PUBLIC HEARINGS:

WARWICK SAVINGS BANK: Request for a side yard variance (249-29-D-3-b). Property located at One Industrial Drive (SEC 41 BL 1 LOT 26.421); Designated PID.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Notice was read at 8:45 pm.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 8:46 pm.

Mr. Smith: Please present your application.

R. Krahulik, Esq.

Dominic P. Mazza, VP Warwick Savings Bank.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: You have a minor sub division of property on corner of Industrial and Tower Drives. We propose a creation of a second lot in addition to existing commercial building which is constructed on the property. We are here in proposed sub division application, in order to comply with 200 foot minimum lot width requirement, we have a situation where property line fall in the center of existing boulevard entrance and exit way for the bank on that site. As result of existing parking and entrance way, we are unable to provide the 50 foot wide landscape buffer under Town zoning ordinance. We have some physical characteristics of the lot which we think should be taken into consideration and that is our proximity to the corner of Industrial and Tower Drives. We believe the boulevard entrance way is consistent with the intent of the Town Zoning Ordinance and best provides for traffic flow in and out of the property and will provide least amount of congestion for traffic at the intersection of Tower and Industrial Drives. With that said, I think like to open to the Public comment.

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board?

Mrs. Thompson: This is a situation I think they really did not look into before they created it. We don’t know what is going to go on that property and what the parking and landscape needs will be for side yards.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: Well the zoning ordinance dictates what the parking requirements will be when applicant makes application to the Planning Board to construct build upon the property. Its not our intent to sell the property to any particular buyer and don’t know who the buyer will be but to market the lot as an available lot we need subdivision approval. It’s the ‘chicken and the egg’ theory – what do we have to sell?

Mr. Oster: You are looking from 50ft to 0 ft, that is correct?

R. Krahulik, Esq.: That is true.

Mr. Oster: And if you are to be considered you have enough parking by losing these parking spots. What would be the problem of greening or grasses?

R. Krahulik, Esq.: Its almost a Para dyne.

Mr. Oster: As long as you don’t need the parking. You don’t lose parking, right?

Mr. Mazza: Yes.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: Its not necessarily Lot #2 that we need to focus on, we have same problem on Lot #1 with side yard landscape buffer that is required. Its physically impossible for us to provide side yard landscape buffer on Lot #1 – the building has already been constructed its 37.5 feet to side yard lot line. It would be absolutely impossible to provide landscape buffer on Lot #1. Now could we begin to move property line over into Lot #2 and provide a more narrow lot width on Lot #2, yes we could. We would need a variance to do that. But, as we shift property line over we still provide zero ‘0’ landscape buffer on Lot #1.

Mr. Oster: It would be difficult to get 100 feet for 50 on one and 50 for the other.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: It would be absolutely impossible to provide 100 feet; to even provide 50 feet on Lot #2 that may be possible but we still…

Mr. Oster: …but regardless, when this was purchased as one lot you needed some buffers for this lot. I just don’t know why this was ever considered to become a buildable piece of property here (looking at drawing) with needing buffer on the other side. That is what I am trying to understand and I grant you - you have a lovely building here, landscaping off to this side and trying to figure what in your people’s minds now are you coming before the board for this side with lovely lawn and grass and all the sudden because of a need for something over here that was a parking lot, allow us nothing to work with – zero footage on either side not 50 foot given up here but 100 when you add it all together. It is difficult to understand why you or for your own aesthetics, why you would want to do that.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: I can’t speak to what was done when the original site plan was prepared.

Mr. Oster: You see what was there – I bank there I drive through the lots often and was there yesterday looking at it and the grass lands around it and always thought that was a concept of the bank of taking over that corner.

Mr. Mazza: When this was put together it was always the concept idea of the bank to sub divide it in a future date. Why they did not do it at the time of property construction end of it I have no idea. Always intention of the bank to do that when building was constructed.

Mr. Oster: Was it landscaped knowing they would pull up all those trees?

Mr. Mazza: We were really lead to believe we would not have an issue at the time it was put together.

Mr. Oster: By the board ….

Mr. Mazza: … the engineering firm.

Mr. Smith: The entrance way is nice and have been on Industrial Drive with number of entrance ways and do have problem not only in creating buffer problem for the new lot but the existing lot. There is a way to alleviate some of it – more entrances to the right and create a buffer. I don’t mind some of the parking in the back but some of it towards the street – would like to see a buffer on each side. It may mean moving your entrance way over as you come in – besides the entrance way, do buffer – you have to do an easement any way. The entrance way would be on this lot and the back maintain easement for accessing over that and you will have reciprocal parking easement agreement.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: If we move the lot line 30 feet to the right we could provide 50 foot required buffer on Lot #2. And accommodate every proposal you suggest but still need zero for existing Lot #2.

Mr. Owen: You are talking about over here (map)?

Mr. Smith: No, move this over. You would still have a zero on your lot.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: And move the entranceway over 30 feet; move lot line over 30 feet. Provide 50 foot wide buffer on Lot #2. I don’t know how traffic flow works well at the entrance way.

Mr. Smith: That is not our area.

Mr. Mazza: How about if we submit a sketch plan which would show a building on this particular lot as far as building size, parking?

Mr. Smith: You can if you want to. Overall running this line down the center and having parking on both sides with no buffer – I am not crazy about it either. As you said you bought it as one lot and know this would happen.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: We are willing to accommodate all of your issues but we have some physical impediments. We can only do so much and have 2 acres of land we intend to utilize.

Mr. Oster: It could have been utilized from the beginning with a bigger building right from the start or it could have been sub divided right in the beginning. People have 2 acres and have intention of using them and the line down middle of parking lot and saying it’s a hardship now – there is no building. Options are there if you want to look at them.

Mr. Mazza: That is not the issue; the bank is not in a position to increase square footage of the building. Out intent from the beginning was to sub divide it

Mr. Oster: we are looking at vacant lot on both sides of the land on the line.

Mr. Smith: Although you can’t get the buffer along the whole boundary line, you can get it along sections of it if you move the entranceway. Just to the right of the building, you would lose some parking you can always add parking to that, you could get buffer there. This would have to be done over showing some kind of easement show. It is more involved than you first thought.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: The easement is what I am having difficulty with visualizing what you are describing.

Mr. Oster: We can’t help as its not our place. With that square footage you can plant it deeper and thicker and get away with. With zero footage it is not allowable for one tree.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: We will begin narrowing Lot #2 then.

Mr. Owen: Then you are just creating another variance.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: That’s right.

Mr. Owen: I don’t feel this is subdivideable the way it is. The reason for this is to have a buffer. You do see it, eliminating it is a whole other thing. The lot can’t – if you can’t sub divide the lot and at least come close to the Code calls for, you can’t get it sub divided. You are creating your own hardship here.

Mr. Oster: We are over stepping ourselves. We have the one variance here and they have to narrow that down as their decision, again, a few of us speaking. We can take this to a vote.

R. Krahulik, Esq.: We will resubmit a new application.

Mr. Smith: Is there anyone from the Public here on this application? (no)

Discussion closed: 9:00 pm.

ANTHONY FINI: Request for a lot size and set back variance (249-20-D) for Property located at 546 Silver Lake - Scotchtown Road (SEC 98 BL 1 LOT 6); Designated R-2.

Applicant not present.

LEWIS SIGN CO. (Orange County Animal Emergency Service): Request for sign variances (249-11-N-1 and 249-11-N-1-a(1); Property located at 517 Rt 211 East (SEC 41 BL 1 LOT 42.1); Designated HC.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Notice was read at 9:01 pm.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 9:02 pm.

Sharlene DiNunzio for Lewis Sign, Co.: This is to add 2 signs for a total square footage of 50.

Mr. Smith: You want ‘ V ‘ front in the front of the building.

Mr. Oster: It’s a fare increase on the amount of square footage of signage. As you notice there is a lot of signage there. I have no problem with these signs and it gives you some visibility but not so sure about the other sign.

Ms DiNunzio: That is the one that going to draw your eye. They wanted a free-standing sign but no to place to put them there. If you have a sick animal in your car and its open all night and you will miss it and it’s a tough road as it is.

Mr. Oster: I am not disagreeing with the problem regardless of the use if start setting … I could get a big mall coming in wanting their square footage tripled also.

Ms DiNunzio: The malls are pretty well covered.

Mr. Oster: It is a precedence setting as to how much square footage you are allowing certain businesses and things like that. I have no problem with the ‘V” and think that should give you enough; not so sure about extra sign.

Mrs. Thompson: When people are looking for this people are desperate and I have been there.

Ms DiNunzio: And that is basically what the neon was for.

Mr. Oster: I don’t think it going to hurt. I was not on the board but they turned down one for Hampton Inn a larger sign and many times I have driven down looking for a motel, too, and the guy said he wanted make a big sign in the Town of Wallkill – we turned him down.

Mr. Smith: I think we need something to get people there.

Mr. Morgan: This is an important place when you are looking for it and people come from all over.

Ms DiNunzio: I have clients come here from Jeffersonville.

Mr. Smith: Something to get your attention.

Mr. Oster: if an animal is sick they will find it in the phone book.

Mr. Smith: A black and white neon to get your attention. They have enough sense.

Ms DiNunzio: Its just to get your attention to the building.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Public? (no)

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Board? (no)

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:05 pm; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the following variance: sign variance of (249-11-N-1-a and 249-11-N-1) for 50 sq/ft sign; Seconded;

DISCUSSION:

None.

VOTE:

In favor (aye): 4
Opposed (nay): 1

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: Your variance has been granted; see the Building Department.

MEETING CLOSE:

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the May 12th meeting at 9:14 pm; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

TSB:jcd

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL

May 12, 2003

DECISION SHEET

WARWICK SAVINGS BANK
(Dominic Mazza) Applicant to reapply; withdrew presented application.

ANTHONY FINI Not present.

LEWIS SIGN CO
(Orange County Animal Emerg. Svcs) Request for a variance of 249-11-N-1 and 249-11-N-1-a(1) (sign) to 50 sq/ft; Property located at 517 Rt 211 East
(SEC 41 BL 1 LOT 42.1); Designated HC.

DECISION: Variance granted.