Loading...
1983-09-13Zoning Board of Appeals September 13, 1983 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger held their regular meeting in the Meeting Room of the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York, r, on September 13, 1983. Mrs. Waddle called the meeting to order. Shee asked the secretary if the abbutting property owners had been notified. Mrs. Russ stated, they had been, according to records available in the assessor's office. Mrs. Waddle asked for the roll call. Members Present: Carol Waddle, Chairperson Charles Cortellino Joe Landolfi Angel Caballero Members Absent: George Urciuoli Others Present: Hans Gunderud, Zon. Adm./Bldg. Insp. Joe Tinelli, Dep. Bldg. Insp./ Zon. Adm. Mrs. Betty Ann Russ, Secretary Mrs. Waddle gave a brief explanation of how the meeting would be run and read the first appeal. #702 - at the request of R.C. Rawls (Robert Mobile Home Park) seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 10 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for additional mobile home sites in an existing mobile home park located on Montfort Road, being parcel # 6358-03-288170. Representative: Robert Rawls, Robert's Mobile Home Park, Montfort Rd. Mr. Rawls stated they were requesting a variance of the current Zoning Ordinance to allow them to put in additional mobile homes. He showed the board a map of the trailer park to give them an indication of what they would like to do. Mrs. Waddle asked if the property bordered on wet lands. Mr. Gunderud said that it did. Mrs. Waddle asked if an EIS had been submitted. Mr. Gunderud stated that it had not. Mr. Landolfi felt one was necessary. Mr. Rawls stated it was not indicated at the time the application was made. Mr. Landolfi asked how many units he was looking for. Mr. Rawls stated they had approximately 17-18 vacant acres and had 22 sites laid out. Mrs. Waddle noted it was a non -conforming use and therefore could not expand any- more. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13,1983 Page 2 Mr. Gunderud stated there was no provision for the expansion of a mobile home park in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cortellino asked the difference between this submission and the previous one. Mr. Rawls stated the previous one had been submitted under the non -conforming section of the ordinance, which allowed for a 50o expansion. The ZBA has approved the expansion but the Planning Board rejected it saying it was a non -conforming use of land, not a structure. They went to court over it but the court upheld the decision of the Planning Board. Mr. Landolfi asked what the hardship he was basing his appeal on. Mr. Rawls stated there were 17 vacant acres of land adjoining the mobile home park and they would like to use it for mobile home sites. Mr. Landolfi brought up the density factor. Discussion, density limits, utilization, expansion in floof plain. Mr. Friedman presented extra copies of the map and explained the situation. There are 88 units now and an additional 22 units would be a 25% expansion. He pointed out the dike, which had existed prior to H.U.D's flood studies. His analysis showed that if the tail end of the dike, near Montfort Rd. (approx. 100 feet) that would have to be raised no more than Ili feet to exclude the entire property from the flood plain. The portion of the property they would like to use is not in the flood plain now. Discussion, Rudy Lapar's study stated the same as Mr. Friedman's the filling and grading of the area near the dike, the contours shown do not reflect the filling and grading. Mr. Cortellino is concerned with the sewage disposal area shown. Mr. Friedman explained that it was common for a portion of the trailer to hang over the field because the trailer did not have to be supported all the way around. They could change the layout of the trailers to avoid that, if necessary. Mr. Cortellino thought they had had a sewage problem before. Discussion, Mr. Rawls said they had not had any. Mrs. Russ was asked to check on the matter. Mr. Caballero wanted to know if the maximum density had been reached. Mr. Gunderud stated there were 31-32 sites permitted under the density and there were 88 sites on the property now. Mrs. Waddle mentioned the 1976 D.C. Dept of Planning recommendation which stated the soil in the area is Middlebury silt loam, which is subject to flooding and places severe limitations for septic systems. Mr. Friedman stated the D.C. Dept. of Health had supervised soil tests of the area which showed good sands and gravels which are conclusive to sewage disposal. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Rawls considered the 88 sites the existing non -conforming use, and was hoping the board would allow more sites on the 17 vacant acres. Mrs. Waddle asked if it was all on e piece of property. Mr. Rawls stated it was. He presented the board with a petition signed by at least 25 residents in the vicinity in favor of the expansion. Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Mr. Rawls, Sr. stated he received 6 or 7 calls a day for spaces, that a lot of people can't afford homes. He also noted that when the area was zoned, they did not measure the lots in the park or those in the development. Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. President NYS mobile Home organization: He felt that this was the only type of housing some people could afford, especially with the expansion of IBM. A mobile home is only $35,000 as opposed to $65,000-$70,000 for a regular home. He is for the variance. Resident from 71 Pye Lane, haouse across the street from trailer park, the trailer park is excellent now but he is concerned with the increase in people (new houses tennis courts, etc) on that end of Pye Lane. He wants to go on record as being against tha variance. Resident from 74 Pye Lane, agrees with Ray and is against any more trailer. Barry Knoll, he felt the prople were complaining about traffic only because it was the trailer park not because of the increase in traffic. He workds for Mr. Rawls He sees too many people who say they can't afford a house or $500. a month for an apartment and have no place to go. A mobile home would give them a home and allow them to save toward a house. This zoning is a bunch of crap. Mrs. Waddle stated they had not received comments from the D.0 Dept. of Planning and she would like to table any action until the next meeting. Mr. Caballero made the motion to table the appeal. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: 4 aye, 1 absent Motion carried, the appeal was tabled. Mrs. Waddle read the next appeal #703 - at the request of Karen Eshenour, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an attached deck with a seven foot sideyard where twenty feet is required, on property located on 1 Fieldstone Blvd., being parcel6257-09-239682. Representative: Karen Esenhour, Fieldston Boulevard. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 4 Mrs. Esenhour stated they had already built the deck, not realizing they were in violation. The deck is needed because without it they could not use their I*AW dining room door. He would also be a safety hazard because there is at least a 4 foor drop off and they have small childran. She also noted that the ordinance states 20 feet from the property line.and the house is already built 15 feet from the property line. The property borders on the conservation district, which cannot be built on , so they are not infringing on anyone else's property by having the deck there. Mrs. Waddle asked how the house had been built with only a fifteen foot setback. Mr. Gunderud wxplained there had been some works in the resolution of this conser- vation subdivision which had been left off the map. The map says the houses are to be built with 40 feet between houses on adjacent lots. The resolution states the 40 foot between adjacent houses and also a minimum of 20 feet to the lot lines. This house doesn't have an adjacent house on that side therefore there is no 40 foot requirement. His general practice for building permit applications is to check the filed map and since the 20 foot setback was not noted he had not picked it up until much later. There are other houses in the subidivision with less than the 20 foot setback but they all meet the 40 foot. Mrs. Waddle asked who the builder was. Mr. Gunderud replied Mr. James Klein. Mrs. Waddle stated the other lots needed variances. They should have been brought in prior to the issuance of C.O.s Mr. Gunderud stated the C.O. s had been issued because the map stated 40 feet between houses and the 40 feet had been met. Mrs. Waddle asked if the subdivision map overruled the zoning law. Mr. Gunderud stated ut was not the zoning law, the problem was that the subdivision map said one thing and the resolution stated another. The question is whether the filed subdivision map or the resolution is the legal document. He had not asked Jon Adams that yet. C.O.'s had been issued for the 3 houses with discrepancies. Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any more houses with discrepancies. Mr. Gunderud stated there were not. Mr. Klein was before the Planning Board since he heard about it (he just discovered it a month ago). he was going to ask for a lesser sideyard requirement but the Planning Board wanted the 20 feet. Mr. Cortellino asked if the door was in place and no deck was constructed, why was the door there. Mrs. Eshenour implied the deck had been put in at a later date. Mrs. Eshenour stated the house was built with the door, without the deck. Mr. Gunderud stated that was common prectice most builders do that with the economy the way it is the house is standard. Discussion, stairs, block door, etc. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 5 Mrs. Waddle stated that the problem was that the house was improper and the deck with it. She asked Mr. Gunderud why the house had not been brought in for a variance. Mr. Gunderud stated the filed map only required 40 feet between houses and since there was no house it was okay. Discussion - why a variance was not applied for, the planning board resolution, the filed map, concern over the problems, size of deck. Mr. Landolfi asked if they were represented by legal council for the closing. Mr. & Mrs. Eshenour stated he had seen the map and the 40 foot as well. Mr. Gunderud showed the board the filed map and read the note regarding the sideyard setback. Discussion how the planning board sets setbacks, conservation subdivision rules, etc. Mrs. Waddle asked if there wasn anyone else to speak for or against the variance There was no one. Mr. Caballero asked if the deck had been completed. Mr. Gunderud said it was, pretty much. Mr. Caballero asked how they started it without an okay. Mr. Gunderud explained the homeowner did not realize they needed a building permit and by the time he went out it was pretty mush built. Mr. Tinelli stated they stopped the building of the deck and the homeowner complied with no problems. Mr. Landolfi didn'tsee any reason for denying the variance under the circumstances. Mrs. Waddle wanted the problem with the setback cleared. Mr. Gunderud stated he would get in touch with the Town attorney to find an answer for the houses. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to grant the requested variance. He felt the hardship was not self-created. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 1 absent Motion carried. Variance granted. Discussion, new problem, houses too close to the lot lines, Townhouses. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 6 Mrs. Waddle read the next appeal. #704 - at the request of Alan Zahn, seeking a variance of Article IV, Sections 416.52 & 416.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a third 'rrr free-standingsign where only is g Y one permitted and to allow said sign to be at a seven foot setback where twenty-five feet is required, on property located on Route 376, being parcel # 6259-03-482346. Representative: Robert Gray, Engineer Mr.Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud if there was another business on the same property. Mr. Gunderud stated there was but it was a permitted use in the General Business zone. The Zoning Ordinance did not change the sign portion which states one free-standing per site. Mr. Gray showed the board the design for the sign. Mrs. Waddle asked where the sign for the Woronock House was located. It was determined to be along the shoulder... Mrs. Waddle then asked if the 2 business could be combined into one sign. Mr. Gray stated the owner (Mr. Zahn) would definitely prefer 2 signs. Mrs. Waddle asked if any comments from the county had been received. Mrs. Russ stated that they had not. Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this appeal. There was no one. She then tabled the appeal until the D.C. Dept of Planning comments could be received. She the read the next appeal. #673 - at the request of R.B. Krouse Enterprises, Inc., seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 422, paragraph 6, NB Zone of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to amend their current Special Use Permit to allow used car saled on their property located on the corner of Rt. 9 and Smithtown Road, being parcel #6157-04-730008. Representative: Robert Knouse, Classic Auto Body. Mr, Knouse explained he had purchased Classic Auto Body in March 1981 and has been rebuilding the business. They have been doing a great deal of dealer work and they would like to be able to rebuild and repaint used cars from time to time and maintain a constant flow of cars thru the body shop. Discussion, referral to Planning Board, Zone, NB-2acre. Mr. Cortellino would like to make it a maximum number of 6 unregistered cars. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 7 Mrs. Waddle read the proposed resolution. Mr. Cortellino moved the resolution. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 1 absent Motion carried, the amended S.U.P. is granted. Mrs. Waddle then read the next appeal. # 706 - at the request of the Mid -Hudson Christian Church, seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to have a place of worship on property located on All Angels Hill Road, being parcel # 6257-02-986805. Representative: None Mr. Landolfi moved the appeal be referred to the Planning Board. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion Vote: 4 ayes, 1 absent Motion carried. The appeal was referred to the Planning Board. Mrs. Waddle read the next appeal, #699 - at the request of Rover P. McFarlane, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town Of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct an addition with a 10 foot and a 14 foot frontyard setback where a 35 foot one is required on a corner lot. Said property is located on the corner of Plaza Road and Central Avenue, being parcel # 6258-03-275008. Representative: Bob McFarlane Don Close, B & D Contracting. Mr. Close explained the expansion was toward the road on both sides. Mrs. Waddle stated the problems with houses too close to the line discussed earlier was with new houses, not houses that have existed for 25 years. Mr. McFarlane clarified the measurements given to Mr. Gunderud. He had originally estimated the sideyard to be at least 35 feet when it turned out to be 48 feet. Therefore, the addition would only encroach on the setback requirement by 3 feet. He showed the board an artists rendering of what he proposed to do. Mr. Cortellino asked if a survey had been done. Mr. Landolfi was asking what the size of the variance needed was. Mr. Gunderud asked if the 48 feet was to the property line or the edge of the pavement. Mr. McFarlane stated that it was to the edge of pavement. Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting September 13, 1983 Page 8 Mr. Gunderud mentioned to Town right of way was usually 10 feet. W Discussion - distance from road, how extension would be built, amount of variance from the other side. How other houses in the area are laid out and their setbacks. Mr. Landolfi had seen the ares. Mr. Gunderud stated the sideyard variance would be at least 13 feet. Mr. Caballero made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: 4 ayes, 1 absent. Motion carried, variance granted. Mrs. Waddle asked if there was any other business to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. There was none. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Caballero seconded the motinon. Vote: 4 ayes, 1 absent. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Betty Ann Russ Secretary LC/fh IMw