1997-03-25AGENDA
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board
MEETING DATE: MARCH 25, 1997
TIME -- 7:30 PM
Approval of February 25, 1997 and March 11, 1997 minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls, NY
Appeal No. 1239 -- At the request of Mr. Lewis J. Rompala who is seeking two (2) variances
of Article IV, Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — whereas;
1. A 12 foot side yard setback is required, the applicant is showing 9' 9" (Prior to Zoning) and
is proposing 5' 9", thus requiring a 4' side yard variance to construct a 14' X 24' garage
and whereas;
2. A 25 foot front yard setback is required, the applicant is proposing 22' 2", thus requiring a
2' 10" front yard variance to construct a 14' X 24' garage; on property located at 15
Cayuga Drive and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-546497-00 in the Town of
Wappinger.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, the Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead
Agency for this project on March 11, 1997.
DISCUSSIONS
1. LPV Associates - Discuss Appeal No. 1240 requesting;
A. The applicant is requesting 2 signs at 80 square feet each and 2 signs at 20 square feet
each (200 square - foot total) on the front of the building, whereas only 100 square feet is
allowed, thus requiring a 100 square - foot variance for property located at 1611 Route
9 and whereas;
MINUTES
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
March 25, 1997
Minutes
Members Present
Mr. Prager:
Chairman
Mr. Fanuele:
Member
Mr. Warren:
Member
Others Present
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls, NY
Mr. Lehigh: Vice Chairman
Mr. diPierno: Member
APPROVED
Mr. Donald Close: Zoning Administrator JUN j J
Mrs. Linda Nguyen: Secretary to the Zoning Board
PLANNING BOARD
7nNtNG BOARD OF APPEALS
Mr. Prager: I would like to call the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals'Meeting to
order. Roll Call please.
ROLL CALL
Mr. Warren:
Here.
Mr. Fanuele:
Here.
Mr. Prager:
Here.
Mr. diPierno: Here.
Mr. Lehigh: Here.
Mr. Prager: The first item of business tonight is the approval of the February 25 and March 11'
minutes. Do you want to take them together or separately? Do we have any problems?
Mr. Lehigh: I do not have any problems.
Mr. Fanuele: I move that we accept both minutes.
Mr. Warren: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: The next item of business on tonight's agenda is a public hearing on Appeal No.
1239. At the request of Mr. Lewis J. Rompala who is seeking two (2) variances of Article IV,
Section 420.3 — Schedule of Dimensional Regulations — whereas; No. 1, A 12' side yard
setback is required, the applicant is showing 9' 9" (Prior to Zoning) and is proposing 5' 9", thus
requiring a 4' side yard variance to construct a 14' X 24' garage and whereas; No. 2, A 25'
front yard setback is required, the applicant is proposing 22' 2", thus requiring a 2' 10" front
yard variance to construct the same 14' X 24' garage on property located at 15 Cayuga Drive
and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6157-04-546497-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Please take
further notice that the Zoning Board of Appeal declared itself Lead Agency for this project on
March 11, 1997. Linda, are all the mailings in order?
On
Mrs. Nguyen: Yes, all the mailings are in order.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appears
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 2
Mr. Prager: Can I entertain a motion to open the public hearing?
Mr. diPierno: So moved.
Mr. Lehigh: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: Mr. Rompala, I believe that you would like to speak. Now, we had an informal
workshop the last time to get information. Now, for anybody in the audience, go through the
whole thing of what you want and then we will have questions and then we will let other people
speak.
Mr. Rompala: We want to build a garage 14' by 24'. It would require two variances. We have a
12' side setback which would be larger than the present building site that we have now, which is
.... The previous building had no zoning codes at that time. Even our present home is illegal or
at variance with the codes now. The 4 feet that we would like .... We need more room for a
fairly large car. We would need more for some storage area. For the front variance, it is a matter
of 2 feet 10 inches and many of the other houses have garages that extend more than that. In our
development of 75 houses, 68 have garages. So, we would very much like to have it for various
reasons. Our biggest problem is dirt and salt from the road being blown up onto the cars. In the
winter time we like to stay out of the cold and the snow as much as possible. We are not getting
any younger unfortunately. I guess that is all I have to say right now.
Mr. Prager: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this
appeal?
Mr. Lorusso: Yes, I would. My name is William Lorusso. I live next door to Lou at 17 Cayuga.
I am opposed to this building. If the building was built to the Zoning Code, the 9 ft. 9 setback
would be fine. Since the house was built way back and the 9 ft..... It happens to have a 9 ft. 9
setback now. Although the Law calls for a 12 - foot setback. I do not see how legitimately
someone can build beyond the 9 ft. 9 setback. In the new Zoning Law it calls for 12 feet. Now,
like I said, the 9 ft. 9 setback if the garage was built along the same line as the house, I would not
have a problem with that. I would not have a problem with a garage .... He is entitled to a
garage, but a 4 - foot variance from the side extending towards my property where the fumes
from the car starting and the noise from the garage door opening and closing will be right under
my bedrooms. It is all stated in the handout that I passed out. If I missed anything verbally
now, it is all in this handout. I hope that is fair enough. The obstruction of view, I do not think
there is a need to go into that right now, right? It is in the handout.
Mr. Prager: Did everybody read it?
IRM
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 3
Mr. Lehigh: The car is parked in the driveway and the noise from starting the car engine and the
exhaust fumes are there. I just do not feel that is a legitimate complaint. The garage door going
up and down, I do not know how much noise that will make plus the fact that it will be up this
way from your bedroom window. The garage door is going to be 10 feet away from it.
Mr. Lorusso: Well, there is not that much room between the two houses right now. To put a 14'
by 24' garage between our two houses, I ... .
Mr. Lehigh: You are aware that the rest of the houses in the neighborhood, there are a lot of
them, have the same problems and they have garages and rooms added, etc. You are aware of
that?
Mr. Lorusso: New structures I do not see with the spacing that you are referring to. Existing
structures that are there seems to have less than 12 - foot setbacks. Again, to go ahead and put a
24' by 14' garage between our two houses at this point does not seem like a good idea for fire
hazard reasons and everything else. You mentioned about the fumes in the driveway. The car is
in the driveway already, but putting a garage I think capsulates the fumes. After the car leaves
those fumes will stay there and permeate into my bedroom windows from that distance of that
garage being so close to my house. Should I run through these?
Mr. Lehigh: No, I just pointed out what I had a couple of problems with. The exhaust and the
`'■" extra noise, I really do not see that as a legitimate complaint. Being too close, that is a
complaint. That is something that .... You are going to be closer. Obstructing your view, I do
not know how much it is going to obstruct your view.
Mr. Prager: The two extra feet, I am not sure either. The thing I was looking at here is the 14
feet wide, which comes into play here as far as the reason it would be closer to your property. I
know for myself, what I did before the site inspection was I opened up my car doors in my
garage and measured it. Fourteen feet is just about the minimum that you are going to be able to
get.
Mr. Lorusso: I have a comment about that thought. My father has a garage that is much less
narrow. It is about 10 feet wide or 12 feet wide. I never measured it, but it is a narrow garage.
What he does is he lets his passengers out before he pulls into the garage. Therefore, he only
needs one door to open. That would be the driver's side. That completely mitigates that thought.
Mr. Prager: The only thing is you want the freedom to open the doors if you want to.
Mr. Lorusso: At my expense, sir? I had some neighbors .... I did not get to talk to too many.
Tonight, as a matter of fact, I went around and asked some people what they thought about the
article that the applicant put in the Dutchess News. They thought it was ridiculous also. My last
statement says it all. "Do not set a precedence to allow the building of any such obstruction as
the one the applicant is planning on building for his convenience at my expense."
Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, and this is why at the last meeting I asked the Zoning Administrator,
Don Close, to do a little research for us. Maybe I will mention that now. Don was good enough
Im
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 4
to send us this notice. Unfortunately, a precedence has been set in your area. There have been
variances for garages. One is 5 Mohawk Drive.
Mr. Lorusso: Can I have those addresses?
Mr. Prager: You can get a copy from Linda later. Four Seneca Lane has a garage that received a
side yard variance. The one at 5 Mohawk Drive received a front and side yard setback. Ten
Onondaga Drive for a garage received a side yard variance. Six Seneca Lane was an addition for
the house and that got both side and rear yard variances. Unfortunately, there has been variances.
Mr. Lorusso: To the extent of these numbers, sir?
Mr. Prager: We do not have the numbers.
Mr. Lorusso: Well, that is the whole thing, sir. You have to compare the numbers.
Mr. Lehigh: Here is 7 or 8 houses. We have the pictures here also. I know you are aware of
these that the houses are ... .
Mr. Lorusso: I have a problem with the fact that your saying variances were granted. I asked
were the numbers the same as the numbers we are talking here? We do not know the answers to
"*AW that question. How can you logically say that a precedence has been set when there has been no
precedence set. There are no numbers. Variances were granted. These variances are, and I have
had other people agree with me, are out of bounds, are too much to ask for. Especially me being
the next door neighbor.
Mr. Prager: Do you see anyway that you could make this garage smaller and get it in without a
variance? And have him be able to get his car inside and open the doors?
Mr. Lorusso: Yes, as I said, my father has a garage where he has a brand new .... Well, it is a
year old. Well, 1995 Lumina. It is a $20,000 car. He chooses to let his passengers out before he
enters the garage. That makes it perfectly usable. It would be a matter of the passenger getting
out and walking right into the side door. I also gave some thought of the other side of the
applicant's property. There is much more room on that side. There are tradeoffs here. There
might not be an entrance on that side of the house, but there .... The neighbor on that side has a
garage adjacent to the applicant's property. At that point, it would be garage adjacent to garage
being build instead of a garage being built adjacent to my bedroom and so close to my bedroom
windows.
Mr. Prager: Anything else?
Mr. Lorusso: No, I think my wife might want to .... Let me speak with my wife.
Mr. Lehigh: Linda, did you get all of the mailings?
En
.rr+'
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 5
1... Mr. Prager: Yes, she had mentioned that before. Mr. Rompala, I would like to ask you to go
over this. Is there a way that you feel you could get this garage any narrower?
Mr. Rompala: May I say a quick answer to his remarks? He said this is setting a precedence. It
is not. Many houses in there have 5 - foot setbacks. As far as the noise and the pollution, we
have the same condition with our neighbor and we do not have any trouble with noise. Our
bedroom is facing their house. They have three cars. We do not have any trouble with noise. As
far as noise, it would be less noise if we did have a garage for us to move in and out. As far as
pollution, pollution would be contained inside the building instead of being spread out. There is
very little pollution as far as that is concerned because it is a wide open area.
Mr. Prager: We have to get back to the narrowness of the garage. Is there some way you can
trim it from the 14 feet wide. I know we discussed this at the site inspection about the door in
the back and making it narrower.
Mr. Lorusso: There is a door in the back. That is the first I have heard of that. Cut that out and
we can reduce it ... .
Mr. Prager: Lets have one person speak at a time.
Mr. Rompala: Well, as a last resort, yes, but I would much prefer to keep it there.
r..
Mr. Prager: Again, and maybe your son could help us here, how much can you actually drop it?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: On this drawing, the way we have it designed, there is a 3 - foot door. The
reason we have the door on the back is to go into the back of the property. A straight shot
through.
Mr. Prager: Can you do without that door? Not convenience wise, but do without it?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: Then, we do not have access to the back of the property through the garage.
Mr. Prager: Is it necessary that you have to have that?
Mr. Rompala: I feel it is necessary so that we have a straight run through the back of the
property. I can reduce the size of the door and go with a 2/8 door and we would probably gain
about 6 inches off the size of the garage. If that would ... .
Mr. Prager: Before we go any further, Linda, can we just make sure we log these things in? A
copy of the site plan, the building plan, a letter from Mr. Rompala explaining the need for the
variance, information from Mr. Close about the properties in the area, the paid receipt from Mr.
William J. Komisar. That is for the land survey that Mr. Rompala had done. And also the letter
from Mr. Lorusso's family.
Mrs. Nguyen: Yes.
on
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 6
Mr. Prager: I just want to also mention that we had a site inspection on March 25'.
Mrs. Rompala: Yes, we talked about the width and he said we could park the car outside and I
could get out and walk around. The reason we wanted it a little bigger is because a couple of
years ago I came down with acute arthritis. The wind blows up the hill and then my legs get very
stiff. I have a problem with that. So, this was the reason we made it larger so that we could pull
the car in and I could get out and I would not be in the wind. I could take my groceries out and
this is why we wanted it larger.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: There is a possibility of putting a door on the side of the garage and reducing
it, but as you said when you open the car doors and start cutting down on the size ... .
Mr. Prager: I would be a little inconvenient to you obviously.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: The reason we sat down and thought this out and put together this plan is we
wanted to make sure that when we pulled the car in and opened both doors we would be able to
get out conveniently without having to hit the walls or the doors. My parents are getting older
and the whole intention of the garage is to keep the car in out of the weather and also make it
more convenient. I mean if I take and make it six inches smaller, I am sure we could work with
that. If we cut it down two feet, then we are down to 12 feet. You are going to lose the
opportunity to have both car doors open.
Mr. Prager: I have to take into consideration the Lorussos' also.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: I understand that. This was our thought process of how we came up with the
14 feet.
Mr. Prager: What is the minimal that you could possibly take off that? What is the maximum
that you feel you can take off?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: If I want to have a door onto the back the way I would like to have it, and
have plenty of room for the doors and everything, I think the maximum that I could take off as
for door in the back would be six inches. If we put the door on the side, then we could probably
go with a foot if that would be ... .
Mr. Prager: I would rather, you know, the smallest you can get away with.
Mrs. Lorusso: Excuse me, they mentioned the other neighbor's yard and their bedroom window
is .... They have a lot of room there between the houses. There is plenty of room on the other
side.
Mr. Lorusso: It would be garage adjacent to garage. It would be ideal.
Mr. Prager: I know that the driveway is already in here. It is more or less the size ... .
ter'
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25,1997
Page 7
Mr. Lehigh: Well, you would not want to go out of your garage and start walking through your
bedroom.
Mrs. Lorusso: They have three doors on the back of the house. One on each side and one in the
back.
Mr. Prager: We want to keep it all in the same area. You could take a foot off?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: If I took a foot off, then I would not get a door on the back.
Mr. Prager: You would have to put it on the side, but you could do it?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: Yes, I could do it.
Mr. Prager: Then, we would be asking for 13 feet wide.
Mrs. Lorusso: They are also making a garage plus storage. Is he just making a garage or he is
just making it for storage?
Mr. Prager: Where would that storage be?
` w Mr. Rompala, Jr.: We made the garage 24 feet long because we have to have a step to go from
the garage floor into the main house. There is a four ft. step so you can open the door, step on
the step and walk into the house. The storage would be adjacent to that on the left side.
Mr. Prager: Would you need that if you had the door on the side?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: Yes, we would still need that because ... .
Mr. Prager: You would have that coming from the other direction.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: The door going into the house is where the step happens to be, the one in the
back of the garage. The step has to be there basically to get into .... Basically, the garage is
setup so we can pull into the garage, open the door and go into the house without having to go
outside at all. There were two doors on the back of the garage. One going to the exterior of the
back of the building and the other one going into the house itself.
Mr. Prager: I did not realize that.
Mr. Rompala: They would be right next to each other.
Mr. Lorusso: There is a tremendous shed in their yard. So, as far as storage, I cannot image any
A,,,, need for more storage other than the tremendous shed they have on their property now.
Mr. Prager: I think what they are saying is because of that step they have that extra space there,
which would be there anyway. Am I interpreting that correctly?
%W
DISCUSSION — of the floor plan.
Mr. Fanuele: How many houses have garages now?
.i
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 8
Mr. Rompala: We counted 68 garages or they built extensions on them which they use as living
rooms.
Mr. Fanuele: Of those garages or extensions ... .
Mr. Rompala: Some of those are double garages. I do not know how many. There are quite a
few of them.
Mr. Lorusso: They are not 14 feet wide.
Mr. Fanuele: We have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven out of 75 houses that have
variances.
Mr. Rompala: That is only the ones that we took pictures of. I presented the pictures for you.
Mr. Fanuele: No, I got a list from... .
Mr. Rompala: Oh, that is the whole list?
Mrs. Nguyen: No, that is not the whole list.
Mr. Close: All we did was take the variances for those houses that he showed there.
Mr. Rompala: That is only 7 that we took pictures of.
Mr. Fanuele: Out of 75, how many have variances for garages?
Mr. Close: We just used the list there.
Mr. Fanuele: Some of them built the garages when the houses were built and they did not need
variances.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: We have pictures if 7 houses that had .... Well, we were looking for was the
setback that was less than 5 feet. We had some setbacks that were only 2 feet.
Mr. Lorusso: They were built thirty years ago.
1%W Mr. Rompala, Jr.: Excuse me, these are the house that had the variances. The variances go from
1970 to 1990. I do not know all of the dates on them. There are 68 homes in the development
that have garages or the garages have been converted into living space.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeal
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 9
Mr. Lorusso: I have a question. What were the variances that were allowed to build those
garages? The newest built garages, not the ones that were built ten or twenty years ago when the
Zoning Laws were different. I think most of them were built then. Now, the latest ones that
were built, variances were requested. Are the variances that were requested six feet three inches?
You are calling it a 4 - foot variance, but it is really a 6 ft. 3 inch side variance. If you were to
stick to the 12 - foot variance. Now, if you are calling it an add on, then I guess you would have
to stick to the 9' 9". I am doing that. A 4 - foot variance is a big enough problem.
Mr. Prager: Well, it would be 3 feet now.
Mr. Lorusso: It is a big enough problem for me to be very aggravated over this thing. The 4 -
foot variance alone because there is no room between the two houses to build a garage with any
variance. I would not have a leg to stand on if they were asking for no variance. If they chopped
4 feet off, then I do not have a leg to stand on. I cannot argue that. Also, I have the same
problem with the front variance. That garage will stick out and cut off my view by 2 feet 10
inches. I will not be able to see my kids beyond their house. Whereas now I can see down the
block about 6, 7 or 8 houses down. We are actually north where I live. The applicant lives one
house north of my house. I will not be able to see one house north of my own house if that thing
is built. I scoped it out. My father has been a surveyor all his life. We measured it out. It is a
ridiculous building that he wants to put there.
Mr. Fanuele: If he builds it within the Zoning, which is 25 feet, so he only needs a 2 - foot
variance, how far would you see then?
Mr. Lorusso: More than I would see if he built it 2 feet 10 inches out. I am on an angle.
Mr. Rompala: I have the same situation with the house north of me. They have a garage. My
garage will not extend any farther. Maybe six inches at the most.
Mr. Lorusso: Did they just build it or has it been there for 20 years?
Mr. Rompala: I do not have any problem with it. We get in the bedroom and look down there.
We have no problem. If we look in the living room and look down there, we can see 4, 5, or 6
houses down the road. Although, I do not know what you want to look at. I have been there all
this time.
Mrs. Lorusso: Our children.
Mr. Rompala: We can still see. We have no problem. There is no obstruction of view.
Mr. Lorusso: You do not have two young children to worry about.
Mr. Prager: Do you have anything else?
Mr. Lehigh: No.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 10
Mr. Prager: I do not believe we made a Negative Dec. Can I have a motion for a Negative Dec.?
Mr. Warren: So moved.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Mr. Lorusso: What are you saying sir? I cannot hear you.
Mr. Prager: A Negative Dec. It means that it is a... .
Mr. Lehigh: It is an environmental term.
Mr. Prager: It is not going to hurt the environment. Can I have a vote please?
Mr. Lorusso: It is going to hurt my environment.
Mr. Fanuele: I believe that right now these two people, there is a .... I cannot vote for a Neg.
Dec. There is a positive that was brought up. We should at least look at that and review it. I am
not agreeing with you right now.
Vote: Mr. Warren: Granted. Mr. diPierno: Yes.
Mr. Fanuele: No. Mr. Lehigh: Yes.
Mr. Prager: Yes.
Mr. Fanuele: I would like to make a motion to delay voting on this until we look at the people
that signed this petition and see if they have any variances and what variances they have. We
could go out and look at these houses.
Mr. Lorusso: Excuse me sir, I was not concerned with what variances they had before I got
there. They were the most accessible today. Today was the only day. I said, let me go get some
more people to sign this besides myself, some more names. Today, not concerning variances, I
said; can you sign this, do you realize the size of this building that this man wants to build, do
you think this is very good to have this in our neighborhood?
Mr. Fanuele: My concern is if these people already have additions, then signing this is
meaningless because they already have their addition. If these people have no additions, then it
holds more weight in my mind.
Mr. Lorusso: I agree with that.
Mr. Lehigh: My only problem with it is the 14 feet. I think it could be 12 feet. The length is all
right with me. I think if you brought it down to 12 feet rather than 14 feet, that would take care
VW of the side issue. The only thing is the front issue and that is only a little over 3 feet. I do not
have a problem with that.
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: If we drop it down to 12 feet, would we get approval tonight?
�.rr►
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 11
Mr. Lehigh: If you are asking me, I would vote for it.
Mr. Prager: We would have to make a motion for that.
Mr. Warren: Mr. Lorusso, how do you feel about the 12 feet? Would you feel more comfortable
with 12 verses 14?
Mr. Lorusso: The answer to that question, would I feel more comfortable with the 12 feet than
14, yes. Giving the distance between the two houses though, I think to the letter of the Law
should be .... I am willing to give an inch or two. I am not saying I am not going to budge an
inch. The idea is I do not want a monstrosity built right under my bedroom windows and
obstructing my view. The answer to your question is yes, I would feel better at 12 feet than 14
feet, but that will not make me happy. I need to sit down and haggle if that is what it comes
down to.
Mr. Lehigh: It does not come down to that.
Mr. Lorusso: If it was built to the Zoning Law, to the letter, then I would have nothing to say
about it period. An extra 4 feet on the side and 2 feet 10 inches in the front seems to be ... .
Mr. Lehigh: You know we just said we were going to do away with the 2 feet on the side.
Mr. Prager: Drop it down from 14 to 12 feet. It sounds like Mr. Rompala is in favor of doing
that. We have to have a little give and take.
Mr. Lehigh: It means 8 feet from the line plus 10 feet from your line so, that gives you 18 feet in
between.
Mr. Lorusso: What about the 2 feet 10 inches that he wants to extend past what the Zoning Law
requirement is in the front. He wants 22 feet 2 inches back rather than 25 feet back from the
property line in the front. That is where I am getting my view obstructed. That building is right
next to my property.
Mr. Prager: Is there anyway that you can drop that?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: No.
Mrs. Lorusso: Are you going to park two cars in this garage or one car?
Mr. Rompala, Jr.: The way we are going, we are not going to get one car in there.
Mr. Fanuele: I have no problem with the front yard variance. It is minimal in my mind. On the
side yard I have no problem voting tonight for the 12 ft. garage.
Mr. Prager: Then I would like a motion to close the public hearing.
low
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 12
Mr. Lehigh: So moved.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: It will be 24 by 12 wide instead of 14. I would like to make a motion to grant the
variances for the following reasons. The requested variance will not be detrimental to nearby
properties and no undesirable change will occur in the character of the neighborhood since there
are similar variances in the neighborhood. There are no alternative methods to achieve the
benefit sought by the applicant due to the size of the property. The applicant has now brought
the size of the width of the garage down 2 feet less. The requested area variance is substantial.
It is a 21 % increase. The variances will not cause an adverse effect on the physical or
environmental condition in the neighborhood or district since there are other properties with front
and side yard variances for garages and additions in the neighborhood. Can I have a second?
Mr. Lehigh: I will second that.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Warren: Granted. Mr. diPierno: Granted.
Mr. Fanuele: Granted. Mr. Lehigh: Granted.
Mr. Prager: Granted.
Mr. Prager: A motion has been passed to grant the variance and it will be filed in 5 days. The
next item of business on tonight's agenda is to discuss Appeal No. 1240, 1241, 1242. I am going
to read them all at one time and then take them in order. No. 1, Appeal No. 1240 is requested by
LPV Associates who is requesting 2 signs at 80 square feet each and 2 signs at 20 square feet
each for a total of 200 square feet on the front of the building, whereas only 100 square feet is
allowed, thus requiring a 100 square - foot variance for property located at 1611 Route 9 and
whereas; "B" the applicant is requesting 2 signs to be 4 feet in height, whereas a 2 feet in height
is allowed, thus requiring a 2 - foot height variance for both signs for property located at 1611
Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. No 2, Appeal No. 1241. (LPV Associates) The applicant is
requesting to replace the existing 24 square - foot freestanding sign with an (6 X 8) 48 square -
foot freestanding sign, whereas a 24 square - foot sign is allowed, thus requiring a 24 square -
foot freestanding sign variance for property located at 1611 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger.
The 3 appeal, Appeal No. 1242 (LPV Associates) is requesting a 2"d freestanding sign, whereas
only one freestanding sign is permitted, thus requiring a 2"d freestanding sign variance for
property located at again at 1611 Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Lehigh: He is not asking for a second freestanding sign, is he or just to replace it?
Mr. Prager: Requesting a second freestanding sign. Another .... We will discuss that and find
r.. out exactly what is going on. Before we begin, why don't you introduce yourself first.
Mr. Pettinella: My name is Joseph Pettinella. I am a partner of LPV Associates, which is the
owner of the Hampton Business Center.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes —March 25, 1997
Page 13
Mr. Prager: I was reading over your applications here and I got on Section 416.511. Where did
you get that?
Mr. Pettinella: I do not know.
Mr. Prager: I do not see any such section in there and you did reference it on 51 and 53 of the
other two applications. The sign variance that we had, the one I think pertains to this is on page
50 of our new Zoning Law. I want to make sure it was the same wording that you are going for.
The one would be, that I feel fits into this and I could be wrong, 410.12.6.1.5, "buildings holy
devoted to professional or office uses shall not have not more than one building identification
sign of an area suitably related to the size of the building, but not greater than 25 sq. ft. except
where in accordance with 410.12.2 the Planning Board may allow the area of such a sign to be
increased to a maximum of 35 sq. ft." Is that the one your referencing?
Mr. Pettinella: The freestanding sign?
Mr. Prager: No, this is the sign on the building. The identification sign. The reason I bring that
up is because you are referencing 100 sq. ft. here and I do not see that here at all. I am just
wondering where you might have gotten that. The one before that looks like it might be under
Section 410.12.6.1 and they have gotten Sub -Section 410.12.6.1.4. "The aggregate area of such
sign", and now again they are talking about it looks like the building sign, "shall not exceed two
linear feet of building length or 100 sq. ft., whichever is less. On building having signs on two
sides, the sign area on the side shall not exceed one half the allowable sign area on the front or 15
sq. ft., whichever is less."
Mr. Pettinella: I think that is it.
Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, that one looks to me and Don maybe you can back me up here, that
looks like it is per retail or business outlet.
Mr. Close: There is another thing that is in the Ordinance that says only what is on the property
can be advertised on the building. Now, all of these things are on the property. I would say it is
not just retail outlet. It would be anything that is on the property. Any business that is on the
property. That is the way I would interpret it.
Mr. Prager: The only thing is they do differentiate here on that first section which I read,
"buildings holy devoted to professional and office uses". That is basically what this is.
Mr. Pettinella: Basically, we presently have two signs on the front of the building, which are 100
sq. ft. We have sign permits for those from back 6 or 7 years ago.
�•► Mr. Prager: Do you have the paperwork for that? Bring that to the next meeting. That is where
the confusion is. I am not sure even which section we are reading here. Don, if you could
investigate that for me also please so we at least which section we are supposed to read?
I. *4W
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 14
Now
Mr. Fanuele: The section would help. I tried to interpret it the way you did and came up with
the same section you came up with.
Mr. Prager: That is why if you have a permit for that .... And who gave it to you?
Mr. Pettinella: That goes back to when Herb Levenson was Zoning Administrator. Certainly I
would suggest 35 feet for a building of that size for multiple tenants is certainly an expensive
restriction for somebody to be able to ... .
Mr. Prager: Unfortunately, that is what we have to go with.
Mr. Pettinella: That is a Town Board matter, not a Zoning Board.
Mr. Prager: I just wanted to bring that up.
Mr. Pettinella: I have been the owner of the building there since it converted from an old
catering hall. At the time, it was called County Manor Caters. Since that time, the present
square footage there is approximately 15, 000 sq. ft. and we have about 8 tenants that occupy the
facility at this time. The difficulty that we have had is many of those tenants have demanded
signage for their different entities. One of which is a dentist, Dr. Di Marco and Dr. Salcetti.
Their office is located on the back north side of the building. They have no signage, with the
exception of a very small strip sign on the present freestanding sign, which I believe is 2 inches
long by approximately 24 inches high.
Mr. Prager: This is on the building?
Mr. Pettinella: On the freestanding sign.
Mr. Prager: Lets talk about the building first.
Mr. Pettinella: She has approached us and said I would really like to have signage to promote
my business so that people who drive by Route 9 see that there is a dentist here. Many of her
patients have a difficult time knowing that is the building where a dentist is located. So, she has
requested that of me. Secondly, we have a user Icon Office Solutions, which was the former
Standard Copy Products Company. Icon is a presently national company. They are a publicly
traded company. They have come to me since the acquisition which took place about six or eight
months ago and said we would like signage on the building to get more notoriety from all the
people that drive along Route 9. To give you some idea of the type of advertising that company
does, if you go to Madison Square Garden at their hockey games, you will see their sign on the
side door down there. They are all over the county. They are down in Florida and some of the
sports teams there. So, they have approached me. I said to them, presently as I interpreted the
old Law, we are maxed out at 100 sq. ft. As I find out that might not be the case. The attorneys',
they have obviously changed names. They want to increase their signage a little bit. That is
really the extent of it. If you look at the building and the present 100 sq. ft. based upon the face
of that building, it does not appear, in my opinion, to be extensive by adding two more tenants or
adding the size. I do not see it as being obtrusive in anyway, but I am certainly open to
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 15
14" suggestions. We just need to utilize the advantages of being on Route 9. Certainly the bigger
problem that I face is being able to assist a multi -tenant office building. When you have a multi -
tenant office building, those tenants need some kind of notoriety that they are in that building.
The present zoning somewhat restricts their ability. Now, many of the tenants do not need it. I
have a company Harris Semi Conductor. They are a publicly traded national company. They
service IBM. Newark Electronics is another large national company, which does not have the
need so they have never come to me. These tenants have.
Mr. Prager: The building itself, how long have you owned it?
Mr. Pettinella: I have owned it ever since 1987.
Mr. Fanuele: There are multi -tenant buildings along Route 9 that abide by the Zoning
Ordinance. One is the Executive Square. They just put their name out. Businesses say, I am
located at that place. They would say the same for your place, Hampton Business Center.
Mr. Lehigh: I think very few people go down the road and pick a lawyer out by driving by the
sign on the road or a dentist.
Mr. diPierno: But when you do go down the road, you do want to find the building where they
are located.
Mr. Lehigh: That is fine, but we do not have to set it on fire to find it.
Mr. Prager: Let me just get back for a second here, this dentist, is he a new tenant?
Mr. Pettinella: Actually, the dentist has been .... That was owned by Doctor Joseph Dell who
sold the business now to Salcetti and Di Marco.
Mr. Prager: So, there has been a dentist there for a number of years?
Mr. Pettinella: Since it was converted to an office building since 1988 to 1987. The new
dentists have been there for about 3 years. Quite frankly, since they bought the business, they
have been asking me for signage on the building. It has been a constant thing.
Mr. Prager: Now, the other one, Icon Office, are they new?
Mr. Pettinella: No, they were Standard Copy products. They were also in the building since
1987.
Mr. Prager: So, they have been in there since 1987. There are no new tenants that we are talking
about?
4r
Mr. Pettinella: Correct, but what has changed there is they were acquired by Icon. Now, Icon
has a different set of rules and regulations than Standard Copy.
C' J
.rY
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 16
v..r
Mr. Warren: Are you thinking about revamping the existing sign, cleaning it up, consolidating?
Mr. Pettinella: Up front, that is going to be a totally new sign and we will address that second.
Mr. Fanuele: I look at these basically altogether. In my mind, you have excess signage here.
How would you want to revamp that to make it more close to what is in the Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Pettinella: Let me talk about that a little bit. There is flexibility here. That is why I am
before you. I am not here saying this is what I need. It is that the Sign Ordinance that presently
exists, in my opinion, for a multi -use building is somewhat stringent. To some degree that we
can reach some kind of common ground, and primarily you say what is the hardship, well the
hardship is when the tenant says I am not getting notoriety from this building, maybe I can be in
a retail plaza, be it a dentist, and have my name on a sign over .... Take for example, the
bowling ally on Route 9 where you have a strip plaza. It is a different concept obviously. That is
retail and not office, but certainly those types of tenants have nice signage that faces Route 9.
When they come into a building like mine, they do not have that type of signage. It restricts my
ability to be competitive with those other types of facilities. That creates somewhat of a hardship
for me in terms of when that tenant moves out or if I am to replace a tenant, how do I say to them
that I can give you some type of signage on Route 9? Otherwise, why do you want to be on
Route 9. Harris Semi Conductors, Newark Electronics could be on Myers Corners Road. They
could be on All Angels Hill Road for all they care. They are servicing IBM. They are a
backdoor operation. It is convenient for them, but it is not a necessity. Others like the law firm
feels it is an advantage. The real estate office, that I am an owner of, it is certainly an advantage
to have signage on Route 9 and to have my business there. It certainly an advantage for the
dentist, I think, to be there. Although, dentists are a little different. It is professional. They feel
that they can, to whatever extent, gain some of the ... .
Mr. Prager: I am jumping a head here probably with the next variance, with the freestanding
sign. With the number and the name of the plaza, to me, if I was to go to a dentist, and I would
say 1611, I think I could find that without him having a sign on the building. Number one, I
probably would not see it on the building until I pulled into the driveway anyway. I would hope
I would not because really you should not ... .
Mr. diPierno: If you had to weigh the value of the signs, wouldn't you think the one on the road
would be more important than the one on the building for an office building?
Mr. Pettinella: I would say Jerry your right in terms of the directory sign to say 1611 Hampton
Business Center.
Mr. diPierno: It also indicates that there is a dentist in there.
Mr. Pettinella: Well, see the problem with that particular sign is because I am limited, by the
+r. time you put 1611 and Hampton Business Center on that sign, you do not have much more left in
the present zoning of 25 square feet. Twenty-five square feet is not a large sign. By the time you
take that, you are only left with little strips. If you have lets say six tenants, if you look at it right
now, the size of their sign is this high and maybe this wide.
0
,"W
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 17
Mr. Lehigh: Have you looked at the sign that used to be there for Imperial Plaza?
Mr. Pettinella: Yes.
Mr. Lehigh: You could not find anybody there if you wanted to. There was a perfusion of signs.
Mr. Pettinella: It was a horrendous sign. I in no way would want to approach that. Certainly,
what I have requested here is excessive. I read the letter from Roger Ackley's office. I am in no
way looking to put something obtrusive on Route 9, but I also want to do something that we can
reach some kind of common ground whereby we both can achieve our goals.
Mr. Lehigh: I think we should visit the site and look at exactly what he wants Howard.
Mr. diPierno: There is hundreds of options. Hundreds of possibilities.
Mr. Lehigh: I have been by this sign of yours and just the colors do not stand out and say
Hampton Business Center. It does not do that.
Mr. Pettinella: The sign that is there now .... It is weathered. It is not an appropriate sign.
What you have to bear in mind Al is if you look at that sign, in terms of the actual signage, that is
*4w all I am limited to. Now, I can make a better sign that is illuminated and so forth and so on, but
it does not solve the problem that I have to create some notoriety for the tenants that occupy my
facility. You have to bear in mind Al, if you have a building and you have a user of 1000 square
feet, and he says Al I need a sign on Route 9. I want to get a sign out there. What do I tell him?
Do I tell him I cannot get him a sign? Lets say he is a mortgage company and he requests it.
Mr. Prager: If is against the zoning, then you can say that. The thing that would bother me more
than anything about these new signs is granted it is not the same dentist, it is a different dentist,
but he has obviously been in business since 1987. He has obviously had people coming to him.
Now all of a sudden he needs a sign for it. I do not understand that. The same thing with Icon
Office Solutions. Now it is a new business. If this guy has been in business and I do not think
he has been going broke. You know what I am saying?
Mr. Pettinella: I will explain that Howard. If you take Icon or Standard Copy, they occupy 5000
square feet. Standard Copy was acquired by Icon. Icon has a different management philosophy
than Standard Copy did. Now you have new management coming in saying look, we are here
now. We looked at this building. We just acquired this business. We spent a ton of money to
put our Icon sign on the side boards of Madison Square Garden at a hockey game. Well, we sure
as heck want a sign on Route 9 that says Icon. It is a different philosophy. Was Standard Copy
content? Yes, they were content. It is quite a nice company to have in the Town.
Mr. Lehigh: We definitely do not want to drive them out of the Town.
Mr. Pettinella: In terms of the dentist, you have a change in the business. The reason I did not
come before you is because I have told the dentist to wait until I met with my partner Jerry
Aftw
..rr
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 18
low Virgillis to discuss the overall size of what we intended to do. This is why we have come
together with this overall request. We did not want to come before you and say we want to
request for a dentist three years ago and then come back to you and say here we are again. What
I would like to get from this Board is something that achieves an overall solution not just today,
but also in the future. So, when I have these other tenants coming in, I have that ability and I
would not have to come before you again. I think we should reach some .... Certainly not to
get to where Al is talking about, which is what happened to Imperial Plaza. I will agree it ... .
Mr. Prager: I do not have any questions on the first one.
Mr. Lehigh: I do not really have any questions except that I think we should go out and visit and
look ... .
Mr. Prager: We will. I just want to get a couple of things ... .
Mr. Fanuele: What is the size of the second sign because you left out the size?
Mr. Lehigh: The Century 21 sign?
Mr. Fanuele: You gave me an example that goes from 6 feet 11 inches or 4 by 7.
Mr. Pettinella: That one was supposed to be 4 by 7. That request of the three variances
requested is probably most important to me, but the least important to the overall scheme of what
we are trying to achieve for the building.
Mr. Prager: Four by seven, correct? And that is just the sign?
Mr. Pettinella: Correct.
Mr. Prager: You mentioned somewhere here .... Sign location is on the survey map. This is a
requirement of Century 21. Again I have to question that since you have been in that building
for quite a while. Obviously you have lived without a sign.
Mr. Pettinella: Correct, but what I would say is when I joined Century 21 .... I have had a real
estate office there since 1987, 1988. I have only been a Century 21 office for the last 2 years
approximately. I have held off. If you look at, Jerry is familiar with County Bumpkin. They
have a sign out of Route 9. If you go to Anita Ferry's office in Hopewell Junction, she has a sign
on Route 82. Hudson Valley Realty out in Lagrange has a sign out there on Titusville Road. If
you go out to Route 55, County Bumpkin office has a freestanding Century 21 .... I am the only
Century 21 office that does not have a sign on Route 9. I have held off on it for the same reason
relative to the dentist request saying I will come in all at once. What I have asked the Board to
do is look at the whole picture as opposed to looking at .... I would rather not come before you
and look at one picture .... Like Jerry said there are multiple ways to achieve a common
ground.
'4..
..W
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 19
w
Mr. diPierno: Can I offer a suggestion to you? In the interim period between now and the next
time you come, would you go up 9 and take a look at where ERA Advanced Realty used to be?
Take a look at their sign. Go a little farther up and take a look at the old Prudential office sign.
Anita Ferry, she is with Century 21. See what she has got. I think those two would be pretty
relevant. You know you might be better off here if we looked at a more lenient variance for a
road sign rather than signs all over the building. Personally, I think all of these signs on the
buildings are terrible. It is going to detract from your own business. It looks like a checker
board.
Mr. Pettinella: Sure, that is not what we are looking to achieve.
Mr. diPierno: The best thing is to try to dress up your building as much as possible.
Mr. Pettinella: We are looking to do some landscaping. There are a lot of things we are looking
to do right now. There are a lot of avenues that we are pursuing. Like you said Jerry and
Howard, I would like the Board to look at it in total. Not as an individual request because this is
a lot of variances here. There is a lot of different reasons for each variance. Lets look at it and
say okay we can achieve some of these things by doing some things and put it all in a nutshell
understanding multiple tenants. The point that you made Jerry, Anita Ferry's office on Route 9,
you are only talking about 4 tenants. So, you have ACS, you have a lawyer, Anita Ferry who
quite frankly her sign is rather small up there. If you look at it you can drive right by it. I think
she would be the first one to ask for a bigger sign, but she is limited. She has 4 tenants and I
have 8. Maybe it is the same signage that I am dealing with, but twice as many tenants because I
have a building that is three times the size.
Mr. diPierno: Do you have eight tenants that want to be on that one sign?
Mr. Pettinella: No.
Mr. diPierno: You just have four or five.
Mr. Prager: Is this the way you want the freestanding sign?
Mr. Pettinella: Jerry, of those eight, four would be the ones that would want signage.
Mr. Prager: Are Career Resumes and Standard Copy different?
Mr. Pettinella: Yes.
Mr. Prager: Standard Copy is Icon and who does the resumes?
Mr. Pettinella: That is a separate company. Career Resumes is a separate entity.
Mr. diPierno: I do not mean to tell you your business by any means, but it seems to me the ones
who deserve the signs out on the road are the ones paying you the biggest rent.
NOW
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 20
Mr. Pettinella: That is true. The most important ones that need it are Icon, the dentist, Century
21 and Virgillis. Those are the four biggies. Career Resume, we can live without on the pylon.
Mr. Fanuele: The problem I have is when you submitted, we are judging you based upon that.
We are not here to design a sign for you. What I have to see is what you would want in signage,
whether it is a building, road sign or what have you that are going to satisfy you.
Mr. Pettinella: I understand that Vic, but I want to get a feel .... When I come before this Board
now, it is like a lot of these things are subjective. Coming before you now is not for you to come
back to me and design the signage. It is for you to say to me these are the concerns that I have.
This is the way Joe I would like you to go. I understand that we are going to have some
variances here, but what is better a two foot variance in front of the house or two feet on the
garage? What is more important, the signage on the building with signage on Route 9 or is the
concern that second freestanding sign?
Mr. Fanuele: That is for you to decide, not for us. You need to know what is more important for
you.
Mr. Pettinella: If I had to weigh it, the most important thing is not the second Century 21. That
is the least of the three when put into perspective. The most important is the signage on Route 9,
the freestanding sign on Route 9. The second would be signage on the building. If I had to put it
in order, if I got the second variance being a larger freestanding sign on Route 9 and live with
the existing signage I have now on the building, I think we could live with that. I would have to
discuss that with my partner. I think it is something I could live with.
Mr. Prager: How high is each of these signs on the freestanding sign? Do you know
approximately? It says eight feet the whole thing.
Mr. Pettinella: The present sign .... I think it is four wide and six high, I believe.
Mr. Prager: It says 48 square feet. Oh, that is the whole thing. I am talking about just the four
signs.
Mr. Close: The bottom is two feet Mr. Prager. The sign itself is 8 by 6.
Mr. Prager: Each one of these is two feet? It can't be.
Mr. Close: No, the bottom base.
Mr. Prager: No, I realize that, but I would like to know the height of each one of these. They
look like they are even.
Mr. Pettinella: The present ones that are there now are probably about two or three inches high.
They are useless.
Mr. Fanuele: No wonder you cannot read it.
vow
"\r
Mr. Prager: I would like to have a site inspection.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 21
SITE INSPECTION SET FOR MARCH 29, 1997 AT 9:30 AM.
Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion for Lead Agency?
Mr. diPierno: So moved.
Mr. Fanuele: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
Mr. Prager: We will wait for a Negative Dec. for the next meeting?
The Board agreed.
Mr. Prager: Then I will set the public hearing for the next meeting, which is April 8'.
Mrs. Nguyen: I have a problem only because I do not know exactly what he is looking for at this
point.
Mr. Prager: That is my next thing before we close. I would like you to get with Don and find
out number one the proper sections so we know what we are talking about.
Mr. Fanuele: Well, he is going to come back with a redesign of the signage based up our
conversation.
Mr. Prager: I would hope so.
Mr. Fanuele: I would think before we set a public hearing we should get to look to see what he
wants.
Mr. Pettinella: After April 8', what is the next meeting?
Mrs. Nguyen: April 22°d
Mr. Pettinella: It may be more appropriate Vic to go with the 22°d
Mr. Fanuele: Well maybe if you came in on the 8', then you could show us.
Mr. Prager: Okay, so we will change that to the 22°d. In the meantime, you will be able to get us
drawings of exactly what you are talking about then. Then we will discuss it Saturday.
Mr. Pettinella: Actually, what I would like to do, if possible, is get your input and then give you
a set of drawings.
M
1%1W
Mr. Prager: Fine, we can do that Saturday.
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appea s
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 22
Mr. Pettinella: I can get your input on Saturday and then I can get a new set of drawings to you
and get your input at the next meeting on the eight as a discussion and then go for a public
hearing on the 22nd
Mr. Prager: In the meantime, Don, we will get the right sections.
Mr. Pettinella: That might have been an old Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Prager: I thought it was maybe the last Zoning Ordinance, but it was not.
Mrs. Nguyen: Howard, just so you understand, if he submits by Monday, you guys will not
receive it until the end of the week. You will only have a few days to look at it actually. The
actual submittal date for the next meeting is today.
Mr. Lehigh: Let him bring in a new set of drawings in and ... .
Mr. Prager: What we are discussing here is because of our time frame. Why don't we do this,
we will have the site inspection Saturday and go and look at it and give him some suggestions of
`" what we want. You can get your drawings and bring your drawings, make copies of the
drawings and have them set out for the 22nd and that will be the pubic hearing. That way we will
see them before the public hearing.
Mr. Pettinella: For the V you mean?
Mr. Prager: No, forget the eighth. Then, we will have the 22nd as the public hearing.
Mr. Pettinella: The input after I get the ... to you, you give me your input and we can do
whatever revisions before the public hearing.
Mr. Close: Joseph, we will need the revisions by the 8'
Mr. Lehigh: You will know what we think by Saturday.
Mr. Pettinella: What I will do is have my partner... .
Mr. Prager: In other words, we will discuss it Saturday and get the plans Saturday. You just get
the drawings in. Then we will look at them and then on the 22 n we will look at them and on the
22" we will have the public hearing.
Mr. diPiemo: If there is still a problem, we can always adjourn it.
Mr. Prager: Can I have a motion to adjourn?
I..
Mr. diPierno: So moved.
Mr. Warren: Second.
Vote: All present voted aye.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 PM.
Cm
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appears
Minutes — March 25, 1997
Page 23
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Nguyen, Secretary
Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals