TOWN
OF WALLKILL
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
JULY 8, 2002
PRESENT:
O. Smith
P. Thompson
J. Cieslewitz, Jr.
W. Morgan
J. Owen
E. Oster
J. Mattattal
William J. Wolfe, Esq.
EXCUSED:
None
MEETING OPENING:
The meeting opened with the pledge of the flag followed by the
roll call and presentation of the June 10, 2002 meeting minutes.
The Motion was made to accept the June 10, 2002 Meeting Minutes;
Seconded; All in favor: Motion carried.
The following reviews were held for July 8th. Public
Hearings conducted, discussed and voted upon as noted.
HEARING REVIEW (July 8, 2002)
Kenneth Rossi (side and rear yard set backs from 200 ft. to 193
ft. in PID
Mr. Smith: Sir, will you state your name.
Benjamin Salzano.
Mr. Smith: We have your application. You are looking for side
and rear set back variances. Are you planning on building the
house?
Mr. Salzano: Yes.
Mrs. Thompson: A single family house.
Mr. Salzano: Single family, yes.
Mr. Smith: I see here 31 x 58 approximately.
Mr. Salzano: Approximately, yes.
Mr. Smith: And the existing trailer is or will be removed, right?
Mr. Salzano: Yes.
Mr. Oster: And the shed right next to it?
Mr. Rossi: Yes, that’s a little out building.
Mr. Oster: Do you have any comments?
Mr. Rossi: What is needed, anything. That was the question.
Mr. Smith: Do you know exactly where that building is going to
be on the property?
Mr. Rossi: I have it in the front of the trailer. As it shows
on the plot plan.
Mr. Smith: You will have to stick to this plot plan then.
Mr. Rossi: Okay.
Mr. Oster: If we grant the zoning variance and you move it closer
to one of those yards probably you will be in violation again.
Mrs. Thompson: I know that this has been pre-existing since 1973.
Mr. Rossi: Right.
Mrs. Thompson: I would like to see that the soils are okay. Did
you get the soils classification for it?
Mr. Rossi: What does that entail?
Mr. Smith: The classification of the soils, is the type of soils
for the septic system.
Mr. Rossi: The percolation test?
Mr. Smith: As a matter of information, just because you’re
removing the shed you may have a problem with the existing septic.
That is something you would have to take up with the Building
Inspector. We will not address that. It’s not what you
are asking for but we realize that you are looking for a little
guidance. That’s one thing we want to double check. If
you have to upgrade you may run into a problem because you need
certain soils. There are soil maps available and we’ve asked
you tonight to type up soils on this parcel. Are they available
here in the Town?
Mrs. Thompson: The Building Department should have them.
Mr. Smith: As a matter of information, we don’t address that.
Mrs. Thompson: It will be a good thing to know before you start
anything.
Mr. Smith: They are not asking for it but they should ask for
it.
Mr. Rossi: That’s it, then?
Mr. Smith: Are there any other comments?
Mr. Mattattal: What you have sketched out here, the front line
and the number of feet that you have proposed out, that’s
what we are going to base our decision on.
Mr. Rossi: Okay, right.
Mr. Smith: You can’t go any closer.
Mr. Oster: If you move it off to one side you will start encroaching
again. Be certain where you want it and then stay within that.
You can come and make a nice building and stay within that site.
If you say you are going to be thirty feet away and it ends up
being fifteen feet away, then it will have to be addressed again.
Mr. Rossi: Okay.
Mrs. Thompson: I would like to know where your well is also?
Mr. Rossi: That’s forward. I didn’t put that on. It’s
in front of the trailer maybe twenty feet or so up.
Mrs. Thompson: How close is that?
Mr. Rossi: In relation to the septic. Okay.
Mr. Smith: He is seeking lot width from 150 feet to 125 feet.
Lot depth from 200 feet to 170 feet. Overall area 40,000 to 22,000
square feet. One side yard, thirty five feet and both side yards
eighty feet to sixty seven feet. You are looking for four variances.
Mr. Wolfe, Esq. He is going to have to comply with the zoning
requirements of 2002 and if he doesn’t then he needs a variance
for any changes.
Mr. Smith: I realize that this is a separate lot but have you
attempted to contact Mr. Vernooy?
Mr. Rossi: No I haven’t.
Mr. Salzano: I haven’t either.
Mr. Smith: Any other comments?
Mrs. Thompson: It bothers me. I haven’t been out to look
at it yet.
Mr. Smith: We can proceed with this but it really wouldn’t
hurt for you to try. I see that Mr. Vernooy owns the surrounding
property.
Mrs. Thompson: What’s on it, anything?
Mr. Rossi: No it’s all empty.
Mr. Oster: Do you know the history of this lot, how it got cut
out?
Mr. Rossi: I believe it was some relative of his before my mother
bought it.
Mr. Oster: Do you have plans for the new house?
Mr. Salzano: Yes sir.
Mr. Smith: The lot is very nice. You have some nice landscaping.
Mr. Rossi: I know it. It’s all landscaped. I didn’t
want to put it back as a trailer since this gentleman said he
would build on it, I said that’s fine because otherwise I
have someone who would buy it and keep it a trailer.
Mrs. Thompson: How long has it been there?
Mr. Rossi: It’s been there since 1970's.
Mrs. Thompson: I’m assuming it hasn’t been lived in.
Mr. Rossi: That’s the part I don’t understand either.
I’m there every two weeks. We maintain it, take care of
it. Stay over in it. How do you say it’s not lived in?
I’m there and we’re trying to sell it.
Mrs. Thompson: Do you have electric?
Mr. Rossi: The electric is on.
Mr. Oster: It’s definitely not abandoned.
Mr. Rossi: No.
Mr. Smith: We will require the soils.
Mr. Rossi: Okay.
Mr. Smith: Do you want to proceed with this?
Mr. Rossi: I would like to, yes.
Mr. Smith: I Move to hold a Public Hearing for August 12, 2002
at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard;
Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.
Mr. Smith: The Public Hearing is on August 12, 2002. You need
to notify your neighbors within 300 feet of the hearing date.
By the end of this week you will see the Notice in the Times Herald
Record under Public Notices. Take that and copy it to the list
of people you get from the Assessor’s Office here at the
Town Hall. Send it at least 10 days prior to the Public Hearing
date by certified or registered mail. Bring your proof of mailings
to open your hearing in August.
Kenneth Mecking (249-22 side yard setback 15' to 4'1")
Mr. Smith: You are asking for a side yard setback from 15' to
4'l”. The house size?
Mr. Mecking: Forty five.
Mrs. Thompson: That’s the same that you have?
Mr. Mecking: Yes.
Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board on this? The Public Hearing
is on August 12, 2002. You need to notify your neighbors within
300 feet of the hearing date. By the end of this week you will
see the Notice in the Times Herald Record under Public Notices.
Take that and copy it to the list of people you get from the Assessor’s
Office at the Town Hall. Send it at least ten days prior to the
Public Hearing date by certified or registered mail. Bring your
proof of mailings to open your hearing in August.
Caliber Builders Inc. (249-21 (a) Minimum Height)
6 stories to 2 (4 buildings)
6 stories to 3 (2 buildings)
6 stories to 4 (3 buildings)
Mr. Weinberger: I am the Vice President of Caliber Builders.
Caliber Builders is a contract/vendee for the Tower Ridge property
which was previously before the Board. That is in the PID zone.
We understand and have been advised by the Planning Board and
their Attorney that the previously granted approvals for that
project had expired by virtue of your local code which provides
that I believe that variances expire six months or twelve months
from the date of granting unless the Building Permit has been
issued and actual construction has been started. The same thing
with the Site Plan approval. We have taken the original concept
of the project and re-cast it and brought it up to professional
design consultants from Philadelphia to re-design the site. It
was our feeling that the original design was very boxy like and
it did not provide enough open space and green space. We felt
it was very not appealing. The new design provides more angled
buildings. It provides for a much needed improvement of the entrance
on Tower Drive. In fact, what we have done is we have re-located
the main entrance from the project which formerly was off of Leewood
Drive and adjacent to single family homes. We have recreated
a new entrance off of Tower Drive which would provide for better
circulation of traffic and also minimize the impact on the adjoining
property owners. We felt that it was really unnecessary to mingle
the apartment dwellers with the homes along Leewood Drive. What
we have done is created a main entrance on Tower Drive with two
auxiliary entrances on Leewood but the closest entrance to get
into the complex now would be off of Tower Drive. We’ve
also indicated a very extensive club house facility and landscaped
the corner there on Tower Drive and Leewood Drive which would
give a much nicer curb appeal and allow for more buffering and
more landscaping along Leewood Drive. We’ve also relocated
some of the units that were formerly up in the industrial area.
We brought them down into the project. We felt that it wasn’t
a good idea to mix residential units up off Enterprise Court,
that being primarily an industrial area and utilizing the ridge
line which runs along the back as a natural buffer, a natural
barrier between the end of the residential area. Some of the
building heights have changed. In this zone as you are aware,
it’s a minimum of six stories and a maximum of ten stories.
We’re in the unusual predicament of having to ask the Board
for a variance to reduce building heights. Most of the buildings
are still two stories but some of the buildings along the back
of the project will be three-four story combinations. What I
mean by that is from the roadway prospective they will have a
three story appearance but we will be able to utilize the natural
drop of the grade so that part of the building that faces the
courtyard will actually (not audible). What we’ve done is
we’ve prepared a cross-section view of what that might look
like. To someone standing on Leewood Drive always keeping in
mind, of course, that there are neighbors in a heavily residential
area and what the impact might be on their properties. This person
here standing on Leewood Drive if he was looking across the project
height would see a two story building along Leewood Drive. All
of the buildings that are along Leewood Drive are still two stories.
As you cross the courtyard and go to the buildings across the
courtyard three of the buildings are what we call three/four story
combinations. Four story presenting into the courtyard and using
the grade of the property so that on the parking lot side would
be a three story presentation. I think two or three of the other
buildings on either side would be two/three story. We are utilizing
that the portion of the basement of the building would be kind
of like a walk out basement except it won’t be a basement
because it would be dipped to grade. In effect they are really
three and a half story buildings but from the courtyard side it
is a four story building. But because of the way we designed
the site including proposing to put open carports in routes along
Leewood Drive and heavy landscaping over there, a person whose
standing on Leewood Drive his site would barely clear if he is
looking over the tops of the roof of the first set of buildings.
His site would not see the four story building behind it because
it would be screened by the two story buildings in front.
Mrs. Thompson: You mentioned carports. For each individual building
or . . .
Mr. Weinberger: There would be groups of carports in locations
around the project. They would be key to certain units. In other
words there wouldn’t be a carport style for every unit.
There’s just not enough room on the site for that. We felt
that about seventy percent of the units would have carports.
Primarily because in the bad weather, it’s always nice to
have your car covered to keep the ice and snow off of it. It
also allows us to do some interesting planning because really
the carports would screen the cars from Leewood Drive.
Mrs. Thompson: I think that the carports are an asset.
Mr. Weinberger: We intend to do them in a very architectural appealing
way, something that would match the decor of the building. Our
marketing approach to the site is really to do an upscale community.
Mrs. Thompson: How many cars are you allowing per unit?
Mr. Weinberger: I think it’s on the site. We have figured
two cars per unit. We feel that will be more than enough because
there is a mix of one bedroom units.
Mr. Smith: Do you have additional spaces for visitors?
Mr. Weinberger: Yes. I think the amount of parking complies with
the code.
Mr. Ellis: Before we address the Public Hearing next month, with
this new configuration, is it more apartments or less?
Mr. Weinberger: It is the same amount that was previously approved.
Mr. Ellis: Okay.
Mr. Smith: I move to hold a Public Hearing for August 12, 2002
at 7:30 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard;
Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.
Mr. Smith: The Public Hearing is on August 12, 2002. You need
to notify your neighbors within 300 feet of the hearing date.
By the end of this week you will see the Notice in the Times Herald
Record under Public Notices. Take that and copy it to the list
of people you get from the Assessor’s Office here at the
Town Hall. Send it at least 10 days prior to the Public Hearing
date by certified or registered mail. Bring your proof of mailings
to open your hearing in August.
PUBLIC HEARINGS (July 8, 2002)
HENNO KIVIRANNA: Request for variance of 249-28-D (front yard)
for
property of Silvi Kiviranna, 8B Barberry Drive, Lakewood, New
Jersey.
Property located at 285 Goshen Turnpike. (SEC 1 BLOCK 1 LOT 32)
and
Designated PID.
Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed
by the Secretary. The Public Hearing was read at 8:13 P.M.
Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M.
Applicant: Henno Kiviranna for Silvi Kiviranna
Mr. Smith: Are there any comments from the Board?
Mr. Kiviranna: My family has owned the property for forty one
years. When we first purchased it 1961 it had one hundred ninety
three feet of frontage. It’s always had that. It has that
currently. In the mid l970's the Town of Wallkill changed the
zoning from Residential to PID and we are now in the process of
selling it after my father passed away and in the process of selling
it the Town advised the buyers Attorney that two hundred foot
frontage was required for PID property.
Mr. Oster: How long ago was that?
Mr. Kiviranna: It was in the mid-1970's. We are looking for a
variance of seven feet.
Mr. Mattattal: I think that would be an easy approach to do that.
It gives you the minimum relief.
Mr. Smith: Are there any comments from the Public?
Mr. Forto: I’m a neighbor to this gentleman’s property.
I just recently acquired this piece of property at 259 Goshen
Turnpike. Our properties but up against each other behind the
two houses that are between us. I have no objection. I was just
interested in knowing if possible what the purpose of the land
is going to be used for. I’ve got six hundred thirty nine
feet of frontage and six acres. This gentleman has one hundred
ninety three feet of frontage and thirty acres.
Mr. Kiviranna: I have no idea what the buyer wants to do with
it.
Mrs. Thompson: What is your zone?
Mr. Forto: Mine is zoned PID also. I have a non-conforming structure
there right now.
Mr. Smith: You need to take that up with the Town Board.
Mr. Forto: I understand that. There’s no way of knowing
what the purpose of it is?
Mr. Kiviranna: Initially because we have an existing single family
residence on there but it’s been vacant so that grandfather
right went away. Initially someone wanted to buy it and put a
single family home on there. Then we found out he couldn’t
because the house had been vacant for over a year. He said he
would like to buy the land anyway. He’s aware that the Town
is looking at re-zoning that whole area into residential again
but that’s probably a couple of year process when I talked
to the Town Attorney on that. I have no idea what he wants to
do. He’s well aware that whatever he wants to do if it is
an industrial type thing that he’s going to have to come
to the Board for variances, setbacks and things of that nature.
His intent originally was to try and put a single family home.
Mr. Smith: Is there anyone else from the Public?
Mrs. Goolsby: I live at 294 Goshen Turnpike. I just want to mention
that the area right there is very nice. It has a lot of lovely
homes that are well maintained. It scares me to death to hear
PID for here because I read the regulations and you can put anything
there.
Mr. Kiviranna: It is PID.
Mrs. Goolsby: I know. That was done in 1975. I just want to
register my objection to putting something like that there were
there are so many lovely homes. It’s a beautiful area.
Mr. Oster: It’s a little bit off the issue but I talked to
a number of people in the Town Board here and they are looking
at re-doing that whole area.
Mr. Smith: We have nothing to say about what’s going to go
there. What is before the Board is a variance of seven feet.
This is a classic case of where the re-zoning of the area back
in the 1970's made this a hardship by making it an illegal lot.
Mrs. Goolsby: Right.
Mr. Mattattal: We have a Master Plan Committee in the Town now
and people should go to that if they are interested they should
go and express their concerns.
Mr. Smith: Are there any more comments from the Public? (No).
Mr. Smith: Are there any more comments from the Board? (No).
Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 8:24 P.M.; Seconded;
All in favor; Motion carried.
Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the applicant the following variance:
1) front yard 200' to 193'; Seconded.
DISCUSSION: (None)
VOTE:
In Favor (aye): 7
Opposed (nay): 0
DECISION:
Mr. Smith: The variance is granted. Please see the building department
to proceed.
WALLKILL SEVEN & TEN LP: Request 1) 249-28-D(3)(a) front 25'
strip of
landscaped area and 2) 249-28D(3)(b) 25' strip of landscaped area
from sides.
Property located on Turner Drive. (SEC 40 BLOCK 1 LOT 57.22) and
(SEC 40 BLOCK 1 LOT 57.21. Designated
Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed
by the Secretary. The Public Hearing notice was read at 8:24
P.M.
Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 8:26 P.M.
Applicants: Wallkill Seven & Ten LP.
Mr. Samuelson: I’ve with Tectonic Engineering representing
the Frassetto’s. We were here last April requesting the
same variance. It was granted and I made the mistake of forgetting
to ask for an extension and it did expire after six months. I’m
here requesting the same variances. We were in the Planning Board
for the past fourteen months getting approval on site #7 which
is the bottom one on your map. We have final approval with conditions
that we get this variance re-granted. That’s what I am here
for tonight.
Mr. Oster: On your application before us it still states a front
and side yard. When you were before us in April you had amended
it for just side yard.
Mr. Samuelson: That means I forgot to amend the application again.
It is just side yard.
Mr. Oster: So we’re only going to go for the side yard?
Mr. Samuelson: Yes. It is the side yard between the two lots.
Mrs. Thompson: You have nothing on the other lot?
Mr. Samuelson: 57.21 or 57.22?
Mrs. Thompson: 57.21.
Mr. Samuelson: 57.21 is vacant at this time. 57.22 is vacant
at this time but that is the one which is approved with conditional
approval from the Planning Board.
Mr. Oster: It looks like instead of removing twenty five feet
of landscaping he is now looking at removing fifty feet of landscaping.
Fifty feet on both side yards, I realize they are two separate
pieces of property but we would be granting one hundred feet strip
of landscaping, fifty feet on each property.
Mrs. Thompson: Look around in the Town. We certainly need landscaping.
Mr. Samuelson: There will be landscaping in that area. It will
probably be about twenty to twenty feet wide in the boulevard
area and there will be landscaping in front of each building.
It just won’t be a constant fifty foot wide strip.
Mr. Oster: You are showing twenty five. It’s fifty feet.
You will have a problem here as well.
Mr. Samuelson: I have a problem on this side.
Mr. Oster: It’s both sides and you will also have a problem
back here as well.
Mr. Samuelson: Right now, I’m looking for the side yard between
these two. I’m not so worried about the one in the back
here. I worried about the side yard between the two lots and
the side of lot #7. The other ones I can re-work. This boulevard
is essential to the design of this building and the building to
the rear.
Mrs. Thompson: Where is the boulevard going?
Mr. Samuelson: The one that cuts between these two properties.
Mainly it’s the fifty feet side on the both of these.
Mrs. Thompson: But you don’t have anything on this one lot
here?
Mr. Samuelson: We’re still at conceptual on this phase.
This can change other than the boulevard because it is essential
to these two lots. These are very far along in design and approval
status.
Mrs. Thompson: So, you can still . . .
Mr. Samuelson: I can modify this one and landscape everything
around here. There is about a twenty to twenty five foot island
here on this boulevard that will be landscaped and there will
be landscaping between each of these buildings.
Mr. Oster: The last time they were thinking it would be over ten
feet wide.
Mr. Samuelson: I can guarantee you it’s a lot more than twenty
five.
Mr. Morgan: Has the Planning Board approved landscaping in the
island?
Mr. Samuelson: Yes. I do not have a copy of it. I can get you
a copy.
Mr. Smith: Anything we do, we’re going to have to put on
a condition that the other side yard has to be in compliance,
the back side. This is only for the west side yard as I understand
it.
Unidentified Individual from Board: This is primarily where he
is looking for, right along there right? Can you give us half
the island some coverage?
Mr. Samuelson: This is not considered front yard but there will
be twenty five in most of it. Is it fifty feet in the front yard
also?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Samuelson: It has frontage on Turner Drive.
Mr. Smith: It’s going to be all along the front yard also
now because you have parking within the fifty foot setback area.
When this first came to us in April, it was twenty five feet.
Mr. Oster: How much are you giving us on the front yard?
Mr. Samuelson: Everywhere but where the parking is. I worried
about the western lot.
Mr. Oster: Over here?
Mr. Samuelson: Correct.
Mr. Oster: But we’re not here for this.
Mr. Samuelson: That’s what I am here for. I need the variance
for this lot to grant my final approval.
Mr. Smith: What do we have for grabs on the front yard?
Mr. Samuelson: At least twenty five feet and in a small area you
don’t have fifty feet.
Mr. Smith: So, on the front yard you’re looking for a twenty
five foot variance on the landscaped area.
Mr. Samuelson: And the side yards here, removal of it all.
Mr. Smith: Right. Let’s stay with the front yard. We have
fifty feet including the parking.
Mr. Samuelson: Yes.
Mr. Smith: You will have to give up about twenty five feet of
that.
Mr. Samuelson: Just a small section of twenty feet of landscaping
along the front.
Mr. Smith: Do we have fifty feet in to the side yard?
Mr. Samuelson: For building setback?
Mr. Smith: Yes.
Mr. Samuelson: Yes. Building setbacks meet all the way around.
Mr. Smith: Thank you.
Mr. Oster: Here is where it is getting confused. He has both
of these lots on his application.
Mr. Samuelson: It should be the western side yard of lot 57.21.
I can come back and renew it but I can tell you right now I’m
going to be back here two or three times to renew it because it’s
going to be at least a year before I start engineering on that
because Mr. Frassetto feels that this lot is the one he wants
to go with now. That’s the one that we are working on now.
When we get this one done we will move to the other one.
Mr. Smith: Do you want us to vote on both of them now?
Mr. Samuelson: Yes I do.
At this point of the meeting, everyone talking at once. Completely
inaudible.
Mr. Wolfe: Do you have Planning Board approval for these?
Mr. Samuelson: I have conditional final on this one.
Mr. Smith: We’re going to vote on each lot separately. For
the one lot I’m going to say any approval will require re-working
of the . . .
Mr. Samuelson: Required fifty feet along the east boundary. This
is just a conceptual layout. It’s very changeable.
Mr. Smith: Is there anybody from the Public? (None)
Mr. Smith: Are there any more comments from the Board?
Mrs. Thompson: I think they should abide by the code.
Mr. Smith: That’s going to be my feeling. We may have done
something previously but there is no reason why you can’t
comply.
Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 8:26 P.M.;Seconded;
All in Favor; Motion carried.
Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the following variances of 249-28-D(3)
a & b (setback and landscaping)
1) Tax Map Parcel 40-1-57.22
Mr. Smith: Any approval would be on condition that you will meet
the setbacks for the south and west boundaries, correct?
Mr. Samuelson: Yes.
DISCUSSION: (None)
VOTE:
In favor (aye) 5
Opposed (nay) 2
DECISION:
Mr. Smith: The variance is granted. You may see the Building
Inspector on this lot.
2) Tax Map Parcel 40-1-57.21 (setbacks)
Mr. Smith: Any approval will be on condition that the setback
requirements are met on the east, north and south.
DISCUSSION: (None)
VOTE:
In favor (aye) 4
Opposed (nay) 3
DECISION:
Mr. Smith: The variance is denied.
Auto Lovers (Rotundo)
Mr. Smith: This letter is from Weldon Abt, Architect. I am writing
to request a six month extension for variances originally granted
August 13, 2001 and extended six months on February 11, 2002 for
249-26D (front, rear and side yard setbacks); 249-28D (lot area
reduction); 249-12 (parking). It’s taken a considerable
amount of time to obtain approvals from New York State Department
of Transportation.
Mr. Smith: I Move to grant a six month extension; Seconded; All
opposed; Motion denied..
DISCUSSION: Unable to grant more than one extension. Secretary
will write him a letter.
VOTE:
In favor (aye) 0
Opposed (nay) 7
DECISION:
Mr. Smith: The request for an extension is denied.
MEETING CLOSE: There being no further items to be discussed, the
Motion was made to close the meeting at 9:00 P.M.;Seconded; All
in favor; Motion carried.
