Loading...
1985-02-12ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL FEBRUARY 12TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #790, at the request of Merritt Seymour seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a barn to replace a shed and a garage on a non -conforming lot located on Old Albany Post Road, being Parcel #6156-02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #791, at the request of Dr. Daniel J. Hannigan, seeking an interpretation of Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. LM ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297.6257 Memo To: Zoning Board From: Linda Berberich, Secretary Date: January 30th, 1985 Subject: Addition to the Agenda Please add the following: Appeal #793, at the request of the Town of Wappinger Planning Board seeking an interpretation of Section 473.3, page 82, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance regarding "required" percentage of parking lots landscaping. Is the: 10/ landscaping for 25 spaces or more considered a guideline or a fixed requirement. N Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 12th, 1985 Town Hall Mill Street Wapp. Falls, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, February 12th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Landolfi, Chairman Mr. Cortellino Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle Mr. Hirkala Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mrs. Pamela M. Farnsworth, Zoning Administrator Mr. Landolfi asked if the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they have according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Landolfi stated that before I go into the meeting, I would like to welcome our new member tonight, Michael Hirkala, welcome on board. I would appreciate it if everyone in the office extends the same courtesy that you have to everyone else in the past. And, on behalf of the Board, now that Mr. Urciouli is here, I would like to thank him for his contribution to the Board. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr. Urciouli.' from the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero -aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi btated that everyone, we will go through each appeal this evening, everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard. We may or may not render a decision this evening, either way you will be notified. Mr. Landolfi then asked if he could entertain a motion on the December Minutes. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the December Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero. Zoning Board Minutes -2- February 12th, 1985 Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstain The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was any additions or corrections to the January Minutes. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to accept the January Minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstain The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal: Appeal #790, at the request of Merritt Seymour seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a barn to replace a shed and garage on a non -conforming lot located on Old Albany Post Road, being Parcel #6156-02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of this appeal. There was no one. Mrs. Waddle stated that she thought we asked them to come back. Mr. Landolfi stated that he was supposed to come back. Mr. Landolfi then asked Ms. Berberich if she heard at all from them. Ms. Berberich answered no. Mr. Seymour was out of Town at the last meeting and his lawyer attended the meeting for him. Mr. Cortellino asked that a letter be sent out to Mr. Seymour stating that this will be finalized next month. Mrs. Farnsworth asked if it is appropriate when they are not here to hear both for and against. Mr. Landolfi stated that he will be asking for against in a minute. Mrs. Waddle stated that we had already had a public hearing. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that there has been some concern about the site. Zoning Board Minutes -3- February 12th, 1985 Outside this particular proposal, so when an adjacent property owner has expressed their concern about what other activities are going on on that site I told them that this was coming up tonight for discussion, and perhaps this information that the Zoning Board would like to have. Mr. Cortellino stated that the way I look at it, when we have a hearing, that is the time that everyone comes forward. If we hold over its not a hold over the hearing, its to get further information because from what we are told it is adverse to the appellant and we are not necessarily looking to clobber him but we are looking to help them out. However, if there is a rule in place I would waive it and let John Adams speak. Mr. Adams stated that I don't intend to speak on the merits if you are going to put this over until the next meeting. I would note that your minutes indicate that you are tablingq this until the next meeting, so I would think that implicit of that that would be an expectation on your part that the applicant is going to appear at this particular meeting. Mr. Caballero stated that this was tabled. Mr. Caballero made a motion that the public hearing beFopened again, on Appeal # 790, at the request of Merritt Seymour seeking a variance of Article IV Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. The motion was seconded 'by Mr. Cortellino. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino stated that he would not like the appellant to pay for another legal notice. But ordinarily in the Southern Dutchess News they have an article of what cases will be heard. I think we should write a letter to the Southern Dutchess News saying the public notice was in a couple of months ago, we would appreciate if when you get the Agenda of the Zoning Board that this be brought out in case there is someone else. Mr. John Adams for the firm of Courtley, Roland & Rappalyea for the adjacent property owner Metgam Corporation, Ira G. Hansen, President. Mr. Adams stated that I would object in the first instance to further adjournment of this matter. I think the minutes of the meeting that I would assume the remarks made at the last meeting mad6 quite clear that the applicant, that he was to appear at this meeting and produce Zoning Board Minutes -4- February 12th, 1985 some additional evidence. But analogize this to a court proceeding where you would ask for certain evidence, he has failed to produce it, therefore, he has defaulted. Our objection is phased in part upon the fact that my suspision that the Zoning Enforcement proceeding concerning the use of this land is being deferred until the outcome of this particular appeal. We had filed a complaint, Mr. Hansen has filed a complaint with the Zoning Enfortement�_Officer. I suspect the practice that has been observed in this Town continues to be observed, that is that the applicant was given the opportunity before you to cure his zoning violation and failing that the Zoning Enfor- cement procedures are observed. Obviously, if you delay this another month the situation which our client believes to objectionable, and to constitue a violation of your Zoning Ordinance or continue unabated for another month. For that reason we would object to any further adjournments in this matter. If you intend to decide tojadjourn. this matter again, I would not want to speak on the merits of the application because I would like to be present when the applicant is present to both hear his comments and respond to them. I think any remarks I would make in that situation would be §uperfluous at this time. Mrs. Waddle stated that he is not in violation of the Zoning Ordinance at this point. Mr. Adams stated that we allege that he is. He has two uses on a lot where only one use is permitted. Mrs. Waddle answered that we are not even considering that. That is not even before this Board. Mr. Adams stated that I understand that, but we have filed a complaint. Mr. Landolfi asked Mrs. Farnsworth if Mr. Adams formally file with you that we are lacking some information perhaps. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that this is additional information that I have. Mr. Adams presented the -Board with a letter (a -photo copy) of a letter submitted to the Zoning'- Enforcement Officer. Mrs. Waddle asked that the letter be read into the record. Mr. Landolfi then read the letter: This is to the Zoning Administrator dated ganuary 14th, 1985. The property located on Old Route 9 in Wappinger Falls adjacent to our industrial complex is creating an eyesore and isndefinately a detriment to the surrounding area. We attempt to maintain a neat and respectable place. The conditions that exists on this adjacent property were not there when we bought the land and did not exist in the past years. This has become a dumping ground for trucks, Zoning Board Minutes -5- February 12th, 1985 trailers, and other junk. As far as we know no permit has been maintained for it. We would appreciate any action that you take to correct this condition. Very truly yours, Metgam Corporation, R.G.R. Hansen, President Mr. Adams stated that I also have, if the Board wishes to review them, phptographs of the activity which was the sVbject of that letter. It is our clients contention that the activity that depicts the second use to that of the residential use and of course, the second use would not be a permitted use. Now again, I don't want to place you on the Enforcement Officer because that is not your role, but again, it is toy belief that so long as this appeal is pending in this condition is also going to continue because, I believe in sub- stance the applicant is attempting to cure his violation be consolidating his activity in a barn which we also believe to be impermissible, but that is addressing the merits, as opposed to the issue of whether or not you should further consider this at another meeting. Mr. Caballero stated that I don't think this complaint pertains to our, Ordinance he is seeking, but I would still like to take a look at the pictures. Mr. Ada�ns stated that it does. In this respect you have a provision in your Zoning Ordinance which, shall we say, being referred, regulates junkyard activity or activity..... Mrs. Waddle asked if he was incinuating that he has a junkyard. Mr. Adams stated that you have junkyard ordinance but you also have one in your Zoning Ordinance seperate provisions, if I recall correctly. Mrs. Waddle asked what are you alluding to the two uses that he has on that property. Mr. Adams answered that well of course the non -conforming use is a residential use and we believe that to be the primary use if you are going to look at the scope of the uses, if that is the primary use obviously that precludes the second use. Mrs. Waddle asked what the second use was. Mr. Adams answered that it is either commercial, industrial, or junkyard, whatever, anyone of the three. But, it is not residential. I do not believe that you can characterize the permanentt parking of vehicles such as this is consistent with a residential use. Mr. Cortellino asked if permanent parking is storage or continuous parking. Zoning Board Minutes -6- February 12th, 1985 V. Mr. Adams answered that continuous storage as opposed to driving in. Mr. Hansen is there almost on a daily basis and I am sure that he can tell you that these vehicles are apparently parked there they are not parked there on a transitory basis. Mr. Cortellino asked Mrs. Farnsworth what that was zoned. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that it is Planned Industrial - 1 Acre. Mrs. Waddle asked if that was the only trailer on the property. Mr. Adams answered that there are at least three of them. Mr. Cortellino asked if there was a regulation about having three unlicensed vehicles on the property is illegal. Mrs Farnsworth answered, one unregistered vehicle, adequately screened is permitted. Mr. Cortellino asked, so he has three. Mrs. Farnsworth answered, in my observation of the site, I was quite clear that there was at least one that was visible and unregistered. In other words, no adequately screened. But, since I did not walk onto the site... Mr. Cortellino stated that we also have another legal problem that Mr. Adams didn't bring out and that is if there is a violation on the property you can't consider giving a variance. Mrs. Waddle stated that we have not determined that there is a violation. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Adams, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but your clients contention is that we shouldn't grant a variance to the increase of the barn on that property due to in= proper use of the property. Mr. Adams answered that that is one of several reasons, yes. The other I think he was sort of articulated last time, the expansion of a non -conforming use. Mrs. Waddle stated that we asked him at that time to go back and see if the barn, if he would make the barn the same size as the buildings he has got there now, so it wouldn't become anymore non- conforming then it is already. And, even if there is some question as to violations on the property, I don't see how we could act on that tonight until the Zoning Administrator goes out and determines that there are indeed a violation so by that act, this would have to be tabled until the next meeting, until we have the information to deal with this subject. Zoning Board Mintytes -7- February 12th, 1985 Mr. Caballero stated that he disagrees. I think we can make a determination on the basis of the information we have received up to know. I think we have enough information on this case to make a determination, on the merits of the case, whether they are in violation or not has nothing to do with our purpose here. So, I am going to make a motion that this hearing be closed and that we take a vote. Mr. Landolfi stated that we are not the enforcers per say. Mrs. Waddle stated that we are not the enforcers, but since the question has come up if there are indeed violations on the property I think that should be cognizance of the fact that there are. Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Caballero, am I to interprate that last month we heard the case and we asked them to come back with infor- mation. He did not come back, therefore we will act on what we had last month. Mr. Caballero answered yes. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion to close the hearing. Vote; Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstain The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - nay Mr. Caballero stated that I will make a motion that on Appeal #790, at the request of Merritt Seymour seeking a variance of Article IV Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a barn to replace a shed and garage on a non- conforming lot located on Old Albany Post Road, Being Parcel #6156- 02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger be denied on the basis that it shows no hardships and it would show the property as less conforming as what it is now. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - abstained The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - abstained Mr. Hirkala stated that he would like to make a comment. In view of the fact that I wasn't present at the last meeting i feel it only proper that I do not vote, although I am in agreement with the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- February 12th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #791, at the request of Daniel J. Hannigan seeking an inter- pretation of Section 421 of the Town of wappinger Zoning Ordinance. John Hannigan was present. Mr. Caballero asked if we also tabled this hearing last time. Mr. Landolfi stated this was the appeal that we were waiting to hear from the Town Attorney. All this is is interpretation only. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Hannigan asked if he could just summarize what the intent is for the new Board member. Mr. Hannigan stated that we put forth a couple of proposals. There is a vacant, unused building on the property. The property is zoned for one use, professional, there is a veterinarian hospital on the property and what we would like to do is use the second building for... Mr. Cortellino stated that you said it is zoned professional, it is zoned R-20, that is a residential. You have a legal non -conforming use. Mrs, Farnsworth stated that it is a Special Use Permit for a veter- inarian hospital. Mr. Hannigan stated that I am not up on the terminology of the Zoning Board. The property is being used for veterinary use and we would like to use the second building for another professional use, which will in fact not change the appearance except to make it look better. It will be used, I don't know the profession it will be used for has any bearing on this. It is not veterinary, it is chiropractic, and we do not feel we are going to be adding a detriment to the neighborhood. The building right now is vacant and unused and we would like to use it. Mr. Cortellino stated that if I recall, years ago, there was a stipulation', that the old building was coming down upon completion of the new building. Mr. Hannigan stated that I have spoken to my father since the last meeting and he said that that is not the case. Mr. Caballero stated that I think they found that there was no such agreement made. Mr. Landolfi stated that apparently there might of been along the way some verbal agreements along the way. I think Mr. Hannigan, in fairness to your father, and I think which had a bearing perhaps on the decision of the Board, there decision, I believe, of course I am going back to 1977 here, was predicated on the removal of that building. Zoning Board Minutes -9- February 12th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino asked if there was also one residence on the property. Mr. Hannigan stated that there is a house, a residence on the animal hospital property. Both animal hospitals are on the same property. Mrs. Farnsworth brought down the aerial map. There was a discussion on the aerial map. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think if the Town wants to change the 10 acres for an animal hospital then they should wo that within the constraints of the Zoning Committee that they have now. I don't think that we should effectively rezone out there and grant variances, Mrs. Farnsworth stated that veterinarians have been known to take care of very large animals and very small animals and I think that in the practice of veterinarian medicine it has moved from doing either,or, and so a large parcel would certainly be needed for a large animal hospital. Mr. Caballero stated that I think what we are seeking here is an interpretation whether it is a professional or veterinarian use in that property. The intent, I believe, in Dr. Hannigan's part of it is called a professional use then you can say he can have two profess- ional or three professionals uses there on that property. If it is veterinarian use our Zoning Ordinance restricts only one use for that 10 acres. Our decision is basically to interprate whether it is a professional use or a veterinarian in that particular parcel. Mrs. Waddle stated that a veterinarian use is in place on that 10 acre parcel therefore, my interpretation would be that there is no other use permitted on that parcel of land as the Zoning Ordinance is written now. Mr. Caballero stated that I agree that it is a veterinarian use there but as far as other uses, the Board is interprating whether it is a professional use or a veterinarian use, I don't think we can go any further than that. If a majority of the Board feels that that is a veterinarian use, so state it, if it feels that it is a professional use, so state it. Mr. Cortellino stated that it is neither. I interprate it as -. the 10 acres is for a veterinary use. If that building is used for another purpose or even indeed another veterinarian I would question whether you could do it. Mrs Waddle stated that the interpretation is that there is a veterinarian use on that 10 acres of land therefore there is no other use permitted.on that property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino. Zoning Board Minutes Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. -10- February 12th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #793, at the request of the Town of Wappinger Planning Board seeking an interpretation of Section 473.3, page 82, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance regarding "required" percentage of parking lots landscaping. Is the 10/ landscaping for 25 spaces or more considered a guideline or a fixed requirement. Mr. Cortellino stated that he make a motion that its a fixed requi- rement. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye There was a discussion on parking spaces. Mr. Urciuoli was presented and asked if he could speak on the record. Mr. Urciuoli stated that he just wanted to come in and say thanks and good-bye. I made alot of new friends in the three years, Carol was intrumental in getting me on the ZBA way back, I would like to thank her. I would like to thank Charlie on giving me a lesson on what use means, and Joe for staying close by in final days there, again, Angel for being on my side, giving me a lesson on signs, and I would like to wish Mike all the luck. I think the Town has two very dedicated employees in Linda and Pam. I would like to think that they all really understand the amount of work that these two individuals or the amount of stress or grief they take during the course of a day, not only from us but from the appellants that come to them. I hope they don't loose them and I will see you all soon. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to adjourn the meeting. seconded by Mr. Cortellino. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was Zoning Board Minutes -11- February 12th, 1985 The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.. lb n Respectfully submitted, ti Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals