1986-11-18ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 18TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal 44940, at the request of Angelo Zeno, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit storage and sale of electrical
supplies on property located on Mildred Road (Stage Door Drive), and being Parcel
446156-02-794847, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #943, at the request of
of Article IV, §422, NB, 116 of the
service, and part sales on property
in the Town of Wappinger.
John & Marion Hartman, seeking a Special Use Permit
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit auto sales,
located on Route 9, and being Parcel 446157-04-703107,
3. Appeal #945, at the request of Maria G. Rabasco, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §445 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an accessory apartment
on property located on 3 Midge Drive, and being Parcel 446156-01-436690, in the Town of
Wappinger.
4. Appeal 44950, at the request of Paul Garell, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of building permits
on property located on Wheeler Hill Road, and being Parcel Vs 6057-04-677284, 684243,
700267, & 706292, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal #951, at the request of Allen R. Blake, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a home occupation (self employed
contractor) in a residential zone on property located on Ketchamtown Road, and being
Parcel 416156-01-493894, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal #952, at the request of Eileen (Pigliacampi) Fay, seeking a variance of Article
IV, §412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of a lot
into (3) lots where said lots will not have legal road frontage on property located on
Johnson Place, and being Parcel 446256-01-482814, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal 44954, at the request of Patricia Morphew, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the screening in of an
existing deck on property located on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel 446257-06-332759,
in the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal 44956A, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking a variance of Article II, §200,
Subsection 220, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, seeking a variance of the
interpretation of the word "use" in the definition of a "lot" on property located on
Route 9, and being Parcel 446158-04-530446, in the Town of Wappinger.
9. Appeal #956B, at the request of Sprint Inc., seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.52
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a sign 15 foot in height when 10 foot
maximum is permitted and to allow a 10 foot setback when 25 foot is permitted on property
located on Route 9, and being Parcel 446157-04-680140, in the Town of Wappinger.
10. Appeal 44957, at the request of Henry A. Olson, Master, Oak Grove Grange, seeking a
variance of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a
50 foot frontyard setback where 100 feet is required on property located on St. Nicholas
Road & New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 446259-03-141091, in the Town of Wappinger.
IM
Page -2-
November 18th, 1986
Agenda
11. Appeal 41958, at the request of Larraine & Frank Hamlin, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit on a undersized lot where the owner of said lot owns property adjoining the lot on
property located on 10 Russell Road, and being Parcel 446259-04-652093, in the Town of
Wappinger.
12. Appeal 44960, at the request of Elio Tavares, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.21
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the expansion of a parking lot
which is part of a legal non -conforming retail use on property located on 135 Osborne Hill
Road, and being Parcel 446156-02-593754, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 44953, at the request of Kurt Reiner, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the enlargement of a legal
(2) family (non -conforming) dwelling on property located on 116 Diddell Road, and being
Parcel 46359-04-523445, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4955, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking an appeal as an aggreived person
of the interpretation of Article II, §200, Subsection 220, of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance in of the word "use" in the definition of a "lot".
3. Appeal 44959, at the request of Ralph Szilagyi & Nancy Creed, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §421, 115 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for use as a
medical clinic on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 466259-04-
537307, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 46961, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §422, NB, 117 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a car wash
along with gas pumps at the existing service station on property located on Route 9 &
Old Hopewell Road, and being Parcel 466157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 18TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, November 18th,
1986, at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at
7:00 p.m..
Members Present:
Mr. Caballero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala
Mr. Urciuoli
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M..
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion on the Minutes of the October 14th, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked if the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office and the green cards were returned.
Mr. Caballero explained how the meeting would be conducted and then read the first appeal:
Appeal #940, at the request of Angelo Zeno, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit storage and sale of
electrical supplies on property located on Mildred Road (Stage Door Drive) and being
Parcel #6156-02-794847, in the Town of Wappinger.
Alfred Cappelli, Architect was present representing Mr. Zeno.
Mr. Cappeli stated, as you may recall we were here last month presenting the project
to you and we were referred to the Planning Board for their review. We have already been
to them before and hopefully they responded positive letter or recommendation.
Mr. Caballero read the memo from the Planning Board with their recommendation. Letter
on file.
Mr. Caballero read the letter from Paggi & Martin dated October 1986. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero asked, were you able to adress this before or is the first you have seen
the request?
Mr. Cappelli answered, this letter is adressed to the Planning Board as opposed to where
you gentlemen and yes these concerns were raised by Jay Paggi at a previous Planning
Board meeting. I believe those sections have to do wtih drainage and what we were
going to do with the on site drainage, whether we were going to tie into Route 9 or
whether we were going to take care of it on site.
M
Page -2-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, are you going to address those to the Planning Board?
Mr. Cappelli answered, yes. A drainage study has been undertaken already and we haven't
presented that to the Planning Board or Mr. Paggi as of yet because we haven't had
the opportunity.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against.
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one of the question I have is the timing on this. The date of
application for a Special Use Permit is September 16th and yet apparantly this thing
was before the Planning Board, you had a long EAF to the Planning Board before you made
application for a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Cappelli answered, that is correct because it wasn't found until we were at the
second or third meeting, it was brought to my attention or the Boards attention that we
even needed a SUP whether it was my oversight or however, again we through 2 or 3 or
very far along through the Planning Board process. We stopped it right there so we went
to you and back to the Planning Board and now we are back to you again this evening so
that was the procedure.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the only thing I am concerned about is the fact that if these
questions, 1 & 6 on Part 3 that the Eningeer has a concern with are questions that are
drainage and normally considered as far as site plan. But, we don't know what they refer
to, if they refer to something that we might be concerned with I do have a problem.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I feel that I don't think we are in a position, I would like to be
assured by out Town Engineer that all of those requirements have been met otherwise I
don't think we are in a position to render a decision this evening.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I sort of go along with that. For us to grant a SUP, at least the
minimum requirements should be met and then when it goes to the Planning Board they add
on or approve site changes, but they should meet the minimum requirements before we
address whether he can have a SUP.
Mr. Caballero stated, I see that the Planning Board has no objections to it and they
were privy to this.
Mr. Cappelli stated, I can show you section 1 & 6 of the EAF. Impact on land, Part 1,
and impact on drainage flow, which is Part 6 and we went ahead and filled our parts
1,2, & 3 not knowing that in the Town of Wappinger we weren't supposed to go ahead and
fill out everything, the Engineer does it for us and they we come back with the mitigating
concerns and how we address those problems. To my knowledge there are zero problems.
We have gone through everything and again, the only concern that Jay had was the drainage
which at that point of that letter on October we hadn't addressed at that time.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion to grant the SUP based on meeting the Engineer's
requirements or concerns.on letter dated October 10th, 1986.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Page -3-
November 18th, 1986
The motion was carried.
kw
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #943, at the request of John & Marion Hartman, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §422, NB, 116 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit auto sales
service, & part sales on property lcoated onRoute 9, and being Parcel #6157-04-703107,
in the Town of Wappinger.
John Hartman was present.
Mr. Hartman stated, after our initial meeting I have appeared before the Planning Board
and they have referred me back to you.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you aware that the Planning Board gave us a recommendation?
Mr. Hartman stated, there was no objection at that time.
Mr. Caballero read the memo from the Planning Board dated October 29th, 1986. Letter on
file.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Landolfi stated, on the signage. Are you familiar with our Zoning Law pertaining
to signs?
Mr. Hartman answered, yes. There is a problem but there isn't anything we can do
about it regarding the product signs that don't fall under the size that you can use on
Route 9 so at our present site we have no sign other than on the building. We will have
to address that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you said at present, will we expect to see you back?
Mr. Hartman stated, I am talking about at our present site where we are located now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to know if he, the question of the future service road
along Route 9, was that brought up?
Mr. Hartman answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you had no problem with that?
Mr. Hartman answered, well I didn't think I had any other choice. They said I would
have to show the 30 feet that theya re going to take as a access road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is that if you feel you have a choice I would like to
make it part of the SUP so that you don't have a choice.
Page -4-
November 18th, 1986
kw Mr. Hartman stated, there is no problem.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason I am saying that is because there is a problem on that
stretch of the road with curb cuts and I am sure there is going to be an accident there
because there is going to be one curb cut after another right down the line. There is
presently a study being done by the County and the Town Engineer.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have enough room to get a tractor trailer, car carrier to
load and unload the cars that might be coming into your dealership without doing it out
on Route 9?
Mr. Hartman answered, absolutely.
Mr. Hirkala stated, because presently there is unloading on Route 9. I have been by your
place and I have seen the tractor trailer parked on the shoulder off loading where you
are now in between your driveway and Grossmans unloading.
Mr. Hartman stated, I am not saying that it hasn't happened, but, the trailers are
brought in on site. If they are out there, they have no reason to unload them out
there.
Mr. Caballero stated, if you all desire to allow this SUP you can set a condition that
the appellant will not come in for a variance on a sign, they would have to adhere to our
Zoning Ordinance. Two, on the recommendation from the Planning Board that there be no
loading or unloading of vehicles on Route 9, and Three, Mike's concern as to the 30 ft...
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is a potential future ROW for an access road.
Mr. Caballero asked, that means his signage would have to be 30 ft back?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't know how that is going to be worked. Another concern I have
is the same concern I brought up on other things on Route 9 is the fact that you have a
new vehicle sales area with prior to delivery they will be washing vehicles, and this
water goes into the storm drainage system.
Mr. Hartman stated, no, it is a self-contained system, it would have to be because we
are not allowed to discharge.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is that DEC rules?
Mr. Hartman answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, the Planning Board stated that they would do a complete review
when the application comes back for site plan approval.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is a concern I have because everbody there is on wells. There is
no central water system over there.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that the SUP be granted with the stipulation that all
the concerns of the Planning Board is met and that the appellant, knowing the Zoning
Regulations on signage does not have to come before the Zoning Board for a sign variance.
Mr. Hirkala asked, willy ou include in that motion some of the concerns that we had as
to what the Chairman read off before?
Page -5-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, we can amend the motion to read as I stated before as reference to
the signs, the conditions for granting the SUP would be the appellant will not come in
to ask for a variance on our sign ordinance, there will be no unloading of vehicle on
Route 9, that the Planning Board will look into the situation with the drainage as the
concern that Mike showed.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not the drainage is not my concern. I am talking about the 30 foot
service road, future service.road.
Mr. Caballero stated, alright, and any other provisions that the Planning Board will put
on the property.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
APpeal 4945, at the request of Maria Rabasco, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§445 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an accessory apartment on
oroDerty located on 3 Midge Drive, and being Parcel 446156-01-436690, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Maria Rabasco was present.
Mr. Landolfi asked, was this supposed to be an application for a mother/daughter versus
an apartment.
Mr. Caballero stated, I believe that she had an illegal accessory apartment in the
house if my memory serves me right and she is coming in under the mother/daughter
ordinance to legalize that accessory apartment.
Mr. Landolfi stated, well that prompts other questions like have all the conditions
been met to satisfy those requirements? For instances the sign, was there a sign posted?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, yes. Right in front of the house.
Mr. Caballero read the memo from the Planning Board dated October 29th, 1986. Letter on
file.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I still haven't heard if this applicant is looking for a mother/
daughter or just another apartment.
Page -6-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have a relative that wants to move into this?
Mrs. Rabasco stated, do you remember that I explained to you that I have a daughter how
suffers from mental illness, that is why. I don't know if you recall that I explained
to you that it was done...... if you want to know the reasons why I did it I would be
happy to explain it to you again.
Mr. Landolf i stated, we are trying to understand the relationship between you and the
occupant of the house.
Mrs. Rabasco stated, it is my daughter, a mental handicapped person and that is the
reasons why we have to set up a kind of separate quarters for her.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how long has this accessory apartment existed in your house?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, since March.
Mr. Hirkala asked, has anybody lived in that other than your daughter?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, I explained it to you. The apartment was done after the fire
in the house. Because my daughter is in the hospital in and out nobody stayed there
at that time so this person came to me and asked me if they could stay for a month or two
and then before I know she have her boyfriend cars and trucks in there so I had to ask
them to leave so they were very angry and that is why they came and reported me over here.
Mr. Caballero stated, in other words the tenants you had reported you to the Zoning
Enforcement Officer that you had an illegal apartment?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, well I don't know what, I really didn't know that I had to come over
here and talk to you before to do what I did. The only thing that I did was I closed the
garage and the first floor you will see the area where the garage was. Closed the garage
front door which does not take the appearance from my house, open the side door and
that would be that entrance to the house and in the middle of the house you will see a
door which has been there, it was a bedroom in there, so the only thing that I really
did was to close the garage door, open the entrance to the side and you cannot really
see it from the front.and created here this semi -individual living quarters for my
daughter.
Mr. Hirkala asked, was the kitchen always in the house?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, it is not really a kitchen.
Mr. Hirkala asked, cooking facilities?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason I am asking the question is because, did you read the law?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, do you understand that if you are granted this you have to take that
kitchen out when your daughter doesn't live there anymore?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, I understand.
Page -7-
November 18th, 1986
Mr.Hirkala asked, you have to remove that kitchen.
Mrs. Rabasco stated, one of the explanations that if I sell the house because they will
have to come back again.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is for the duration of 2 years. Every two years it is
reviewed, subject to review.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you have to come back every 2 years for review.
Mrs. Rabasco stated, if thats the law that is the law.
Mr. Caballero asked, how old is this house?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, I live in there since 1971.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have one remark when the motion is made if it is to grant it.
I think that we should put in that if the occasion comes that the daughter temporarily
is not living there, lets say minimize the use of that apartment like guest could be
in there no more than 2 weeks to prevent any re-occurance, I know you were burdened
with that situation that occured before, but I would not want that apartment to be let
out. So, lets say that should be minimized by lets say guests could stay no more than
a week or two in that apartment when it is not being used by your daughter.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how many occupants will now reside in that house?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, 3.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how many cars?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, 3.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the concern I have is parking in the street over in that area.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move it be granted subject to the stipulation I made about
not letting out that apartment, a guest could only use it for lets say no more than 2
weeks and they would have to leave so that we don't get a reocurrance of letting out
that apartment. In addition, I would like that reviewed every 2 years.
Mr. Hirkala asked, who is responsible for that follow up?
Mr. Caballero answered, I believe that the file is reviewed by the Zoning Enforcement
Officer.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the Zoning Administrator is responsible for the follow up?
Mr. Caballero stated, I have in front of me the Zoning Ordinance referring to this
too" mother/daughter, has anybody showed you that document and you are well aware of
everything that is stated there so that you can comply properly with a mother/daughter?
Mrs. Rabasco answered, yes.
Page -8-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in this case who notifies the Tax Assessor that there is now a
2 family house there now in that area, or is there any notification?
Mr. Caballero stated, there is some provisions in our Zoning Ordinance that the Zoning
Enforcement Officer upon us granting this...
Mr. Hirkala finished, that he would notify the Tax Assessor?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Apppeal #950, at the request of Paul Garell, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of building permits
on property located on Wheeler hill Road, and being Parcel 46057-04-677284, 684243,
700267, & 706292, in the Town of Wappinger.
Paul Garell and Lynn Reif were present.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how long have you lived there?
Mr. Garell answered, 20 some years.
Mr. Cortellino asked, when Tall Trees went in that neighborhood came down to the Town
Board up in arms and requested a change to R-80, where were you to protest the change
to R-80 at that time?
Mr. Garell answered, I don't know.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you were notified.
Mrs. Garell stated, we didn't live there when Tall Trees went in.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you did not own the property before that time?
Mr. Garell answered, I don't recall, that was so long ago. Actually I am requesting a
variance.....
Page -9-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, my appeal says requesting an issuance of a building permit. I am
a little confused with the public notice. Why are you not allowed to get a building permit
on those 4 lots?
Mr. Landolfi stated, because they are. undersized.
Mr. Garell stated, there is one that is undersized. What I am really asking for is a
extension of a ROW.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they have no legal road frontage.
Mr. Garell stated, these are all on ROW's.
Mr. Caballero asked, who owns the ROW?
Mr. Garell answered, part of it is on our present property and part of it is part of the
map had been in existence since 1930 something.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a memo here from Hans Gunderud.
Memo on file.
Mr. Caballero stated, my confusion is the way that this legal notice is written. I think
he would have to get a variance on the lots that do not meet the 40,000 s/f.
Mr. Garell stated, they are all the 40,000 s/f requirement.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't think we can treat this as one parcel. I believe we have
had other cases where we have been advised by our legal counsel that we take them
separately under certain circumstances and I feel these fall in those same conditions.
Mr. Cortellino asked, on the Notice of Appeals it says that the area was upgraded to
R-80 which is 2 acres, right, and I see 4 lots here, 2 are just fractionally under, there
is only one lot, Lot #4 that is 1.16 acres. There are 4 lots, one of them is 1.93,
that meets the requirements. One is 2 acres, that meets the requirements, we will say
that the next one is 1.98, we will say that that meets the requirements. So only Lot #4
at the bottom left is 1.16 acres, that is the lot that does not meet the zoning requirments.
Mr. Garell stated, it does meet the 40,000 s/f.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the zone is R-80.
Mr. Garell stated, but he mentioned 40,000.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is the note that I received from Hans.
Mr. Cortellino stated, well I agree that the legal notice is wrong because if all you
need is one acre zoning there they he should issue you a building permit unless there is
another problem that is not addressed in the Legal Notice.
Mr. Garell stated, I think there must be confusion because what I see here is a variance
on §412 and §412 has to do with the required street frontage.
Mr. Cortellino stated, right, but that is not what the legal notice states so we can't
address that. The legal notice is so that the public is aware of the subject that we
are reviewing and they attend if they are interested in it. We cannot seitch subjects
because the public is not aware that there is a different subject.
Page -10-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Garell stated, this is the public notice that I received.
Mr. Landolfi stated, Mr. Garell, I believe that this is your handwriting here?
Mr. Garell answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you are talking about a ROW and there is no mention in here, this
is quite sketchy in fact.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the only remark you make is referring to acerage, lot existed
prior to zoning laws and the area was upgraded to R-80. You are addressing the area size
you are not addressing the frontage problem in this appeal.
Mr. Garell stated, the frontage problem was the one thing that I thought I was here for.
Mr. Caballero asked, who took this application?
Mr. Garell answered, Mr. Gunderud.
Lynn Reif stated, I have been in meetings with Mr. Garell from day one. In March of
1985 we met with the Planning Board about this. We went to them and we showed them that
we had pre-existing lots from 1972, even the one acre lot was before you changed our
acerage so it was a legal lot. It used to be a 2 acre lot, Mr. Rosen took half of it
1.1 acre was left and that was before it went into R-80. We went to the Planning Board
and what we had done, and I just want to give you this background, and I talked to
Hans yesterday and I really thought he was going to be here, is that there was a
different way of getting into the property and he would have had to knock trees down and
an enviornmental impact and what not and we would have been allowed to do it without
seeing anybody because it was there since 1933. So, we went to the Planning Board and
we asked if we could just deed like a thousand feet because there was already a ROW
straight coming in, we had talked to the Highway Dept. about the grade and everything
and asked them if we could simply deed part of a little patch of land so that not one
tree would be knocked down and it would be a matter of from this entrance going to the
third lot a straight line. They thought it was a great idea, they said you don't need
us. Anybody is allowed to deed land over anytime they want, if they are on record, and
Hans looked up the Planning Board records. I talked to him yesterday and he said the
Planning Board had no problem with it and they said you don't have to come to us you
can deed this. The only thing that Hans told us we had to do is we had to come back to
the Zoning Board to ask for driveway permits and that is what we were supposed to be
getting tonight.
Mr. Landolfi stated, everything she said doesn't address what our concern is. You gave
a very nice presentation of what you want but that is not our concern. The Planning Board
has a different concern than the Zoning Board. Nowhere in this sketchy application
does it refer to what Dr. Garell is asking for, that is our concern.
Ms. Reif stated, we had spoken to Hans 3 times and he said to us, the other problem he
said was because it was pre-existing to 1971....
Mr. Landolfi stated, I understand, we understand all of it. The concern is, there is
a legal notice and there is an application signed by Dr. Garell which really gives
us very little informations as to what Dr. Garell starts out by talking about a ROW.
Nowhere does he mention a ROW.
Page -11-
November 18th, 1986
Ms. Reif stated, I am trying to tell you that is how we got here and then what happened
is we sold the lots, we went to get a building permit and Hans said to us, you have to go
to the Zoning Board to get a driveway permit. Dr. Garell went down and Hans filled out
the application and Hans did not obviously tell Dr. Garell......
Mr. Landolfi stated, Hans is not here to defend himself. This is a very simple form to
fill out and I don't think you have to be a legal person to fill that out.
Dr. Garell stated, that was filled out with his help and his assistance.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't feel that we are in a position to in any way to entertain
any type of motion on this appeal this evening.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you mentioned the fact of deeding over some property. The property
that was deeded, was that whole sized lot, were there any boundries or just a section of
a piece of property? How could you deed property, break off a piece of property without
a subdivision?
Ms. Reif answered, you don't have to because it is not a subdivision. It is like if I want
to cross your property and I keep crossing it for years....
Mr. Hirkala stated, you can grant ROW. Which property was granted as a ROW? I am looking
at 2 maps here, I am looking at the map that was presented with the application and I
am looking at the map that came from Hans and there is a descrepency between the 2 maps.
You say, as of yesterday, Hans had no problem. We have no verification of that because
we have a letter here from Hans that says there is a problem.
Ms. Reif stated, we waited 45 days to come here and Hans handled it for us the whole time
we spoke to him. We have been waiting since September to get to see you. We want our
sidelines adjusted and we want our driveway permits do we come back to you?
Mr. Cortellino stated, we don't give driveway permits.
Ms. Reif stated, well they said that because we were on a ROW we had to have a variance
for a driveway.
Mr. Cortellino stated, they don't have frontage on a public road.
Ms. Reif stated, we are on a ROW and that is what we are supposed to be here tonight.
Mr. Hirkala stated, another question I have is how much property does Dr. Garell own
over there, or does his property end there?
Dr. Garell stated, everything involved in the extension of the ROW is mine.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you own everything that show on this map within these 4 lots?
Dr. Garell answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, anything beyond those 4 lots?
Page -12-
November 18th, 1986
Dr. Garell answered, yes.. The area that the ROW is to extend into is also my property.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we have a non -conforming situation here, are we going to create an
even more non -conforming situation? If the man owns alot more property around there
subdivide.
Mr. Cortellino asked, between Lot 4 and Wheeler Hill there is land there, who owns that
land?
Dr. Garell answered, that is property that I own.
Mr. Cortellino asked, between the ROW off Lot 1 and still Wheeler Hill Road, who owns
that land?
Dr. Garell answered, Mr. Behnke owns some of that, Mr. Jones...
Mr. Cortellino asked, you don't own any of that?
Dr. Garell answered, no.
Mr. Cortellino asked, now, are you residing along side of Lot 1? Between Lot 1 and
Wheeler Hill Road, that piece of land, is there any structure there now?
Changed tape.
Mr. Cortellino asked, south of Lot 1 & 4, 1 & 4 to Wheeler Hill Road, that piece of property
looks to be 4 acres there, there is one house on there, am I correct?
Dr. Garell answered, yes, Mr. Rosen.
Mr. Cortellino asked, along side of 4 you own?
Mr. Garell answered, yes, that the ROW is contingent on his property.
Mr. Cortellino asked, do you own any property fronting Wheeler Hill Road?
Dr. Garell answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how much?
Dr. Garell answered, probably 200 feet, probably 800 feet.
Mr. Cortellino asked, then why are you going through these gymnastics instead of
subdividing and putting in a road right off Wheeler Hill Road.
Dr. Garell answered, that is what we would like to do.
Mr. Cortellino answered, no, you want to put in a ROW.
Dr. Garell answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you want to develop 4 lots, you own another lot there which is
fronting a public road and you want to put in a ROW rather than put in a road off of
Wheeler Hill Road, dried it to the Town, there is the time you can deed, deed it to the
Town and then there is no problem with issuing building permits.
Page -13-
November 18th, 1986
1 Ms. Reif stated, his house fronts on that 800 feet, his house is in the center of that
800 feet on Wheeler Hill Road, his house faces the 800 feet. That is what he is doing
is using that existing ROW that has been there since 1938, we are legal in using that.
Mr. Cortellino stated, 800 feet is alot of feet, he only needs 50 feet to put in a road.
Ms. Reif stated, but he doesn't have to do that because it is a lega ROW and that is why
he is spending.....
Mr. Cortellino asked, what is meant by legal ROW?
Ms. Reif answered, it has been there since 1938.
Mr. Cortellino stated, by legal ROW that means people can use the ROW. As far as we are
concerned we can deny you from building on it because it doesn't have a public road
frontage.
Dr. Garell stated, all of the lots back here, and some of them have been built on don't
have road frontage either.
Mr. Cortellino answered, but, we may not wish to compound a situation. I am just discussing`:
this. Sometimes we grant variances. Sometimes we adjust a persons request so that the
variance is not needed, it is preferable not to hand out variances. In this case it is
preferable if we could get a public road in there then there is no problem with ......
Ms. Reif stated, for 4 lots you are going to put in a 2,000 foot of road?
Mr. Cortellino stated, who says how many is a lot. What becomes a development, nothing
in the Zoning Ordinance addresses how many lots.
Ms. Reif stated, that Planning Board, a year and a half ago and asked them what we should
do and they said you have no problem you can use your ROW, you have to go back to the
Highway Dept. and make sure that the grade is fine and you have to get your Board of
Health. We did what they told us, we are on record.
Mr. Caballero stated, I am going to read the request for the variance as to subject,
11412, 412 on our Zoning Ordinance, required street frontage. No building permit shall
be issued for an establishment of any use or construction or any structure unless the lots
from which said use are to be established or such structure is to be built has frontage
of at least 25 feet on a street or highway which has been suitable improved to the Town
road standards or a bond posted therefore unless the actual access to such use or such
structure will be over such frontage all in accordance with the provisions of §280A of
the Town Law. You are asking for a variance on a deeded driveway. Generally what we
would do is refer this to the Planning Board.in all other cases that we had. There seems
to be a different problem here.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we in the past have determined that if there is any possibility of
there being legal frontage on a Town Road, what we are doing is circumventing the
ordinance, we are going around the corner.
Ms. Reif asked, there is nothing in that book that says a legal right of way that has
been there before zoning cannot continue.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there are ROW's all over this Town. Right through peoples houses
there are ROW's.
Page -14-
November 18th, 1986
Ms. Reif stated, Dr. Garell spent $10,000 because the Planning Board told him to go ahead
they have no problem with it. We are in the minutes and we are on record for it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we can't legally address this anyway because the appeal is wrong.
Mr. Landolf i stated, what they are asking for is not what is written on that legal notice.
What they want and what they have written here and what went out to legal notice is
entirely different, so I can't really vote on something I don't know what they really
want.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think what Mike was referring to, we have granted variances
when it is not on a public road but it was an individual owned lot on that road. It was
not a case of him owning property, that was a reason both Mike asked that question and
I asked that question who owned the frontage on Wheeler Hill Road. Why create a situation
a non -conforming type of operation when it can easily conform. There is nothing that says
how many houses is a development for instance, I think somebody mentioned tonight, nowhere
does it say 50 houses is a development and it has that frontage or 10 houses can go off a
ROW. There is land there, a road could be put in.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there is no hardship.
Dr. Garell stated, one of the reasons that we didn't want to put the road in, 50 foot ROW
because we wanted to keep this a private road, we didn't want to have to have any extra
traffic come in there unnecessarily, we didn't want to disrupt the tree line, there are
extensive trees, if this goes to 50 foot it tears out about 50 trees and the people who
are interested in the lots are not interested in a 50 foot road coming into their
property. They only want a small road. They want to keep it private, and that is the
reason why.
Mr. Caballero stated, yes, but that requires a variance.
Mr. Garell stated, that is why we are here.
Ms. Reif stated, I just wanted to tell you that the Planning Board just thought it was
a great idea because we didn't have to put that ROW in.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, what is written on the application, what you are asking for, verbally,
irregardless of what the Planning Board said to you or Hans or what maybe the right way
to do it because the legal notice has gone into the paper stating the application. This
is the only thing that we can rule on. That is not to say that what you want the extension
of the ROW or the private road is not impossible, but what is in front of us now, the
way this is worded and written and the way the public notice went out we can't interpret
that to mean something different and then rule on that. All the other dialogue absolutely
means nothing.
Ms. Reif asked, so what you are saying is that we could have gone ahead in with the
terrible access that you have got, knock all the trees down and except we did it the nice
way and the Town appreciated it, that is what I am asking you right now we can come
back to you and get building permits on these lots and go the garbage way in, the dangerous
way.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, don't misunderstand what I am saying with what you want. You can
come back and ask for exactly what you want but that is what has to be worded on the
application.
M
Page -15-
November 18th, 1986
Dr. Garell stated, the application asks for a variance on the property size, is that
correct?
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I am assuming, Dr. Garell that you wrote this. The application
states that you want a variance to allow for the issuance of building permits, that has
nothing to do with an extension of a ROW. It doesn't say that on here.
Dr. Garell stated, rule on whatever is written.
Mr. Caballero stated, he wants a ruling on the application as stated in the paper. A
variance on Article 412.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I would like to do is table it until we get further information
from Hans because they are saying one thing and Hans because they are saying one thing and
the notification tells us something else. I don't see how we can rule on it anyway.
So I make a motion to table.
Mr. Landolfi statedI would like to go further.to formally request that we deny this
application as submitted since what the appellant is seeking and what we have before us
is not the same.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, the Board unanimously agreed that what you requested on your
application is not what the notification that was sent out, for that reason they have
denied the request. You have to see Hans during the week.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 46951, at the request of Allen R. Blake, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger zoning Ordinance to allow for a home occupation (self employed
contractor) in a residential zone on property located on Ketchamtown Road, and being
Parcel 466156-01-493894, in the Town of Wappinger.
Allen Blake was present.
Mr. Blake stated, I am applying for a variance to work out of my yard. I have pieces
of equipment and I guess there have been some complaints about it.
Mr. Caballero asked, what kind of construction work do you do sir?
Page -16-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Blake answered, paving, driveways.
Mr. Caballero asked, what kind of vehicles do you want to park on your property?
Mr. Blake presented the Board with some pictures.
Mr. Caballero asked, you cannot tell us what kind of vehicles you have?
Mr. Blake answered, 2 medium size dump trucks, they are 6 wheel dump trucks, 10 foot
bodies on them and they hold about 8 yards of blacktop. I have a small loader/tractor,
diesel, and the trucks are gasoline. They don't make much more noise than a car.
Mr. Caballero asked, for what reason have you made this application, were you cited by
the Zoning Enforcement Officer or there were complaints in reference to the vehicles on
the property?
Mr. Blake answered, there have been complaints I guess. My property borders the back of
Ronsue Drive, Fleetwood Development so there is 6 backyards along my one sideline. I
put a 6 foot high stockade fence, 150 feet all the way up that one side trying to hide the
equipment.
Mr. Caballero asked, what about when you bring this equipment in and out through Ketchamtown,'
Road, it has to go out to do the work and comes back.
Mr. Blake answered, right, they go right up the driveway, it is a paved driveway all the
way up, 100 feet along, 100 foot of gravel and the fence goes down the whole property line
kaw except for the last 150 feet which is still woods.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is an R-40 residential district?
Mr. Blake answered, I believe it is.
Mr. Caballero asked, how big is the property?
Mr. Blake answered, 1.31 acres.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
Joe Incoronato.
I am one of the residences that abuts the Blakes property. As he indicated he has a
finger of property that runs south in the southerly direction from Ketchamtown and it
come to about 5 or 6 lots paralleling Ronsue Drive. I am about the last house that touches
upon his property. Just to clarify the record, there is an earth shattering noise in
the mornings when this gentlemen reves his diesel engines. He has to warm up for anywhere
from a half an hour to 45 minutes to get them operating. They have been there at least
6 months that I am aware of. Initially I thought he was just doing some work, there is
gravel that he dumped in there, there is fencing that he put up, I thought that this was
just a temporary situation but the traffic back there intensified. The noise intensified,
more and more trucks came through, you can see over his fence because Ronsue Drive is
set above his property line so many of the houses that border on his property and any
kw on the ones across the street on Ronsue Drive can look into his back yard and see this
sea of yellow vehicles, he has got about 8 or 9 of them and they are huge and they are
noisy and when the wind blows right you smell diesel fumes and Sunday at 8:15, from 8;15
to 9:15 he was warming up his vehicles. I heard them through closed windows a couple of
Page -17-
November 18th, 1986
hundred feet away at least and when he says they don't make any noise, anymore noise than
a vehicle, than a car, I don't know, maybe he is loosing his hearing, but they certainly
make a tremendous noise, they are an eyesore, they are depreciating the property value
of all the homes in that area. Ketchamtown Road, for those who traverse it is a dangerous
road, particularily in that area where the road make a tremendous bend, so you take your
life in your hands because there is another stockade fence that is parallel to Ketchamtown
Road and you can't really see until you get halfway into the intersection of Ronsue and
Ketchamtown, so certainly those big lumbering trucks are a vehicular hazard. And, first
of all, he is in a residential zone, he has no business there, it is not a primary use
that authorizes the use of trucks or a business of that nature, it is not an accessory use
that is permitted under the Zoning Ordinance §421, so I don't know how he has brought
these trucks in, what he thought he was doing, I believe there is a matter of Order to
Remedy dated last September, that was never complied with, so everything has been....
backwards, as I may put it in those blunt terms and he is an absolute nuisance to the
neighborhood and I think some of my neighbors have some words to that effect and I think
that they will atest to it. I also have a letter from my neighbor, he objects to the
variance.
Kenneth Volek - 18 Ronsue Drive.
My property runs right back into
a, some kind of backhoe.
his. Standing on my driveway I can look right in. He has
Mr. Caballero stated, I asked him and he stated how many machines he had there and how many
trucks.
Mr. Volek stated, I know he had had 2 and 2 large trucks. As far as in the morning, I am
not home but this morning I was between 7:30 and 8 you were warming up your trucks, that
is what woke me up so obviously they are not that quiet. The other thing that bothers
me is what it is going to do to my property values. I moved into a residential area, it
is all residential around there and now suddenly you want to make it commercial. I have
no idea what he is going put in. He started, there was one truck, now there is 2 trucks
and 2 machines, what is going to come next. I am very happy for him the business is
being built but not at my expense.
Nick Selazzo - Corner house.
When he first built I had put in a stockade fence just to get some privacy. Now, he has
been parking the trucks right across, right along with the garage, right next to the
garage. Just lately since this problem came about he is pulling them in the back. But,
I will agree with Joe that it is a really menance. My pool is right there, I have no
privacy. I didn't mind him moving in, I never said anything about that, that is why I
went ahead and put the stockade fence up. When you come out Ronsue Drive to Ketchamtown
Road you have to look, there is no doubt about it. I need my privacy, I have a little
boy, I don't want him to start running all over the neighborhood so I wanted to confine
him to the backyard. Now, it is a real menance. The second thing is, he has to clean
his trucks, he has to change his oil, what is he going to do with the stuff. Is he going
to dump it in the ground. Right now the water system that we had is really terrible.
He is just adding to it. I really don't think it is a good idea. I don't think it should
be in that development.
Arlene Wilkins - Ronsue Drive.
In the summertime I asked Joe if they were doing construction behind the house and I am
not trying to be a nasty neighbor but you can hear the trucks reving up just like these
other people have stated. My other concern is the traffic that will come down Ronsue
Drive. They are coming down Osborne Hill Road the short cut is down Ronsue Drive and
Page -18-
November 18th, 1986
back onto Ketchamtown Road. We have alot of children that live on that street. That
area is a bus stop and also to get onto Ketchamtown Road with the fincing you have to
stick your nose out and many times you don't see a car coming up the hill and someday
we are going to have an accident there. It is a residential area, this gentlemen was
aware when he built his home that it was a residential area and these people were nice
enough to say, okay you want to extend your driveway. They figured he was extending his
driveway because in the summertime ...his own personal.... there because, as you know, there
is no parking and I object for safety reasons, ......
Mr. Volek stated, I have a question for Mr. Blake. Just prior to putting up the fence you
were bringing 50 gallon drums back there, I was just curious what you were using them for?
Mr. Blake answered, they probably have toxic chemicals in them.
Mrs. McKenna - 15 Ronsue Drive.
I was also concerned about the safety of the children but I work for an excavating company
and I know that those drums do have oil in them they can leak some out into the ground
and it can get into the water system and I was just concerned about that and the property
value. Someday that house is going to be mine and I want to make sure that it is going
to be right and my kids will be able to play.
Jeff Duna.
While we are talking about the oil spills and everything I believe, I don't know exactly
how far but I know there is a stream that rluns right back to our water treatment plant
and it maybe 100 yards, it may be 50 yards, I am not positive, but the further you go
back the closer the stream comes and you go back 450 feet I am sure that that stream is
no more than 50 feet from the mans property and I think that has alot to do with our
water system.
There was no one else to speak.
The Board had no questions.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think that is a residential neighborhood. To do that to your
neighbors, you probably would have to rent a place someplace else and bring your
equipment over to there. You make a living at it so to you it is.... but other people
may be very upsetting and you can see by the turn out.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the variance be denied. No situation under which
we can legally grant this.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically there is a construction firm with large equipment in a
residential zone and for those reasons we are denying the variance.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, give him a time with due consideration to the residents and to the
appellant.
Mr. Caballero stated, in my opinion those trucks and equipment should have never been on
kW that property. To me it would be an immediate.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in my opinion the fact of the trucks even being there is blatent
disregard for the neighbors.
Page -19-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, it is a disregard of our Zoning Ordinance. It is not allowed,
it is not a permissable use.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think we have to put a time limit on it, a definite time factor
on it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, being sentimental around the holidays and I think in fairness to the
neighbors I think he should have that cleared up by Christmas. Give your neighbors a
Christmas present, I think they deserve it.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Blake, would you have it cleaned up before Christmas?
Mr. Blake answered, there is nothing to clean up.
Mr. Caballero stated, removal of the vehicles and the oil barrels.
Mr. Hirkala stated, unless you were serious about the toxic chemicals and then we will
call the DEC.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would amend his motion to include that the equipment will
be removed from the property before Christmas.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
One of the residents asked, what enforcement powers can be brought to bear if that did
not happen.
Mr. Caballero stated, it would be up to our Zoning Enforcement Officer to cite that and
then he would have to take him to court if he didn't do it.
Mr. Hirakla stated, he is already under an Order To Remedy right now and he requested
a variance and it was denied so the Order to Remedy stands so he can take him to court
right soon I guess.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like our Zoning Administrator to be prepared to give us
an on site inspection and a report before the next meeting.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
The Board called a break at 8:15 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 P.M.
Page -20-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4952, at the request of Eileen (Pigliacampi) Fay, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of a lot into
(3) lots where said lots will not have legal road frontage on property located on
Johnson Place, and being Parcel 46256-01-482814, in the Town of Wappinger.
Eileen Fay was present.
Mrs. Fay stated, I would like permission to, a variance to subdivide my 3 acres on
Johnson Place into 3 lots. The reason I am asking this is I would like to give the land
to my 3 sons. They were good enough to me, I have been in a little bit of a financial
cash flow and they came through with the money and I know I am not going to be able to
pay it back so I would like to give them this land.
Mr. Caballero asked, Johnson Place is not a Town Road?
Mr. Landolfi stated, if is up off of Cedar Hill, it is a private road.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or
against this appeal.
Harold Price - Johnson Lane.
In that it is a private lane the Town had given me the responsibility to keep that road
up, in fact, I had to blacktop that road. We spend something like $15,000.00 or so for
the neighbors that are on that road so that they could have a home on it. That is what
r the Town had asked for because it was not a legal road. So I went back and forth a few
years ago so we could get this thing together, so now, what we are really concerned about
what really concerns us is that in that it is not a legal road and of course we want
Mrs. Fay to be happy, and.... and the area is kept very nice, if it is going to be
subdivided for 3 building lots we assume then that it would become a legal road.
Mr. Landolfi answered, no. Thats the wrong assumption on your part sir.
Mr. Price stated, well, that is why I am asking that question. I am asking that question
why because then is it possible to put 3 more building lots on that private lane, 9 foot
road, picture now, it is 9 foot wide, that is not a legal road, it is 9 foot wide,
1,100 feet long and it is having a problem now with the traffic so it is not meeting
the Town Ordinances as a developed area.
Mr. Landolfi stated, what the procedure really is after some residents get in there
you certainly have the ability to petition the Town to come in and take that road over.
In other words, if you have that right, you or any resident, you have the right to
request, it doesn't necessarily mean that they will grant it. We have some roads today
in our Town that are probably 30 years old that are still not Town accepted roads for
various reasons.
Mr. Cortellino asked, when did you blacktop this road?
Mr. Price stated, when I first got in it was gravel and then to allow me to come in they
told me before taking occupancy it had to be blacktopped, about 3 years ago.
Mr. Cortellino stated, then you have it very difficult. The reason is it depends when
the road was paved because that would be the standard that you would have subscribed to
for it to be deeded to the Town.
Page -21-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Price stated, that is not the point. Maybe you are missing the point. What I am
saying is now we have a compounded problem. We want to be able to live in a balanced area
with everything functioning well and to put 3 more houses as it is is not reasonable.
We are not saying that she shouldn't but it is like a developer coming in and saying I
am going to put up houses, the developer has to take the responsibility of building a road
or the Town. Someone is going to have to put a decent road in because right now it is a
driveway. It is not a road. 2 cars can't pass.
Mr. Landolfi stated, what are you asking of our Board?
Mr. Price answered, I am asking one question. I don't know what is clear to the Town.
Mrs. Fay would like to subdivide for her family, fine, does Mrs. Fay know to put 3 more
hosues up there it is going to be a problem with the way the road is.
Mrs. Fay stated, yes Mrs. Fay knows because you called me and told me you expected
$15,000.00 reimbursement.
Mr. Price stated, what I am saying now if the road is going to be made wider to get the
3 more houses on there fine, not to forget that Price, Fernandez and O'Riley put $15,000
into that road that we would like to get reimbursed for. Money right now is not the
issue, all I am saying is now we would love to see 3 nice homes up there, we would like
to open it up so maybe we could even subdivide later on but the point is now that the
road is not adequate. It has not drainage, it is just a driveway. It is a private lane.
Very wide, very narrow, 9 feet, how wide is a legal road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, 50 foot right of way.
Mr. Price stated, no legal road width is about at least 18 feet, 2 cars to pass. There
is 9 feet now, it is a driveway with 2 grass shoulders so, I don't want anybody to be
naive about it because this is what the Town told me when I went through all my changes
6 years ago. I had bought the land first, being very naive, I had bought the land from
Dr. Johnson and I thought I was going to run up and build a house and I realized that
I couldn't because I had to get a variance because I didn't have Town frontage and the
Town said wait a minute. So, the question that I am asking now, you notice how well it
is kept, shoulders everything, and we spend the money. It is plowed on a regular basis
and it is kept up and I am very pleased about it so now, there is nothing wrong with
Mrs. Fay building there and putting the houses up but we have to keep it balanced. That
road has to be widened.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think this Board can make her participate in the cost of
the road or make any....
Mr. Price stated, that is not what I am saying. The next question, are we saying then
that she is able to build without any adjustments to the road?
Mr. Hirkala stated, we haven't made any decisions yet.
Mr. Caballero asked, you are saying that we should not allow 3 house there because the
road is inadequate for 3 more houses.
Mr. Price answered, as it stands now. I hope for that women to be able to enjoy her land
and have it beautiful, if is there to use but we have to do it right, that is all I am
saying.
Page -22-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, what you are going to have to do is, feeling as strongly as you do,
petition the Town Board to go out and review what is there now in terms of the specs
and so on.
Mr. Price stated, what I am saying is Mrs. Fay is spending money for survey and all this
and is her money going to be tied up.
Mr. Landolfi stated, she is entitled to do that. She has been paying taxes on that
property. She is entitled to do something with it.
Mr. Price stated, right, but you can see our concern. So, that is taken into consideration
now, it is on record? And what should we do as neighbors now?
Mr. Landolfi stated, our Board cannot act on your concern. You have to go before the
Town Board and then........
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience interested in this appeal.
Albert Fernandez - Johnson Lane.
As Mr. Price stated, the road is very narrow and in case there would be a fire on, even
in the woods or one of the houses, I am concerned about that. How would the fire truck
come down that lane with, lets say there is our 3 homes on there and there is 2 more up on
top and 3 more you are talking about 7 or 8 homes in between, you can't even turn around
there.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how would they get up there now?
Mr. Fernandez answered, now there are only 3 houses.
Mr. Caballero stated, let me remind you that we have an amendment on §427 of the Zoning
Ordinance in reference to those roads now that was just enacted on October 20th and the
driveways have to meet certain requirements. In that ordinance it does address emergency
vehicles access.
Mr. Fernandez stated, I don't have any objections with this women building there what
so ever, but the thing is I would like the road to be wider than what it is now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is a private road.
Mr. Caballero asked, who maintains this road from snow now?
Mr. Fernandez answered, the 3 of us. We share the cost on everything.
Mr. Caballero asked, you shared the cost of doing that road over when the Town said
you needed to blacktop?
Mr. Fernandez answered, yes we did. All 3 of us split it. Sid Corbin hadles that road
all winter for us. We have a contract with him.
Mrs. Fay stated, I have owned this piece of land for 35 years, I bought it in good
faith from Mike Myers and McGrath at the time he told me it would be a Town Road,
unfortunately the man dies before he even finished it. I always thought that I was
going to build there when we retired. Our plans have changed and we are not going to
be in the area.so I would like to make a gift to my sons because they helped me out.
What their immediate plans are I don't believe that they are planning on building there
right away.
Page -23-
November J.8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, so what you want to do is subdivide it?
Mrs. Fay answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, and then you son can sell it or keep it.
Mrs. Fay answered, right, that is my intention right now that I would like to subdivide.
It is not doing me any good because I have had it for 35 years and I am not going to use
it myself anymore.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience interested in this appeal.
There was no one else.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there is no building on that property right now?
Mrs. Fay answered, on my 3 acres, no.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many homes are on Johnson Place, accessed by Johnson Place?
Mr. Price answered, 3.
Mr. Caballero stated, if this was one house, one property I would warn the person that is
doing it that there was no service and they would have to make arrangements with the people
involved and the town but this looks like a 3 house subdivision and I am not sure whether
the Zoning Board of Appeals can make the decision also as the previous case before us.
Mr. Landolfi stated, this is different in that this lady is asking for what, what she is
asking for and what she has down here is one in the same. The prior case was he was
talking ROW and everything else that wasn't part of the...
Mr. Hirkala stated, he had property on road frontage.
Mr. Caballero stated, in other words she has a ROW to this road?
Mr. Landolfi stated, eventually somebody has got to build there and all the other lots.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the question here is she has no road frontage but she has got a
legal lot. She has access through Johnson Lane, so the only thing that she is asking for
is whether or not she can subdivide that lot.
Mr. Caballero stated, let me close the public hearing and then we will have a debate
between us with no participation from the public.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it seems what you have here is a situation that is different from
the other situation that we were talking about because she has no legal road frontage.
Page -24-
November 18th, 1986
She has a lot that she can build on but she wants us to be able to make 3 lots out of the
one. Now, the question I have is, as per Mr. Price's statement, is there any, legally
is there anything that we can do to force, if she was granted the subdivision, can we
do anything legally to force her to chip in to pay for that road? We can't.
Mr. Landolfi stated, no, definitely not. That is not in our perview.
Mr. Caballero asked, then is it in our perview to allow somebody to subdivide a lot
into 3 different lots.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we can do that. That is part of our responsibility.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I agree with Mike that this is a different entity in this case
because there is, Mrs. Fay does not have any land with frontage, so, she is in a land-
locked position. So she can only use Johnson Place to get out. So, the question
becomes, really she can build a house that can contain her 3 sons on one lot....
Mr. Hirkala stated, the question is whether or not she can use her property as it now
stands.
Mr. Cortellino stated, she certainly can use it as one lot, the questions becomes why
not permit her to subdivide as long as the lots are a legal size for that area.
Mr. Caballero asked Mrs. Fay, do you know there are no services what so ever on that road
provided to you, fire dept., buses, etc.?
Mrs. Fay answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my personal feeling is that I don't think it should be granted.
Mr. Landolfi asked, why?
Mr. Hirkala answered, because I think there is no way we can protect the surrounding
homeowners, there are 3 lots that are going to be added onto that property. She is asking
for a variance, there is no hardship here, where is the hardship? She is asking for 3
lots, if she gives them to her sons, they make money on them, fine, but there is no
hardship here.
Mr. Landolfi stated, that hardship is right now she can't do anything with it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, sure she can, she can sell the lot.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am saying that she can't even build because she doesn't have
access to any public road.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, it is a matter of building one house or 3 houses.
Mr. Hirkala stated, she can sell the lot. She could build on that lot. Why can't she
build on that lot? Mr. Price did, Mr. Fernandez did, Mr. O'Riley did. She can build
on that lot.
Mr. Landolfi stated, all she is trying to do is split them up.
Mr. Hirkala stated, she wants to make 3 lots out of one, and the question is whether or
not she can use the property as it now stands, and yes she can. We are not on a public
road, we are on a private road. What kind of problems are we creating by granting 3 more
Page -25-
November 18th, 1986
lots on that private road?
Mr. Landolfi stated, can I tell you, it may help the rest of the other residents because
perhaps the Town would perhaps try to get some roads in there and bring it up to the
Town specs.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but it is a private road. Presently there is no way taxpayer money
can be spent on that road. You suggested that they go to the Town Board requesting
the Town take over that road. The only way the Town is going to take over that road if
it is at State specs now.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it is unfortunate that Hans isn't here now but let me ask you a
question about my lot. My area is R-15, now it is supposedly R-20. I have one acre.
If I want to put up another house on my lot can I do that?
Mr. Hirkala stated, because you have to subdivide because you only have one lot.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how about a caretakers house?
Mr. Hirkala stated, you have one lot. You are allowed an accessory building.
Mr. Cortellino stated, so I am allowed 2 houses on my lot by calling it caretakers.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but you are not allowed to rent it. You can give it to them.
Mr. Cortellino stated, so what I am saying here is there is one lot and it would not
change the density of 3 houses went up and you call the other 2 caretakers.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see you get approval to go on that piece of property
for 3 buildings, 3 residences.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am allowed a caretakers cottage, I am allowed a guest house,
that is two (tape change).
Mr. Urciuoli stated, .......how do we know that these lots are exactly one acre size
so that you have 3 acres.
Mrs. Fay stated, I have just had the property surveyed and it is 3 acres and I believe
ilt is very, very close if not exactly 222.8.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, do you have a survey map?
Mrs. Fay answered, I don't have it with me.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a problem with it. I have a definite problem with those
3 lots going in there on that road and I have to listen to what the people who live
there said. They spent alot of money in putting to together. Why should anybody get
a free ride on it. But I don't think that is our jurisdiction to get involved in that
affair.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think we have an equal responisbility to protect the people who
are there now just as much as we have to protect her property.
Mr. Caballero asked, what would you word this denial as? On what basis?
Mr. Hirkala answered, no hardship.
Page -26-
November 18th, 1986
She is asking for a variance, there is no hardship.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, there is also uniqueness.
Mr. Hirkala asked, where is the uniqueness? She is asking for 3 lots that are smaller
than any other lots on that road. Right now her lot is 3 acres.... She is asking to
become unique by being a one acre lot where there is more than 2 acres.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, it is one acre zoning.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the point. Her statement right here is that the hardship
is unique and not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity as most of
the other properties are on Town roads. There is property surrounding here that are not
on Town Roads and not one of them is under 2 acres and yet she is asking for one acre.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have been weighing both sides and what I keep coming up with is
since she has been paying taxes on that property for 30 some years and in fact the
only hangup is that fact that it is on that private road, if you will, versus a Town
Road. The lnad is there and she is just trying to utilize it. There are other people
who can come in for the same request and I don't think that we can legally deny it.
Mr. Caballero stated, under your motion of approval of this variance, how do you meet
the 3 way test?
Mr. Landolfi answered, very simply, the...
Mr. Cortellino stated, number one, it is one acre zoning so you are denying her the
one acre zoning.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no you are not.
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes you are, she has 3 acres..
Mr. Hirkala stated,she is allowed the one acre zone only if it is reasonable to have one
acre zone. She could have a piece of property that goes straight up and she has to have
4 acres to put a house on it that doesn't mean that she can subdivide into one acre zone.
Mr. Cortellino asked, if there were no other houses there, except Mr. Price's house and
the road was there would you be objecting to making 3 lots?
Mr. Hirkala answered, I don't really know that.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the reason I asked that question is, it is not the first in
decide who can move in. Everybody has an equal right to the land.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am not saying they don't.
Mr. Cortellino stated, right in back of her, all of those lots look to be one acre
lots, 1,2,3,4,5,...
Mr. Price stated, they are on a legal road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact is that if she wants the subdivision and you are concerned
about the fact that she is allowed the subdivision, allowed the 3 lots because of the
zone in the area then let her bring Johnson Place up to state specs and let the Town
Page -27-
November 18th, 1986
accept the road. Now you have got no problem. NOt every lot because you are in a one
acre zone can be one acre for many. many reasons. If years ago this property was not
put on a legal town road that is not something we can look at now, I mean we have to
look at now. We can't say because it is not on a Town road she could still have half acre
zone or one acre zone. I don't see how we can even address that. The fact is that one
is there now today, and what is there today, in my view creating 3 more lots on that road
creates a problem and there is no hardship to having one 3 acre building lot there. There
is no hardship on her part. If the Town wants to make this legal 3 acres, fine, let the
Town accept Johnson Place.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think I heard both sides of the story. I would like a motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion we deny it based on the fact that there is no
hardship.
Mr. Caballero asked for a second on that motion.
There was no second.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to make a motion that we grant this based on the fact
that I feel it conforms to our current zoning laws for one acre also, due to the fact
that I think the hardship has been the fact also that she would be denied legal right
and she has been paying taxes for 30 some years on it. So , I am making a motion that
it be granted based on those reasons.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 9954, at the request of Patricia Morphew, seeking a variance of article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the screening in of an existing
deck on property located on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel 96257-06-332759, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Patricia Morphew was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, didn't we hear this appeal before and we denied it?
Ms. Morphew answered, yes you did.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have additional evidence for us that this Board could hear
this again?
Ms. Morphew answered, yes I do. I attached them to the request for a variance.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that a letter from a MD?
Ms. Morphew answered, yes it is.
Page -28-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, is this encolsure already up or are you going to put it up?
Ms. Morphew answered, no, it is not up.
Mr. Caballero asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
Mike Lapore - 90 Fieldstone Blvd.
I live in the same development. I have an enclosed deck, I didn't need a variance but
there are other people in the neighborhood that have an enclosed deck and did get one.
I think she should have one. I see no problem with it, it doesn't change the character
of the house a bit and it is something that the lady wants.
Mr. Caballero stated, gentlemen, we heard this before and we denied it. It is your call
whether we want to hear this case again. If you feel that she presented additional
evidence.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't think she presented this evidence before, this is new
information. I don't know if other members of the Board had a chance to go up there in
that neighborhood but I think there is every other home has an enclosed porch up there.
Mr. Caballero asked, did they require a variance from us to put the porch in.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think 2 of them did if my memory serves me right. I know definitely
one of them did.
Ms. Morphew stated, I was denied a variance last time because of the case that was heard
before me, just prior to mine was also seeking a variance to build in a screened in porch.
She was denied and when I came up in front of the Board the Board heard my case and then
denied me the variance because the case prior to mine had set a precidence, those were
the exact words used.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think so. Was that the variance for the screened porch or
the one for the deck?
Ms. Morphew answered, the screened porch. That was heard in July.
Mr. Caballero stated, we take minutes, minutes are recorded from our meetings here and
I don't think that your denial was based on that it was precidence.
Ms. Morphew stated, I also took a copy of the tape of the meeting that evening and it
was stated on the tape that a precidence was already set with the case just prior to mine
so you couldn't grant me a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, I only have the motion of why it was denied and to be honest with
you on the July 8th meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals a motion was made by Mr.
Cortellino to deny the requested variance. This does not fall under the guidelines of
granting a variance and the motion was seconded by Mike and we all voted to deny the
screened porch. There is additional evidence, there is a letter from a doctor and there
is a layout of how that porch will look, you have a resident that says he has no problem
with it, what is the pleasure of this Board?
Page -29-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think one of the concerns of some of the porches that people are
trying to put on they felt that it was extending their living areas up in that area.
I don't believe that this falls into that category. That would have been a concern if
in fact it was going to extend the living area per say, like some of the other porches I
have seen up there.
Mr. Caballero asked, we are asking for how many feet enfringement into our Zoning Ordinance?`
Ms. Morphew stated, I was already granted 12 feet.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the deck.
Ms. Morphew stated, 10 feet, right.
Mr. Caballero stated, 12 feet and you are enclosing half of that porch?
Ms. Morphew answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, it ways here 16 feet of the porch.
Ms. Morphew stated, 16 feet to the side, not going out to the back.
Mr. Hirakla stated, I have 2 dimensions here, one says 12 and the other says 10.
Mr. Caballero stated, the drawing that we have here the deck with a roof 16' x 12 and
there is 14 feet left over.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how long is the deck now?
Ms. Morphew answered, the deck is 30 feet long.
Mr. Hirakla asked, no, how far is it away from the house?
Ms. Morhpew answered, 12 feet from the house.
Mr. Hirakla asked, and how far is the distance from the end of the deck to the end of your
property line?
Ms. Morphew answered, 12 foot.
Mr. Hirakal asked, and you are asking for 10 foot of screened porch?
Ms. Morphew answered, right. It is incorrect it should be 12 feet.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, there is 15 feet from the edge of the deck to the property line.
Mr. Caballero stated, do I have a motion to re -hear this case with the new evidence
presented to us now, additional evidence?
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion we re -hear this case based on the new information
submitted.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All aye.
Page -30-
November 18th, 1986
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to re -hear the case. It had to be a unanimous vote
and you have given us all the information.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am thinking about the case and I am not particularly interested
in Linharts note because it tells me nothing. Doctors have a way, even if you are a
patient of not telling you anything.
Mr. Caballero stated, the note says, for the record, her health would do better if she
had an enclosed porch due to a severe lung disease.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't understand how air coming through a screen as opposed to
not a screen...
Ms. Morphew stated, my mother has emphasima, she is on oxygen constantly. She requires
fresh air, she also has arthritis, she cannot step up or step down.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how does the screening...
Ms. Morphew stated, she is also allergic to wasp and bee bites. I have a water problem
in the back of my property. You cannot site out there without being eaten alive by
mosquitos.
Mr. Cortellino stated, Linharts note...
Ms. Morphew stated, refers only to her lungs.
Mr. Cortellino stated, and that is my question, why a screen as opposed to unscreen
changes the lung problem. You are saying that it is a allergic reaction to wasp and
bees, Linhart did not address an allergic reaction. He said lung disease.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think I will answer for her. Her mother wants to go out in the
back yard, there is mosquitos and wasps out there, she wants to smell the fresh air so
she can sit back there with a screened porch, she could do it otherwise she couldn't go
back there.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have been up there, you have got water all through the back and
the builder never rectified some of the building errors, if you will, and they all come
down behind hers and the other condos there and you can't.
Mr. Caballero stated, Joe you obviously have been there a couple of times to look at
this before and in this case. We granted a deck because we thought there was a hardship
in reference to the way the land laid and the problems with the water back there. Do
you think this applies again on the enclosed porch?
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think in the earlier one though I think, whoever was doing the
plans should have put the screen as part of the earlier submission and he did not do
it and I guess that is why she had to come back for the screening part of it.
Mr. Caballero asked, and when you went there this material was laying on the driveway?
Mr. Landolfi stated, it is there.
Mr. Caballero asked, the porch is not up?
Page -31-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi answered, no, definitely not.
Ms. Morphew stated, the open porch is up.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the deck is up but the enclosure is not.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move we grant it.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #956A, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking a variance of Article II, §200,
Subsection 220 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance seeking a variance of the
interpretation of the word "use" in the definition of a "lot" on property located on
Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-530446, in the Town of Wappinger.
Jerry Druker, appellant and Tom Carver, Hayward & Pakan were present.
Mr. Carver stated, to reiterate a little bit, we were before you on October 14th asking
for a definition of the word use int he definition of lot and what it boils down to is
were we allowed to put 4 retail stores in one building. Your ruling was that that would
be multiple use and we are not allowed to do that. We feel that that decision is not
correct, and we respect it, and the reasons for this would be that this variance that
we are asking for is a minimum variance. We are not asking for a setback_ variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have to stop you and tell you that you are asking for an
interpretation of the word use and we gave that interpretation to you in the previous
meeting. I don't understand what...
Mr. Hirkala stated, they are asking for a variance from our interpretation is what they
are asking for.
Mr. Cortellino stated, a variance of the interpretation.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is another way of getting into the barn.
Mr. Cortellino stated, before he goes ahead, I did not like the opening words. He said
he is challenging our interpretation. That is not asking for a variance, that is
appealing out interpretation, there is a difference. One is, are you asking for a variance
or us to examine our interpretation again?
Page -32-
November 18th, 1986
Your opening remark was that you do not agree with our interpretation of use.
Mr. Carver stated, which all boils down to this multiple....
Mr. Caballero stated, we made the interpretation, I guess if you disagree with us the
format is not to come back to this Board, it is to take it to a higher...
Mr. Carver stated, the application that I submitted was a variance. I am here for a
variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, a variance from the use interpretation.
Mr. Cortellino stated, he want a variance from the use as we defined it.
Mr. Carver stated, as I was saying, we think this a minimum variance, we could be asking
for such things as a variance from setback from the residential district that we abut.
I also point out that there is no difference between 4 retail stores and 1 retail store
in the building in the following items: parking requirements are the same, traffic
generation is the same, the building size remains the same, the utility services remain
the same, as you are aware, this area of Route 9 is generally a business district, there
is a shopping center district directly across the street, that is in the Village, I am
aware. We feel that this building will fit into the general surrounding area. We are
providing, we have met, we have exceeded the setbback distance from the residential
area that we abut. We have provided tremendous landscaping at the request of the Planning
Board along Scenic Garden Drive, out in front of the property along Route 9 and North of
the property where it abuts residential. With that information we request that we be
allowed to have 4 retail stores.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who is interested in this appeal
either for or against.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero asked if the Board members had any questions.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I agree with everything he said but, I would like to stand on our
interpretation as we gave it. In otherwords, agree 1007 with everything you said with
the exception of you come in and ask for an interpretation, I think we were quite
unanimous in our interpretation to you.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I believe to be the intent of what the differnce is between
HB -1,2 and NB, And GB. The major reasoning behind that zone is to minimize the impact
of the neighborhood by utilizing only one business with a minimum one acre or 2 acre
zone. If you wanted to go with the multiple retail outlet building you would go into
an NB or GB zone which would give you a strip zone type of building capability. If you
look at the GB, NB portions of the ordinance it is very specifically shows that it can
be done that way. Hb doesn't show that it could be done that way with the setback
requirements, sideyard setback, frontyard, rearyard and most of the property Chats zoned
HB -1 & HB -2 was done that way intentionally. What you are asking us to do is vary from
that intent as we see it and that is legislation, in my view. So I would suggest that
if that is what you want to do, go to the Town Board and request a re -zone of the
property and see what they say. They are the ones who ultimately legislate what the
Town will look like as far as zoning is concerned. For a multiple retail outlet in
that area will change what is intended there in the way that I see the HB zone.
Page -32-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, also you make a statement that 4 different stores there, retail
stores would not make a difference in the traffic coming in. I beg to differ. If you
put an OTB office in there and a deli that has alot of useage you are going to get more
traffic in there then if you put a card shop and a pharmacy in the property. It depends
what kind of retail stores you put into the plaza so the traffic will vary according to
the different type of retail stores that you put in there that is why we are not allowing
4 retail, different type of businesses in a HB -1, HB -2 zone.
Mr. Druker stated, we did a little investigation on our own. There are a few HB -2 acre
zones properties that are more than one use in there.
Mr. Caballero answered, yes. That is the perview of this board to grant the variance
and this is what you are asking for. We have a general discussion and those cases the
Board heard the cases, we were told what was going into those properties, generally
they were not a one acre plot, they were 7 acres. In one case that I could remember
we knew what was going in there and the Board has the availability to grant that
variance. That is why we are a Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Druker stated, we are rated HB -2 acres and so is All Star Water rated HB -2 Acres.
Mr. Caballero stated, All Star water is a very bad example as far as this Board is
concerned, that is in there illegally and we have stated so so many times.
Mr. Druker asked, are you saying that the variance would depend on the type of retail?
Mr. Cortellino stated, no.
Mr. Hirkala stated, a variance would depend on the impact. The properties uniqueness.
Your particular hardship with that property. That is where the variance would come
from.
Mr. Caballero stated, you want a carte blanche situation to put in 4 stores. You are
not telling what the stores are, what is going to be put in them, you don't have any
leases.
Mr. Druker stated, I think what my question is, your interpretation or your granting
of the variance would depend on the type of retail...
Mr. Caballero stated, no, it would depend on what you present to this Board and whether
the Board feels that they can stretch the ordinance in such a fashion to allow you to do
it.
Mr. Druker asked, if we came to you and said that we were putting in 2 retail stores
that are not high traffic, we specifically gave that would not....
Mr. Caballero stated, we would listen to the case and make decision on those merits.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I can't speak for the rest of the Board, but it is my opinion that
the test for a variance is hardship, uniqueness, and character, and you have to prove
to me all three. If you don't prove to me all 3 I am going to vote against it.
oll Mr. Cortellino stated, for instance, if it is HB -2, there is a reason there is an HB -2
and an HB -1. If I want to just sell frankfurters I can't come to this Board and say
I'm in HB -2 it cost million dollars for me to buy that property, I can't get a return.
Page -33-
November 18th, 1986
I would say, buddy, you knew what the property was going to cost, you know what you
expect in return so it would be denied. The reason we want a 2 acre thing is for a
particular business to go in there. We have shopping centers and other areas zoned
for that.
Mr. Druker stated, we don't want to sell frankfurters. It would be very difficult to
take one 12,000 s/f building and grant that one building of that size, that is our
hardship.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you should have gone into another area. I would have looked for
another zone.
Mr. Druker stated, we are conforming with the surrounding area, that is what I am saying.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that doesn't hold water in my view because across the street is the
Village and the Village and the Town have not had converging philosophy as far as
zoning is concerned and evidence by Imperial Plaza, Dutchess Plaza, that whole mess up
there with Jack in the Bos, that is the Village and you are not going to see that in the
Town.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I had a couple of questions and you already answered one is that the
building is 12,000 s/f. Would the Board have any objection to a retail use going into
the 12,000 s/f building? A retail use going into the....
Mr. Caballero stated, that is allowed.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, if that retail use, if I owned the building, and I put a business
in there that was retail and in one corner I sold hot dogs and in the other corner I
sold donuts, and the other corner I had a fish market, you are defining use by the
number of names, I feel, that are being put on the building. Because there is one name
on the building you are defining that as one retail use.and that is wrong.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I disagree. The reason I disagree is that I am, you say the
general you or the specific you. Generally if I am included in that I am defining use
as an impact. If you want to put Caldors in there, under your definition you have a
multiple use in one name, fine, go into a shopping center because that is what it is
there for.
Mr. Caballero stated, you can get somebody like Lawrence Farms that asked for one use
and has stretched it and stretched it and our Zoning Enforcement Officer has not locked
his door up. That doesn't mean it is legal and we approved it and on the Board there are
5 members. George can vote in the direction that you want him to vote because that is
the way that he sees it, the rest of us members don't see it that way.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, we define use as a retail use but we don't define and maybe it is
a weakness in our Zoning Law, but we don't define as to how many retail uses.
Mr. Druker stated, unless we are reading this incorrectly, you go to HB -2A.....
Mr. Caballero stated, read the footnote "f" on the bottom of it.
Mr. Druker stated, doesn't that refer to......
Mr. Caballero stated, living there. One use and one residence.
Page -34-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Druker answered, it is 2 acres.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there is 2 acres there now?
Mr. Druker answered, 1.9
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is an undersized.
Mr. Druker stated, it is an existing lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and you want to put 12,000 s/f on it but you don't need 12,000 s/f.
Mr. Druker answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there are no other properties in HB -1 that you could use?
Mr. Druker answered, I don't understand.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if 2 acres is to big for you could you buy a one acre piece?
Mr. Druker stated, it is not that 2 acres is to big for us, it is that 2 acres is what
we would like to buy and to put the price of the property and a smaller building on there
just isn't practical. For us to carry a larger building you are asking for a hardship
Mr.
Druker stated, I would just like to continue, I have read this many times. It says
under HB -2A any permitted use in HB-lA. When I went up toHB-1A it says anything in
GB.
You go up to GB and says anything in SC district. I went up to SC and under #3
it says stores ro shops in plural and I think the intent is for more than one.
Mr.
Caballero stated, just read the footnote.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, we disagree. We think the intent was for one and that is how 4 of us
vote all the time.
Mr.
Druker asked, why did they put s in there?
Mr.
Hirkala stated, because we don't think that that is what it means.
Mr.
Druker asked, why wasn't it changed if that wasn't what the intent was.
Mr.
Cortellino stated, they are working on it.
Mr.
Druker stated, thinking and taking action and saying is 2 different things.
Mr.
Caballero stated, they are trying to get something done and we are telling them how
we
are going to go. So, you have given us your interpretation of it, we listened to what
you
want to do.
Mr.
Druker stated, I would like to go a little bit farther on that as far as hardship is
concerned.
We are going to use this building for ourselves but we cannot afford to put
the cost
carry
a 12,000 s/f building. To cut it down in size would be one way to reduce
on
it, carrying it, however, the cost of the land to have to reduce the footprint there
it
is not practical so ......
Mr.
Hirkala asked, how big is the property?
Mr. Druker answered, it is 2 acres.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there is 2 acres there now?
Mr. Druker answered, 1.9
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is an undersized.
Mr. Druker stated, it is an existing lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and you want to put 12,000 s/f on it but you don't need 12,000 s/f.
Mr. Druker answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there are no other properties in HB -1 that you could use?
Mr. Druker answered, I don't understand.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if 2 acres is to big for you could you buy a one acre piece?
Mr. Druker stated, it is not that 2 acres is to big for us, it is that 2 acres is what
we would like to buy and to put the price of the property and a smaller building on there
just isn't practical. For us to carry a larger building you are asking for a hardship
Page -35-
November 18th, 1986
that truefully....
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is not a hardship, it is self-inflicted.
Mr. Druker stated, it is a hardship. Maybe it wouldn't be a hardship for you but it
certainly is a hardship for us.
Mr. Hirkala stated, a hardship under the law, not under us, under the law.
Mr. Druker stated, we feel that it is a hardship for us. We are in contrct for the
property. The property does conform, we are undersized as far as the construction
on the property. We are allowed 25% and we are at about 17%. I think the intention
of the, when the zoning was first drawn up with the plurals there, I think the intent
was to have more than one retail store. I know you see fit to interpret it differently
however, that is what our hardship is, the fact that we cannot afford to carry a building
of that size, the area, even though it is the Village, we are keeping, the area, it is
very similar to what we are using it for. There are no private homes in the area in that
we would be impacting and the apartments in the back which can't even be seen from the
property and we think the variance should be granted.
Mr. Caballero stated, you heard the gentlemens stated,do I have a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the variance be denied -because the hardship is not
the legal hardship that comes in under the test for a variance being granted. It is a
self-induced hardship in that because it is 2 acres he wants to put up a large building.
It would be more suitable perhaps, if he went to a different area in the Town or if he
wanted multiple uses to go into another zone, but he can't have his cake and eat it
to go with an HB -2 and then say I have to put up a large building therefore, I can
have multiple uses.
Mr. Caballero stated, so the motion is that the appellant has failed to show a hardship?
Mr. Cortellino answered, legal hardship.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I just want to say that he does not have multiple uses. He has a
single use with multiple retail.
Mr. Cortellino stated, in our definition of use, a majority of the Board.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye• Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to closethe public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Page -36-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal: §416.52
Appeal #956B, at the request of Sprint Inc., seekinga variance of Article IV,
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a sign 15 foot_ in height when 10 foot
maximum is permitted and to allow a 10 foot setback when 25 foot is permitted on
roperty located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-04-680140, in the Town of Wappinger.,
Steve Simoni and Kevin Salaun were present.
Mr. Simoni stated, we would like the variance so that we could bring the sign closer
to the road and also, 5 foot higher than the legal excepted height is on Route 9.
Primarily because of the fact that it is a very long and narrow piece of property and
adjacent to us is a residential zone and it has trees that go all the way out to the
edge of their property which is just 10 or 12 feet off of Route 9 so coming up, going
North on Route 9 you would really not ever know that there is something there until you
are just about on top of it at which point I think the hardship would be that it would
be very hazardous for people looking for the service and not seeing it until the last
minute.
Mr. Caballero asked, is there any reason why you cannot move that sign back to where
it conforms according to our Zoning Ordinance other than what you just stated that the
trees are in the way?
Mr. Simoni stated, it is basically visibility.
Mr. Caballero asked, you want the visibility of the sign from the road, that is you basic
reason why you want it up 10 feet to the property line?
Mr. Simoni answered, right.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Caballero asked the Board if they had any questions.
Mr. Landolfi read a letter into the record from Agnes Wacker, abutting property owner.
Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero stated, in reference to that sign on that Osborne Hill Road, they might
have been there before our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich, would you have the Enforcement Officer notified
to check on that sign and there is a time limit if it not in our ordinance it should
be made to adhere to our ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi asked, are you going to be doing some form of advertising like in the
papers or whatever?
Mr. Simoni answered, yes.
M
Page -37-
November 18th, 1986
Changed tape.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I realize you need some form of identification for a new business
and we are trying to help in any way we can but in the same token we don't want a
proliferation of signs and granting variances all over the place. I am not sure that it
would effect your business in what I know about it in any way if you put it where it calls
for it to be put within our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero stated, I agree with Joe. I don't think that any of the signs that we
have denied and when they have been put up have been detrimental to that business.
Everybody gets the same equal opportunity to display their signs by size and by setback
on their property so it is all even. I don't see any reason why we should grant any
variances for signs. I think they look very attractive and I am proud of the way that
the Town of Wappinger is starting to look with the sign ordinance that we have.in the
Town and if you want any proof of it just walk into the Village and you will see the
difference with what we have accomplished in the Town of Wappinger compared to what
happened in the Village. I have a problem with this variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think these people bought this piece of property knowing the
conditions under which they had to operate under anyway.
Mr. Caballero stated, I disagree with that. Maybe they didn't read the Zoning Ordinance
and might not have been aware.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they have gone through a full blown site plan, Special use Permit
they have gone through an awful lot with this piece of property.
Mr. Simoni stated, there is also a 40 foot setback that was written into the ordinace
about having the building setback because of a supposedly proposed service road that they
may or may not put off of Route 9 to eleviate some of the traffic problems.
Mr. Hirkala asked, are you saying that this frontyard lot line reflects the fact
that you gave property to the Town, you gave 40 feet to the Town?
Mr. Simoni stated, it is there if you decide to put that road.
Mr. Hirkala asked, your property line was moved back because of it?
Mr. Simoni stated, we had to move the building back.
Mr. Hirkala asked, but the property line didn't move?
Mr. Simoni answered, the property line hasn't moved.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the building is back but the property line hasn't moved.
Mr. Simoni answered, the building moved back and the sign, so it is already setback
further than. It is a narrow piece of property.
iw Mr. Caballero asked, are you saying that you gave up property in the front of this?
Mr. Simoni stated, gave up in terms of....
Mr. Hirkala stated, that property line does not reflect that ROW.
Page -38-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move the variance be denied. It has not been demonstrated
that it would create a hardship.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal X6957, at the request of Henry A Olson, Oak Grove Grange, seeking a variance of
Article IV, § 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 50 foot
frontyard setback where 100 feet is required on property located on St. Nicholas Road &
New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 666259-03-141091, in the Town of Wappinger.
Henry Olson was present.
Mr. Olson stated, as you already heard the grange has purchased a 3 acre parcel on the
corner of St. Nicholas and New Hackensack Roads. We, due to the peculiarities of the
land and the way the topography runs we wish to place the new grange hall in the Northeast
corner of the lot. In doing so we are asking for a 50 foot frontyard setback on
St. Nicholas Road. From New Hackensack Road we are about 110 feet in one corner and
almost 200 feet at the next corner. Where we plan to put our driveway in the Northeast
corner there is going to be a rock cut and we intend to have the driveway go in back
the grange hall and go around the south side in order to get the parking lot. If we
were to put it on the North end of the lot the way the roadway going in would be such
that it would be at least 8%, probably 9% grade whereas, if we run it around behind the
new grange hall and put it on the South side we can get away with 6j or 7%. Additionally
we are trying to develop the balance of the land so that we can use it for recreational
purposes and for that particular reason we need to place the hall close to St. Nicholas
as we can. I believe the setback for residential homes along St. Nicholas Road is
35 feet, this is certainly in excess of 35 feet. The grange is going to have the
characteristics of a rather large long ranch house.
Mr. Caballero asked, similar to what was on Route 9?
Mr. Olson answered, yes. It will be 94 feet long and 50 feet wide.
Mr. Cortellino asked, why can't that be rotated 90° so that the long side is lets say
more parallel to New Hackensack Road. Where is the driveway? Are you coming in off
of St. Nicholas Road?
Page -39-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Olson answered, yes, we are coming in off of St. Nicholas Road in the Northeast
corner. I have another drawing here which....
Mr. Cortellino stated, 90 feet back you could easily go back almost that much and
just turn the building around, you would still be on the flat land.
Mr. Olson answered, we couldn't turn that building around and still be back 100 feet then
from New Hackensack Road.
Mr. Caballero asked, why couldn't you turn it around?
Mr. Olson answered, we don't want it facing St. Nicholas Road, lets put it that way. We
want to have it facing New Hackensack.
Mr. Caballero asked, why can't you pull the building back to meet the Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Olson answered, if we do we loose our recreational area. The south end of the lot is
very steep. We have probably 200 feet to the south which is unuseable due to the fact
that it is such a heavy grade going up to the Otis property.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is going to be your address?
Mr. Olson answered, our address will be New Hackensack Road.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, so what is the frontyard? If St. Nicholas Road was the sideyard
setback as opposed to the frontyard setback...
Mr. Olson stated, what Hans told me was this, that because we face on both roads the
frontyard setback has to apply to both roads and that is the only reason that we are
coming for the variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, but I am not so sure that it should be 100 feet.
Mr. Landolfi stated, there is a concern that I have. That area we know is going to be
developed and there is a reason for that setback on that. We are looking ahead for
expansion and I am just afraid that, although we certainly have nothing against the
grange but I don't know what that master plan is for that area but...
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala asked, could you tell my why at the end of your letter here it says the
building code will not allow us to build a 2 story frame structure. If this were allowed
a shorter building would be built and the setback variance would not be required.
Mr. Olson answered, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala asked, who said you could not put up a 2 story building?
Mr. Olson answered, we can build a 2 story building if it is built of masonary but
masonary will put it out of reach for us financially. If it is a frame structure it
has to be one story.
A
Page -40-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, whos code says this?
Mr. Olson answered, this is in the building code.
Mr. Hirkala asked, then how come that building on Route 9 going up is a 2 story frame
structure?
Mr. Olson answered, but this is a place of assembly. It makes a difference.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what about the church over there on Myers Corners Road? Would anybody
object to referring this to the Planning Board?
Mr. Landolfi stated, I was going to suggest pretty much the same thing. I would like to
really talk to Hans, I have alot of questions of Hans on this.
Mr. Olson stated, my coming to you, Hans thought this was the way to go.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he thought that it was within our Zoning Ordinance we just grant
you the permit, only when he feels its not within the Zoning Ordinance then he wants the
Zoning Board of Appeals to take a look and make a decision.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many acres is this?
Mr. Olson answered, will have 3 acres.
Mr. Caballero stated, I normally do not like to grant a variance when I see alot of
property where it could be moved back. I would like to go and take a look at this property
and see if they have a hardship with the incline there or rock, or whatever before I make
a decision.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would also like to hear from the Planning Board and from Hans as
to the verification of that 2 story thing.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, are you in contract to buy the property?
Mr. Olson answered, we have bought the property.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have really started.
Mr. Olson answered, we are bringing the land up to grade.
Mr. Landolfi stated, there has been work done out there.
Mr. Olson stated, we have a grading permit to fill it and the property if you are
acquainted with it at all you know that it is pretty bare rock.
Mr. Landolfi stated, well that prompts some questions. I think in fairness, I would
like Hans to assist us in an inspection of the property so we can .... what we are trying
to avoid obviously is try to give you what you are looking for but within the confines
of the Zoning Ordinance as best we can. 50 feet is quite a bit out in that area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are talking about a 50%.
Page -41-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, someday that will be valuable property and somebody will want to
come in there and they will be 50 feet away from the road without the purpose that you
were using the property for. It happened to you in front of Galleria so why couldn't
it happen there.
Mr. Olson stated, I doubt there will be another Galleria out there unless they want to
widen the runway of something like that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like, so that we could get a little more information, I
would like to suggest that we try to get with Hans and go out with Hans and company,
with this map and perhaps and talk a little more intelligently about this property before
we render any decision.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you think since it has to come back to the next meeting anyway
to send it out to the Planning Board. Will you amend your motion?
Mr. Landolfi answered, yes, and at the same time we could ask for a reading from the
Planning Board on this.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like addressed, before I vote on it, I am not talking
about this vote on sending this to the Planning Board, what is the objection to facing
St. Nicholas Road other than I prefer facing New Hackensack Road.
Mr. Olson stated, we just think it would look better from an asthetics standpoint.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think it would be safer off of St. Nicholas Road when you are
coming out.
Mr. Olson stated, we do plan to have our driveway coming out on St. Nicholas, not off
of New Hackensack. Our driveway will come off of St. Nicholas, in the Northeast corner.
Mr. Olson presented the Board with the plan that is going to the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero stated, in all fairness to everybody I have a motion on the floor to send
this to the Planning Board and also to make arrangements to look at the property with
Hans.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero called for a 5 minutes break at 9:50 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 9:56 P.M..
Page -42-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #958, at the request of Larraine & Frank Hamlin, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit on a undersized lot where the owner of said lot owns property adjoining the lot
on property located on 10 Russell Road, and being Parcel #6259-04-652093, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Frank Hamlin was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, that was corrected from the appeal in the public notice. The grid
that was advertised was 6259-04-648083. For the record, we have changed it to the proper
number.
Mr. Hamlin stated, we had bought the plot about 6 years ago and before we bought it we
were told it was a building lot and about 5 weeks ago my wife contacted Hans and he told
her again that it was a building lot and my wife ..... and we sold our property and house to
and the joint lot to Home Equity and we had given that lot to a real estate agent. We
spoke to Hans and Hans called me. There was a peculiarity in the Town of Wappinger that
the lot, our lot was the same name, Frank & Larraine Hamlin, that he couldn't give us a
building permit and he had made a mistake in saying that we had a building lot so we
came before you gentlemen to see if we could get a variance because we are moving out of
the area and we are going to be stuck with a piece of land that we couldn't do anything
with.
r" Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
Mr. Egils - owns lot next to property.
I own the lot next to the property which Hamlin wants to build the house, make it
buildable. I bought my lot 10 years ago and the lot next to me, which is a smaller lot
and an unbuildable lot, I was told at that time. I bought it because there was like a
buffer zone but, I don't want to stop anyone building a house over there but I want to
find out that if the variance is granted to build on a smaller lot does the setback
regulations, do they exist the same as they are not or would they be changed.
Mr. Caballero stated, in my opinion they would be the same.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the same setback as those for a normal size lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they are going to have to build to the R-40 configuration. R-40
setback.
Mr. Egils stated, then the other thing is that I wouldn't like to see any kind of trailer
built in there.
Mr. Cortellino stated, trailers are illegal in Wappinger.
Mr. Egils stated, they are illegal. The setback from the street doesn't bother me
at all. That was the main thing. Do they allow on that lot, I wouldn't like to see
a detached garage.
Mr. Cortellino stated, detached garages are permitted.
Page -43-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, they are permitted as long as they meet with the setbacks.
Mr. Hirkala stated, detached garage is permitted anywhere.
Mr. Egils asked, also, whether the location is in the front of the lot or in the back.
Mr. Cortellino stated, as long as it meets the setback requirements it could be anywhere
on the lot.
Mr. Egils asked, the detached garage is also the 20 foot setback?
Mr. Cortellino answered, no, the detached garage is 10 foot.
Mr. Egils stated, there is nothing we can do about that. Whoever buys the lot and builds
on it that he puts a garage 10 foot off of my lot, not anymore 20 feet. The house itself
it should be definitely a one family house?
Mr. Cortellino answered, that is correct.
Mr. Egils asked, if can't be a 2 family?
Mr. Cortellino answered, no.
Mr. Egils asked, and the setbacks stay the same? I have no objections then.
TAW Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak either for or against this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino asked, was there a subdivision map of this area?
Mr. Hamlin stated, I had the 2 parcels surveyed, no there wasn't a subdivision map. There
was a survey map of the parcels.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what I would like to see is the subdivision map. Whether it was
approved by the Planning Board as a building lot if not.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Hamlin, if you sell this property why can't you sell this lot
as part of the property?
Mr. Hamlin answered, because I have already sold it. If I had known I would have taken
a piece from my land and put it on there.
Mr. Caballero asked, you already sold a piece of property that you can't build on it
unless you get approval?
Mr. Hamlin answered, no, I sold my house and my land which is adjacent to that. I didn't
include that parcel.
Mr. Caballero asked, how small is this?
Mr. Caballero read a letter from Hans Gunderud to Mr. Hamlin dated 10/20/86. Letter on
file.
Page -44-
November 18th, 1986
%W Mr. Caballero stated, so Hans feels that it is a hardship and he cannot legally grant a
building permit unless we...
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with this. This is an R-40, its not an R-20.
Mr. Caballero stated, according to his letter here it is an R-20.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am wondering if my map is right.
Mr. Landolfi stated, on the form it says R-40. No, for zoning district he has got
Wappinger Falls.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if I am not mistaken I am looking at Russell Road right here but I
think it is R-40.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it has to be because that other lot is one and a half acres so it
has to be R-40. There are 2 problems here. One if we did grant this then what happens
somebody has to build ..... the size of the home. We are looking at 2 variances here
possibly.
Mr. Caballero stated,that makes it more restricted then his concerns become more of a
problem because if somebody wants to build a house there he would have to come in for
a variances for the setbacks to build.
Mr. Landolfi asked, was that legally subdivided to come out like that?
Mr. Hamlin stated, the people who had this land before us bought this 20 foot stretch.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think this looks similar to me like something we had before
that it was removed from our agenda and there were legal opinions rendered on that
particular case from our Town Attorney. I think maybe we should talk to Hans in
reference to this and also refer it to the Town Attorney and clarify the Zoning before
we take any action.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to refer Hans to verify the zoning.and to table this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4960, at the request of Elio Tavares, seeking a variance of article IV, §404.21
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the expansion of a parking lot
which is part of a legal non -conforming retail use on property located on 135 Osborne
Hill Road, and being Parcel #6156-02-593754, in the Town of Wappinger.
Elio Tavares was present.
Mr. Tavares stated, we are having a problem certain times in the day and especially
on Sundays.
Mr. Caballero read a letter from Mr. Gunderud. Letter on file.
Page -45-
November 18th, 1986
AW Mr. Caballero stated, that letter that I just read was from the previous hearing.
Mr. Cortellino read a letter from Cecile Hawksley and Mary & George Oraboni. Letters
on file.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there is a piece of property 26 feet wide, who owns that?
Mr. Tavares answered, that property is in my deed when it was purchased from the previous
owners.
Mr. Hirkala asked, it is in your deed?
Mr. Tavares answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you own that property all the way back that says formerly Joseph Barsey?
Mr. Tavares answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, do you have any idea what you are going to do with that property back
there?
Mr. Tavares answered, no. It doesn't have much road frontage.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many acres?
Mr. Tavares answered, I think it is an acre. There is more property under my name but it
is a separate lot.
Mr. Caballero stated, in relation to the parking area that you have now, how much more
is this an expansion of that parking area?
Mr. Tavares answered, that would provide, you mean square footage?
Mr. Caballero answered, in square footage or additional cars.
Mr. Tavares answered, I would say 4 cars.
Mr. Caballero asked, you can presently park how many cars?
Mr. Tavares answered, 8.
Mr. Caballero stated, so you are talking 50% of the parking that is already there.
Has any of that work been done or commenced?
Mr. Tavares answered, I graded the land weeks ago. I grade the land because there was
a dry well where the .... and glass and dirt and everytime we passed over it, I didn't
know what was there, used to bounce up and down. So one day I tried to look at it and
I saw a big huge hole so I started to grade that off and take the stones out.
Mr. Caballero asked, but it hasn't been blacktopped yet?
Mr. Tavares answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how long have you owned this store?
Page -46-
November 18th, 1986
SW Mr. Tavares answered, 3 years.
Mr. Hirkala asked, did you expand that store at all?
Mr. Tavares answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you live in the brick house?
Mr. Tavares answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against.
Richard Briggs - Lives next door.
I am opposed to this parking lot. The deli is there because of the grandfather clause.
It is a residential area. As it stands now the parking lot is right against my property
line.
Mrs. Briggs stated, he didn't blacktop the parking lot but he did put down stone, gravel,
and oil.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you mean the proposed parking lot?
Mrs. Briggs answered, it is there.already. It is not blacktopped, but it is oil and
gravel.
Mr. Caballero asked, Mr. Tavares, if you put that additional required parking that you
are looking for, 5 or 6 cars on the other side of the property wouldn't that do you
just as good to accomodate the additional parking, you need it there right next to
Briggs.
Mr. Tavares answered, I ahve trees that I planted there and I have lawn there and
across the front. That space, I need it more for the delivery trucks that make the
deliveries to the store and in the back of the store would be inconvenient.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you people are next to it and that parking lot is on his
property but you feel it would effect your property?
Mr. Briggs stated, the parking lot is, I thought there was some type of ordinance for
a driveway that the driveway had to be 35 feet from a neighbors property. Now this
parking lot, I don't know what the ordinance is, it is 3 inches from our property line.
Is that allowed?
Mr. Hirkala asked, you are talking about your property line here by the road because
he said this 26 foot piece of property is his.
Mrs. Briggs stated, this is ours.
Mr. Hirkala asked, Mr. Tavares, you said it was yours.
Mr. Tavares answered, I ahve had that property surveyed twice and twice that property
line I said was staked out. Stakes were put in there and they are not there anymore and
first I got the survey done by Mr. Bob Campbell and Mr. Briggs complained about the
Page -47-
November 18th, 1986
place where that stake was put so, that surveyor told me he was going to do more
research. Months later he came over again and he told me that indeed that was the property
line.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have that survey sir?
Mr. Tavares answered, no. Afterwards he told me that he was getting so much aggravation
and ........he never completed it twice.
Mr. Caballero stated, for us to make a decision we would have to be absolutely sure that
that is your property.
Mr. Briggs stated, legally, what he has been talking has not been legally documented.
Mrs. Briggs stated, we have gone to our Lawyer, and we talked to our lawyer, his lawyer
still has not contacted our lawyer. According to previous owners, Jamison, who we
bought the property from and Versy, who was, he is there before it was Rome, and then it
was Carlucci and now it is Versy there was a dispute between Versy and Jamison and at
that time Jamison had the property. So this was brought up years ago.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think this Board can make a decision unless the question
of whether that property is legally owned by you or is enfringing on them has to be
answered and even then I don't even know if the Board would grant you the variance but,
that issue has to be resolved before you can even consider it, in my opinion.
Mr. Tavares stated, I did try to resolve it. Then I got the second surveyor, the one
who drew that map there and he also found that by my deed that is my property line. The
case that they are using that that piece of property....
Mr. Caballero stated, we would feel more comfortable if you had official document and
then from that position we can make a decision. We want to know that that property really
belongs to you before we make that decision. So, do I have a suggestion from the Board
that we table it until he can come back and show us.
Mr. Tavares stated, the property in question is not where the parking lot is.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, there is a difference between 3 inches and 26 feet between the
property line.
Mr. Briggs stated, our line comes back and it goes up to his parking lot probably
2 inches. It is not a ..... all the way across.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you feel that this parking lot that he want to lay down is
enfringing on your property?
Mr. Briggs answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, so you definitely fee that he is going to put the parking lot in
your part of your land?
Mr. Briggs answered, no.
Mr. Caballero asked, the parking lot will be on his land?
Page -48-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Briggs stated, right no as it stands.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, regardless of where the property line is?
Mr. Tavares stated, I wanted to put a stockade fence over there.
Mr. Caballero stated, so the parking lot is definitely on his property.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I raised the question because of the difference in distance
between the property they own, there is a dispute, in other words, his proposed parking
lot will be right on the border of their property as they see it, but 26 feet away from
their property as he sees it.and that is the question that I brought up because of a
buffer area between the parking lot and their property.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, being that it is residential.
Mr. Caballero stated,okay, but my objection to not hearing and making a decision tonight
was the question of whether the parking lot was on his property. The parking lot is in
his property. Okay, then we can go ahead and make a decision tonight.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience to speak for or against
this appeal.
There was no one else.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that it be granted under the expansion clause. It is an
existing use, he has never expanded before and like I said the parking lot expansion of
the business. The business is both the building and the parking.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Mr. Hirkala asked, does he have to go to the Planning Board for site plan? We are looking
at a residential area on Osborne Hill Road, now, I have no objection to the expansion
of the parking lot but I would like to see how it is going to be treated.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I amend it to go down to the Planning Board to see if they have
any action.
Mr. Hirkala stated, for site plan approval.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have to go before the Planning Board for site plan approval of
that piece of parking lot that you are doing there.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Page -49-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #953, at the request of Kurt Reiner, seeking Special use Permit of Article IV,
§404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the enlargement of a legal
(2) family (non conforming) dwelling on propertylocated on 116 Diddell Road, and being
Parcel 46359-04-523445, in the Town of Wappinger.
Kurt Reiner was present.
Mr. Reiner stated, I applied for a building permit for an addition of a family room,
kitchen, and 2 car garage to my existing house, 2 family house, I live downstairs.
and I rent the upstairs out.and because it is not conforming and I believe an R-40
zone Mr. Gunderud said that I needed to have a Special Use Permit to change in any
way the use of a currently non -conforming structure.
Mr. Caballero stated, it says here that it is a legal 2 family.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think that is the wrong information. In the past, whenever
someone was legally conforming and they needed something to do with a house, correct me
if I am wrong, it called for a variance not a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a problem with that because under a Special Use Permit is a
given right with our limitations put on it and under a variance it is not a legal.
Mr. Landolfi stated, and on a SUP we would just pass it on to the Planning Board, if in
fact it did need it. I guess I question why. We interpret it as you needing a variance
as opposed to a SUP.
Mr. Cortellino stated, in the past, anytime somebody had a house that was legally
non -conforming and we even used to warn them you are putting in a house and you realize
that everytime you want to do something to that house you have to come in for a variance.
We didn't say for a SUP.
Mr. Hirkala asked, doesn't the ordinance say that any change to a non -conforming use
has to have a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, when it is worded Special Use Permit is a allowable use by right
which I don't agree with that this is an allowable use by right.subject to our limitations.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would say that we should send it back to Hans, at no charge to
the appellant, have it re -advertised as a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, I will go further than that, we send it to legal counsel to
determine whether we are correct in our interpretation or Hans is correct in setting it
up as a SUP.
tow Mr. Hirkala stated, the ordinance does say Special Permit, it doesn't say SUP.
Mr. Landolfi stated, anytime that you want to do anything to a non -conforming dwelling
that requires a variance not a SUP.
Page -50-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Reiner stated, I was under the impression that it was a variance that I needed and
that is what I requested and the Zoning Administrator did tell me specifically what I
needed to do. Winter is coming and I would like to get a building permit, is there anyway
to expidite this? He was absolutely certain that it was a SUP that was required, he said
specifically that it was not a variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he does need the variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, he may be correct and we may be correct so the only way to answer
the issue is to have our counsel look at it and give us a legal opinion of it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, all I see from this thing is the fact that a SUP is for an increase
of retail or service business.and all others shall not be done, period.
Mr. Cortellino stated, SUP are for things that are permitted uses in their respected
districts. This is not a permitted use in that district.. It is a legally non -conforming.
Mr. Caballero stated, why don't we put it into a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it is in the form of a motion. We refer it to the attorney and
resolve whether it is a variance of a SUP.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Reiner asked what the motion was.
Mr. Cortellino answered, send it to our lawyer to see whether you need a variance of a
SUP.
Mr. Reiner asked, that means the next meeting?
Mr. Landolf i answered, yes, the second tuesday of the month.
Mr. Reiner asked, does that mean that if it is agreed to....
Mr. Caballero answered, if we determine which way we are going to hear it, at that meeting
we will hear your evidence and everybody that is interested parties and then make a decision
for or against it.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, if it is a SUP then we give it back to the Planning Board.
Ms. Berberich stated, if it was a variance I would have to advertise it for the next
meeting.
Mr. Cortellino answered, yes, at no expense to him because it was the Town's error.
14s. Berberich stated, you are waiting for the opinion to come back, so how can I advertise
it as a variance when you don't know which one it is supposed to be.
Page -51-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, not withstanding the fact that when it comes back it will be at the
meeting with the opinion of the Attorney, now she, is it for a variance or a SUP we
have to make that determination and then she has to advertise it again, so we are
talking about another month.
Mr. Landolfi asked, couldn't you have Hans call Jennifer?
Mr. Caballero stated, let him know on the phone and follow it up.
Mr. Hirkala stated, for what it is worth I am of the opinion that it is a variance
requirement and not a SUP. I feel comfortable with us making a decision right now that
it is a variance and not a SUP and that we can go with that so that at the next meeting
it could be advertised as a variance.
Ms. Berberich stated, the deadline for the next meeting was today. You are a week behind.
I would have until Monday.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you read §404.31 it specifically states that it will not be done
except for a SUP by the ZBA for an expansion of a retail or service business which means
that the Zoning Ordinance will not be done and we have to grant a variance if it can be
done.
Mr. Landolf i stated, I think it would only take Hans to get on the phone with Jennifer.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and then we have to get together and make a determination.
Mr. Cortellino stated, no, we go with Jennifer's interpretation.
Mr. Reiner asked, what if she interprets that it is a SUP?
Mr. Cortellino stated, then we would meet next month.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, then what would happen is that if it is a SUP it goes to the Planning
Board, you still don't get a building permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, if we just went that this was a SUP we would refer it to the
Planning Board and the Planning Board would send us their comments and it still would be
at the next meeting.
Mr. Hirkala stated, why don't we refer it now and ask for their comments and see what
happens next time our.
Mr. Caballero stated, lets try all the angles just to get him...
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion for Hans to get with the Attorney, in the mean
time, just in case it is a SUP we will send it to the Planning Board and say that this
may be a SUP get it in the works for comments and when it comes back, if it is a SUP
the Planning Board has already looked at it and if it is a variance we can act on it.
Mr. Caballero stated, and we will have Linda advertise it as a variance for next month.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I second that motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Page -52-
November 18th, 1986
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4955, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking an appeal as an aggreived person
of the interpretation of the Article II, §200, Subsection 220 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance in of the word "use" in the definition of a "lot".
There was no one present.
Mr. Cortellino stated, we discussed when the other one was going on. We addressed that
when we did the other part.
Mr. Caballero stated, let the record show that the appellant is not here.
Vote: All ayes.
NVMr. Caballero read the next appeal:
V Appeal 4959, at the request of Ralph Szilagyi & Nancy Creed, seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §421, 115 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for use as a medical
clinic on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6259-04-537307,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Charlie Liscum, Architect.
Mr. Liscum stated, I am representing Szilagyi and Creed, both of which are doctors.
As an architect I have some copies of the plan here to give to the Board. We are
requesting a SUP to use the existing building as the doctors offices. Dr. Szilagyi
& Creed are surgeons. The use of the building would be for their offices, out patient
consultations. They are both hospital orientated physicians and they would therefore
be doning all of their work out of the hospital. I apologize for them not being here.
The couldn't make it this evening but they will be here at the public hearing -to describe
their practice a little further. Just to expain that it is not a heavy use in terms
of an office, their practice is going to be outside this building. It would be post
surgery consultation.
Mr. Cortellino asked, when you said out patient, I want to be very specific.
Mr. Liscum answered, out of the hospital. They were patients that were treated in the
hospital.
Mr.Cortellino asked, they never would do what is considered, in other words, just pick
an example, a sist removal.or......... what I am saying that there is surgery that occurs
instead of being hospitalized you go to a doctors office, they do the surgery, and then
about and hour or 2 recovery and then you are discharged.
Mr. Liscum stated, I will let them describe that at the public hearing. I only brought it
up to mention that this is not their full time office out of which they do their full
Page -52-
November 18th, 1986
business. The bulk of their business is done at the hospital as surgeons, this would be
somewhat like someone would stop by to get a stitch taken out, maybe pre -surgery
consultation, that was the way it was explained to me but I will let them explain
that to you in detail.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think this is a SUP which requires to be referred to the Planning
Board. But I think it is important that these people or someone explain to the Planning
Board the general use of this building and property because that will determine how they
look at it. What the impact will be, therefore what the requirements will be.
Mr. Caballero stated, why don't we refer it to the Planning Board requesting the Planning
Board to look into the use of the building.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't know whether we should ask for a long form on this, we have
a short form but I don't know, the use will determine that.
Mr. Liscum stated, basically the, as I say, what I knew was the primary interest or what
is the use here. They want to explain that it is not there primary place of business in
that a normal doctors office he would be having 99% of his practice our of his office, that
is not the case here. The requirements for 2 practitioners would be, I believe 4 parking
spaces, there are proposed to privide 12 spaces in the back. They also, as I understand
it, because this is a change in use it would require some other variances such as the lot
size, which is listed on the drawing. The site is zoned R-40, the site has 36,404 s/f
where there are 90% of that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that may or might not require a variance.
Mr. Liscum stated, well, I guess that was another question. It is an existing building
on an existing lot, according to the zoning for this site there are a number of these
sideyards and lot area questions that would appear to be not in compliance with zoning.
So I think that variances may be in order.
Mr. Caballero asked, how old is this property?
Mr. Liscum asked, the building?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Mr. Liscum stated, I would imagine it is at least 40 to 50 years old.
Mr. Caballero asked, pre 1963 structure?
Mr. Landolfi stated, it was a model for those homes out there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are looking at a situation where the requirement on a frontyard
is 75 feet and is provided 49.16. We are looking at a sideyard requirement of 25 feet
and it provides 11.79. There is a non -conforming factor in this building that is being
converted from residential to a commercial use.and I don't know how we should deal with
it. I am wondering if they are putting the cart before the horse.
Mr. Liscum stated, the attempt here is to get all these resolved at one time.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the point is that you might be going through a whole a thing here
Page -53-
November 18th, 1986
looking for variance and this Board doesn't grant you the variance, what are you going
to do then?
Mr. Liscum answered, well, I guess that is one of the reasons we are here.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are here for a SUP.
Mr. Liscum stated, we are here, I see it listed here and that is why I am bringing up
the variances now -to get that fact out in the open.
Mr. Caballero stated, I am afraid that we can only act on what is advertised, a SUP and
all we can do.....
Mr. Liscum stated, nothing is advertised at this point, this is not a public hearing.
Mr. Caballero stated, it is a public hearing.
Mr. Lanodlfi stated, you are requesting us to consider the SUP and that only. We cannot
address variances at this time. We can suggest to you some considerations that the
Planning Board might have some concerns about.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one of the concerns I have right now is how can we consider a SUP
on a request that is not legal because they need variances. We are referring it to the
` 14 Planning Board.
Mr. Liscum stated, we are just starting the process.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is my point exactly. We are referring something to the Planning
Board that might change totally.because of variances.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have referred before, to the Planning Board on a SUP and not
granted it and then the appellants have come in for variances that we did not grant, for
example, Herb Redl. A SUP was referred to them, he came back for a 5 foot setback variance
he was denied.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am trying to say that it might very well be in this gentlemens
best interest to go ahead and approach that now rather than after the SUP goes to the
Planning Board. I am not talking about this meeting, I am talking about getting the
paperwork and getting everything started.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, do the doctors own this property now, or are they in contract to buy
it?
Mr. Liscum answered, they own it. Realizing that there are a number of variances that
would be required would the procedure be to address those all at the same time, the SUP
and the variances all at the next meeting or just go to the Planning Board?
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think you are going to be able to get on the agenda for the
variance for the next meeting. This meeting was supposed to be last Tuesday and we moved
to over because it was a holiday so that gives you a problem with the advertising.
kbv
Mr. Liscum asked, so the procedure would be to go to the Planning Board for recommendation®,
M
14
Page -54-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, right and it will come back to us next month and at that time make
the applications for the variances.
Mr. Landolf i stated, you should get with Hans and he will help you identify. Right off
the bat we gave you some considerations but the other is the signage which we have a
big hangup with. You are in the zone which you are not entitled to a commercial type
sign in that area.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, you are looking at 4 variances on here, one of which is in an excess
of 507.
Mr. Liscum stated, that is correct but what we would be discussing at that meeting when
asking for the variances and the hardship portion of it is is that the house there, the
dwelling is really what would be a commercial area. On the same side of the street
coming down there within the same zone is a Texaco station, an open lot, 2 homes, and
all the open lots, because of the airport commercial use I don't see them developing
into houses and they are not large enough either. 2 homes, DV Van Kleeks, open space,
a nursing home, and then a open area for the landing of aircraft the approach zone and
the other side is all commercial.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, but the problem is that that house was originally designed and used
as a residence. Even if someone came to us now and that was done prezoning when that
was originally built, if someone came to us now to put a residence there, not even a
commercial use I doubt, I can't guarantee it, but I doubt that that would fly with these
types of variances. Take that residence use and look at it as commercial use with the
amount of traffic that it would generate there which is alot more than what a residence
would generate, not saying that it is high volume, that compounds it even more. So, I
would say that you have a serious problem with your variances.
Mr. Liscum stated, in that context I guess we would because we couldn't build a new house
there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my comment would be, if you want to use it for an permitted principle
use that you are talking about now and there is a problem with the argument that you are
presenting, the hardship situation that in my view would not hold water in a variance
request anyway, so I suggest to you that if before you go alot further with this take a
hard look at it and tell them to take a hard look at it and maybe go before the Town Board
requesting a re -zoning because I listened to that argument that you just presented.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think we have gone beyond what we are supposed to.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board and request the Board
to look into the use.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4961, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article
IV. §422, NB, 117 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a car wash along with
M
Page -55-
November 18th, 1986
gas pumps at the exist
Road, and being Parcel
g service station on property located on Route 9 & Old
6157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger.
Frank Vitiritti was present.
ewell
Mr. Caballero stated, this is a new hearing and everything will have to be put back
into the record. We go from scratch.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, we would like to put a car wash in conjunction with our gasoline
service station. We think that we need the extra income that the car wash would generate.
I don't think that we will be impacting the area that badly only because at the time when
we first began we were generating almost 270,000 gallons a month in sales there and now
we are only generating about 125,000 a month and the difference in traffic would be made
up by the car wash. The customer would come in to fill up with gasoline and maybe get a
car wash. Very few of the customers, a general portion of the customers would get gasoline`
and the car wash so that if they were buying the gasoline it wouldn't generate that much
more. Its, according to the zoning ordinance, a car wash is permitted under Special Use,
it is an accessory use.with a gasoline station. It has almost become second nature that
a gas station have a store or a car wash.in the country we are just trying to advance.
We will be beautifing the corner, putting up a new facade on the building, new pumps,
similar to the ones that Mr. Paino has over there on his station.and just generally making
the area a much better place to look at.
Mr. Landolfi asked, no tankers, right?
Mr. Vitiritti, I don't really want to respond to that. We wish to take care of the matter
at hand and then we can respond to that.
Mr. Caballero stated, in granting a Special Permit you can state conditions and the
condition we would be putting on this would be....
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I am more than happy and willing as I have demonstrated in the
past to work with you.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, you can't keep the tanker that we told you that you can't keep -is
still there.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, it is still there. I was not told that I can't keep it there.
It was brought to my attention, and in our opinion it is okay to use it. We are not
using it for storage which the original, Mr. Classey brought up to my attention and
sent me a letter stating that it was being used for storage and once I, we determined
that it was not being used for storage and it was only being used for transportation.
Mr. Caballero stated, an empty tanker is more dangerous than a full tanker.
Mr. Vitiritti answered, I agree with you..
Mr. Landolfi stated, you are talking asthetics here and you have a nice plan. Don't
you want to make the place attractive the people who want to come in?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, yes I do. I have already mentioned that I would be more than
happy to work with the Board.
Page -56-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't believe him.. I tell you why, because I talked to Hans about
this for the last Z weeks and Hans said that he has talked to Mr. Vitiritti on a number
of occasions about that tanker. Mr. Vitiritti told him that he would make arrangements
for it. Now he just said the tanker is still there. Now my concern isn't only the
dangerous situation, my concern is at the last meeting Mr. Vitiritti was here, it is in
the minutes, he admitted running a wholesale business off of that property which is
illegal and he is in violation at the present time as long as the tanker is there he is
running a wholesale business from that property.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, there has been no violation letters sent to me.
Mr. Hirkala stated, see, now he disagrees with our interpretation that it is a violation
and he wants to get along with us. Now what do you want to do. You want to do your
thing.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically this is a new application.
Mr. Hirkala stated, fine, but it is still my opinion that the man is in violation right
now.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you want to deny hearing this application on the basis that he
is in violation?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I wish Hans was here so that he could inform us what is going on.
I asked him as recently as last week and he said it was being taken care of.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I have spoken to Hans. Now Hans, I told Hans that we park the
vehicle there, we do maintenance on it, we are a gas station, service station , so to
speak, we do maintenance. The federal government requires us to do maintenance on the
tanker on a daily basis, to do certain checks so that we can run on the state and federal
highways. It is more protected there than it would be protected in some parking lot
under no supervision at all. At least at our location it is supervised for 18 hours a
day. There is somebody there. Now, that situation that, I have heard you all evening
long say that we have to talk about what is on the application. Now, I am more than
willing to talk about the other thing and I will work with you but at this point I want
to only speak about what is on the application, the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Landolfi stated, granted, but you should be aware of, if Hans says that that tanker
is a violation then we do not have to entertain, we can't help you.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, what I am telling you is Mr. Classey sent me a letter on it and
threatened to take me to court on it. Once I proved to him that it was not being used
for storage he let it fall. Hans sent me a letter stating that they would take me to
court on this tanker. On the same situation he was under the impression it was being
used for storage. Now, I understand it is more dangerous empty than it is loaded, I
grant you that, but by the same token, I told Hans if you have to take me to court, fine.
This is my opinion, the board has its own opinion about certain things. My opinion is
that as far as I am concerned it is a commercial piece of property, a vehicle is allowed
to travel on any highway in the U.S., it is licensed by the federal government and the
State of N.Y. and you are telling me that I can't park it on my piece of property. We
are back to the same situation, that is not the issue here. The issue can be, and to
my knowledge, I had no letters saying that I am in violation so, .
Page -57-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is obvious to me that there is a serious question here as to
whether there is a violation on that property. I would like to table this particular
request for a SUP until we can make a determination of whether or not we are operating
with a violation on the property at which point we cannot even entertain according to the
local ordinance we cannot even entertain this application and if it is determined by the
Zoning Administrator that there is no violation on that property then we will entertain
his application. If it is determined that there is a violation then he is going to have
to either clear up the violation or take us to court.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, if there is a violation I would certainly been taken to court on
that back in February or March when I received the letter. Obviously, there was no
violation, there are just a few people in that area that do not want to see that
particular location and myself get ahead in this world. This is america and what I am
asking for in the car wash is not unreasonable but yet I have been here for one year
trying to get this car wash. It is a permitted use, accessory use and you people have
wanted me to do things for you, okay, like I said, I am willing to work with you.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, you have on ehre existing service station to be abandoned. What
is going to happen to that abandoned building?
Mr. Vitiritti stated, the service station will not be abandoned. What originally the
plan was we were to get rid of the service part of the station and convert that into
a store which this Board denied that.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is going to happen to that building?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, right now it is being used as storage. We are staring new pumps
and our oil that we sell.
Mr. Caballero stated, so what you are saying here is that you want the gas pumps, you
want storage and wholesale business for gasoline, plus a car wash?
Mr. Vitiritti stated, we want a car wash and a gas station. If I am not allowed to store
the oil that I sell on the premises, am I supposed to rent a warehouse to store my 100
cases of oil. You have to be realistic here. I am entitled to a little bit of storage.
on my premises.
Mr. Urciuoli asked the Board, if we were to send this on to the Planning Board with
our recommendations and a note to Hans to see if there are any violations on the property,
especially pertaining to the tank truck, when it came back to us from the Planning Board
we can still deny the SUP if there are any violations.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact is that the law says that we can't even entertain the
application if there is a violations.
Mr. Caballero stated, I agree with you Mike but I don't think there is a violation on....
Mr. Hirkala stated, at the last meeting the guy admitted to running a wholesale gasoline
business off of the property.
Mr. Caballero stated, but he wasn't cited for it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then we have to ask Hans why he wasn't cited.
Page -58-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, if he wasn't cited then we have to entertain this application as
it stands.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I will go along with that.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I am trying to get something going for Frank possibly and leave
our door open and let him know this doesn't mean that we are approving the SUP.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, this happened last October, the same thing that is happening
now.with my tenant. It was passed on to the Planning Board on the basis that something
be done with my tenant. Nothing specific was said, something be done with my tenant.
The Planning Board approved it, sent it back and came back in December and I was not at
the meeting but I had friends that we at the meeting and at that point my approval was
denied on the basis that I hadn't done anything with the tenant yet, that wasn't written
that way. To many uses is what they said last time. It. was the gas station, the store,
and an accessory use so it would have been only 2 uses.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it was a gas station, store and a car wash and the determination
was made that you had a tenant that was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance at the time
because he had car wrecks all over the place.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, there was no violation.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you tell us you want to work with us and everytime we say something
Joe said it, I said it, you don't want to work, you disagree with what we say but you
want to work with us.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think we are going to go back around in circles. I think our
mandate is to refer this to the Planning Board. Make sure that they understand some
of the concerns that we have for them to render their opinion on this particular
application.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you have stated inumerable amount of times tonight that in the
Zoning Ordiance you are entitled to a car wash.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, that is what it says in the book.
Mr. Cortellino stated, accessory use.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not a principle use, an accessory use.
Mr. Caballero stated, to that question, between the Board, there is, if we have a gas
station and they wash cars in one of the bays I consider that an accessory use. I don't
consider a car wash, a drive thru car wash an accessory use.
Mr. Vitiritti asked, what is the difference, you are still washing cars.
Mr. Caballero stated, we do that interpreting and if that interpreting that we do is
incorrect it can be contested in a court of law and if the court of law agrees with us
we are right you are wrong. If they agree with us and you want to take it up to a
higher court then a higher court might see it your way, but we make the bottom line
decision here. From there on it can be contested up in the court system.
L
4W
Page -59-
November 18th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, can I assume by this conversation that you plan on keeping that
tanker?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, I don't plan on keeping it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I went over there to get gas and a car wash I am not going to see
that ....?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, no you won't.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you see the concern I have is that we have alot of gas stations,
god forbid if they all had a tanker. And I am speaking as a firemen. One of your local
firemen that would respond if you had a call over there.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I just revert back, I removed my tenant last January. I have been
without rent. What I am saying is that I can't.....
Mr. Caballero stated, you didn't have to remove the tenant, you had to make the tenant
clean up the station.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you assumed something and you are blaming us for it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion we send it on to the Planning Board with our
concerns like we have been talking about.
Mr. Caballero stated, our concerns as to strictly car wash and pumps, they look into the
matter about wholesaling and keeping tankers in, egress and ingress out of the Hopewell
Road, to consider traffic. I am concerned with what is going to be taken out of the
water the car wash, how is it going to be taken care of, waste water disposal, stacking
lanes, the amount of cars that are going to be backed out on Route 9 if possible. All
of those we want the Planning Board to address and to send their comments back to the
Zoning Board of Appeals before we make a decision on this.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I want a note to go to Hans that there are no violations on that
property.
Mr. Caballero stated, with all respect to you and Mike, if a violation is not presently
on the property that if he does it next week it doesn't concern us. If he had done it
a month ago and there was a violation on the property, that is different, -then we don't
entertain this at all. We are going to take for granted that there are no violations
on the property.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Page -60-
November 18th, 1986
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M..
lb
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
it.............