Loading...
2006-02-28 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 28, 2006 ~ Agenda Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MEETING DATE: February 28,2006 TIME: 7:30 PM Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Approve site minutes for February 18, 2006. Adjourned Public Hearing: Appeal No. 05-7285 O'Connor Subdivision -Seeking an area variance of Section 217-21 (D) of Subdivision Regulations in an R-40 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing access to an adjacent privately maintained road for a new lot being created. The property is located at 335 Cedar Hill Road & Johnson Place and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6256-01-457875 in the Town of Wappinger. ........ Appeal No. 05-7289-7290-7291-7292-7293 228 Myers Corners, LLC - Seeking an Interpretation of the Zoning Administrator's letter of determination dated December 6,2005 for the currently proposed uses of the NB portion of the site. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. -Where a side yard setback of 20 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 13.6 feet to allow for an existine metal shed, thus reQuestine a variance of 6.4 feet. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 & 240-67 A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. -Where a lot size of 3 acres is required for motor vehicle use in buildine # 1, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres, thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70. A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. - Where a lot size of 2 acres is required for a proposed use in buildine # 3, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres, thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70. A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. - Where a lot size of 2 acres is required for the proposed use in buildiDl! # 2, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres, thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. The property is located at 228 Myers Corners Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6258-02- 702520 in the Town of Wappinger. Public Hearings: Appeal No. 06-7295 Trans Star Enterprises- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-53B (4) of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District. -Where a minimum lot area of 2 acres is required, the applicant is proposing a lot size of 1.484 acres, thus reQuestine a variance of .516 acres. ......... ......... ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 28, 2006 -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70C of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District. - Where the location of overhead doors shall not face any street, the applicant is proposing the doors on the existin2: buildin2: to stay. thus reQuestin2: a variance be 2:ranted on this existin2: condition. The property is located at 783 Old Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-04-531030 in the Town of Wappinger. Appeal No. 06-7296 Robert Mutsheler -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-40 Zoning District. - Where the code states.. .in no case shall Accessorv Structures be permitted in the front yard the applicant requests a variance for a shed in the front yard in the size of 12 X 24 feet. The property is located at 6 Cauda Lane and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-03- 265178 in the Town of Wappinger. ....... Appeal No. 06-7297 Mr. & Mrs. Surjit SiD1'~h- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-40/80 Zoning District. - Where a rear yard setback of 50 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a rear yard setback of 35 feet to allow for a 20 X 25 foot 2-storv addition. thus reQuestinl! a variance of 15 feet. - Where a side yard setback of 25 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 22 feet to allow for a 20 X 25 foot 2-storv addition. thus reQuestinl! a variance of 3 feet. The property is located at 2005 Route 9D and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6056-02- 673816 in the Town of Wappinger. Discussions: Appeal No. 06-7299 John De2nan - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an HD Zoning District. - Where a rear yard setback of 300 feet is required, the applicant is proposin2: a rear yard setback of 260 feet to allow for a pre-existing condition, thus reQuestin2: a variance of 40 feet. The property is located at 1708 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-02-543530 in the Town of Wappinger. '"" 2 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MINUTES "-" Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals February 28, 2006 Summarized Minutes Members Present: Mr. Prager, Ms. McEvoy-Riley Mr. DellaCorte, Mr. Warren, Absent: Mr. Fanuele, Others Present: Mr. Caviglia, Mrs. Lukianoff, Mrs. Roberti, ........ Page 1 Minutes of February 28,2006 ~~iA\~1 Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY i\HNUTES APPFiOVED ! ' ." c; '".'.2~ ...,\ (', /_'<1 " ....-..---.,/ Vice-Chairman Member Member Member Chairman Special Counsel Zoning Administrator Secretary SUMMARY Adiourned Public Hearine: O'Connor Subdivision 228 Myers Comers Road Public HeariDl!: Trans Star Enterprises Robert Mutsheler Mr. & Mrs. Singh Discussions: John Degnan "-" -Variance granted with conditions. -Adjourned to March 28, 2006 -Variances granted. -Variance granted. -Variance granted. .Public hearing on April 11, 2006. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 2 Minutes of February 28,2006 ........ Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Vote: Motion to approve Site Minutes for February 18, 2006. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Appeal No. 05-7285 O'Connor Subdivision -Seeking an area variance of Section 217-21 (D) of Subdivision Regulations in an R-40 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing access to an adjacent privately maintained road for a new lot being created. The property is located at 335 Cedar Hill Road & Johnson Place and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6256-01-457875 in the Town of Wappinger. Present: Joel Hanig Jon Adams Thomas O'Connor Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Vote: Motion to open the adjourn public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Mr. Hanig: Gave copy of highlights of road maintenance agreement to the board. There will be a road pull-off of 12 X 50 feet. Mr. Jon Adams has a maintenance agreement prepared and ready for signatures of the surrounding property owners. I believe this document touches on all the highlights that this board wanted to see. '-"" Mr. Prager: Mr. Adams this is the document that we are talking about? Mr. Adams: Yes. We just need to insert some additional language to finalize it. I would recommend if the board so defers to simply delegate that this is really a legal issue and defer this to their counsel and approve anything that he deems acceptable. Mr. Caviglia: I still need to look at this. Mr. Hanig: This still needs to go back to the planning board as one of the conditions ofthe subdivision approval. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Our main concern was the turn around but in previous statements you also offered your property as a turn around. Mr. Prager: It is on the new revision as a 12 X 50 feet pull-off and again that is the mInImum. Mr. O'Connor: The driveway will actually be 24 X 70 feet. Mr. Hanig: There will also be a 12 foot road with shoulders on either side. The document does say that there will be 3 foot shoulders on either side. ........ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Prager: ........ Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Roll Call: Page 3 Minutes of February 28,2006 Is there anyone in the audience with a comment or question? Hearing none. Motion to close the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to grant the variance with the following two conditions: 1. They need to satisfy the maintenance agreement and it needs to be signed by all the parties and also 2. a 12 X 50 foot pull-offto be installed. With that in place I don't feel it will be undesirable nor will it cause any adverse environmental conditions although it is self-created. Second the motion. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Mr. Prager: Aye. Aye. Aye. Appeal No. 05-7289-7290-7291-7292-7293 228 Myers Corners. LLC - Seeking an Interpretation of the Zoning Administrator's letter of determination dated December 6, 2005 for the currently proposed uses of the NB portion of the site. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. -Where a side yard setback of 20 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 13.6 feet to allow for an existine metal shed. thus reQuestine a variance of 6.4 feet. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 & 240-67 A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. -Where a lot size of 3 acres is required for motor vehicle use in buildine # 1, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres. thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70. A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. - Where a lot size of 2 acres is required for a proposed use in buildine # 3, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres. thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70. A of District Regulations in an NB Zoning District. -Where a lot size of 2 acres is required for the proposed use in buildine # 2, the applicant is proposing a total lot size of 3.6 acres. thus reQuestine a combined variance of 3.4 acres. The property is located at 228 Myers Corners Road and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6258-02- 702520 in the Town of Wappinger. ........ 1 MR. PRAGER: 3 4 5 6 ........ Next appeal. We have had a little confusion here tonight. One of our members had called earlier and said that he was in Jersey City, he could possibly make the meeting. He called me in Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals "'" 8 9 11 12 16 17 MR. Warren: MS. RILEY: MR. PRAGER: MR. WALSH: 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ........ 10 11 12 MR. CA VIGLIA: 14 MR. WALSH: 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. CA VIGLIA: 24 MR. WALSH: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ........ Page 4 Minutes of February 28,2006 the office there and said it does not look like he's going to make it. We'd like to go ahead with the variance and even though possibly we cannot vote on it tonight. Could I have a motion to reopen the public hearing n the adjourned public hearing? So moved. Second. All in favor? So carried. I promise by the next meeting I will have two files. In the interest of both brevity and making things simpler, I want to address the Board on a couple of issues that came up last time. I want to ascertain whether or not a discovery has been made in terms of what the Town Board did relative to my preparation last time, which you may recall highlighted the change in the Town Law in September of '01, specifically took motorcycle retail facility . made a motorcycle shop a retail facility. No, we haven't turned that up yet. I did what I did. I went to the Town Board and Freedom of Information Act their entire file. I met with the Town Clerk on Friday and on Monday. Indeed the Town did change it's law that day. I'm perfectly prepared to read the sixty seven pages. Do you have a copy? Yes, I do. I have the SEQRA findings also on that change in the law. The change in the law was done as part of an omnibus change that was done in 2001. I'll read a couple of things to correct typographical errors, clarified various definitions with reference to undersized lots, reading the implementation of wetland Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 5 Minutes of February 28,2006 ........ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 regulations, authorization for accessory apartments. Clarify interpretation of motor vehicle sales establishments, et cetera, goes on. They went through an exhaustive, a whole stack of pages just on that, and then they did .an administrator wasn't here then either, Town Clerk wasn't here. Then he was amazed to see what was in there. The building inspector said, I'm not surprised, when he saw that. What that means, it may make things an awful lot simpler, as far as just the one issue is concerned, that's the issue affected by appeal number one, which is basically asking you to reinterpret Tanya's written opinion, that the motor vehicle shop such as this one needs a special use permit and needs a certain big area. I'm saying now, it doesn't, and the law is very different. The law was changed explicitly on that point. They made a mistake in the law too, which limits what we can do. They added two sections, 240-67 and 240-70. They dealt with the issue of motorcycle sales, sales of motorcycles, not repair shops. Now the sales will be treated as a retail use and provided that it meets all the other criteria of this section, which means less than five thousand square feet, no outdoor sales, notwithstanding anything else in here, they took out the requirement for minimum acreage in 240-67. In 240-70, that they rewrote the whole section. Instead of saying motor vehicle repair shops, they repeated the same thing, motor vehicle sales. To be honest with you, I believe they were trying to do something in terms of repairs. They used the wrong word. I teach this stuff. They made a mistake, no question, they did. I can't ask you ........ '- 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ~ 3 4 5 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 6 Minutes of February 28,2006 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to determine that, that's not your determination. I asked Mr. Schwartz, because Miss Riley asked questions, Counsel mentioned that before. He put in different applications. What are you going to do? I asked Mr. Schwartz specifically, this lS what I believe we have. Respectfully, you can have a motorcycle sales facility, retail facility there under the current law without anything else whatsoever. Not a repair shop, even though they meant to deal with it, they used one word wrong when they rewrote the law. I am going to tender to the board and everybody else here a letter I received from Mr. Schwartz today. In it I asked him to clarify, who's the partner, how the business is going to be run. He's binding, the one employee. He says in the letter, we'll not operate a motorcycle repair facility. We'll sell motorcycle equipment for sale. Which as a retail use, which I've been advised is a principle permitted use in the NB zone, which it is. It says, the 240-67, such sales will be regulated as retail use. It's a principle permitted use. No special use permits, nothing. He said, we'll adhere to the requirements of the Town Noise Ordinance governs permissible noise on the premise. We'll not travel the premises at all by motorcycle. That's the same. They're clearing up the three issues. We have accepted, this as far as not intended as a deal, in end all. I'm dropping the appeal. The last one, okay, the last one, that's the one that deals with the appeal, that the section of the law says that we don't need the minimum lot requirements. Of the two acres? We don't need it at all. The only thing we need you to do, and hopefully by that time maybe MS. RILEY: MR. WALSH: ~ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 7 Minutes of February 28,2006 ........ Counsel and everybody can meet and make the decision, she may have been in the same position I was. I didn't see the first time I read it, because it wasn't in my zoning book. The book I had was 2004, 240-67 wasn't published until the end of 2004. I looked at both books, holy crap, look at that, that's in there. It wasn't in the first one. None of the other things were there. They haven't integrated in there, a lot of towns have the pocket parts and here you bind a new book. The book wasn't bound. We had protested specifically and originally interpretation, because we know that's what it says, that section of law is extremely clear. First of all, let me give you a copy of the letter that we're filing which is.I'Il sign one so it conforms to everybody else. This letter is to amend the appeals application amending by deleting the last insert. Concerning appeal 05-7289, I've had the opportunity to read the one hundred fifty page file in there and take the key sections out for the attorney to take a look at. It's pretty specific what it is. Reading the fourth paragraph, defines it specifically are to be considered a retail use .-I'm leaving the first appeal. That's what that is. I'm deleting the last one. Since that meeting on, as you know in the letter, I passed up. Ours and the boards request -read the last paragraph. We contend that's the permitted applicable use. The appeal 05-7293 is respectfully withdrawn. We have the appeals that deal with the shed. The appeal that deals with the continuation of the business in the front, which the Town Attorney, not 17 19 21 23 24 25 2 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 ........ 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 u'-' Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 8 Minutes of February 28,2006 ........ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 your counsel, but Mr. Roberts, has already said is a grandfathered business. The material I gave you and at the Planning Board meeting in December and January made that very clear. Your counsel can double check with him. When he says that, he means also that the area is grandfathered, it's not bigger than it was. It's a lot less than that. They don't have cars there today. They still have the use of which we told them they can, the three rows of spaces in the front. We have been asked to apply for that. I don't believe it's necessary. It's here. The last one is the issue of the motor vehicle repair shop. In the motor vehicle repair building, the one key thing about dropping the appeal on the cycle shop is that the contention everybody, Counsel has raised, opposing Counsel raised, this is a great variance, we're asking for the three acre things in one. We're asking for one three acre thing and plus the existence of the one in front of. We're asking for 3.6 acres in 3.5 acres. It's a minimalistic variance. We know you can't vote on it tonight. I wanted to lay the ground work here so people have a chance to research this on their own. I asked the Town Clerk to keep a copy of the entire file together. There are opinion letters in the file from Mr. Robert's, opinion letters from the board members, opinion letters in the file attached to the SEQRA filing. went into that in depth, twenty-five pages worth of commentary on that. Every single one of these things says very clearly, motor vehicle repair law deals with all kinds of motor vehicles, except motorcycles, jet skis and things, a weight of fifteen hundred pounds. They are considered a retail facility. Unanimously passed by the town board and every consultant in the ........ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '- Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ~ ....... 2 3 MR. PRAGER: 5 6 7 MR. WALSH: 9 10 11 MR. PRAGER: 13 14 15 16 18 MS. RILEY: 20 MR. SCHWARTZ: 22 23 24 25 MR. PRAGER: 3 4 MR. ADAMS: 6 7 9 10 11 12 ......... Page 9 Minutes of February 28,2006 town. I need you to look at this before the next meeting Counsel, Mr. Parson's Counsel and I were talking before, a few minutes ago. One of the things we said was that he has -I have to ask respectfully this be continued to the first meeting, I have to ask if you want, make it or provide a partner I'd like to get If the board has any feedback on the ancillary, not the someone to come. feedback on it. motorcycle shop. In terms of the shed, I don't believe there's any. I don't think we're in favor of giving any kind of idea on it this evening until everybody is here. I'd like to get that as soon as I can. I'm using it for the dumpsters. I have a lot of pickups and things scheduled. Mr. Schwartz is now going to go as a retail sales business; is that correct? You're not going to come up, Mr. Schwartz, and reiterate what we have here. (Whereupon Mr. Schwartz was sworn in.) You're not going to do any repair in the shop? We know we're going to follow the laws of the town as a retail shop for selling the motorcycles and the parts, such as we wrote in the letter here. Anybody else in the audience would like to speak for or against this appeal? My name is John Adams. I'm appearing on behalf of Joan and John Simonetti. I had prepared some comments for submission to the board. In view of the material change in the nature of the application, and my sense the board is going to continue this to Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ........ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WALSH: 3 4 5 "-" 7 '- 9 10 11 MR. PRAGER: 13 Page 10 Minutes of February 28,2006 the next meeting when you have three voting members, I'm going to defer my comments. I want to make my appearance known in the interest of disclosure. I want to suggest to the board this is something the board and it's attorney can mull over between now and the next meeting. It's my belief there's a fatal impediment in the zoning law that would preclude this board from granting any variance or what I characterize as mixed uses, irrespective of the size of the parcel necessary for the retail sale of motor vehicles. You still are going to have more than one use, the existing use and the proposed new use. The zoning ordinance is very specific as to mixed uses. Only under certain circumstances those are defined in the use regulations under mixed uses. That describes what mixed uses are permitted. The zoning ordinance below provides elsewhere that if the use is not permitted, it's prohibited. It's our contention, in terms of that issue, that unless there's an expressed provision for this type 0 mixed use, it is prohibited. I'm going to submit that section, just for reference, to the secretary. As I said, I'm going to submit, I found it useful, an aerial photograph of the property. I'm sure you're all familiar with it. I did turn one of those in at Dutchess County, photograph taken in 2000, it shows the basic character of the neighborhood. I ask the board except that photograph as part of its record. Other than that, I'm going to defer any other comments based upon the application and address the board at the next meeting. Anybody else in the audience would like to speak for Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals 14 MR. SIMEONE: ......., 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 7 8 ........ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 MR. CA VIGLIA: 10 MR. SIMEONE: MR. WALSH: ........ Page 11 Minutes of February 28, 2006 or against the appeal? I would like to note I'm Frank Simeone. I'm here on behalf of Bill Parsons. I would like to defer most of my comments. Mr. Walsh in his letter, not the letter dated today, the earlier letter I found in the file this afternoon, addresses what he thought were five applications, four of which were unopposed. For the record, there's only one of these applications Mr. Parsons does not oppose, only one he does not oppose. The one he doesn't oppose, the one having to do with the side variance for the metal shed, Mr. Parson wishes to oppose all the variance applications. With respect to the last item, or this new information that Mr. Walsh brought forward tonight, I understand, I believe what he is saying, I see an area variance being sought in the application that he says he's withdrawing. As I read it, an area variance is still required. For what it's worth, something I neglected to mention last time, that having to do with the encroachment shown on the site plan for building number one, the front building, there's an encroachment on the side lot shown on the site plan. I don't believe, as I read the regulation under the general requirements, that a lot can show an encroachment. That hasn't been addressed or in any way remedied and I did make a call to the planner last week, so I just raised that to him and he's aware of it. Thank you. You're referring to the overhang? Yes. Simply for the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ........ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '-" 25 2 3 4 5 MR. SIMEONE: 7 8 9 10 11 12 MR. WALSH: 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. PRAGER: 3 5 MR. WALSH: 7 MR. PRAGER: 9 10 11 12 MS. RILEY: '- Page 12 Minutes of February 28,2006 record, that issue came up at the planning board and was addressed by Mr. Roberts. That building was grandfathered in that position. The person who built it is the one who put that in there, Mr. Parsons' building. His comment was, it's something that stood uncontested for twenty-five years. I asked the attorney to talk to Mr. Robert about that. That's part of the Planning Board minutes. That's an issue that came up there and was specifically discussed, we would not have to go further. It was a twenty-five year old issue, was built a long time before we were in there. Mr. Parsons did not build that building. It was not put in the time when he owned the property or when he owned the neighboring lot, the lot it encroaches on, which he presently owns. I'm sure there's a title report back from that time. The one thing that may be valuable, maybe we can get, this should be a discussion up here for the next meeting with the material change in the law, whether that will have to be done by the administrator or the staff. Somebody has to report it. can't let it go. That's why I came up here and filed ..and got the file and read everything that was here. Thank you. Anybody else want to speak about this appeal? Mr. Caviglia, you have the information, we can look at it. 1'11 send him a package with everything in it. The other thing we did not have this evening were the minutes from the gentleman here, the stenographer. Are we going to be able We discussed that. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals ........ 14 15 16 MR. WALSH: 18 MR. SIMEONE: 20 21 22 MR. PRAGER: 25 2 3 4 5 MR. WALSH: 7 8 MR. PRAGER: MR. WALSH: 12 MR. PRAGER: 14 MR. PRAGER: ........ Page 13 Minutes of February 28,2006 There were some members not here on the 14th and that we could move that to the 8th. That's a Planning Board night. The planning board is the 6th. The 8th would be fine. That's a Wednesday. March 8th is Wednesday. That's next Wednesday. We're going to have to put this off until the next meeting, which is the 21 st. The next meeting is the 28th. 28th of March. We'll have this at the next Zoning Board meeting, hopefully we'll have a quorum. I'm going to talk to the attorney who gave the opinion sol can get some coverage. Give us time. Treat him with the same courtesy you give me. He's the gentleman that wrote to you. A motion to adjourn this until March 28. So carried. Appeal No. 06-7295 Trans Star Enterprises- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-53B (4) of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District. - Where a minimum lot area of 2 acres is required, the applicant is proposing a lot size of 1.484 acres, thus reQuestine a variance of .516 acres. -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-70C of District Regulations in an HB Zoning District. -Where the location of overhead doors shall not face any street, the applicant is proposing the doors on the existine buildine to stay, thus reQuestine a variance be eranted on this existine condition. The property is located at 783 Old Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-04-531030 in the Town of Wappinger. Present: Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Mr. Prager: Mrs. Roberti: ........ John Sarcone Motion to open the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Are the mailings in order? Yes they are. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 14 Minutes of February 28, 2006 ~ Mr. Sarcone: As we stated in our application we did not feel it was necessary to seek area variances but however with the condition of site plan approval from planning board which we consented to we are here but I would like to just state for the record Section 240-67 3 B of the Town Law which the board is familiar with. I will read into the record the elements: Town Law 267-b(3)(b) "In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." In weighing benefit to applicant against detriment to neighborhood/community, ZBA must balance 5 factors: (1) whether the granting ofthe requested variance will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties; (2) whether there are any feasible alternatives to granting the vanance; (3) whether the variance requested is substantial .-. (4) whether the requested variance will adversely effect physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and (5) whether the variance is being requested to alleviate a self created difficulty. Pron!?: 1 whether the granting of the requested variance will be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties · concerns "impact on neighborhood" and "impact on nearby properties. " · Look at development patterns of community and comparison of surrounding properties o Since building is pre-existing, there will be no impact on the neighborhood o Compatible with surrounding uses .businesses next to, behind and across the street: auto repair, truck rental, a fireplace shop, medical office, Cablevision offices, Hudson Valley Karate and Fitness, Town recycling center, and Town Highway Department. ........ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals . Page 15 Minutes of February 28,2006 ~ Prone 2 whether there are any feasible alternatives to granting the variance . There are no feasible alternatives - pre-existing legal condition o Garage door was built before change in code pursuant to permit o Pre-existing structure Site Development Plan Approval p. 2 of 7 - town expressly recognizes property is "legally nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-1 8.F, Existing Undersized Lots" therefore variance from lot size not even required Prone 3 ....... whether the requested variance is substantial · Variance is not substantial because already deemed a legal nonconforming undersized lot o Garage doors built before code amended · Technically, 28% variance (1 .44 acres when 2 acres is required), but since legally preexisting, not substantial Prone 1 whether the requested variance will adversely effect physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood · No adverse effect to physical/environmental conditions - pre-existing structure, compatible with surrounding uses Prone 5 whether the variance is being requested to alleviate a self-created difficulty . Even if self-created, Town Law states that fact "shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance" · Not a self-created difficulty -obtaining variances to bring legal nonconforming structure into conformance at request of Town, not required. . Structures nonconforming as a result of changes to ......... Page 16 Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals T own Code, not created by owner "-" Mr. Prager: Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: "-" Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Roll Call: Mr. Sarcone: Minutes of February 28,2006 IN CONCLUSION, THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT FAR OUTWEIGHS THE DETRIMENT, IF ANY, TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY AND THE VARIANCES MUST BE GRANTED So we respectfully request that the board vote in favor of this application this evening. I'm sure counsel has advised you that there is a stipulation that is confidential between the Town and the applicant on this and various other matters where we had a deadline imposed of March 8th, 2006 to have everything completed. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Are there any members on the board with a comment? (No.) Are there any comments from the audience? Hearing none. I do have a letter form the PB expressing there recommendation for this application. Motion to close the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to grant the two variances. Second the motion. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Mr. Prager: Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Appeal No. 06-7296 Robert Mutsheler -Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R -40 Zoning District. -Where the code states...in no case shall Accessory Structures be permitted in the front yard the applicant requests a variance for a shed in the front yard in the size of 12 X 24 feet. The property is located at 6 Cauda Lane and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6157-03-265178 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Mr. Prager: Mrs. Roberti: '- Motion to open the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Are the mailings in order? Yes they are. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Mr. Prager: ~ Mr. Mutsheler: Mr. Prager: Mr. Mutsheler: Mr. Prager: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Vote: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Roll Call: ......... Page 17 Minutes of February 28,2006 Swore in the applicant. We have a shed on our side yard but due to zoning laws its considered a front yard and so I am applying for a variance for a pre-existing shed. When did you put it up. December of 2004. We did have a site inspection and we met with you and saw the shed placement. From that site visit we did notice that you really don't have a choice as to where it is due to the topography and your septic. Is there anyone in the audience with a comment? Hearing none. Anyone on the board? The shed looks very neat. Motion to close the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Motion to grant the variance. It doesn't have any undesirable change to the neighborhood nor any adverse impacts although it is self-created. Second the motion. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Mr. Prager: Aye. Aye. Aye. Appeal No. 06-7297 Mr. & Mrs. Suriit Sin2h- Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an R-40/80 Zoning District. _ Where a rear yard setback of 50 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a rear yard setback of 35 feet to allow for a 20 X 25 foot 2-storv addition. thus reQUestin2 a variance of 15 feet. -Where a side yard setback of 25 feet is required, the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 22 feet to allow for a 20 X 25 foot 2-storv addition. thus reQUestin2 a variance of 3 feet. The property is located at 2005 Route 9D and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6056-02-673816 in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Prager: Mrs. Roberti: Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: ......... Are the mailings in order? Yes they are. Motion to open the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 18 Minutes of February 28,2006 ........ Mr. Singh: This is a very small house with only two bedrooms. My wife's parents are coming to live with us and we want to add a one bedroom addition with a family room. Mr. Prager: We also did a site inspection on this property. Is there anyone in the audience with a question? Mr. Cochran: Leon Cochran, Route 9D. I am a neighbor and just want to state that I have no objection. Mr. Warren: Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Vote: Motion to close the public hearing. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Motion to grant the variance. It will not be undesirable nor will it have any adverse impacts. There are really no other feasible methods, is not substantial although it is self-created. Second the motion. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Mr. Prager: Aye. Aye. Aye. Mr. Warren: Roll Call: ....... Appeal No. 06-7299 John Del!nan - Seeking an area variance of Section 240-37 of District Regulations in an HD Zoning District. -Where a lot depth of 300 feet is required, the applicant is proposinl! a lot depth 260 feet to allow for a pre-existing condition, thus reQuestinl! a variance of 40 feet. The property is located at 1708 Route 9 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 6158-02-543530 In the Town of Wappinger. Present: Michael Gillespie John Degnan Mr. Prager: This is just a discussion. Mr. Gillespie: This site is just past Gateway on Route 9 and is an active site plan before the PB. What's happening is that Mr. Degnan would like to build a retail building on the site. Mr. Prager: So right now your only entrance is on the north side of Route 9, correct? Mr. Gillespie: We actually have been in contact with the Gateway people specific to an access from their site. There is a 30 to 45 feet elevation from Route 9 to the rear of the property. Mr. Prager: There really is no reason to do a site visit. This is a really good size building that you are proposing. Will it be two levels? ........ Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Page 19 Minutes of February 28,2006 "-" Mr. Degnan: Weare not sure yet, but probably only one floor. Mr. Prager: I'm looking at your page two to see where you would gain entrance from the Gateway site. Mr. Gillespie: We are not sure yet either, It could be the front or the rear. Mr. Degnan: We have an informal letter from them at this time. Mr. Gillespie: We have a meeting with the W oodhill Green residents on March 21, 2006. Mr. Prager: Then we will set your public hearing for April 11, 2006. Mr. Gillespie: Thank you. Ms. McEvoy-Riley: Mr. Warren: Vote: Motion to adjourn. Second the motion. All present voted aye. Meeting ended at 9:00 PM --.. Respectfully Submitted, , -, "<" " ~ / /' ,{,., :i<\ / ""("" " ) "1:U,t"CIdLc i- / lrlCe-L-/," { . / Barbara Roberti, Secrernry Secretary - Zoning Board of Appeals .........