|
Zoni~ Board of Appeals Minutes of Meeting Held August 6, 1985, Mesier Homestead,
<br />Wappingers F,11 ~, New York
<br />
<br />Those present:
<br />
<br />Frank 8avelli, Che/rman; Oeerge Casey; Joel Neuman; Robert ~nith;
<br />Harold Re~lly, Village Attorney; John W. Haubennestel, Zoning Enfore~,~nt
<br />Officer; Lynn Greco, Deputy Zoning Enforcement Officer; Nancy Lowney,
<br />Recording Secretary
<br />
<br />Absent: Sterling Vanl(agenen
<br />
<br />Others present:
<br />
<br />Eileen M~sterson, 60 Mesier Avenue So.,
<br />Harry Oreco, 6 Roy Avenue, Village (Trustee)
<br />Lucy DeSantis, 29 Mesier Avenue North, Village
<br />TO~ De,antis, " " " " "
<br />Donato DeMelis, ~ McCafferty Place, Village
<br />Gregory Supple, 9~ East Main St., Village, Attorney-at-Law
<br />Joseph Aiello, 10 M~Cafferty Pl., Village
<br />Mary Morris, 12 Mesier Avenue North, Village
<br />Bill Hughes, 10 " " "
<br />To~ Merris~ 12 " " " "
<br />Mark O'Sullivan, 90 East Main St., Vtlmage
<br />Dr. Chester Ool~ing, 2 Mesier Avenue North, Village
<br />William Sedore, 156 Sheafe Rd., %{app.
<br />Gretchen Ooldtng, 2 Mesier Avenue North, Village
<br />
<br />Chairman Savelli called the meeting to or~er 7:30 p.m.
<br />He requested a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes aucl to approve same
<br />as written ami forwarded to ~ll members by mail.
<br />Motion by Mr. -q~ith, seconded by Mr. Casey to dispense with the reading of the minutes
<br />and to approve same as written and forwaaxled to ~ll members by mail.
<br />Ail in favor; motion carried. Minutes approved.
<br />
<br />ChairmAn Save]Ii stated the first item on the agenda would, be a continuation of a public
<br />hearing requested by ~briele DeSantis & Donato DeMelis, 29 Mesier Avenue North, seeking
<br />an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in regard to property in their ownership at
<br />32 High St., V~l~e.
<br />Gregory Supple, Attorney-at-Law, 92 East Main St., Vii/age, addressed the Board. He
<br />stated that at the last meetin~ the Boar~ requested the owners have the property surveyed
<br />showing the lines of same. He submittad copies of property lines to the Board for their
<br />review. He said that the Board should note these are two separate parcels. There is
<br />50 ft. fro~ one to the other. ~e felt there is no legal problam if they want to build
<br />a house on the second lot.
<br />Atty. Rei]_ly replied that the Board cannot answer this. The issue here is an interpretation.
<br />Mr. Supple stated the topograph~ of the 2nd lot is irregular. ~t would be practical
<br />to build the house on the line, sonewhat in the middle of the 2 parcels. He then pointed
<br />out on the map the 50 ft. line, on the upper 2/3 of the map. It is right on the line
<br />The topography would not allow the residence to have a 200 ft. setback an~ in the front
<br />lot. He respectfully requested that the Board grant a variance to his clients.
<br />Atty. Reilly stated the application is for an interpretation. As to the requirement
<br />of 50 ft., there is no problem. There is a problem with setbacks and sidelines. He said
<br />another application should be filed.
<br />Atty. Supple quoted Section hll.5 of the Ordi-~-ce: Irregularly Shaped ~ots: "k~ere a
<br />question exists as to the proper application of any requirements of this Ordinance to
<br />a particular lot or parcel because of the peculiar or irregular shape of the lot or
<br />a parcel, the Board of Appe~m- sha_.~l determine how the requirements sb-~ be applied.
<br />Atty. Re~]]ff again stated that this is not the issue before the Board. The application
<br />is not for street frontage.
<br />Mr. Supple asked what they needed to do to build.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|