Loading...
1998-10-13*.► AGENDA Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals MEETING DATE: October 13, 1998 TIME: 7:30 PM Approval of September 22, 1998, minutes. PUBLIC HEARING - INTERPRETATION Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappingers Falls, NY Anneal No. 98-7029 - At the request of Bil-Mac Kitchens, who is seeking an Interpretation of the Code (Article IV, Section 420.2, Item Nos. 8 & 37 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — Non -Residential Districts) whether the existing kitchen cabinet dealer constitutes a retail business or a contractor's yard. The property is located at 178 Route 82 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6356-01-252986-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the subject application is an Unlisted Action and has reserved its right to make its Determination of Significance pursuant to SEQR, and will not make such Determination until the conclusion of the Public Hearing. DISCUSSIONS Hulsair - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7030 seeking a use variance for property located on 269 Myers Corners Road in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Dutchess Terminal, Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7031 proposing to demolish the existing gasoline pumps and construct a canopy over new pumps which would require two front yard variances. The property is located on Route 9D (James Daly's property) in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Modu-Craft Homes, Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7032 seeking a side yard variance to construct an attached garage on a residence located at 95 A Osborne Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Andlyn Associates, Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7033 requesting a variance for an existing driveway grade for property located at 210 New Hackensack Road in the Town of Wappinger. Now MINUTES *'" Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals October 13, 1998 Minutes Members Present Town Hall 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, NY Mr. Prager: Chairman Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman Mr. Fanuele: Member Mr. diPierno: Member Mr. Warren: Member' APPR( EU Others Present u G i Mr. Roberts, Attorney to the Town Mr. Close, Zoning Administrator Wait IN'o �y<' Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals t SUMMARIZED Minutes to be approved: Sept. 22, 1998 -- Approved Public Hearing - Interpretation: Bil-Mac Kitchens -- Use Variance Not Required �.. Discussions: Hulsair -- Scheduled for a Workshop - Oct. 27, 1998 Dutchess Terminals, Inc. -- Set Public Hearing for Nov. 10, 1998 Modu-Craft Homes, Inc. -- Set Public Hearing for Oct. 27, 1998 Andlyn Associates, Inc. -- Set Public Hearing for Oct. 27, 1998 MINUTES Mr. Warren made a motion to approve the September 22, 1998, minutes. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye except Mr. diPierno since he was absent for that meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - INTERPRETATION Appeal No. 98-7029 - At the request of Bil-Mac Kitchens, who is seeking an Interpretation of the Code (Article IV, Section 420.2, Item Nos. 8 & 37 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — Non -Residential Districts) whether the existing kitchen cabinet dealer constitutes a retail business or a contractor's yard. The property is located at 178 Route 82 and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6356-01-252986-00 in the Town of Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that the subject application is an Unlisted Action and has reserved its right to make it's Determination of Significance pursuant to SEQR, and will not make such Determination until the conclusion of the Public Hearing. 1"0* Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 2 q,,,, Mr. Charles McCarthy was present. Mrs. Nguyen stated all the mailings were in order. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager stated the Planning Board sent a letter dated October 5, 1998, to the Zoning Board. "The Planning Board is uncertain as to the exact nature of this appeal. However, the Planning Board does confirm that the applicant has received site plan approval for kitchen design and sales on the subject site as a permitted retail use in a neighborhood business. No other approvals have been granted." Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, clarified that at the time the Planning Board granted site plan approval to Bil-Mac Kitchens, the property was zoned Neighborhood Business. The property is currently Mixed Hamlet. Mr. C. McCarthy explained that he has a retail sales business on Route 82. They sell kitchen cabinets and countertops to the public. The cabinets are delivered to the showroom. Then, they ship them out to the customer's house and install them. There is no warehousing. Nothing is manufactured. . Mr. Prager asked how long they have been in business. Mr. McCarthy stated the building was built in 1984 and incorporated in 1986. His father started the business which can be dated back to 1958. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, asked if Mr. McCarthy's business has changed in any fashion since he was originally granted site plan approval by the Planning Board. Mr. McCarthy said no. It has stayed the same. Mr. Lehigh made a motion for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Mr. Fanuele did not feel there is a need for a Neg. Dec. Mr. Lehigh withdrew his motion based upon the fact the application for a variance has change to an application for an interpretation. Mr. McCarthy consented. Mr. Prager logged into evidence the minutes from the last meeting, a copy of the survey map dated 2/9/88, drawn by Cambell, Gray, and Railing, PC, Planning Board minutes dated 7/11/84 and 12/5/94, and a letter dated "�' October 5, 1998, from the Planning Board. vow Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 3 Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, added there is a report from the Zoning Administrator dated Sept. 15, 1998, summarizing the permits and c/o's issued to the applicant. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Warren seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager made a motion that he determined from the information brought before the Board that Bil- Mac Kitchens is an existing kitchen cabinet dealer and constitutes a retail business which is legal in this area. Mr. Fanuele asked why the applicant came before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. McCarthy explained that he was thinking about putting an addition on the building. They came in asking what would be required in order to do that. Mr. Close checked the Town's records and determined that they are a contracting business which is not permitted in their area. Mr. Close determined that they needed to go through this process. They ended up getting a letter from Mr. Close saying they are in violation. The only reason this came about is because they were inquiring as to what the process would be if they wanted to put up an addition. Mr. Fanuele asked Mr. Close if he still considers Mr. McCarthy's business as a contractor. ,`' Mr. Close said no. He explained that when Mr. McCarthy came in to his office, he asked what kind of business Mr. McCarthy has. Mr. McCarthy told him he is a `contractor.' That is how it started. Mr. McCarthy believed the interpretation of a contractor business is where the difference is. Mr. Prager added there is to be no storage of construction material, supplies, or equipment on the site because that is not a permitted use on the site. Mr. Lehigh seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Mr. Fanuele: Mr. Prager: Vote: All present voted aye. DISCUSSIONS Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye. Aye. Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Aye. 1. Hulsair - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7030 seeking a use variance for property located on 269 Myers Corners Road in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. George Hulsair, property owner, and his brother Charles Hulsair, were present. V4W Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 4 Mr. C. Hulsair explained that he lives at 277 Myers Comers Road, and he is seeking a use variance to store equipment at 269 Myers Corners Road. He stated a pole barn was built specifically for that use. The equipment has been there on and off for 12 years. Mr. Prager asked if they store the equipment there or do they run the business from there. Mr. C. Hulsair said they only store the equipment at that location. He has an office at his house (277 Myers Corners Road) which is a seasonal part-time job. He works full-time at Ti1Con. Mr. Lehigh asked where the equipment is presently being stored. Mr. C. Hulsair said they can not store all of the equipment in the barn. They have a backhoe, a 6 wheel dumptruck and a 10 wheeler. Mr. Prager stated the Planning Board Minutes from April 4, 1994, stated he was seeking a special use permit for a two-family residence on a single family lot. Mr. C. Hulsair stated there is a mother -daughter on the property. Mr. Prager stated there is a letter from Lawrence Paggi dated March 8, 1994. He stated in the letter it says the existing house has a special use permit allowing a two-family house. He stated the Planning Board Minutes for April 4, 1994, mentions a storage shed to be built. He assumed they were referring to the pole barn. They were concerned about the equipment being parked outside, which could be seen from the road. Mr. C. Hulsair stated if someone is driving down the road, the equipment can be seen from the road. Myers Corners Road is elevated, therefore anyone driving by can look down on the pole barn area. Mr. Prager said at the April Planning Board meeting it was discussed and determined they were in violation. He said if that is still being done, he is still in violation, which means the Board can not consider his request for a variance. Mr. G. Hulsair explained that he recently purchased the property from his parents in January. He stated he cleaned out behind the barn so now they are parking the trucks there. He stated there is a chicken coop and a horse stall in front of it so the equipment is not as visible. Mr. Lehigh said the Planning Board minutes state everything was supposed to be screened. That is the reason they received approval for the subdivision. Mr. G. Hulsair stated they have about a 3 or 4 acre road frontage. They would have to put up a long fence. Mr. Prager stated that may be necessary. Mr. Lehigh asked if the boat and trailer are still stored on the property. Mr. G. Hulsair said yes, he has a 19 foot boat with a racing trailer, which is registered. He said he has 8 acres of 10 ► property. Mr. Prager asked why they are asking for a use variance. Cm Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 5 Mr. C. Hulsair felt someone complained. He felt it is political. He stated he received a letter stating they are in violation of Zoning. Way back when they were seeking a subdivision, it was swept under the table. It was okay back then because nobody complained about anything. Mr. Prager explained to the applicants what they will need to prove to get a use variance. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, said it appears from Mr. John Anderson's letter dated March 8, 1994, that there was some sort of determination made by the then Zoning Administrator, Mr. Levenson. He wanted an explanation of what occurred back then. Mr. Prager read the letter into the minutes. The letter is addressed to the Planning Board, attention to Herb Levenson, the then Zoning Administrator. The letter is regarding the Hulsair Subdivision. "Dear Mr. Levenson. This letter is written as a follow-up to our conversation today pertaining to the Special Use Permit for Hulsair Subdivision. It is my understanding that the existing house has a current Special Use Permit allowing for a 2 -family house in an R-40 zoned area. Permit No. 103 - Application No. 539. The dumptruck, backhoe, and trailer shall be stored in or near the proposed storage barn, which has a current building permit on file with the Town of Wappinger Building Dept. It is my understanding that no further Special Use Permit will be needed at this time." The rest of the letter discusses the driveways. Mr. Fanuele stated a use permit and a use variance is two different things. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated the point of the letter was that some determination was made that a permit was granted as long as the equipment was stored in the barn. The testimony tonight indicated something to the contrary. The applicant will need to make a presentation as to the circumstances under which they received the permit for the barn and for those uses that are not covered by that permit such as parking or storing the vehicles in the barn, they would then have to make an application for a use variance to store them outside the barn. Mr. diPierno stated it says, "Shall be stored in or near the proposed storage barn." Mr. Prager said that means if anyone can see the equipment from any angle, then the applicant has to do something to screen it. From the Planning Board minutes, it appeared that the applicant did not want to make sure that the equipment was stored out of sight. That concerned Mr. Prager. Mr. C. Hulsair stated it is a difficult site to screen due to the vast road frontage. Mr. Lehigh said there must be a way to screen the equipment at a reasonable cost. He stated a use variance is very difficult to get. He suggested a fence could be installed back where the equipment is located. It would also necessitate a shorter fence then if the fence was up by the road. He suggested Mr. Hulsair could work with the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Prager reminded the applicant of the requirements for a use variance to be granted. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, clarified a use `variance' and a use `permit' are two different things. Storage of other vehicles is permitted in a residential zone subject to the issuance of a special use permit by the Planning ' Board. He wanted the applicant to understand that a business can not be conducted in a residential zone. The residential property must be used for permitted residential purposes. Under the Town Zoning Ordinance and the Schedule of Use Regulations, Subdivision 39, it gives the criteria under which the applicant could obtain a INMW Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 6 special use permit for the storage of vehicles. He suggested the applicant should discuss that with the Zoning Administrator and make a determination whether or not he wishes to proceed with a use variance. He suggested they could adjourn the workshop on consent for two weeks to give the applicant time to make that decision. Mr. C. Hulsair asked the Board if what they were saying was the special use permit in existence is acceptable. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated it is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether it is or not. Mr. Close stated in the Planning Board minutes, Mr. Wery had suggested a special use permit for the storage of the equipment. Mr. Anderson from Larry Paggi's office took it upon himself to say none was needed. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated the minutes of Feb. of 1994, states that Mr. Anderson consulted with the then Zoning Administrator and Mr. Anderson's March 8, 1994, letter appears to be a conformation of that conversation. Mr. Prager agreed with Mr. Roberts. He suggested the applicant should submit explaining what the special terms were. Mr. C. Hulsair seemed confused about what he needed to do. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, explained that a notice was given to Mr. Hulsair by the Zoning Dept. indicating that he was in violation. Once the Zoning Administrator makes that determination, it is up to the applicant to disprove his allegations. The applicant has to demonstrate that he has a right to park the vehicles in the barn pursuant to permits previously given by the Town, or he has to apply for a variance to authorize him to park the vehicles. Mr. Roberts stated it appears Mr. Hulsair was given some authority to park some vehicles in the barn several years ago. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate the circumstances under which that was issued either by bringing Mr. Anderson in to testify or by getting an affidavit satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator. If it is unsatisfactory to the Zoning Administrator, then he will report back at the adjourned workshop and the Board would schedule a public hearing for either a use variance and/or an interpretation. He suggested Mr. Hulsair should consult with an Attorney. Mr. Prager asked the applicant if he is in agreement to adjourn the workshop to the next meeting. Mr. Hulsair consented. Mr. Prager made a motion to adjourn the workshop to October 271h. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Hulsair said he may need more time to consult with an Attorney. Mr. Roberts, Town Attorney, stated if the applicant needs more time, he should give the Board at least 5 days notice. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 7 2. Dutchess Terminal, Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7031 proposing to demolish the existing gasoline pumps and construct a canopy over new pumps which would require two front yard variances. The property is located on Route 9D (James Daly's property) in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Spratt, PE, Mr. Daly, property owner, and Mr. Khorsrow Vosoughi, President of Dutchess Terminals, Inc. (leasing from Mr. Daly), were present. Mr. Spratt, PE, explained they are proposing to upgrade the existing gasoline station. They want to move the pumps southerly in order to put up a new canopy over a new pump island. The canopy would be within 5 feet of State property and the island would be less than the 25 feet required. He has spoken with the DOT about changing the curbing and they have no problem with that. Mr. Prager stated the Board will need to see a letter from DOT. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the gas tanks underground are all tested and approved. They will not be disturbing them. A small diesel tank will be installed. The piping from the tanks to the island is the extent of the work that will be done. Mr. Lehigh suggested moving all of the pumps so they would be inline rather than having a double set of pumps. They could place a canopy over it, and the applicant would not need a variance. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the building they are connecting to the islands is the left building. The right building is -*.. occupied by another use. Mr. Lehigh stated originally it was all one use because he remembers when they came in for a variance to put the glass shop in there. He did not have enough room in the one building to do that so he needed the extra building. The ZBA granted him a variance for that. He did not understand why they can not move the two islands over. Then, they would not need a variance. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated he represents the leasee of one of the building on the property. He does not represent the owner of the property. He does not have the privilege of moving it up and down in front of the owners commercial buildings. He stated the gas station is not in the big building. Mr. Lehigh stated presently the gas station is in the small office. Mr. Vosoughi, President of Dutchess Terminals, Inc., stated by proposing what they are offering, they will be eliminating one of the uses on the property. Currently there are three uses on the property; body shop, gas station, and a previous glass shop. They are proposing a gas station/convenience store and a body shop. The glass business is already gone. He agreed with Mr. Lehigh that if they put in two pumps, no variance is required. However, based upon a survey that they have done, they need at least 4 pumps. Mr. Lehigh clarified that he was not suggesting to cut down on the number of pumps. He suggested they could configure the location of the pumps differently. He suggested they could move the 4 pumps to the right in a line. Then, they would not need a variance. Mr. Daly said that would only give them one traffic lane to the back of the property. It would block up everything. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 8 14WAW Mr. Spratt, PE, stated there are overhead doors in that location. Mr. Lehigh suggested a sight inspection. Mr. Fanuele asked what is the traffic pattern to the second building, auto repair. He did not see any parking on the plans. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated that on the original site plan the back of the property is to be used for parking. DISCUSSION OF THE SITE PLAN Mr. Lehigh asked if there one story masonry block building (larger building) has rear entrances. Mr. Daly said yes. There is a 10 ft. door. Mr. Fanuele asked again what is the traffic pattern to get to the back parking lot for the auto repair business. It looked to him as if they would need to drive through the pump area to get to the rear of the building. He felt that is unsafe. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated they also have direct access from the other entrance on Route 9. Mr. Fanuele stated they can not guarantee that all of the trucks and cars would come in only the one entrance to get to the rear of the lot. They can not prevent traffic from coming in the other entrance and driving through the pump area. He suggested eliminating one row of pumps, which would give them enough area to bring cars through to get into the back. Then, they would not need a variance. Mr. Vosoughi said they will gain more parking spaces in the front of the building by moving the gas pumps. Then, that whole area can be used for parking. Mr. Fanuele stated the plans do not show parking. Mr. Prager said the applicant needs to resubmit the plan showing the parking. Mr. Lehigh wanted to see a drawing of the overhead canopy. He wants to see the design, the lighting, and where the supports will be located. He also wanted to know if there is any screening designed for the property. Mr. Spratt, PE, stated the supports are on the island. He stated they are proposing recessed lighting up into the canopy which can not be seen from the road. Mr. Lehigh asked about signage. He said the Board wants to see anything proposed for signage. Mr. Prager stated DC Planning sent in a letter dated October 13, 1998. It says the applicant has proposed a standard canopy design. "The Board should consider a real pitched roof rather than a flat roof. In addition, the Board should examine the proposed wattage and style of the lighting fixtures, including canopy lighting, to ensure that the proposed lighting will not be overly bright. The Board may also want to consider landscaping the island with a row of street trees, spaced approximately 30 or 40 feet apart, and additional low plantings to screen the view of the proposed canopy and gas pumps. The department recommends that the Board rely upon its own study of the facts in this case with due consideration of the above comments." on .r' Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 9 �.. Mr. Spratt, PE, was concerned about planting street trees. He could see planting something low. He said the trees would be planted on State property so they would be adamant as to what they would allow to be planted there. Mr. Prager set the site inspection for Saturday, October 17, 1998, at 9 AM. He asked for one of the gentlemen to be present for the site inspection. He asked them to mark out the dimensions so the Board can easily see where they are proposing the changes. Mr. Spratt, PE, asked Mr. Close about additional signage. Mr. Warren made a motion for the ZBA to be Lead Agency only for the variance. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Prager set the public hearing for November 10`h. Mr. Spratt, PE, asked if they come in for a larger sign, should they include it for the public hearing to save time. Mr. Vosoughi stated he wants to combine the logo on the top and the price on the bottom. Mr. Prager said no, because there is no application for a sign variance and they would need to hold a workshop on the signage prior to a public hearing being held. 3. Modu-Craft Homes. Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7032 seeking a side yard variance to construct an attached garage on a residence located at 95 A Osborne Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Fred Straub, President of Modu-Craft Homes, Inc., was present. Mr. Straub explained the existing raised ranch already has a 2 car garage underneath it on the right hand side. The person planning to buy the property has a couple of antique cars. He is looking to take the cars out of where he is paying warehouse fees and put them on the side of the house for storage. He does not want a driveway to the stored cars since he only takes the antique cars out a couple of times a year. He said he would run them across the lawn when he takes them out. They are proposing a 24 ft. wide by 26 ft. deep. Mr. Lehigh asked if there is anywhere else on the property the 2 car garage could be put. Mr. Straub said they tried, but due to the odd shape of the property they cannot move it. Mr. Prager asked if he could reduce the width of the garage. Mr. Straub stated was not sure. A 24' X 26' 2 car garage is what the gentleman is asking for. ••- Mr. Prager stated the Board always looks for the minimum amount of a variance. The house is already built with a 2 car garage under the house. The gentleman interested in the property wants to put up another 2 car 14000, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 10 garage for storage of antique cars. He asked Mr. Straub to find out how much the gentleman could reduce the width of the garage. Mr. Straub stated a typical width of a garage is 22 ft. Mr. Prager said it can be reduced especially since it is only for storage. He suggested the garage could be moved forward. Mr. Straub said it would detract from the house. Mr. Prager asked the length of the antique cars. He wanted to know if the depth of the garage could also be reduced. Mr. Straub did not know the length of the cars. He assumed some of it would be used for regular storage. Mr. Prager stated he wanted to see the width of the garage cut down. He stated if the depth could be cut down, then they would not need as large of a variance. Mr. Straub said they could possibly cut it down to 22' W X 24' D. He would still need a variance. He stated the Green Fly Swamp is in the rear of the parcel. He has already staked out 24' W X 26' D. The stonewall is basically the property line. The Board set a site inspection for October 17, 1998, at 9:30. Mr. Lehigh made a motion for the ZBA to be Lead Agency. Mr. diPierno seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. Mr. Lehigh suggested the Board should wait on a Neg. Dec. Mr. Prager set the public hearing for October 27, 1998. 4. Andlyn Associates, Inc. - To discuss Appeal No. 98-7033 requesting a variance for an existing driveway grade for property located at 210 New Hackensack Road in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Nick DeLuccia, and Mr. Humeston, property owners, were present. Mr. DeLuccia explained they are presently before the Planning Board for Site Plan Approval to convert the house into an office. The existing driveway is too steep according to the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Board sent them to the ZBA with a recommendation. Mr. Prager asked if there is anything they can do to change the pitch of the driveway. ►- Mr. Humeston said no. The driveway grade is about 16%. They plan to blacktop the driveway. They also own the property next door to this property and a piece on St. Nicholas Road. They have been before the Planning Board for a commercial subdivision for warehouse storage on St. Nicholas. The existing driveway will be IWAe Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Summarized Minutes - October 13, 1998 Page 11 eliminated in the future since it will have access to the new cul-de-sac which will come in off St. Nicholas Road. Mr. Fanuele asked if that was a condition of the variance, would they have a problem with that. Mr. Humeston agreed to the condition. Mr. Prager stated the Board received a letter from the Zoning Administrator on behalf of the Planning Board. They Planning Board made a positive recommendation for the ZBA to issue a variance for the existing driveway grade. Mr. Humeston stated they plan to blacktop the driveway, but before they do that they have to discuss it with the County and see what requirements they have. Mr. Prager asked them to get some information from the County as to whether or not they will let them blacktop the driveway. Mr. Prager wanted it part of the record that he and Mr. Lehigh both know Mr. Humeston. Mr. Lehigh stated they have no financial interest. They simply know Roger. Mr. Humeston did not have a problem with them voting on the variance. Mr. Prager set the public hearing for October 27, 1998. The Board agreed a site inspection is not necessary. Mr. Lehigh made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Fanuele seconded the motion. Vote: All present voted aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 PM. %W Respectfully submitted, Linda Nguyen, Secretary Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals