Loading...
1979-07-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger was called to order on Tuesday, July 10th, 1979 at 8:08 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York. L/0- Members Present: Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman Charles A. Cortellino Donald Mc Millen Members Absent: Howard Prager Carol A. Waddle Other Present: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary The Chairman then asked the secretary if the appellants and abutting property owners had been notified. The secretary replied that the appellants and abutting property owners according to the records in the Assessor's office had been notified. The Chairman then explained that it was the procedure of the Board to hear all the cases, then take a short recess and reconvene at which time the Board may or may not render a decision on each appeal. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal # 439, at the request of Harry Shukat, seeking a variance of Section 414.06 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a 15' by 20' attached garage within 23 feet of the lot line, where a 35' setback is required, on property located on the corner of Bungalow Lane and Lake Oniad Drive, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel # 6257-01-453969. The Chairman read the legal notice. Mr. Peter Shukat(Attorney at Law) of New York City was present and noted that he would be representing his parents. Zoning Board of Appeals -2- July 10th, 1979 Mr. Shukat noted that he was aware that the previous request for a variance had been denied and they had now reduced the size to 15 feet which would now put the garage 23 feet from the line and the existing house is 25 feet from the line. He added that his parents wanted an attached garage as it is used in the winter and that his father had recently had a heart attack and it would be preferable to have it close to the actual living area. Mr. Shukat continued that there would also be a bathroom and a room on the top of the garage and that all the water pipes were on this side of the house and a large cost would be involved in putting the pipes in to the other side if the garage had to be placed there. He also noted that the proposed location would involve a minimum amount of shrub removal and that it would be more symmetrical. Mr. Landolfi commented that some members of the Board looked at the site last night and were very familar with the area and then asked about something that appeared to jut out from the structure. Mr. Harry Shukat replied that this was a small shed which would be removed when the garage is put up and that it is used for tools and things, he then indicated to the Board the layout of the house with regard to the location of bedrooms, kitchen and living room. Mr. Cortellino asked about locating it elsewhere. Mr. Peter Shukat replied that it was very close to the lake and in the winter the car could end up in the lake. He added that there is also an enclosed porch and open patio and putting the garage here could destroy the entire value of the house. Mr. Shukat commented that he had also suggested that his parents try solar heat and where they would like to locate the garage there is a southern exposure and also advised that the other side of the house is not heated in the winter. The Chairman then asked if the Board had any further questions. There were no further questions. The 'Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to be heard for or against the Appeal. No one present wished to be heard. the hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m. Zoning Board of Appeals -3- July 10th, 1979 Appeal # 440, at the request of Robert W. Inacker, seeking variances of Section 422, subparagraphs 3,4, & 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit construction of a single- family dwelling on a lot containing less than the required 125' width and at a lesser rear yard and frontyard setbacks than required on property located on Pine Ridge Drive, being parcel # 6257-04-971161, in the Town of Wappinger. The Chairman read the legal notice. Mr. Robert Inacker was present and noted that he had a written statement he would like to read. The following was read by Mr. Inacker. "Mr. Landolfi, Member of the Board and neighbors, I would likeito review a short history of the problems we have had leading to this request for a variance. About September of 1978 Don Nickerson subdivided his property into 2 lots so that we could purchase lot 2 on Pine Ridge Drive. We recognized at this point that the lot was 100 feet by 400 feet and called the town to make sure that we could build on the lot. We were told that there would be no problems that the requirements were 35' in the front and 40' in the rear and that Mr. Ruit was measuring from the foundation of the house. After checking with my lawyer, Mr. Wolf, who again got a verbal approval from Mr. Ruit we purchased the property on 3/2/79. During this time we acted according to the information we presently knew to be true and: 1. Sold our old house on Appleblossom Lane and 2. arranged for the required approvals, tests and permits to allow us to construct our new house. On 5/25 we were notified that Mr. Lapar had rejected our plot plan because there were no drainage indications on it. That same afternoon we provided him with a letter from our engineer, Mr. Friedman, stating that the water shed from the new house would be absorbed on the property itself and not drain onto adjacent property. At the beginning of June of this year we received all approvals and a building permit and started construction. Zoning Board of Appeals -4- July 10th, 1979 In mid June that construction was stopped by the new building inspector, Mr. Gunderud, because the lot was not deep enough. To this point we have made every effort to comply with each town request and had received a permit to build. Later, Mr. Gunderud also said that the footing was not setback the proper distance from the front property line. I then obtained another survey which you have showing the present location of the footing to be at mid point approximately 37h feet from the property line. Therefore, when the house is completed from the front will be approximately 35h feet from the property line. Therefore, I request a variance on the lot depth and lesser front and rear setbacks as necessary to continue building. A failure to grant this variance would cause us undue hardship because we acted in good faith after receiving 1. verbal assurance that we could build 2. an approved subdivision 3. an approved site plan 4. a building permit At present we have been forced to rent an apartment to have someplace to live because of all the delays." Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Inacker who he spoke to. Mr. Inacker replied at the time he didn't recall and added that his neighbor was here. Mrs. Inacker added that she spoke to Mr. Ruit according to her notebook. Mr. Richard Smith then came forward and noted that his property was to the rear and that the Inackers had been his neighbors when they lived on Appleblossom and had no objection to the variance. The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to be heard for or against the appeal. No one present wished to be heard. The hearing was then closed at 8:25 p.m. The Board then recessed and reconvened at 8:55 p.m. With regard to Appeal # 439, at the request of Harry Shukat, a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to grant the requested variance. Motion Was Unanimously Carried Zoning Board of Appeals -5- July 10th, 1979 With regard to Appeal ## 440, at the request of Robert Inacker, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to grant the requested variance. Motion Was Unanimously Carried A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to accept the minutes of the June 12th, 1979 meeting. Motion Was Unanimously Carried A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to adjourn. Motion Was Unanimously Carried The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 6e 0a-- (Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals br UNAPPROVED