Loading...
1985-04-09ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL APRIL 9TH, 1985 - 8:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PLEASE:REVIEW MINUTES FOR ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS AND BE PREPARED TO VOTE ON THEM AT THE APRIL MEETING. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #795, at the request of Wallace F. Sutton, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 22 foot sideyard setback when a 25 foot setback is required on property located on 317 Myers Corners Road, being Parcel #6358-01-204584, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #794, at the request of Kathleen & Michael Schnorr, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 24 square foot sign at a zero (0) setback when a 25 foot setback from the front lot line is required, on property located on 240 Myers Corners Road, being Parcel #6258-02-754506, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #790, Merritt Seymour, request for a rehearing, 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. ZONING BOARD OF I TOWN OF WAPPIN TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YC TEL. 297-6257 Memo To: Zoning Board Members From: Linda Berberich, Secretary Date: April 2nd, 1985 Subject: Addition to the April 9th Agenda Please add the following: Eugene Pullo - Discussion on decks for the Hamlet, Spook Hill Road. lb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL APRIL 9TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET MINUTES WAPP. FALLS, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on April 9th, 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 Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator Mr. Landolfi asked if the abutting property owners were notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's office. Mr. Landolfi stated that we will go through each appeal, and give everyone an opportunity to be heard. We may or may not render a decision this evening. Mr. Landolfi then asked if he could have a recommendation on the minutes from the March 19th, 1985 meeting. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that they be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal: Appeal #795, at the request of Wallace F. Sutton, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 22 foot sideyard setback when a 25 foot setback is required on property located on 317 Myers Corners Road, being Parcel #6358-01-204584, in the Town of Wappinger. Fred Lates, Mr. Wallace's son in law was present. Mr. Lates stated that I have two things that I can show you. One is his neighbor on the side where the setback is being asked for has signed this and it has been notarized that he has no objection to this, and I do have a copy of the deed, the original deed on the property did state in it that the structures will not be within 20 feet of the boundries. The cement slab at the time was poured, at the time, for the garage and the garage is to be erected on top of the slab that is currently there. The slab is currently at 22 feet, which was there when the house was built. Mrs. Waddle asked when the house was built. Mr. Lates answered over 30 years ago. Page -2- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated that I am looking at the sketch, and I don't see, this is a garage correct. Mr. Lates answered that that is correct. Mr. Hirkala stated that the plans don't show a garage door. Mr. Lates stated that he didn't draw the front right. Thats what it will be. That is the current foundation layout. Mr. Hirkala stated that the material list doesn't include a garage door either. You are requesting a variance for a garage. Mr. Landolfi stated that what the major issue here is setback. Whether or not, he is lacking 3 feet as the information that is presented to us. Mr. Lates stated that the current slab which is there when the house was built is currently at 22 feet so he is just going to erect a wooden structure on top of it. It is just an open slab next to the house. The orginal blue prints for the house did have a garage anticipated. Mrs. Waddle asked if they ever built anything on top of the slab. Mr. Lates answered no. Mr. Cortellino asked if the slab was to the left of the house. Mr. Lates answered that is correct, on the side of the neighbor, Gustis Rapp. Mr. Cortellino asked why they waited 30 years to put in a garage. Mr. Lates answered that he didn't know. He can't answer that. Mr. Cortellino stated that he has no more questions, but I have one remark. I may not have an objection to a garage, but I do not wish to see cars outside it, and it moolighting for something else. If it is going to be a garage, we have to many garages which are not garages. Mr. Hirkala stated that he does not have any more questions, I do have a comment. This package that I am given, I am assuming that your father in law presented it, on the surface of it I think its, I don't think it is a bad request, what I don't like is the fact that this sketch shows that this thing is an addition on the house and not a garage and the material show this is an addition on the house and not a garage and he is asking for a variance to put a garage. I just think it is an insult to my integrity. Mrs. Waddle stated that is up to the building inspector to make sure that he puts up a garage, and if we give him a variance for a garage for 3 feet, he can put up a regular room. Mr. Landolfi stated that if in fact that we do grant a variance, it will be a garage and a garage only. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of this appeal. There was no one. Page -3- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was anyone to speak against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Landolfi announced that we will now close the appeal. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to grant the variance with the provisor that the garage shall be used solely for a garage and storage of garden implements, bicycles, and things like that, not residential or business or anything else. Even if there is a car parked out in the street there should be a clear space at least for the width of one car to get in there because it is for a garage and not for any other purpose. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Waddle. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #794, at the request of Kathleen & Michael Schnorr seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 24 square foot sign at a zero setback when a 25 foot setback from the front lot line is required on property located on240 Myers Corners Road, being PArcel #6258-02-754506, in the Town of Wappinger. Michael Schnorr was present. Mr. Landolfi stated that we have a letter from our lawyer, he then read the letter. It appears from the documents that have been supplied to me, the property is in an NB Zone which does not allow the type of business being conducted by the applicant. Accordingly, since the use of the property appears to be a use that is not allowed in such zone it would be inappropriate to grant the application to allow a sign on the premises. I believe that it would be appropriate for the applicant to legalize the zone and then if such applicant sees fit to apply for the relief presently requested, at which time the Board would be able to act on the merits of the application. Mr. Landolfi stated that when this first passed through us, it wasn't a consideration so much as, we understood, and we were all out to see where you were, there was a concern raised by Mr. Hirkala, if in fact we had taken action without investigating we would be creating a further problem. Mrs. Waddle stated that I don't think the problem was due to anything Mr. Schnorr had done since he did get permission from the previous Zoning Administrator and I don't think that he should be held responsible for the problem that it has created. At this point I am not in favor of granting the variance, but I think we should work with him to correct the situation. Mr. Hirkala stated that he checked with the Tax Accessor. The property, the question that came up at the last meeting was whether he fell under the new or old zoning ordinance and the possibility if there was subdivision in the old zoning ordinance for him to operate that business. I checked with the assessor and the deed registration date was April 16th, 1980. The date of passage of the new Zoning Ordinance is March 10th, 1980 which puts his use of the property, unless it was used for business puposes prior to that and illegally non -conforming in which case I don't know this and I can't find it within the perview of the new Zoning Ordinance. The comment was made Page -4- April 9th, 1985 that he had been operating this business out of that property since he had bought that property. Mr. Schnorr stated that since I moved there which was August of 1979. Mrs. Waddle stated that she did not think it was legal at that time either. Mr. Hirkala stated that it wasn't legal at that time then to operate that business. You were in a zone that was a commercial zone quote "commercial" but it was more specifically a NB ZOne which did not allow plumbing contractor to be using it as such. So when you came to the Planning Board last year, you should have been told this, that was a mistake on the part of the then Zoning Administrator. She should have reviewed it and found right then and there that you were not in conformance. Mrs. Waddle stated that it is not Mr. Schnorr's fault. Mr. Hirkala stated that it is his fault to a certain extent in the fact that he didn't have the proper advice at the time. Mrs. Waddle stated that he came to the proper official. Mr. Hirkala stated in 1984, but he has been operating since 1979. Mr. Landolfi stated that he went through the proper channel, someone there should have picked it up when he built that, he did all he was told to do. Mrs. Waddle stated this problem was not really all his fault because he came through i the proper channels and I think we should work to help him get into a situation where he is legal at this point in time since we as the Town did make a mistake in giving him the wrong information. Mr. Hrikala stated that I agree with you to a certain extent. The fact is that this Board can't do anything to make him legal. The Town Board has to do something to make him legal. Mr. Schnorr asked what he had to do. Mr. Cortellino stated that the only one who can re -zone is the Town Board. Mr. Schnorr stated that I was given a sheet of paper saying that any signs to be located on the site for a building shall conform to the requirements of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinace unless a variance is first obtained. So, this says that I can go back there and put a sign up where the Zoning Board says I can put a sign up. Mrs. Waddle answered no. What the Town Zoning Ordiance says, not what we say, we are the Board of Appeals. You came to us because you wanted to put a sign at a zero setback. I don't think the Board is going to allow you to do that since you are really not in conformance in that area. What we will do is, if the Board members agree, we will write a letter to the Town Board telling them you predicament and seeing what we can do to get you into a legally conforming position so that you can come back and re -apply to put a sign closer to the road. Mr. Cortellino added that while you are in an illegal situation, a variance cannot be granted. Page -5- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated that legally we can't act on an application for something that has to do with something that is illegal to start with. Unfortunately, this illegality should have been caught last year. When you came in for site plan approval in 1984, and it was kicked out and a request was made and it went to the Zoning Administrator, she should have researched this and found out that you were illegal then. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that this Board write a letter to the Town Board telling then of Mr. Schnorr's predicament and of the advice of the previous Zoning Administrator, had given him and asking them to grant him some relief. Mr. Cortellino asked if he could add to that. I would remind the Town Board that M&G Sanitation, when they went into Hughsonville, had come to the Town and went through all the proper procedures, and then when it was denied, it went to court and the judge said, true, you acted rightly, but since he had done everything and been advised that he could do, they found for M&G Sanitation. Mrs. Waddle stated that is why I want this to go through the Town Board because I think since the Town made a mistake, I think the Town should rectify the mistake. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that the variance be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino due to the fact that it is not our proper business to review at this point. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi stated to Ms. Berberich that we will make ourselves available if they need any additional information. Mr. Hirkala suggested that the next best thing to do would be for Mr. Schnorr to contact the Secretary to the Supervisor and request a discussion on the agenda with the Town Board as soon as possible and request relief from them as soon as possible. Mrs. Waddle stated that maybe we should take that into a workshop session, so that the Zoning Board could explain to the Town Board exactly what happened and invite him to the workshop session. Mr. Landolfi read the next item: Appeal #790, Merritt Seymour, request for a re -hearing, 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 46156-02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger. Page -6- April 9th, 1985 Merritt & Meridith Seymour were present. Mr. Landolfi stated that this case was heard back on February 12th, 1985, Mrs. Seymour stated that they have it down as a barn, it is a garage that we want to put up not a barn. Mr. Seymour stated a pole building. Mrs. Waddle asked why they need a pole building for a garage, that is kind of a monsterous building. Mr. Seymour answered that what we have now is almost the square footage that I want to replace. The one I had was falling down and we want to update the place. Mr. Landolfi stated that before we get into this, let me just explain. Now, the Board has made a decision concerning your case. The Board does not have to rehear this case. We feel legally we were justified in the decision that we made at the time based on the evidence that we had before us. If you convince the Board, and then we will vote on whether or not we should reopen. It is not an automatic thing. If you feel that you can present some additional information perhaps that was not presented earlier, or convince us of some reason that we should rehear, it may be the perogative of the Board not to have another rehearing on this case. Mr. Seymour stated that he does not get the point why they turned it down. We paid for the permit and we were told everything was alright. Mr. Hirkala asked who he talked to to get the building permit. Mr. Seymour answered the lady upstairs. Mrs. Farnsworth told me on two occasions, no problem with it. The lady who sits just as you walk in the door in the building dept. on the right, we gave her the prints. She was going to mail the permit out the next day. In the meantime, we went to the expense of tearing the building down and I cancelled the contract which cost me $500.00. Mrs. Seymour stated that was why things were lying around, because we took that building down. Mr. Seymour went on to say that when I came to the meeting that night, Mrs. Farnsworth put us on the meeting for December you had no papers on it. Mr. Cortellino stated that when you come in and request a structure, you pay a fee for the building permit. That does not mean the building permit gets issued because that building permit, the request for the building permit is going to the building inspector, Zoning Administrator looks at it and then it is issued. Where you made a mistake is because you paid the fee for the building permit you presumed that the building permit would be......... Mrs. Seymour stated that we were told that the bulding permit would be in the mail the following day. Mr. Hirkala asked who told them that. Mr. Seymour answered the lady who sits at the desk. Page -7 - April 9th, 1985 Mr. Seymour stated that the building inspector was there. They looked these prints over, I had a copy of this plot plan.... Mr. Landolfi stated that you are assuming sir, like Mr. Cortellino said that that is the green light to go ahead. Mr. Seymour stated that he is not assuming, they told me. Mr. Hirkala stated you are saying they, you are talking about..... Mr. Seymour stated the lady who sits.... Mr. Hirkala stated that she is a secretary, she has no power to tell you that you had a building permit. Mrs. Seymour stated that she got her orders, she kept going into the back room... Mr. Seymour stated that she kept going in the back room, she came out and she says no problem because I am replacing these old buildings that are falling down with one new building. Mr. Landolfi stated that that is contrary to what Mrs. Farnsworth said in a letter to you. I know what she has in writing and that is quite contrary. There is apparently a contradiction somewhere. Mr. Seymour stated that I have like 70,000square feet of property and I am asking to put a 900 foot garage up. Mr. Landolfi stated that she made it clear she has to reject your application. I would prefer taking in writing what I have in front of me from her as opposed to hear say. I think the issue concerns whether or not we are going to make it a more non- conforming lot than it is already was one of the concerns. Mr. seymour asked how are you making it more non -conforming. Mr. Landolfi asked if he recalled this letter at all. We are trying to understand the facts and we made a decision on the facts that were presented to us. If there are other facts.... Mrs. Waddle asked what type of business they were running on this property. Mrs. Seymour stated that my sone has one truck, that is why we bought the place. Mrs. Waddle asked how many trucks are on the property. Mr. Seymour answered that there is one tractor trailer, and there are about 10 down back of me. There will be one tractor trailer that is all. Mrs. Waddle asked the ten are on your property. Mr. Seymour answered yes, that is why we bought the property. Mrs. Waddle asked if the ten trucks are in running condition. Mr. Seymour answered, no that is in back of me. That is not ours, we only have one. Page -8- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated that he would like to say for the record that I was there this afternoon, there were two tractors in the driveway, there was a box, mid -way in the property that looked like no plates on it, and there was a flat bed parked in the woods in the back in between the IBM builing and I am assuming that is your property. That is what I observed, plus two cars, one unregistered, and one had plates on it and I couldn't determine if it was a car registration next to the house next to the access route......., plus the fact that on the garage there is a sign that says some name, trailer rental, sales & rentals..... Mrs. Seymour stated that that is the garage that is coming down. Mr. Seymour stated that there is no car that is not registered. Mrs. Seymour stated that we like a nice place. We want to fix the place up. Mr. Seymour stated that there is going to be one truck in there, if you notice the signs, the other one is going to go, it is sold, it is not going to be there. There is only one tractor trailer. Mr. Hirkala asked if they wanted the garage to be able to pull the tractor in to service it. Mr. Seymour answered that is it. Mr. Hirkala stated so in other words, you want to be able to use the garage so that he can service the tractor inside the garage. Mr. Seymour answered that is right. Mr. Hirkala stated and he is in business for himself. Mrs. Seymour answered that is right. Mrs. Waddle stated that they did request a pole barn. Mr. Seymour stated that he would change it if that is not what you want. Mrs. Waddle went on to say that the building inspector never signed it. The fee was $33.00. Mrs. Waddle asked if they were just going to put cars in that building. Mrs. Seymour answered that we have a car, my son has a car, he has a pick up truck. Mr. Seymour stated that there are no cars there that don't have licenses on. Mrs. Waddle stated that they are in a non -conforming area. Mrs. Seymour stated that they changed that zoning and they never sent us a letter, we never came to a meeting that that zoning was being changed. Mr. Hirkala stated that that zoning ordinance was re-hashedand tossed around for almost ten years. There were at least four full paged printings. Page -9- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Seymour stated we want to replace a garage and a building, what do we have to do to do it. Mrs. Waddle asked that you want to replace the garage that is there now. Mr. Seymour answered yes, it is in very bad shape. Mrs. Waddle stated that she did not have a problem with them replacing a garage as long as you replace it the same size that it is now. Mr. Seymour stated that he wants to put up a 30 x 30, two car garage. Mrs. Waddle asked what the size was that he has now. Mr. Seymour answered about 21 feet. Mr. Hirkala stated that that constitutes the use of business. You are using it as a residence or you are using it as a business, which are you going to use the property. Mrs. Seymour answered both. Mr. Hirkala stated that now we have a problem. Mr. Seymour stated that we bought the place because it was commercial and we could the truck on it. Mrs. Waddle asked if they had an attorney when they closed on that property. Did he advise you of what exactly you could do on that property. Mr. Seymour answered that is why we bought it, because we keep the trucks on it, thats all. If we couldn't keep the trucks we would have never bought it. Mr. Hirkala stated that it is his opinion that if we opened up this hearing again, and rehear it, what we are going to be asked to do is once again grant a variance on a non -conforming use which would allow two uses on a piece of property. I think we are putting ourselves into another ball park again. Mrs. Waddle stated that if he wants to replace the garage with the same size, I don't have any objections. Mrs. Seymour stated that our son is mostly on the road with that truck. Mr. Seymour asked if the persons across the street is different. Mrs. Waddle stated that it could be another zone. Mr. Cortellino stated that somewhere there has to be a boundry line. On one side of the boundry line could be one thing and on the other something else. Mr. Hirkala stated that the point is that the potential is there for us to grant a use and then for another use. There are two residences on that property. If that property is being used as a residence right now, it is not in our perview to grant you use to use it for another purpose. And if we grant you an oversized buidling which has a potential for being used for a commercial use and you say you want to use it for commercial use. Page -10- April 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated that where the man has his pool place, where you are saying the trucks are, where you are saying there are factories, those people are not living as residential people. Mr. Seymour stated yes they do. They live there, they have their equipment there, they weld there, fuel tanks there. Mr. Hirkala stated that if somebody else is illegal, that doesn't make you any more legal. Mr. Seymour stated that he is in the middle of all of this. Mrs. Waddle stated that if you just want to use this for your cars, I don't see why you just can't replace the building that is there because it is in such bad condition. Mr. Seymour stated that he wants to make it bigger so that I can put my lawn mowers, and everything in there. Mrs. Waddle stated that we are not going to let you make it bigger. Mr. Seymour stated that I want it so that I can run a truck in the garage. I am not trying to hide anything here. Mrs. Waddle stated that you are in a zone that you can not legally expand that, you can use what you have or replace what you have but you are legally non -conforming at this point and you can't make it more non -conforming. Mr. Cortellino stated that in view of the fact that he does not have to come before the Board if he wishes to replace the existing builidngs with the same amount of square feet and we won't draw the line, he can use any architecture. If there is a complaint that it is old or whatnot, I don't care if it is built tutor, if it is built glass or very modernistic, I will forgo that and it has to be replaced identical, he has that option, if he does not want that option, I move that we do not re -open the hearing, because that option he does not have to appear before us. Mrs. Seymour stated that there is a building in back of that garage, if you are going to do that include , they told us to go ahead and tear the building down, so we did,... Mrs. Waddle stated that she can find nothing here that says that you were ever permitted to do anything there, you made applications for a building permit. From what I can see is they conducted an investigation to see what was going on out there and what zone you were in and they never issued a permit. Until you got that building permit you shouldn't have gone and torn down anything. Mr. Seymour stated that in other words, I cannot build a garage. Mrs. Waddle stated that you can build a garage the same size the same size that is there now. You can tear that one down and rebuild it if you wish. How big was the building that you tore down. Mr. Seymour answered that the building itself was around 14 foot and also it was built into the garage. Also from the shed to the garage, I mean the two buildings I had shedded over, so we are loosing that space to. Page -11- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated that it says right here in the minutes, of January 8th, a 20 x 20 garage and a 12 x 12 shed. Mrs. Waddle stated that if we voted to reopen this hearing, I am of the opinion we couldn't give him anymore than 23 x 23. Mr. Hirkala stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that you can't enlarge unless it is a service or retail business. Mrs. Waddle stated that in a non -conforming area, I think if he .... us to keep it less non -conforming than more non -conforming, and I don't have a problem with him replacing what he has there now but I am certainly not going to vote to give him a 900 foot square garage. Mr. Cortellino stated that right now it could be a 23 x 23, maybe we could go with a 25 x 25, which would be a little larger, but not 900. Mr. Seymour asked if they will give him a 25 x 25. Mrs. Waddle stated that we have to have a rehearing. Mr. Cortellino answered that we are first discussing. Mr. Cortellino stated to Mr. Hirkala, he has 544 right now, including the shed. If we give him permission to go 25 x 25 that would be 625, just slightly more than what is kw being replaced, are you willing to go along with that. If you are, then we will have.... Mr. Hirkala answered that I am willing to go along with that except for the fact that I have got a problem with there being two residences plus the tractor trailer being used on the property. Mr. Cortellino stated that right now all we are concerned about is not the bussinesses per say, or what has transpired. We are discussing replacement of the buildings. In other words lets say that everything else is the same....... Mr. Hirkala stated that if we give him 625 feet, what is the height restriction on the building. He could put a two story building in there. I have a problem with eyesore today, and there is also a file from the past Zoning Administrator that you were requested to clean up the area, and I don't know if it was cleaned up or not, all I know is what I saw today. Mr. Landolfi stated there is an order to remedy. There apparently unlicensed vehicles unscreened and dumping of debris, tires and other materials. Mr. Hirkala stated that the rear of the property, there is a big dump. something is in there, and I don't know what it is, it is covered with a green tarp. Mr. Seymour stated that that is some of the stuff we took out of the building and stored it there when we tore it down. We had all that stuff stored in the back of the garage. There are no cars there that are not licensed. Mr. Cortellino stated that we want in writing that the Zoning Administrator can go in anytime, at reasonable times, during a normal working day, or early evening, and inspect the property. The most you would have to do is give a phone call and say I am coming over, something like that until we see what is going on. Page -12- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Seymour stated that you are welcome there anytime you want. Mr. Kriegsman stated that I heard the gentleman say a trailer, what is the height of the truck. A residential garage, the tops you are going to use is maybe an 8 foot door in height. Mrs. Waddle stated that this is not a residential area, it is a Planned Industry and they are using it as residential, that is where the problem comes in. Mr. Cortellino stated that so far, it looks like we are willing to go along with 25 x 25, but there should be another restriction would be we give a height restriction of what would be a normal. Mr. Kriegsman stated that you are dealing with an 8 foot ceiling, you go to a truck, you have a minimum body height of 12 feet. Mr. Hirkala stated that I suspect that is why he wanted a pole barn to start with. Mrs. Waddle stated that from this letter, David Seymour. Mr. Seymour stated that that is my son. Mrs. Waddle went on to say that he was going to have this cleared up by the first part of April. He says that requested by telephone, a letter stating that we will remedy any violation of dumping law. We will do our best to have this cleared up by the first part of.... Mrs. Seymour stated that it is clear down there compared to some of the other places. Mr. Seymour stated that the only thing that is back there is stuff that we took out of the building, put back there until we get the building, get the new building up. This gentleman was there today, he could probably tell you. Did you see any violations there. Mr. Hirkala answered yes. Mr. Seymour asked what. Mr. Hirkala answered the tractor trailer, a violation, flatbed violation. They are, the book says it. Mr. Seymour stated that it is commercial property, We bought it under the condition that we can take the truck there, or we wouldn't have bought it. We don't want to open up a business, although everyone else on the street does. How about N&S, are they different than us to. Mrs. Waddle answered yes, they are. Mr. Seymour asked in what way. Mrs. Waddle stated they don't live there. They are a regular commercial. Mrs. Seymour stated no, they have money. Mr. Seymour stated, I guess we cannot get a permit, right. Page -13- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino made a motion that we do not re open this hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hirkala. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi stated that just so you understand what your options are right now. Mr. Seymour stated that he is not trying to be smart. I appreciate what you are trying to do but I can't get this through my head. Mr. Landolfi stated that we don't make the laws, we are just trying to make adhere to the laws only, we are trying to help you. We have facts here, we are sitting here, we are trying to be helpful where we can. The law only permits us to go so far, and some of the recommendations we were making was to put you within the law so you are not again more non -conforming. Mr. Seymour stated that all I wanted to do was build a two car garage. Mrs. Waddle answered that you can. You can replace what you have there, any shape, staying in within the square footage without coming here. Now, I would just like to take one more minute to tell you what is allowed in Planned Industry. Any non residential use permiteed in the OR -10A district as permitted therein. Now OR -10 A district is a permitted use. Executive and Administrative offices for business, government, or professional use. Scientific reasearch, engineering or design laboratories, manufacturing, assembling or processing of goods providing that all equipment materials and all activities should be stored in a fully enclosed building. It does not say anything about residential use and the property that you are in. You have 2 homes there, you can't have a business there to. If you had a business there then you would have to live somewhere else. And that is as clearly stated as we can. Now you are non -conforming you have a right to live there as you do know, the only thing that you can do. We cannot allow you to be more non -conforming we have to try to bring the property in that district more into conformity. So, if you want to build a garage the same size that you now, the square footage that you have now, you are at liberty to do so. We are not preventing you from doing that. What we are preventing you from doing is expanding a non -conforming use. Mr. Seymour stated that I ma really not running a business out of there. Mrs. Waddle stated that it doesn't matter, you are still non -conforming. If you had a business there and you weren't living there you wouldn't have a problem because you are in Planned Industry. Since you are living there as a residential area, you have a problem because you are non -conforming. Mr. Seymour stated that the only thing that I would ask different, if you say I have 25 foot. Mr. Hirkala stated that it cannot be any bigger than this. Mrs. Seymour stated that I thought you said it could be 25 x 25. i u n r Page -14- April 9th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi answered no, we didn't. Mr. Hirkala stated that I don't want you to leave here with the wrong impression. What we do at this board is based on what the book says. We don't say what is or what isn't, the book says what is or what isn't. You come before this board for an opinion of what this book says, and that is exactly what we are doing. Mr. Landolfi stated that you can go ahead and build to replace that garage without coming in to us provided that it is a replacement of what you have got. Mr. Seymour asked about the building in the back, can I replace that. Mrs. Seymour asked, can we include the space of the shed that came down. Mrs. Waddle asked when the shed came down. Mr. Seymour answered right after we were told we were going to get the building permit. Mr. Landolfi stated that they thought they were going to get the building permit. Mr. Cortellino stated that a total of 544 square feet, and no higher than what the other building was. Mr. Landolfi told the Seymours what there options were. Mr. Landolfi stated that we have one more thing. Who would like to be a delegate for the Dutchess County Planning Federation. Mr. Cortellino stated that you can put me down. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Landolfi. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Caballero - absent at time of vote: The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M.. lb The motion was seconded by Respectfully submitted, c Linda Berberich, ecretary Zoning Board of Appeals