1995-03-28'"own of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
+tarch 28, 1995
Agenda - 7:30 P.M.
Approval of February 28, 1995 minutes.
ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls, N.Y.
M
1. Appeal #1175 - At the request of CLY Realty Corp. who is seeking two
(2) variances of Article IV, Section 412 of the Zoning Law of the Town
of Wappinger to allow the issuance of two (2) variances of two lots
which do not have legal frontage on a town road. The property is
located on Smithtown Road and is identified as Tax Grid
##19-6257-03-092038-00 and ##19-6257-03-030050-00 in the Town of
Wappinger. The Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself Lead
Agency and has made a Negative Declaration of Significance for this
project on October 11, 1994 as there will be no environmental impacts
with regard to this appeal.
2. Appeal #1188 - At the request of Alpine Co. of Poughkeepsie who is
seeking a variance from Article IV, Section 416.62 where you are
requesting a 72 sq. ft. sign where 25 sq. ft. is allowed, requireing a
47 sq. ft. variance to place in the enterence way of property located
be on Route 9 and identified as Tax Grid ##19-6157-02-707773-00 in the
Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 41189 - At the request of Alpine Co. of Poughkeepsie who is
seeking a variance from Article IV, Section 416.61 where you are
requesting 4 - 33 sq. ft. for a total of 396 sq. ft. where you are
only allowed 150 sq. ft., thus requiring a variance of 246 sq. ft. on
the west of the building located on Route 9 and identified as Tax
Grid##19-6157-02-707773-00 in the Town of Wappinger.
DISCUSSION
Spain Oil Co. - Discuss Appeal ##1196 requesting a 3.5' front -yard setback
from the state highway line for a proposed overhead canopy over existing
gasoline dispensers. The property is located at 1882 Route 376, in the
Town of Wappinger.
n
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board
Amended Agenda - March 28, 1995
sw Page 2
Appeal #1194 - At the request of Pizzacalli Development Co. who is seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 422.25 where you are required to
maintain 0.2 maximum floor area ratio and you requesting 0.4 floor area
ratio, thus requiring a 0.2 floor ratio on property located on Myers
Corners Road and identified as Tax Grid ##19-6258-03-350303-00 in the Town
of Wappinger.
Appeal#1195 - At the request of Pizzacalli Development Co. who is seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 472 where you are required to have 372
parking spaces and you are proposing 259 parking spaces, thus requiring a
variance of 113 parking spaces on property located on Myers Corners Road
and is identified as Tax Grid ##19-6258-03-350303-00 in the Town of
Wappinger.
Spain oil Co. - Discuss Appeal 01196 requesting a 3.5' front -yard setback
from the state highway line for a proposed overhead canopy over existing
gasoline dispensers. The property is located at 1882 Route 376, in the
Town of Wappinger.
L
Town of Wappinger
March 28, 1995
inutes
Members Present
Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr.
Sasser:
Chairman
Mr.
Lehigh:
Member
Mr.
Prager:
Member
Mr.
Fanuele:
Member
Mr.
diPierno:
Member
Others Present
Mr. Levenson, Zoning Administrator
Mrs. Nguyen, Secretary to the Z.B.A.
M
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls, N.Y.
�f
-Ru" 1i E
APR 111995
PLANNING BOARD 1
Mr. Sasser: I call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for March 28, 1995
to order. Would the clerk please call the roll?
ROLL CALL: Mr. Fanuele: Here. Mr. Prager: Here.
Mr. Lehigh: Here. Mr. diPierno: Here.
Mr. Sasser: Here.
Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, all present.
"Imr. Sasser: Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are not familiar
with the building there are fire exits to the side and fire exits to the
rear. If you go through the rear doors, every hallway leads to an outside
door. There is also no smoking allowed in the building. We ask you
please don't smoke in the restrooms or the hallways. Please go outside.
The first item on the agenda tonight are the minutes of February 28th.
Everybody has received a copy? Is there any discussion?
Mr. Prager: I move that we accept the minutes as written.
Mr. Lehigh: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Sasser: The first thing I would like to do tonight is welcome our new
Board member, Gerald diPierno. Gerald has been involved in the Town for a
long time and we welcome him as our newest member. He was appointed by
the Town Board this year. First item on the agenda tonight is an
adjourned public hearing. Appeal ##1175, at the request of CLY Realty
Corn. who is seeking two variances of Article IV, Section 412 of the
Zoning Law of the Town of Wappinger to allow the issuance of two variances
of two lots, which do not have legal frontage on a Town Road. The
property is located on Smithtown Road and is identified as Tax Grids
##19-6257-03-092038-00 and 19-6257-03-030050-00 in the Town of Wappinger.
-',e Zoning Board of Appeals has declared itself Lead Agency and has made a
ative Declaration of Significance for this project on October 11, 1994
as there will be no environmental impacts with regard to this appeal.
z
9
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 1
Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, the only thing that was added to this file
was a letter of March 13th from Mr. Foster who is the Highway
Superintendant as per the request of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Sasser: Mr. Foster has clarified, I think something that was of
concern to us in that he has been referring all along to Driveway
Specifications, not Highway Specifications. Also, I spoke today with the
Fire Inspector with regard to his concerns. His concern was the grade
that was at one point maybe 20%. He said that he has been assured that it
is going to be under 15% and he is satisfied with that and he is also
satisfied with the idea of the roadway meeting Driveway Specification, but
would like to see it wider than the Driveway Specifications in order to
accommodate emergency vehicles.
Mr. Prager: How much wider would he like to see it?
Mr. Sasser: He didn't indicate how much wider he would like to see it.
He said he would like to see it up to Driveway Specifications, but just
wider. All of his other concerns have been alleviated. Mr. Adams, am I
correct that you no longer wanted to have a deed restriction where it
could not be subdivided, but in lieu of that, wanted it simply that in
order for it to be subdivided in the future it would have to come back
before the Boards again?
fir. Adams: Your Board in addition to the Planning Board, right. So,
there would be an additional hurdle for the applicant to address at that
point and time. He would not have it as of right.
Mr. Lehigh: Mr. Chairman, should we open the public hearing again since
we are discussing the case?
Mr. Sasser: Yes, why don't we make a motion to open the public hearing?
Mr. Lehigh: So moved.
Mr. Prager: Second.
Mr. Sasser: In addition to that, we spoke with Al Roberts who has
indicated that he found the form of the maintenance agreement acceptable,
with the exception that he thought that perhaps the arbitrator in any
dispute in the future would not be necessarily Graham Foster, but it could
also be someone that he designated as well that would take it out of his
hands.
Mr. Adams: I spoke to Mr. Foster and he indicated that he wishes to have
absolutely no role in that matter at all. I would suggest simply the
deletion of that one sentence. I was looking for an easy dispute
resolution mechanism, but I can't identify any other person who would be
obably satisfactory to the Board. It is not necessary for that type of
reement to have built within it what I call dispute resolution
mechanism. That could be deleted and the other provisions would still be
just as valid as they were.
M
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 2
Mr. Sasser: That sounds even better to me because the Town doesn't have
to be involved in any dispute at all then.
Mr. Lehigh: Another words, you don't have any agreement at all then?
Mr. Sasser: They have an agreement except what we had talked about
before, was if there was a dispute among the people who own the lots that
Graham Foster or someone he designated would be the one to resolve that
dispute. Now, we are taking the Town out of it.
Mr. Adams: The last sentence in paragraph 4 would simply be deleted.
Mr. Lehigh: Another words, we are right back to the subdivision without
the subdivision?
Mr. Adams: No, I am only proposing to delete one sentence.
Mr. Lehigh: I understand that, but you were proposing before to limit the
number of lots that could be developed and you had that in your
presentation before and now that is gone.
Mr. Adams: No, you misunderstood what we are talking about Mr. Lehigh.
That prevision remains. The only provision that I suggest deleting is the
mntence that says, "In the event there is disagreement as to whether
ajor repairs or a repair is necessary, the determination of the Highway
Superintendant or his assignee will be binding." I am simply suggesting
that one sentence be deleted, otherwise the agreement would remain in full
force in effect.
Mr. Lehigh: I interrupted you saying that you was going to come back here
if ...
Mr. Sasser: That is two different things. We are now talking about the
maintenance agreement. That is one thing and we are talking about taking
the Towns arbitration responsibility out. On the other issue, at one
point and time, we had talked about requiring there be a deed
restriction. In lieu of that, we had talked about that a couple of
meetings ago. They were not willing to have that in there because of the
fact they can't subdivide anyway without coming back before the Board.
Mr. Adams: I suggested that we enlarge the threshold ..
Mr. Lehigh: We were discussing that and that was going to be part of an
agreement and he was going to submit that to the Town Attorny to see if
that was all right to do and the wording of it was right.
Mr. Sasser: Correct me if I am wrong, a couple of meetings ago, you
withdrew that?
60. Adams: Yes, and it is very simple in concept. First, he would come
to the Zoning Board and demonstrate that in fact the roadway would be
adequate for whatever purpose then intended. I don't want to speculate
M
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 3
now as to .. this may never happen, but it should be viewed based upon the
circumstances then existing. You may say, "No, that roadway is not
adequate." I mean you have given a very thorough review this time, you
can certainly give it a thorough review if it ever comes before you a
second time.
Mr. Fanuele: Why should we set something in place that keeps coming back?
Mr. Sasser: I think it gives us more control that way.
Mr. Adams: That was the whole object.
Mr. Sasser: It gives the Town more control for them to keep coming back.
That way we can stop it or question the subdivision in the future.
Mr. Fanuele: This was started before I was on the Board. From what I
have heard so far on this, I don't see why ..... reoccurrence.
Mr. Adams: It might be good because you have a new member on the Board,
simply go back to where we began because this application has been pending
for sometime. We have four lots. Two are on a road and two are behind
the two on the road and they are landlocked. The key thing you need to
keep in mind is that those two lots are landlocked. They were landlocked
��,-"ior to January 29, 1963. That is a key date because that is when the
gown first adopted a Zoning ordinance. It was only then that you required
frontage on a public street. Now, the ample case for this is quite
frankly that where I have a landlocked parcel, which was created again,
and this is important, before zoning became applicable, before people
understood that there were certain standards that they had to satisfy. If
you were to deprive the owner now of access that is a taking.
Mr. Fanuele: When was this piece of property subdivided to make it
landlocked?
Mr. Adams: Prior to January 1963. As far as I can sort it out, between
1960 and 1962, these lots were created as separate lots. You have a
letter from the assessor to that effect. In fact I have an old tax map in
here ..
Mr. Yannitelli: They were bought from different people.
Mr. Sasser: They were subdivided and landlocked at that time. At that
point and time there wasn't a Town Ordinance that required that they have
the frontage.
Mr. Fanuele: I haven't seen anything in front of me that says this was 4
lots back in 1963.
Mr. Sasser: Yes, we had that before you came on to the Board. That was
ven to us.
Mr. Adams: I can give it to you again.
1
In
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
--k Page 4
Mr. Levenson: Give it to him.
Mr. Adams: I have a tax map to the same effect. You have the deeds in
the file.
Mr. Fanuele: ..... and you are saying these were four lots before then
and you are going to resubdivide this whole thing?
Mr. Adams: No, I am not resubdividing any lot. That is a
misunderstanding.
Mr. Sasser: He is only looking for a driveway.
Mr. Adams: I am only looking for a driveway to an existing lot that was
separately purchased. Keep in mind, four lots, four deeds. Separate and
continuous ownership as to each separate parcel.
Mr. Sasser: No further subdivision is being requested. Mr. Adams had
presented us with copies of the deeds for the properties showing us when
they were .... back in 1963 or 1964.
Mr. Prager: One was done in May 1964 and the other one was September of
62.
Fanuele: I would have to abstain from any further discussion because
he only thing I have here shows one map with one piece of property and
that is all I can go on.
Mr. Sasser: With regard to this matter I would think it is appropriate
that both, you probably should abstain as well because this has been going
back since November and Mr. diPierno as well. He certainly wasn't in on
any of the discussion. It has been going on for months and months now.
Mr. Adams: Just to clarify the concern, there is no request right now for
resubdivision. We simply want access to two interior landlocked lots_
Incidentily, on the issue of width, I can offer something for
consideration just by citing your Driveway Specification within your
Highway Specifications doesn't address width. The Town of Philipstown has
a very interesting open development area. They have made the whole Town
an open development area, which means quite frankly that none of those
lots within the Town have to be within or on a public road. They also
have created a fairly, what i would deem careful and sophisticated
standard in term of roadways that are necessary in order to satisfy
concerns of access for emergency vehicles. I will hand up to the Board
for the record only for consideration as an example of what another Town
has done. I am not asking for departure from the Town Highway/Driveway
Specifications in terms of grades or the condition of the surface of the
road. We are going to observe the existing specifications that are
applicable to this subdivision under the Highway/Driveway Specifications.
. Sasser: This is probably something and I would be happy to ..... and
it will be more properly submit to the Town Board for when they go through
their revamping of the Zoning Ordinance. Herb, what is the width of the
road that
is Town Specs.?
Mr. Levenson: 24 feet.
Mr. Sasser: For a highway?
Mr. Levenson: 24 feet.
Mr. Sasser: How about a driveway?
24 on a highway?
Mr. Levenson: On a highway.
4
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 5
There is no width requirement. It is
Mr. Sasser: When you put this driveway in and you build it up to Town
Driveway Specs., how would you feel about increasing the width? Mr.
Lehigh, the fire apparatus was your major concern. Is that correct?
Mr. Lehigh: When we discussed this last month with the Fire Prevention
Bureau, they told us that they would not have enough room on that driveway
to get apparatus in there. It is not just a question of driving one fire
truck in there. On the first response on that, you probably have 3 trucks
plus you have 30 volunteers with their own cars coming in there and you
take that in the middle of the winter with six inches of snow on the
around and this has grade to it in the back ...
Mr. Sasser: They are going to keep the grade under 15% now. They have
agreed to do that.
Mr. Lehigh: Either way, try to get a vehicle in like that to try to save
somebodies life, you are not only putting the firemen in jeopardy, but you
are putting the people in the house in jeopardy.
Mr. Sasser: At that meeting, did they make a recommendation as to the
width of the road?
Mr. Lehigh: They were going to get back to us with a letter and I had
discussed this with Mark Liebermann before and they didn't want it and
tonight is the first time that I heard from you that now they want it and
you had a discussion with Mark.
Mr. Sasser: Today I did. However, he did indicate that he wanted to see
the road wider. Am I correct, that was your major concern?
Mr. Lehigh: That is one of the concerns plus the fact that you put a
vehicle in there that weighs 25 to 30 tons, what are you going to do with
that vehicle if he puts down one inch of blacktop or two inches of
blacktop or three inches, you will be through that like nothing. If you
don't have the surface built beneath it. That is why the Town Road
Specifications are so stringent.
Sasser: The Highway Specifications you are talking about?
Mr. Lehigh: Right, that is why they are so stringent as to provide that
access.
M
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 6
Mr. Sasser: Graham Foster has given us a letter saying that he was
satisfied with Driveway Specs. and Mark Liebermann said the same thing.
Mr. Lehigh: Only with the grade.
Mr. Sasser: No, that is not what it says. This is the letter from Graham
Foster dated March 13th. "My intent was that the driveway must meet the
driveway which appears in the Highway Specs."
Mr. Lehigh: I talked to him personally and what he was talking about was
grade. There is nothing else covered in the Highway Specs. on driveways.
So, there is nothing else he could want. I talked to him personally.
Mr. Adams: I would like to submit a letter I have from Gray, Railing and
Heinsman on this issue.
Mr. Sasser: Is that the December 13th letter?
Mr. Adams: Not on specifications specifically. This letter indicates
that if we were to have to build an interior road to meet the Highway
Specifications, when I say Highway I don't mean Driveway, but simply the
Highway Specifications. Quite frankly the cost of that road would be
greater than the value of those two lots. I can measure the value of
Yose lots very simply. I have a current contract of sale for one of
hose two lots for $35,000. Quite frankly to put a roadway in at Highway
Specifications according to Mr. Railings letter it would cost me $70,000.
You have made those lots using those standards valueless.
Mr. Lehigh: Let me give you my feeling on that. You have plenty of land
in there that you could come up with more than 4 lots. If you put a road
in there it can be developed so you could have more than the lots because
of the acreage.
Mr. Sasser: That is not what his application is for Mr. Lehigh.
Mr. Adams: I have no interest in resubdividing those lots and you can't
impose that on me I don't believe as a standard.
Mr. Sasser: It appears to me that the Town Engineer has indicated that he
doesn't have a problem with it and in my opinion the Highway
Superintendant doesn't seem to have a problem with it. The only matter
that has been brought up, anybody in the Town has a concern is from the
Fire Inspector. He would like to see it a little bit wider. I believe
failure to grant relief in this is a taking of the land and I don't see, I
don't have any problem with doing it whatsoever with some of the
restrictions that we had talked about in the past meetings. I don't
believe that we should deny an applicant the use of his land. Especially
something that wasn't created with their knowledge that they were going to
' ve a problem. This was subdivided in 1963 and there was no ordinance at
at time that said that they would have any problem. The law was in
enacted later then that and for us to not grant the relief is taking their
land. I think that requiring that they build a road that is going to cost
Om
In
n
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 7
them according to Mr. Railings estimate in his March 28th letter, $175
dollars a foot is the same as taking his land. What I am concerned with
is an experts testimony or an opinion as to the width of the road and fire
equipment and I am concerned about the width of that driveway. I would
like to see it where everyone is in agreement that the road width would
provide adequate protection to anybody living back there should there be a
fire or an emergency in the winter or if somebodies car was blocking it.
I would like to see them be able to get back in there. Do you have any
specifications on how this road is proposed? How this driveway is
proposed?
Mr. Adams: I have no specifications per say .. I would make one
suggestion. I would like to bring this matter to a closure. If we can
get an agreement to all the other items I can attempt to go back to Mr.
Railing. As you know, this matter has been going on and on. It needs to
be brought to an end. I know a fire truck for example is 8 feet in .... I
am not suggesting a road of 8 and 16 feet, because I don't think you need
a road of 16 feet to accommodate a fire truck. I certainly think you need
10 to 12 feet. That is my nonprofessional suggestion. Certainly, it
needs to accommodate, keep in mind this is a driveway, this is not for
parking. So, we need a roadway with an adequate width to permit that
truck to pass up or back.
"~ Lehigh: It would be nice if it could turn around and come back too.
Mrs. Smith: Can you do that in your driveway?
Mr. Lehigh: My driveway isn't half a mile long.
Mr. Adams: This is 500 and some feet, Mr. Lehigh.
Mr. Fanuele: Can you fit two trucks side by side on your driveway? The
trucks arrive at different times. The one that is needed may not be the
closest there then, it has to pass to get put to where the fire is. so,
you need some type of two way traffic.
Mr. Adams: I wouldn't double the width simply for an event that may never
happen. If the shoulders are adequately graded and the truck has the
ability to use the roadway for it's primary course, I think you are
imposing to much of a cost for something that might happen once, or twice
or may never happen.
Mr. Fanuele: .. Your talking about adequate shoulders.
Mr. Adams: Maybe some consideration should be given to the shoulders in
addition to perhaps 8 feet is sufficient for a roadway so long as you have
shoulders on both side of say four feet. Again, that is a nonprofessional
Sasser: Before we go on, I would like to see if there is anybody here
night who would like to speak with regard to this matter either for or
against?
M
n
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 8
Mrs. Smith: I would like to agree with him that this should come to an
end. I have been reading it for months and months. I don't believe that
they need to have a roadside driveway so that the fire truck can turn
around. You can not turn around in my driveway and I have a bigger
driveway than most. You couldn't turn around in Mr. Lehigh's driveway.
You probably couldn't turn around in any of your driveways. I have seen
the fire trucks come. They come one at a time and they line up in back of
each other. Just as they did last night at Medicus and they have plenty
of room for them to turn around. I really think you should look into
bringing this to an end.
Mr. Sasser: Thank you Mrs. Smith. Is there anyone else that would like
to speak?
Mrs. Yannitelli: Jeanette Yannitelli. Route 9D, Garrison, New York. My
son belongs to the Garrison Fire Department. My husband belongs to the
fire company. My brother-in-law is a retired fireman from New York also
active in the Garrison unit. To build a Town road for the trucks to go in
there, I don't think is necessary. We have people that want those lots.
They live in Wappinger now and they want to build a new house in Wappinger
and they want to be a resident here and pay taxes here. They are getting
tired of waiting as we are too. As I said we should be fairly dealt
with. I appreciate your time.
%W. Sasser: Thank you Mrs. Yannitelli. Is there anyone else who would
like to speak? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mr. Prager: I make a motion that we close the public hearing.
Mr. Lehigh: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Sasser: I would like to make a motion that we grant the relief sought
with the restrictions that the road be constructed that together with
shoulders there be 16 feet in width. That the maintenance agreement that
has been proposed deleting paragraph 4 be included. I don't think we have
to put anything else in there. That is my motion. Do I have a second?
Mr. Prager: Second.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Fanuele: I abstain. Mr. Prager: Aye.
Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. diPierno: I abstain.
Mr. Sasser: Aye.
Mr. Sasser: I would like to add to that based on the variance for the
record that my motion was made because I don't think that this is going to
be a detriment to any nearby properties and I don't think it is going to
change the characteristics of the neighborhood. I don't see any feasible
thod which has been demonstrated by the applicant due to the cost of the
adway. I don't find this to be a substantial variance. Relief has been
granted. It will be filed with the Town Clerk within five days. The next
item on the agenda is appeal ##1188. At the request of Alpine Co. of
Poughkeepsie who is seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.62 where
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 9
you are requesting a 72 sq. ft. sign where 25 sq. ft. is allowed,
requiring a 47 sq. ft. variance to be placed in the entrance way of
property located on Route 9 and identified as Tax Grid
#19-6257-02-707773-00 in the Town of Wappinger. I would just like to ask
Mr. diPierno, are you familiar with the .. have you read the minutes? Do
you feel that with the knowledge that you have you can participate in this
fairly?
Mr. diPierno: Yes.
Mr. Sasser: The second thing I would like to bring up is that we have not
made a SEQR determination on this. We had asked to hold it. The SEQR
provision, which we are asked to consider when we make our determination,
is to determine whether there is going to be a significant impact on the
environment with regard to this. I don't think that the pylon sign that
we are talking about out front is something that is going to be a major
impact with regard to SEQR. This is a very minor thing. I think we can
get SEQR out of the way. Does anybody have any other ..?
Mr. Fanuele: I still think we should delay whether this is going to be an
impact or not. It is very clear to me that it's a visual impact. I would
like to see more done before we make that determination.
'*r. Sasser: I agree there is perhaps some visual impacts, but I think
%04's minor enough where SEQR really doesn't come into play. I would like
to make a motion that we Negative Dec. it.
Mr. Prager: Second.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Fanuele: Nay. Mr. Prager: Aye.
Mr. Lehigh: Nay. Mr. diPierno: Aye.
Mr. Sasser: Aye.
Mr. Sasser: We have adopted a Negative Dec. on SEQR.
Mr. Kellogg: At the last meeting the recommendation was made to get the
input of the Planning Board and also to speak to the D.O.T.. We spoke to
the D.O.T. about cutting trees down. The D.O.T. will not allow any trees
of 6 inches or greater to be cut down. They discourage any trees to be
cut down, but they will accept a request to cut trees down 5 inches or
less. They do not give any indication as to what they would allow. They
referred it back to the Planning Board as well. They thought it was
really for them to consider it for site plan review. We went in front of
the Planning Board and the Planning Board on March 22nd ...
Mr. Sasser: Let me just stop you for a second and get a motion just for
technicality.
Mr. Lehigh: I motion that we reopen.
Sl�. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All ayes_
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 10
Mr. Sasser: I am sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt your train of
thought.
Mr. Kellogg: The Planning Board last Monday night, which was March 20th,
made a unanimous recommendation that the request be granted for the
relocation of the pylon sign. So, that it is closer to Route 9 and would
include raising it by 4 feet and adding the Alpine Commons identification
across the top. I believe that memo has been distributed.
Mr. Sasser: Everybody have a copy of that as well?
Mr. Fanuele: At that meeting, the question came up that once you raise
that sign, one of the reasons for raising it is that you want to put
underneath that additional signage? Is that correct?
Mr. Kellogg: No, the reason we want to raise it is that it is too low to
the ground right now. That is the reason why we want to raise it. They
asked me the question, "If you get a couple more tenants in there is there
the possibility that you are going to want to add another tenant or two
underneath B.J.'s and Stop & Shop?" I said, "Yes, there is that
possibility." That is not the reason we are raising the sign. The reason
-'s strictly for visibility right now.
kw
Mr. Fanuele: What about just raising it in the location that it is now?
Mr. Kellogg: You can't see it because of all the trees driving northbound
and the high ridges. Southbound you can't see it because of all the
trees.
Mr. Sasser: There is very little visibility there. I agree whole
heartedly.
Mr. Kellogg: You just can't see it. I don't know how else to prove it.
I have given pictures_
Mr. Sasser: You know we are competing with neighboring Towns. In the
Town of Fishkill we have almost the same setup down there with Sam's. It
is visible and you see it for miles a round. In my opinion, this is a big
tax base in Wappinger. I think it is very difficult to see when you are
coming up Route 9. I don't think it is incumbent on you to ask D.O.T. to
cut trees down. That is their property. You shouldn't be going to
somebody else asking them to cut them down. You don't have any
identification on that plaza that it is Alpine Shopping Center. I think
it needs identifications. It needs an identity. I think that more
signage would bring more customers in as evidenced by the two letters that
were provided to us. I presume everybody has a copy from Stop & Shop and
B.J.'s that their biggest complaint is people who can't find it? I think
need this signage to help this plaza stay in business.
Mr. Kellogg: Another thing I would like to reiterate again is the tax
base. Right now, our ability to lease out this vacant 38,000 foot
building is based on proper identification which is moving this pylon
sign. You can verify it with Tom Logan. Tom Logan has this on the
M
M
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 11
assessment rolls at a reduced cost bases, when he does everything else on
income. Therefore, it is basically a negligible assessment that is on
this building right now and it will be negligible again this year because
we don't have a tenant. Where Stop & Shop and B.J.'s, it is based on the
income approach and there is a sizeable assessment. I think maybe outside
of the Pizzagalli building we are the biggest taxpayer in Town. That tax
revenue will only go up once we get this leased out. I know it is not the
same application and I know there was concern about the building signage
that was under review. The Planning Boards recommendation as part of
giving unanimous approval here was to reserve any decision on the building
signage. I have discussed that with Stop & Shop and B.J.'s. The
consensus is that we will table that for now. We will give you a good
presentation on what the face of that building will look like. Stop &
Shop and B.J.'s sign, even if it means waiting until we know who the
retail tenant is and we can show you the real facts on who that tenant
would be.
Mr. Sasser: The last meeting we asked you to go back to your tenants and
have them provide us with documentation that customer complaints were a
very big problem there and you did that. We also asked that you go back
before the Planning Board and get their recommendation and you have done
that. In my opinion, you have done everything that we have asked for and
am very satisfied. You also contacted D.O.T., that was the third thing,
%Od got their opinion on the way that it should be done. I am completely
satisfied. You have done everything that we have asked you to do and I
certainly see a need for this and I am definitely in favor of it. I would
like to ask if there is anyone here in the public who would like to speak
with regard to this matter?
Mrs. Smith: I personally agree that the sign should be changed because I
know because I have the opportunity of getting the accidents that happen
through out the Town. There is a lot of rear end type accidents mainly
because this sign seems to come up and people stop quick to turn. The
accident rate should go down if the sign is moved. I think that every
plaza should be identified. When a new person comes into the area and
they say, "Well, where is Alpine Plaza?" No one would know because there
is no sign. Also, I don't know how the fire company calls it, but if the
fire company had a call at Alpine Plaza, if they are all familiar with it,
fine, but if it is marked it is much better. It is a safety feature as
well. I think cutting down trees is totally out of line. I don't want
trees cut down. If anything we fight to get trees planted. I tried to
get a Tree Law and I wasn't successful at that, but I will keep trying. I
really think that this should be encouraged because we need the business
and they are a very good tax base for us. They are good people to work
with. They are community spirited and I don't think there is a problem.
Mr. Fanuele: #1198?
Sasser: Yes, that is the next one. As soon as we get to it they are
ing to withdraw it_
Mr. Lehigh: I would just like to go on record as reiterating the
statement that I made before that you are still going to have a problem
n
n
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 12
with those trees. As long as those trees are there you are going to have
trouble with that sign because those trees are not going to stop growing.
They are going to grow and you are going to try to move that thing out in
the middle of Route 9.
Mr. Fanuele: I believe that he agreed that the area will be cleaned up
and the brush would be removed?
Mr. Kellogg: We have already cleaned up all of the debris since our last
meeting that was in there. D.O.T. will get around to it someday, but we
took the responsibility to do it. It is also the D.O.T.'s obligation that
they have to keep this right hand turn lane free, not just way over head,
but there has to be a vertical line going up from the edge of the pavement
and nothing can grow over into that driveway. We will be the first to
complain to the D.O.T. if they are not maintaining it properly and we will
just take it upon ourself to do it.
Mr. Lehigh: You definitely can't see anything going north in the
northbound lane. You can't see that sign at all now.
Mr. Kellogg: That is what I have been saying.
"r. Lehigh: I can understand some relief, but I don't agree with the way
u are proposing to get it. You definitely need something.
Mr. Kellogg: We don't have any other choice. There is no other ...
Mr. Sasser: The public has spoken with regard and we have even mentioned
the tax base and so forth. Unfortunately, that is not an issue that we
are really allowed to consider in making our decision. There are several
things and you probably know what they are because we have talked about
them before and I just want to go over them again for the record and how I
feel about it. That is a commercial piece of property and it is on Route
9. There is commercial signs all up and down. It is not facing any
residential property, the signs that we are talking about. We have to
consider if this request is going to be detrimental to nearby properties?
I see no detriment whatsoever. Is it going to make a undesirable change
in that neighborhood? It's not going to make any change in the
neighborhood whatsoever as far as I am concerned. Is there another method
that you could get the benefit without having to do this? Well, there are
other methods. That is asking somebody who owns land that you don't own
to cut some trees down. That is not necessarily a possibility. I don't
see any other method of doing that. Is the request very substantial? I
don't think anybody would say it is substantial because you will have
almost the same sign, a few feet higher then you have right now. Is the
difficulty self-created? No, that piece of property, the typography is
such that you just can't see the plaza. You drive down Route 9 and you
see a lot of brush and a lot of trees and a lot of white on the tip of the
ilding up there, but you really can't tell that there is a shopping
nter back up there. South Hill's Mall in the Town of Poughkeepsie has
almost the same setup. They have big signs out on Route 9 to identify
where the South Hill's Mall is just for the same reasons. Those are the
five things that we have to consider. Just for the Boards information, I
think the applicant certainly meets all five of them.
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 13
Mr. Fanuele: The other question that came up about straddling the sewer
line. Did you locate the sewer line?
Mr. Kellogg: The Town has a sewer easement that goes through our property
and across the driveway. I have to work out a location to make sure that
we are not intruding on anything that Jay Paggi has there. So, I will sit
down with Jay and .. I think what we have done is gone from one side of
the sewer easement to the other.
Mr. Lehigh: But, you don't know that for sure?
Mr. Kellogg: I have to fine tune that with Jay. Our records, that is
what it shows. Jay just brought that comment up.
Mr. Prager: I motion that we close the public hearing.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All ayes_
Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion that he be granted relief for the pylon sign
.-nd being able to move it and raise it.
Mr. Prager: Second.
Mr. Fanuele: Can we add something to that? That it does not straddle the
sewer lines. That the sign does not straddle the sewer line.
Mr. Levenson: That will be in the resolution.
Mr. Fanuele: In the resolution that Mr. Lehigh has suggested?
Mr. Sasser: Do you want to add that to your resolution?
Mr. Kellogg: Or that it is in a location that is acceptable to Jay?
Mr. Sasser: I think that would probably be more appropriate, a location
acceptable to the Town Engineer? Is that O.K. Mr. Lehigh?
Mr. Lehigh: Yes.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Fanuele: Aye. Mr. Prager: Aye.
Mr. Lehigh: Aye. Mr. diPierno: Aye.
Mr. Sasser: Aye.
Mr. Sasser: Appeal ##1189 at the request of Alpine Co. of Poughkeepsie who
is seeking a variance from Article IV, Section 416.61 where you are
uesting 4 - 33 sq. ft. for a total of 396 sq. ft. where you are only
lowed 150 sq. ft., thus requiring a variance of 246 sq. ft. on the west
of the building located on Route 9 and identified as Tax Grid
##19-6157-02-707773-00 in the Town of Wappinger. Herb, I think that needs
to be rewritten because that is still written for the four signs and it
M
LM
Wappinger zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 14
was reduced to two signs. So, that will probably have to be rewritten. I
don't think it has to be republished because we are going for less of a
variance instead of more of a variance.
Mr. Kellogg: Will we table that now? Is that what ..
Mr. Sasser: Yes, I just read it because there may be somebody here. It
is my understanding that you want to adjourn this matter to an open date?
Mr. Kellogg: To an open date. The first thing we will do is work with
the tenants and develop a plan that we'll present to you and present it to
the Planning Board_
Mr. Sasser: Can I have a motion from someone to adjourn this to a date
uncertain?
Mr. Prager: I make a motion that we adjourn this.
Mr. Fanuele: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
*•--. Sasser: That ends the public portion of the meeting tonight. On for
scussion is Appeal ##1192. At the request of Pizzagalli Development Co.
Mrs.
Smith:
They are
in my conference room. I will go get them.
Mr.
Sasser:
Is there
someone here from Spain?
Mr. Levenson: This is Ms. Liv Brakewood. She is the engineer that is
representing S -Pain Oil Co. and their application.
Ms. Brakewood: Here I will give you my card.
Mr. Sasser: Ms. Brakewood, just so you know, this is not a public
hearing. So, it is not a matter of facts and so forth. We just want to
get a general idea of what you are looking for so we could tell you what
other information we might need before the night of the public hearing.
We don't really want to get into trying the issues tonight. We just
briefly want to hear what it is you want to do so we will know ..
Ms. Brakewood: They have an existing gas station up here. Recently Spain
oil purchased it and he opened up as Sunoco. If you look carefully this
is the main building that you repair ..... out here is a concrete island
that has the two gasoline dispensers on it.
Mr. Sasser: The existing pumps are there now?
Brakewood: Yes, they are. They would like to put an overhead canopy
Wer it and that is his whole application. We are however in the
front -yard dispenser islands tend to be in front -yard and in this case
there is actually sort of three front -yards to think of. One is the
typical front -yard at 25 feet that you are supposed to have and we are
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 15
nowhere near that. The setback for the canopy would only be three and a
half feet. Dispenser islands are only about fifteen or so, sixteen feet
back from the actual front property line. In addition, it is a state
highway. State highways are required to be 75 feet back in this zone
according to your code plus it says 50 feet from the center line on the
street. So, the strictest of them all is 70 feet, 5 feet back from the
state highway line and we will only be 3 1/2 feet.
Mr. Sasser: There is a couple of things that I would want to see. Number
one, is the concern by D.O.T. about sight distance on New Hackensack
Road.
Ms. Brakewood: I was there this evening just to double check it and the
big concern here is something that won't be a concern because we are
putting a overhead canopy, the minimum clearance underneath it is 14 feet.
Mr. Sasser: Have you spoken to D.O.T.?
Ms. Brakewood: No, I haven't, but I got the letter and not only do I have
pictures here, I went to the site to double check too. It is something
that won't be in your line of vision because it is higher than your line
of vision.
. Sasser: You have all of the specs on the height and ...
Ms. Brakewood: The height spec is on there, minimum 14 feet. Yes, there
is a standard otherwise you can't get emergency vehicles in and based on
the federal highway ..
Mr. Prager: Would we be able to get something from the D.O.T. on that?
Ms. Brakewood: That they are going to go out and back again?
Mr. Prager: Yes.
Ms. Brakewood: I can call them.
Mr. Prager: If you could, I would like to see something.
Ms. Brakewood: Call D.O.T. and have them check.
Mr. Fanuele: The columns that are holding this up, are they in line with
the pumps?
Ms. Brakewood: They are on either side of the pump, align with the
pumps. So, there isn't any interferance either. The one here is the one
furthest .... as you can see, it is pretty much in line with the building
and all of the trees and stuff that is here. So, that doesn't effect
ght line at all. You are really far back. In this direction, this is
ere the problems are. It is where the dispensers are anyway. There's
houses here that are just about as close.
Mr. Sasser: I think that would satisfy me.
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 16
Mr. Fanuele: Is the overhead going to be lit or just the lights coming
down? Or signage on the side?
Ms. Brakewood: No, I don't have signs on it because we have already gone
over signs and I don't think we are allowed more signs than what they are
working on right now. I don't have any signs on the canopy as specified.
As you see these are hanging down lower than they really are, but it is to
emphasis. We usually for this size canopy put 4 canopy under lights
underneath it and they go down so it would be very well lit underneath
it. That is for obvious safety reasons, but they do not point out into
the traffic.
Mr. Levenson: Mr. Chairman, so that you know, all of the signs have been
approved and corrected.
Mr. Sasser: Thank you.
Ms. Brakewood: Before I leave, I just want to make sure that I asked for
the correct variance since I said there is three different front -yards
that I am dealing with. I mainly emphasized the biggest one, which is
from the front highway line, 75 feet for state highway and I said 3 1/2
r -et is what we have. I hope that is appropriate. I don't know if I need
itemize them all out?
Mr. Sasser: Yes, you need to address that. We are the appellate court.
You need to address that with Mr. Levenson's office.
Ms. Brakewood: O.K., so if he is happy with the wording it is o.k.?
Mr. Sasser: Exactly. What you are doing is appealing his denial to us.
So, he would be the one that would give you that information properly.
Herb will also help you with giving you the information on how to do the
public notice and the newspaper. I would like a motion to appoint
ourselves Lead Agency.
Mr. Prager: I make a motion.
Mr. diPierno: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion for a Negative Dec.
Mr. diPierno: Second_
Vote: All ayes.
Sasser: Thank you very much. We will set this down for a .. When is
e next hearing date Herb?
Mr. Fanuele: Do you have to make a motion for a public hearing?
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 17
Mr. Sasser: No, we are just in a workshop now. we have to set it, which
I am doing now.
Mr. Levenson: 4 weeks from today.
Mr. Sasser: Which is?
Mrs. Nguyen: She has to have it all in by April 4th for April 25th
meeting.
Mr. Prager: April 11th.
Mr. Lehigh: April 11th.
Mr. Sasser: Is April 11th sufficient time for you?
Mr. Levenson: No, I won't have time for the legal notice.
Mrs. Nguyen: So, it has to be April 25th.
Mr. Levenson: April 25th.
wSasser: April 25th, Herb?
Mr. Levenson: Yes.
Mr. Sasser: April 25th is o.k. with you? So, it will be set down for a
public hearing on April 25th. Thanks very much. The next item on the
agenda tonight for discussion we actually have four appeals which will be
coming up. 1192, 1193, 1194 and 1195, all Pizzaaalli Development Co.
Since this is just a workshop session I think this should be rather
informal.
Mrs. Smith: That is why I am here tonight. This of course is the Laerdel
project, which I have a lot of interest in. We had a combined meeting
with the Planning Board, the Z.B.A. and the Town Board and after that
meeting we still did some more work and they disappeared and we thought
they were gone. ...... have them come back. I have told them that
everything that we had promised them at the time we had the first meeting,
we would certainly honor those same things at this time. They expect that
they need the variances. I had suggested to them today or yesterday when
I talked to them that, even if they didn't need one because they made some
changes, that they should go forward and get them instead of waiting until
they need them and then come and have to go through this all over again.
They hope to be in I think by August, in the building. This is a great
asset to the Town and I expect that we will all bend over backwards like
we did before.
S�Sasser: Did all of the members of the Board receive the February 2nd
Itter from Supervisor Smith and Mr. Levenson from the Planning Board. We
have a letter from the Town, from the Planning Board and Supervisor urging
us to approve all of these variances. Did everyone else get a copy of it?
01
Mr. Prager:
2M
I got a copy.
Mr. Sasser: Mr. Fanuele, did you get a copy too?
only Mr. diPierno doesn't have that_
n
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 18
I would assume that
Mrs. Smith: I don't know that Mr. diPierno hasn't gotten it before. You
are new, however, you and I have discussed it at various times.
Mr. Fanuele: Oh, here it is.
Mr. Sasser: I think he is coming in, I mean he hasn't been here for any
public hearings. He certainly can be in from the very beginning and
participate fully in this. I would appreciate it if someone from
Pizzagalli would just very briefly just go over and tell us what all four
of these it is that you are looking for.
Mrs. Nguyen: If you could just state your name for the record also and
spell it?
Mr. Mallardi: Mickey Mallardi, I am with CPG Architects. The first
request for the sign, I don't know whether any of you recall any of these
discussions from a couple of months ago. There are two driveways to the
-ate. The first one you reach on the left coming from Route 9, currently
entifies one of the IBM buildings. One of the things that we are trying
to do here with the shaded building, which is 920 is to try and direct
traffic to Laerdel Corporation on the second drive. We thought it would
be helpful to everybody so they wouldn't get confused and go down the back
drive. To have a sign here saying that Laerdel would be the second left.
The second drive is not in sight. There is a rise and than a curve.
There is an existing sign at this entrance ..., which is now currently
says IBM. It will not really change in size, but just obviously change
the information on it. So, the variance that we are really looking for is
to add a sign to direct traffic around so that people are not wondering
through the rest of the site. Pretty straight forward.
Mrs. Smith: Is it going to be on the site or is that actually on the road
across the street from the site?
Mr. Mallardi: The exact placement is a little bit hard for me to figure
from this. (Referring to the drawing.)
Mr. Levenson: I believe it is on the site.
Mr. Mallardi: I think the existing signs are on the site.
Mrs. Smith: Your right, they are_
Mr. Mallardi: I think it keeps it less complicated and we keep it off of
e right of way too.
Mr. Sasser: You are talking about the westerly driveway too, right? Not
the one with the traffic light, the other one?
M
M
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 19
Mr. Mallardi: Correct, that is where we want to place the sign so that
people are not mistakenly turning down that lane. One of the key things
that we stated at the time was that Laerdel would like to have their own
presence and their own identity from here. It makes more sense that they
don't come around the back way through somebody elses driveway and parking
lot to do that. That is the first part. The second one again, on this
diagram the fully shaded areas is the existing building. At this time we
are still looking to purchase this property. Right now, the biggest
change is that the current agreement is a lease to buy kind of agreement.
I think that is the simplest way to state it. Laerdel will be looking to
lease this building co -terms with the IBM .... the next two and a half
years and then at that point decide whether we want to purchase it.
Initially, we are kind of rolling back our agenda. We don't see a need to
make an addition when we are only leasing the area. There may be some
other ways to accommodate the space that is needed later on. So, this
addition may or may not happen. It is not anything that we are interested
in doing right now. So, that is the biggest change from what we were
doing before. In any regard, we are still looking, the next two variances
deal with the FAR and site coverage.
Ms. Smith: Can I just interject here before we go into that? 2 1/2 year
lease shouldn't make you nervous because we have a commitment that they
?re going to stay here for years and years and years.
Mr. Mallardi: The only thing that may come up in the way of an addition
would really be something that we are looking into right now. We have a
particular condition on the site where we want to put new truck docks in
the rear of the building and that was stated in an outline, some of the
work we were hopeful to do. We just found that there might be some
underground high voltage lines and rather than to try and relocate the
lines we may extend the building out several feet to get the truck docks
beyond that line. We are talking about a modest addition of probably
1,000 or 1,500 sq. ft. in the rear corner of the building with all of the
setbacks. So, even if that becomes a possibility we would need the
variance just to do that because obviously the current ratios really
describe the property as it exist. Any addition would go beyond that.
Mr. Fanuele: You would put that on where the warehouse was going to be?
Mr. Mallardi: The truck docks are to be here and we hope to keep them
internal in the building so we are only just changing the face of the
building, but there is a high voltage line that runs through the rear of
the yard along the back of the building and that might cause us to have to
make an addition like this in order to bring the floor over the top of the
high voltage lines and then put the truck docks in, which have to go low.
You know you have the bed height, in order to make it all work out. Even
though we probably don't need the variance for the original purpose of the
warehouse, which by the way this looks like this might ...
. Sasser: You want to get them ahead of time in case you ..
Mr. Mallardi: Yes, we are still investigating what the situation is. We
would like to have that flexibility_
Nappinger Zoning Board
_ Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 20
Mr. Johnson: The previous zoning for the property was PI?
Mrs. Smith: We are in the process of changing that zoning. we are taking
care of that ..
Mr. Lehigh: Well, when that changes you won't need any of this, right?
Mr. Mallardi: The variance would supercede when that is changed, I
suppose.
Mrs. Smith: But, we need the variances because it is not going to happen
that quickly.
Mr. Lehigh: The only thing I don't see here for a variance, they are
going to manufacture, right? Don't they need something that says they are
going to manufacture as an office park?
Mrs. Smith: No, it is there if I am right.
Mr. Lehigh: It is there?
**' .
Levenson: Yes.
Mr. Mallardi: The fourth one has to do with parking. The projected
maximum employment is about 200 people. Currently, there is parking for
372 spaces in these lots .. building 920. They are looking to make some
more green spaces here, which we have talked about once before. We would
like to take some of these spaces out and do some planting to break up the
sheer mass of this lot and give it a nicer character. 259, that would
make sense. With visitors total and the projected employee parking that
should still be generous. There are a few spots available in the rear of
the building that could also be used. Some of the warehouse people would
probably park in the rear just for the convenience.
Mr. Lehigh: You had said something about the retention pond before. Are
you still going to ...?
Mr. Mallardi: That is one thing I don't think we are going to try and
pursue at all at this point. In fact, one way to get a little more
clarification on some of the finer points is Attorney Vergilis at one
point had drafted an outline of all the work that we would hope to do. I
brought that with me. If you want to go through it point by point, we
could show you what remains the same and what we are not doing. If that
helps you at all we can run through that point by point.
Mr. Lehigh: No, I am just curious because you had mentioned it before.
Mallardi: No, I don't think we are going to pursue that at all.
Mr. Sasser: I would like to keep it as simple as we can when we go to the
public hearing and if that doesn't really pertain to what you are actually
asking for ..
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 21
Mr. Mallardi: We can reproduce a drawing here that doesn't show any of
this stuff and shows more of what we are thinking about. In fact, part of
it .. discuss is what you think is something that should be presented to
the public in light of what we are asking for? Would we even want to show
an addition here when we are not intending to do it in the near future?
Mr. Sasser: I think you have to because you don't need the variance
without an addition. I think you have to show it otherwise you wouldn't
need a variance at all.
Mr. Mallardi: We might show both possible additions because there is a
small addition possibly required in the back.
Mr. Sasser: At the public hearing you could certainly explain that. This
isn't going to go in the newspaper_
Mr. Mallardi: So, we would concentrated on what is shown here without the
pond. The pretty well describes the whole ..
Mr. Fanuele: How did you arrive at the number of parking spaces that you
would use? Is that based on the makeup of the building, manufacturing
pacing, office spacing?
Mr. Millardi: Mostly, it would be very hard for them to staff more than
200 people or significantly more than 200 people giving the nature of what
they have to do there. Unless everything changed .... We have been
careful with these projections all the way along. This is what we
presented to the state and the economic development people. If they
actually needed more than 200 people they would certainly need more
space.
Mr. Fanuele: The zoning says if you have warehouse space, you need so
many parking spaces, so many square feet, manufacturing and office space.
If you go through the zoning you come up with a number that you need.
Mr. Millardi: You know I did at one point and I would have to tell you
frankly more or less ...
Mrs. Smith: I think he had more when he did it then what is actually
required, but I can't remember the number either. I know we were talking
about it early on.
Mr. Millardi: it was something I had to do rather subjectively just to
make a projection. We knew portions of the building were purely
manufacturing assembly and purely warehouse and portions were office
space. I made some assumptions at the time. I came up with some number
that I don't recall right now. It was something just less than the 372,
t possibly not as small as 259. That is the reason for the variance. I
't think we could prove that the new numbers would get us as low as 259
exactly. A lot of it has to do with our projected use ...... to the
building more than the actual zoning numbers.
Wappinger Zoning Board
Minutes - March 28, 1995
Page 22
Mr. Fanuele: What we usually do, you know if you come up with a number
based on your usage of the building and it comes out say for sake of
arguement, 300 spots, you have 250 now, then you have room to expand if
necessary later with the extra spaces.
Mr. Sasser: You can easily do that with the amount of green area. Just
write the wording over that map that says proposed additional parking.
Mr. Millardi: O.k., that is the way we could do that. That is certainly
the fall back if they needed more parking.
Mr. Sasser: I don't think there is any information that I am going to
need for the public hearing other than what you had provided. How about
you gentlemen?
Mr. Prager: No, they have really gone over it.
Mr. Lehigh: we have been over this a couple of times.
Mrs. Smith: Yes, we almost thought it was here once.
Mr. Lehigh: I make a motion for a Negative Dec.
. Prager: Second.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Sasser: Any opposed?
Mr. Fanuele: I have one question on the pond. Your not going to do the
pond?
Mrs. Smith: I think they are not going to do the pond until they become
owners or something. They kind of put it on the back fire.
Mr. Millardi: I think that is really the general reason.
just don't make sense at least at this point.
Mr. Sasser: April 11th is the public hearing.
Mrs. Smith: 7:30 on the 11th.
Mr. diPierno: Motion to adjourn.
Mr. Lehigh: Second_
Vote: All ayes.
ETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M..
Certain things
Respectfully submitted,
'0�1>L /" , 2��-�
L'nda Nguye ecretary to the Z.B.A.
Town of Wappinger