TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Mr. Clark: That's never been graded. That property was never touched.

Mr. Slomka: I don't know.

Mr. Smith: The only concern for the Zoning Board of Appeals is the width of the property. How the water flows off of it is not for us.

Mr. Slomka: So, what's the next step?

Mrs. Thompson: Planning.

Mr. Mattatall: The Building Department.

Mr. Slomka: It does concern me. You put a big house in there, we are at the bottom of the hill.

Mr. Smith: Again, it's not a concern for this board. Today we have to have engineered septic systems. We don't address that.

Mr. Slomka: Will there be another hearing on this?

Mr. Owen: Not with us.

Mr. Slomka: What's the next step?

Mr. Smith: He will go to the Building Inspector for a building permit and will most likely have to see an engineered septic system.

Mr. Slomka: It's no so much the septic. My well is less than twenty feet from the property line.

Mr. Smith: That is part of designing the septic. It has to be so many feet away.

Mr. Slomka: As long as all those concerns are addressed.

Mr. Smith: We don't address that. We're here for a lot width variance.

Mr. Owen: You can talk to the Building Inspector about any of that stuff.

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

Mr. Mattatall: Actually that hill goes way up.

Mr. Smith: Is there anyone else from the Public?

Mr. Zanger: Is it my understanding that this Board does not deal with issues of water?

Mr. Mattatall: The only thing we deal with is the one hundred feet.

Mr. Zanger: I understand that in this specific instance. I'm saying in any instance?

Mr. Smith: This application before us. He brought the application. His application is requesting a lot width variance from one hundred feet which is the zoning to 96.8 and even that runs to the centerline of the road. That's all we're addressing. Anything else he does

Mr. Zanger: Is beyond the purview of this board?

Mr. Smith: That's right.

Mr. Mattatall: Only what is on the application. The only thing before us is the width of the lot. That's it. We can't discuss anything else.

Mr. Zanger: I'm just trying to understand how

Mr. Smith: If he had to come back for more variances then a notice will be in the paper and we will address them at that time if he requires more variances. We don't know if he does or not. Right now we're only addressing the lot width. Do you have any comments about his lot width?

Mr. Zanger: No.

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board? (No.)

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Public? (No.)

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:15 P.M.; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
Mr. Smith: I Move to grant variance of lot width from 100' to 96.8'; Seconded.

DISCUSSION:

None

VOTE:

In favor (Aye): 7
Opposed (Nay): 0

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: The variance is granted; please see the Building Department.

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
ROBERT MASSARO: Request for variance of 249-20 D (rear yard setback) for extension of deck); Property located at 6 White Oak Court (Sec. 95, Block 1, Lot 16) and designated R-2.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Hearing Notice was read at 9:17 P.M.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 9:17 P.M.

Mr. Massaro: Do you have any problems with the extension of the deck that I want to put up, 16 x 16?

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board?

Mrs. Thompson: Will you be putting an enclosure on it?

Mr. Massaro: No. It's going to be open.

Mr. Mattatall: Are you going to use the existing stairs for the deck?

Mr. Massaro: Yes.

Mr. Smith: Are there any comments from the Public? (No.)

Mr. Smith: Any more comments from the Board?

Mr. Oster: It is just the one corner of the house.

Mr. Smith: There is really nothing behind you. It is a very minimal request.

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:19 P.M.; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant variance of 249-20 D for a rear yard setback from 30' to 21'; Seconded.

DISCUSSION:

None.

VOTE:

In favor (Aye): 7
Opposed (Nay): 0

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: The variance is granted, please see the Building Department.

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

HAMRE: COURT ORDER TO RE-CONSIDER ANOTHER VOTE.

Mr. Joseph Owen, Esq.: The applicant has waived their right to a further hearing.

Unidentified Person: Consistent with the decision of Judge Dickerson who has requested that you, we request that you or make a decision to go through the analysis of the facts that are already on record and let's make (not clear) that the Judge asked for.

Mr. Joseph Owen, Esq.: You can proceed with your comments.

Mr. Oster: From the very beginning the way I thought in other words, the proposal of one larger lot to go into two and neither lot is holding up the 15,000 square feet. What I thought at the beginning was that your missing 5,574 feet. One lot 1,500, the other small lot. Granted the way you have subdivided it and made two smaller lots but it was just another, you don't have the width, the depth. They were just so much smaller than what I thought the other part of the neighborhood had. Again, that was why I had a negative vote on it. Again, what happens if one lot (not clear). Layout of 10,000 square feet. That's the way I thought. The smaller lots is hard for that area and that's why I gave a negative vote.

Mrs. Thompson: I gave a negative vote because the neighborhood is designed to accept, it will change the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Morgan: I have to disagree with you because I thought it was (not clear).

Mr. Smith: I voted no because the lots were rather uniform on the street. We did have a lot of discussion from the neighbors as to changing the character of the neighborhood. I feel that the two undersized lots do change the character of the neighborhood. The lot is not particularly unique in that it required a variance where you take it one single lot and creating two undersized lots that does not meet zoning and that was a substantial variance for that neighborhood. I also felt, I gathered from the testimony from all of the neighbors is that they felt that their might be just an increase risk to the neighborhood just one more family, one more house. It is a cul-de-sac. And clearly though they didn't address it on any legal term, they clearly understood that you were putting two houses on undersized lots rather than just the one house there. More people on the street, that's all. And financially the hardship was self created. They bought the lot knowing that if it is not subdivide-able without a variance
the hardship was self created.

Mr. Owen: I voted no for reason one (1) was that they got too much substantial for the size

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

of the lots. I felt it was self created too. You bought the lot as one lot and you are trying to divide it up into two small lots which would make two smaller lots both undersized. I felt it was a little de-mining.

Mr. Mattatall: I wasn't present at that meeting. I reviewed the minutes of the meeting. I did a site visit to the location. It's my opinion the vote against the case granting a variance was because it's a self created problem for those two small lots. The lots are substantially smaller than those in that area. It is not a good use for that area with what's existing with the lot area there. It's something that would change the character of the neighborhood with lots that small.

Unidentified Person: If I could address the Board about those points. I would like to be very clear about what Judge Dickerson decided and maybe it would be helpful if I referred directly to his decision. Essentially what he said was there is nothing on record there is no evidence in the record to support denial of this variance. What he said was facts and documentation including a full engineered subdivision plan, color coded map demonstrating that the lots proposed were consistent in size and shape to those in the neighborhood and photographs demonstrating that there were no unique features that would conclude the subdivision for an additional single family home on the property. The decision also noted the generalized opposition of the opponents and about that the Judge said there is nothing in these minutes that discreet's any of the facts and evidence introduced into the record of findings. The decision is very clear and I think that if you confer with Counsel, he would presumably advise that the Judge has decided what the facts and records of this case are. It's not possible now to make judgements that are not supported by facts in the record. There is nothing in the record to support the notion that there are any dangers, there are any environmental impacts, that this does not conform with the neighborhood character and I would just suggest to you that we've been through this to a great extent and in good faith and the next step if you were to not see it the Judge's way would be to have you back in court.

Mr. Joseph Owen, Esq. They came here and they asked not for another hearing but they asked for your comments and your input based on your site observations and based upon what you heard that evening and based upon your review of the minutes. So, I think you've stated it and now you want to have a vote on it. That's what they've asked for. Isn't that correct?

Unidentified Person: I don't think I'm presumed to tell you how to conduct your business.

Mr. Joseph Owen, Esq: Well, he has told me that he would like a re-vote tonight so I think

TOWN OF WALLKILL ZONING BOARD SEPTEMBER 9, 2002

you should do that and you can base it on the comments that you gave tonight.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant one (1) variance from 15,000 square feet to 13,056 square feet and two (2) variance from 15,000 square feet to 11,370 square feet along with a driveway setback; Seconded.

DISCUSSION: None

VOTE:

In favor (Aye) 2
Opposed (Nay) 5

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: The variances are denied.

MEETING CLOSE:

There being no further items to be presented to this Board; Motion made to close the Zoning Board Meeting at 9:40 P.M.; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.