1983-08-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning Boaxxl of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Held August 2, 1~83, Mesier ~maestes~l, ~appingers Falls, New York Those present: Fr,~k Savelli, Chairman; George Casey; Robert ~,ith; Sterling VanW~genen; Joel Ne,~m~u; James J. Lyons, Vil~e Atto~vAey; John W. Haubennestel, Zoning Eaforcament C~ficar; Nancy Iowney, Recording Secretary Others present: · r. Don Mazochi, Cl~pp Ave., village Calvin Lawrence, 12 Garden S~., Village Yvonne I~m*~ence, 12 Gsm~len St., Village Ch~ir~n S~velli c~e~ the meeting to or~er 7:30 p.m. He requested a motion to dispense with the rea~ing of the minutes and to approve s as written and for~ard2~ to ~.~ members by m~il. Motion by Mr. Ne,~, seconded by Mm. Casey to dispense with the rea~i~ of the m~nutes ami to approve seine ~s written an~ forw~r~e~ to all members by meil. Ail in favor; metion c~rrie~. Minutes approved as written. Chairman Savelli stated the first or,er of business o~ the agen~ woul~ be a public hearing at the request of Calvin & Yvonne Lawrence, 12 Garden ~St., V~e, see~im~ an Interpretation ~ ~ Variance from Section ~20-A, Schedule of Regulations for Residence Districts (R2F), minimum side y~rd requirement of 10 feet, to erect a hc~e on a vasant lot on Gsm~en St., Village. Chairman S~vetli aske~ if all within 200 ft. radius of property hs~ been notifie~ and secretary replied yes. The secretary then rea~ the Notice of Appeal, the Legal Notice as it ~ppeared in the Southern Dutchess News and the letter fr~ the Dutchess County Department of Planning which stated that a ~ecisi~n shoul~l be based on local study of fa2ts in the case. A letter waa also reset frem the Village l~-~ing Boar~ which stated they ha~ objection. M~. I~wrence presente~ a m~p to the Board which outlined the property an~ sho~ed dimensions of same. The property at one time belonged to his pa~ents same was turne~ over to him. There is a 1~ ft. right of w~y which allow access to the property. He woul~ l~ke to build the house for his son. There is 10 ft. on the sid2, 2~ ft. to the rear and 1~ ft. in the front. ~ of the property does belong to him. The house woul~ be ~ ft. in length an~ 7 feet wou_~ be use~ up to the line. Chairm~.n S~velli asked if everything belonged to him, wh~ was he concerned? Mr. I~wrence stated he was before the Board for an interpretation in regar~ to the dmiveway coul~ remain as it is. Chairman S~velli state~ he d~i~ not see any problem, as all of the property belongs to Mr. Lawrence. Mm. ~m~th aske~ Mm. Lawrence if he wanted an interpretation as to whether this cou~ be a d~ivew~y. Mr. Lawrence replied that is wh~ he is before the Boar~. Zoning Officer H~ubennestel state~ he measure~ the area an~ it is his contention that since the ~ owns the property that he can do a~ything with lan~. Even if he shifts the ros~, he is still ca,plying with the l~w. ~he party to the e~st has the proper footing of 10 feet. Mr. VanWagenen questioned the fs~t that since Mr. I~wrence ~oes own a~l of the property w~,~n't the right of w~y be obsolete. Atty. Lyons st~te~ that the problem is that Mr. Lawrence, originality, ~id not own ~1 ~ lots. He owne~ the ba~k lots and he does not want to release the right o~ way. There is ~ question concerning the ~ ft. house with 10 ft. on e~ch si~e. The pro- blem is whether the driveway is an obstruction. There is now in the Appellate Cou~ a case involving a parking lot. The court state~ this is an open sp~ce fixed or stationery. A permanent structure does not violate ~ sido yar~ ~equirement. ~t canes ~own to whether a parking lot is considered a movin~ or non-moving structure.