tree was cut down then it would be conforming? Mr. Bolding answered, yes, but also there is not even one window on the South side of that house. The solarium would be facing due South. If it was put on say the west side or the east side it wouldn't have the same effect. Mrs. Waddle asked if it was going to be used for a greenhouse? Mr. Bolding answered, yes. Mr. Hirkala stated, let me make the statement first that I have done business with Mr. Bolding so I am not going to vote on this subject, but I do have a problem with, my one question, it doesn't have to do with the solarium it has to do with the other new addition, I am wondering if that is any problem with that addition because when I drove by the house and looked at it not realizing that George was the contractor, I did notice that the addition was there, did you put that addition on, is that a mother/ daughter? Mr. Bolding answered, yes, and it is a storage room. Mr. Cortellino asked, did you state why it couldn't be on the other side of the house, on the side that the addition is? Mr. Bolding stated, back when they built these houses they just flip flopped them, nobody really cared to much about the solar heating, solar energy and this house just happened to have, the way it is flipped, there is not even one window on the south side of the house. The idea of it basically is a greenhouse also but on the south side of this house they can get alot of solar energy out of it. The house isn't that big so it kind of makes an extension for the dining room. There are quite a few reasons. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have a real problem with this when they could put it on the back of the house and being conforming and we wouldn't have to issue a variance. Mr. Landolfi asked, where was that tree into relation to....... Mr. Bolding stated, there is also like a deck that is on the back of the house, like a screened in porch on the second level. Mr. Landolfi stated, then if I see your dimensions then that could very easily replace that. Mr. Bolding stated, there is a very large spruce tree that has to be probably 2 foot in diameter in the butt and it is really close to the house. Mrs. Waddle stated, if it is that close to the house, eventually, it would probably have to be removed. Mr. Bolding stated, they really don't want to remove it. Mrs. Waddle stated, I can understand that but if it is a case of removing the tree or being in conformance with the ordinance and we have a choice. Mr. Bolding stated, it is not close enough to the house to be a hazard it is maybe 5 feet out, something like that. It is too close to the building anything on it without cutting the tree down completely. Page -18- January 14th, 1986 Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience against this appeal? Richard Fitzgerald - 48 DeGarmo Hills Road. Mr. Fitzgerald asked, I don't oppose it but I would just like to know, can you see this from the road because the is a hedge there. Mr. Bolding stated, no, there are trees completely surrounding it. Mr. Fitzgerald asked, but I mean can you see it from the road? Mr. Bolding answered, no, I don't think so. Mr. Fitzgerald asked, there is a big chimney on that side of the house, isn't there? Is that going to be from the chimney to the South, not towards the road. Mr. Bolding answered, from the chimney towards the rear. Mr. Caballero asked, so it would be actually behind the chimney? Mr. Bolding answered yes. It is an attractive unit.. They talked to the neighbors on that side of it, and from what I understand, and they feel it would look good. Mr. Fitzgerald stated, I would say right now that I do not have a problem with it, I just come here for awareness. Mr. Caballero asked, do I have a motion from the Board. We are asking here for 8 feet. j Mrs. Waddle stated, it certainly isn't a detriment to the neighborhood because I have seen them before but I do have a problem with going out 8 feet on that side when you can go out in the back, that is the only hangup I have. Mr. Bolding stated, the back, there are a couple of things that are really a little bit of a hardship, one of them is that the tree, and the other the property drops off there. Mrs. Waddle stated, so what you are saying that the back on that side is really difficult to put a glass house, it wouldn't look nice. Mr. Landolfi stated, he is right, you really can't see it provided...... I just have a little concern about a hardship. Mr. Bolding stated, in the back also there is a bedroom downstairs, it is a ranch, and that also has a window going out it would block that window. A solarium of this nature should be on the south side of the house -to work properly. Mrs. Waddle asked, how close is the neighbor? Mr. Fitzgerald answered, there is a house but there is a driveway between their property line and the other house. About 25 feet. Mr. Caballero stated, although I really don't see a hardship on this property I feel that the greenhouse on the side of the property will enhance the property and the neighborhood and for that reason I will make a motion to grant this variance. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Page -19- Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. January 14th, 1986 Mr. Landolf i - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstained Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal X68585, at the request of Matt Jordan, seeking a variance of §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zonin Ordinance to allow a sign with a 2 foot front setback (58 foot setback from west side of Route 9 )while 25 feet is required, being 15 foot in height while 10 foot maximum height is permittetd on property located on Route 9,_ and being Parcel X66157-02-597715, in the Town of Wappinger. Matt Jordan and Bob Ruit were present. Mr. Jordan stated, we were here last month and wnet through this request with the Board and we were asked if we could reconsider our request and reduce the number of feet from two foot to something larger from the front line. We submitted a new letter of request to you reducing it to 12 feet. 25 foot back there is a big tree there and I really would hat to take that down, it is a nice tree and the reason for the request is primarily that land drops off and there are alot of trees in the area and you would not be able to see the sign if it was all the way back and the second reason is because it drops off we asked for the sign to go up 5 additional feet, if not the sign would actually be below road level and wouldn't look very good. Mrs. Waddle stated, I don't have a problem with him going back 12 feet from the property line because it is 68 feet from Route 9. I don't even have a problem with the sign going up to 15 feet as long as if the Board is agreeable to give him the variance that it goes with his business and if another business goes in there the sign goes down and we reconsider it at that time because at that time there may be something that the State might want to do with Route 9 that goes back there could be a whole multitude of problem attached to the property at that time. So I wouldn't say it would be a variance for ever onward. It would be a variance while you are renting that building and while you are in there, it would be considered his variance. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would have to agree. I personally went up to the site and I have to agree, there is a problem there. Mrs. Waddle stated, I will so move that the variance be granted with the stipulation that if Mr. Jordan's lease on the building ceased that this will be reviewed, the variance will be reviewed at that time. Mr. Cortellino stated, I would prefer with your motion that the variance ceases. Mrs. Waddle stated, ceases and the new tenant would have to come in an re -apply for a variance if need be. I would include both signs in the front of the property and the back of the property, 2j x 2j. Mr. Ruit asked, I have a request in relation to the wording of this in that Comprehensive Business Services, in the future is there on an additional lease over and above the time Matt Jordan Real Estate is that we go with this approval. Mrs. Waddle stated, he is coming in for Matt Jordan Real Estate. Mr. Ruit stated, yes, I understand that but it has been submitted as an approved use for the 2 tenants. Page -20- January 14th, 1986 Mrs. Waddle asked, Mr. Jordan, you requested this variance, correct? Mr. Jordan answered, yes I did. Mrs. Waddle stated, than that is what we would have to hold it to. If Comprehensive Business Services, which is another concern, .... Mr. Ruit answered, right now it is part of Matt Jordan. Mrs. Waddle stated, as long as it is part of Matt Jordan you are under that umbrella. If Matt Jordan ceases to be there I would say you would have to come in because he is the applicant for the sign. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: Appeal 4865, at the request of Dr. Linda Kleinhenz, seeking a Special Use Permit of §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an optometrist office in her home on property located on 153 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel 46258-04-691374, in the Town of Wappinger. Dr. Linda Kleinhenz, 153 All Angels Hill Road. Dr. Kleinhenz stated, I would like to apply for a Special Use Permit to put an optometric office in my home in what is apparently the basement and the garage. At the same time I would like to add that space back onto the front of the house to not give up the garage as part of the house. Mr. Caballero asked, do you presently have a sign on your property saying that that is an optomotrist office? Dr. Kleinhenz answered, no. There was a discussion on a memo from the County. Mr. Landolfi asked, are you aware of the permit you will need to update the driveway and everything? Ms. Berberich stated that Bill Bathrick had called her and he would be sending a letter. Mr. Landolfi stated, I have no hang-up really but it says here also that the mailbox will have to be moved. Dr. Kleinhenz stated, we didn't put it there, it has been there since the house....... Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we have to send this to the Planning Board. Mr. Hirkala stated, naturally you are going to have to refer this to the Planning Board but I would like to comment on the fact that right next door is the one, SUP that was granted to Hannigan which is the next house. I can forsee problems coming in and out of Page -21- there. January 14th, 1986 Mr. Cortellino stated that that is the Planning Board's problem. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see maybe, perhaps, the submission to the Planning Board be added onto with, please pay special attention to the curb cut and the driveway access off the road. Mr. Cortellino added, and the parking. Mr. Hirkala added, from a planning view point. I have a problem with what Hannigan did next door. He has a little thing added on and I certainly hope he is going to finish it better than it is finished. I would look to some type of architectural look at what is going to be there. Prior to the granting of the SUP I would like to make sure that this is taken care of. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Hirkala, can I take that as a motion to refer this to the Planning Board subject to all the......... Dr. Kleinhenz stated, I am not sure why the stipulations about the driveway and the mailbox are here. I am just kind of curious this is the first I have heard of it. For one thing as I mentioned, the mailbox has always been there, it was there when we bought the house, and the second thing is, as far as the driveway is concerned, we really don't have any problem getting in or out. Visibility is rather reasonable. Mr. Landolfi stated, apparently the County felt, you may not have, but if you have people coming in and out of there it is not really the easiest driveway. Mr. Hirkala stated, we are looking at increased access, increased traffic. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think the Planning Board would have to address that. This is going to be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Railing stated, I just wanted to stated that what Bill Bathrick said it will say more in his letter that he really doesn't have a problem apparantely, he just wants to see some more detail. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Page -22- The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 P.M.. lb January 14th, 1986 Respectfully submitted, LACC-WL t Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals