1986-10-14ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 14TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal 46918, at the request of Kermit Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of
§422, V4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit the storage & sale of
materials, contractors establishments, 20,000 square foot building - divided into 4
sections for equal uses on property located on Stage Door Drive, and being Parcel
466156-02-865914, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 46924, at the request of Steven & Cathy Habich, seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §445.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an accessory
apartment on property located on 18 Monfort Road, and being Parcel 466358-03-194429, in
the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 46930, at the request of Dr. Muhammad Ali Afridi, seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §421, V4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a church on
property located on the corner of Myers Corners Road & All Angels Hill Road, and being
Parcel 466258-02-628535, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 46931, at the request of Weldon Williams, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit for a detached garage with a sideyard setback of (2) foot where (10) feet is
required on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel 466259-04-939059, in the
Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal 46932, at the request of Michael Lynch, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421,
Accessory uses, V9 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the keeping
of 3 dogs on a property that is not at least 2 acres where only two dogs are permitted
on property located on 462 Spring Hill Court, and being Parcel 466359-03-212246, in the
Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal 46934, at the request of Donald Mr. Corbin, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§412 of the Town of Wappigner Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit on a lot which does not have road frontage on a legal Town road on property
located on 160 Diddell Road, and being Parcel 466359-02-685574, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal 46936, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422,
NB, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 25 foot rearyard setback
where 30 feet is required on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel
466158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal 46937, at the request of Thomas J. Morley Jr., seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.2 & §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of
a lot, into two lots where one such lot will have frontage only on a private road and
the other such lot will be less than the required 80,000 square feet lot area requirement,
but will have legal road frontage on property lcoated on Smithtown Road, and being
Parcel 466156-02-930942, in the Town of Wappinger.
9. Appeal 46938, at the request of Frank & Juliana Garofalo, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a mobile home
to be used as a permitted caretakers cottage on residential property which is being used
koo as a legal stable use on property located on Smith Crossing Road, and being Parcel
466359-01-110650, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -2-
October 14th, 1986
Zoning Board Agenda
10. Appeal #939, at the request of Joanne Oakely, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit for a screened in porch where the rearyard is 20 feet when 25 foot is required
on property located on 62 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel #6257-06-341773, in the
Town of Wappinger.
11. Appeal #942, at the request of Jeraldine Latham, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit for a solar
unit with a (13) foot (7) inch setback where 20 feet is required on property located on
Chelsea Road, and being Parcel #6056-01-262505, in the Town of Wappinger.
12. Appeal #944, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.62
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a free standing sign with a 16 foot
frontyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on New Hackensack Road,
and being Parcel #6158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
13. Appeal #948, at the request of Clark Zeaman, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an attached garage to be built
with a 25 foot frontyard setback (on a side street) where 50 foot is required on property
located on 69 Brothers Road, and being Parcel #6258-04-979208, in the Town of Wappinger.
14. Appeal #949, at the request of F. Jason DiPalma, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy on a home built with a 40 foot rearyard where 50 foot is required on
property located on Robinson Lane, and being Parcel #6359-04-900088, in the Town of
Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #900, at the request of John Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§421, 18 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing 3 family
dwelling, which was built prior to 1963 and which contains over 3,000 s/f of useable
floor area to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on Route 9D, and
being Parcel #6157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #906, at the request of Patrick & Ruth Clark, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing house, which
contains over 3,000 s/f of useable floor area and was built prior to 1962, to a (2) two
unit dwelling on property located on Route 9D, and being Parcel #6157-01-180640, in
the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #920, at the request of John Esposito, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§445.8 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an accessory apartment
addition to an existing residence which will increase the perimeter of the building
on property located on 9 Applesauce Lane, and being Parcel #6258-04-682043, in the
Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #925, at the request of Stephen & Cathy Habich, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§445.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory apartment in an
existing (incomplete) addition where the Certificate of Occupancy is not 5 years old as
required by the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance on property located on 18 Monfort Road,
and being Parcel #6358-03-194429, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -3-
October 14th, 1986
Zoning Board Agenda
5. Appeal #928, at the request of Carl & Helen Von Hagen, seeking an amended Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §430 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend stable use
under "Watkins" approved stable on property located on Brown Road, and being Parcel
#6357-01-081767, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal #933, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, request for a re-application for a
Special Use Permit to allow gas service & car wash on property located on Route 9 &
Old Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #923, at the request of Edward Sellian, seeking an interpretation of §404 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, non -conforming use & structures.
2. Appeal #935, at the request of Edward Lawrence, seeking an interpretation of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the keeping of
pigeons in a residential district.
3. 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.
4. Appeal #941, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking an interpretation of Article II,
§200, Subsection 220 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for an interpretation of
the word "use" in the definition of a "lot".
5. 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, and part sales on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-04-703107,
in the Town of Wappinger.
6. 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 #6156-01-436690, in the Town of
Wappinger.
7. Appeal #946, at the request of Ellen R. Youssef, seeking an interpretation of
Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance that the Zoning Board of
Appeals make a determination that replacing one mobile home with another is a similar
use.
8. Appeal #947, at the request of Joseph G. Dell, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 115 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a professional
medical office/medical clinic on property located on 2 Pye Lane, and being Parcel
#6257-02-907853, in the Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
OCTOBER 14TH, 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, October 14th,
1986, at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, NY, beginning at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Mr. Caballero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala
Mr. Urciuoli
Others Present:
Gladys Ruit, Acting Secretary
Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M..
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion on the Minutes of the September 9th, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero asked if all abutting property owners had been notified.
Mrs. Ruit answered, according to the records available in the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Caballero explained how the meeting would be conducted.
Mr. Caballero read the first appeal:
Appeal #918, at the request of Kermit Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422
V4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit the storage & sale of materials,
contractors establishments, 20,000 s/f building - divided into 4 sections for equal uses
on property located on Stage Door Drive, and being Parcel #6156-02-865914, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Jack Railing and Keith Gordon were present.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, is this in a HB -1 highway zone?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. HB -2A. We have prepared a preliminary site plan which I
believe the Board members have. The Parcel is a .15 acre parcel in the HB -2A zone and
the section of the ordinance requires a SUP to be obtained prior to attending the
Planning Board for site plan for a storage warehouse facility in this particular
district and as that is what we requested of this Board and we have discussed this at
previous meetings and this is the public hearing for same. The warehouse would be
divided into 4 section, one of which would be occupied by Kermit Enterprises. Without
going into great detail I think it is a cut and dry application, there will be an office
associated with the warehouse, it is not any way, shape or form being contrued as a
retail operation. It will not be operated as such. It is strictly for the sake of
warehousing.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a couple of correspondence here, one from the Zoning
Administrator dated September 22nd, 1986. Letter on file.
Page -2-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, if you would like I could respond very quickly to that. There will
be no over the counter sales, it is strictly for warehousing and the office is specifically
for that. Kermit Enterprises will be using the Northeastern most section and the other
3 will be for lease. They are identical in size.
Mr. Caballero asked, and they will all be for warehousing, no sales?
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala asked, they are all for lease?
Mr. Railing answered, yes. Except the corner one will be occupied by his company.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think originally he was going to attempt to try to have a sales
section to the building.
{
Mr. Railing stated, I believe he is going to retain ownership only.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have 2 concerns. One is on the signage. How do you expect to
advertise, will there be any advertising relating to this?
Mr. Railing stated, whatever we do certainly will be in accordance to what the Zoning
Ordinance as presently exists. If there is a problem with multiple denomination signs
in a restricted area we could always call it something like Kermit Ent. Park or something
like that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, here is my concern. If you rent the space out. We don't want to z
get in the middle of ..... I think it is very key in any approval, I would like to see
out of this Board put the notice on Kermit to make sure that the signs are in conformance
rather than it be an individual persons to come back in to us. r
Mr. Railing stated, since it isn't retail we should not have that type of problem. y
3
Mr. Landolfi stated, number 2, I have a concern, normally when you talk warehousing
what type of storage do you plan to be outside of the building?
Mr. Railing answered, one of the reasons they want to keep the Northeastern most is they
do want to store as much of their equipment as they can inside. I think at the last
meeting the only thing that they stated may ocassionaly be stored outside would be a
tractor trailer which is a low boy, which you would see basically the cab and the low
boy. There will not be equipment on that trailer, that will be inside.
Mr. Landolfi stated, my concern is that we do not have another Lloyds Lumber like in
our Town. I would like see the owners put on ..... to take whatever action. I don't
think we should burden the Zoning Administrator to go out and keep policing this, I
would like to see that kind of restriction. t
Mr. Railing stated, I think he indicated at the last meeting that, the purpose of the
warehouse was to keep that stuff inside.
Mr. Cortellino asked, the office, that would be the owners office for administration
purposes?
Mr. Railing answered, we have designated an area on each of the units for an office
area where you keep your inventory books, four areas inside the building set aside for
them to keep their books relative to warehousing inventory, they may do bookeeping out
Page -3-
October 14th, 1986
IRW of there and things like that. Not retail.
Mr. Cortellino stated, why is he not using it just for his own uses? Why does he feel
that he has to put up a larger building and let out 3 points of it?
Mr. Railing stated, his needs are such that he only needs 5,000 s/f.
Mr. Cortellino stated, and my question is why does he need a building over 5,000 s/f? 4
Mr. Railing answered, I think because, number one, the size of the lot, and incidentally
square footage of this building does not approach the maximum allowed by your ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you didn't answer my question. My question is, why did he but
2.1 acres that he didn't think he would need 2.1 acres?
Mr. Railing answered, having had many discussion with the Keith Gordon this is basically
all that is available at this time..
Mr. Hirkala stated, first of all the letter we got from the Planning Board they said one
of the modulars is going to be a garage. Now, is there one of those sections?
Mr. Railing answered, Kermit Ent. section, the one furthest to the left on the drawing
or to the Northeast he will use to house his equipment. Such as a backhoe, to give you an
example and that is why the Planning Board wanted to make sure that the Zoning Board was
aware that that was in fact what he was going to be doing. He is going to be keeping his
equipment in there. It depends on what
p you call a garage. I would see it more of a
housing for his equipment.
Mr. Caballero read the recommendation from the Planning Board into the record. This letter
is on file.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one other thing that I have, on the EAF, a specific section in
Part 2 in reviewing it on public safety and hazard safety. How do we insure that what
goes into that building would be safe to handle, won't be volatle as far as tenants are
concerned.
Mr. Railing answered, the only thing I can say to that is I am not going to be specific
of Kermit Ent. if they do not deal with that type of materials, because they are
basically a construction firm. What the Zoning Board or the Planning board could do is
as far as the approval is stipulate whatever goes into this particular building would
be in accordance with all the rules and regulations of the State of New York relating
such chemicals or other materials that might be involoved. Obviously, there is no
way you can guarantee. It is a matter of enforcement.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one way to gaurantee it is he is going to have to get a C.O. for each
tenant, correct?
Mr. Gunderud answered, require Fire Inspector and Building Inspector to review it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the same with Kermit Ent., they are going to have vehicles stored
inside and I am sure there are going to be fuels inside these vehicles, I am sure at
times they are going to be working on these vehicles inside that place and I don't know
if that is an allowed use but how do you control that but I would like to see something in
advance to deal with that rather than wait until after the fact.
Page -4-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, if you want to stipulate that the Planning Board, during the site plan
process deal with that, we have no problem with that.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a problem with the Notice of Appeal, and I will read what
it says. Storage and sale of Materials; contractors establishment. Having a semi -colon
in front of contractors establishment it doesn't say what kind of a contractor. Now, if
you want to have a warehouse with storage and sale of materials and you want it to be a
similar use, number one, I don't agree perhaps with the Zoning Administrator that having
divided the four is a single use. Suppose I put a plumber in one corner, electrical in
another corner, that is no longer a single use, that is 4 separate uses.
Mr. Railing stated, first of all, it may be a .... dot or whatever from the.... from that
comma, I think that is a comma, not that that makes any difference to your concern.
As far as the use is concerned, this is my writing and I believe that is not supposed to
be a semi -colon. There will be 4 separate contractors, tenants, there will be warehousing
of different materials. We are not going to have 4 Kermit Ent. in this building.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I know that. A suggestion, instead of it being a condo, the same
concept, one building and have storage of various types in one building.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a concern with this because, fine and dandy now but when you
get a tenant in there he tells you he wants to warehouse his supplies and later on he
start selling over the counter and trucks and vans pull in to buy and take out it changes
the situation completely of the property. Having one tenant, one use, and an owner use
is what is allowed under our Zoning Ordinance. This is going to put in possibly 4
different uses and any of them would go in any direction. The Board already has problems
where through a variance somebody is allowed to rent 2 stores and the individual stores
are coming in for sign variances and they want to do things to the property that were not
allowed in that area. I have concerns with leaving it open. Does he have a copy of
the proposed lease where he has the stipulation that they cannot put in sales?
Mr. Railing answered, no, but that certainly could be one of your conditions of approval.
He does not want to have a sales type operation. He understands what the Towns feelings
are. He just wants to be able to provide for the community 3 additional warehousing,
no sales, there will be no ingoing and outgoing traffic in this particular building and
you can make that a stipulation to the Special Use Permit, he doesn't have a problem with
that. Make it a stipulation of the site plan he doesn't have a problem with it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what kind of business is Kermit Ent. in?
Mr. Railing answered, Kermit Ent. will own the building, actually you have a contracting
firm. Backhoes, they putting in storm drainage, water mains, sewer mains, general
construction.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, how many parking spaces is he allowed for each one of
the tenants?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think it is on the site plan. It hasn't been reviewed totally.
Mr. Railing stated, we show 16 spaces and I think we may have reserved 4 more.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think there is sufficient land on the site itself.
Mr. Railing stated, what we tried to do is keep as much of the parking away from
Smithtown Road as we can but certainly that area there is available if we ever had to
Page -5-
October 14th, 1986
with additional screening, we could double the parking with ease.
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. Caballero stated, the choice is ours of granting the SUP putting down all the
conditions that everyone of us brought forward, approve it and send it to the Planning
Board or deny the Special Permit on the basis that that zone is one use because of an
owner living on the property.
Mr. Landolfi stated, on that letter from the Planning Board, I take exception to the
they go on to illude that they have no problem with the use and that is really our
perview anyway not theres. I wish they would be more specific relative to the site plan.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have spoken to the Planning Board in reference to making their
recommendations a little more specific, and we get back to the §422 Schedule of
Regulations for non-residential district, HB -2 is see footnote "f" which says 2 uses
shall be permitted in an HB zone where said one use is a business to be operated by the
owner.resident and said parcel, however, in no instance shall there be more than one
residential use for the said parcel. That is for your information gentlemen.
Mr. Cortellino stated, right now I am in favor of denying the Special Permit, that is
a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The way I look at it it is equivalent of putting up
a shopping mall, even though it is one building its is 4 structures, its on the site plan
with 4 offices, for 4 cubicals of warehousing to me that is 4 warehouses stacked together.
That is separate from one business. His business is warehousing his materials and then
his other business is renting out storage space. Also, the way it is laid out it come
apparent that it is really 4 buildings in one. I made that a motion to deny the SUP as
a violation of our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero asked for a second on that motion.
There was no second.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, what is the difference between this particular application
and the one that Dick Brescia had, other than I know that he is in the airport industry?
Mr. Gunderud stated, in my opinion the difference is that Mr. Brescia was going to operate
that as a condominium that each person would own a section of the building.
Mr. Landolfi asked, he was still having multiple uses right?
Mr. Gunderud answered, I wasn't around with Brescia, but in this case the reason I wrote
my letter was because this is owned by one individual, the little building and that
individual was leasing out sections of it similar to an office building which we do allow.
Rems office building, those people own the building yet they are looking for tenants
for various reasons.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically Han's opinion is Han's opinion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem, I think we are treading on very touchy legal ground
here if we start to say that someone comes in and requests warehouse use and we say you
can't rent any of that warehouse space to anybody but yourself. It is not a multiple
use, its warehouse use. Now, if he has 5 tenants all warehouse use how can we say that is
Page -6-
October 14th, 1986
multiple use. If somebody comes in here and wants to put retail sales in there, now that
is something else.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if he had the only office and he was using it for warehouse and
then he took in other contractors materials and warehoused I would have no problem.
When you have 4 offices in there then it is 4 buildings in one.
Mr. Hirkala stated, our discussions isn't based on what his businesses are. Our discussion
is based on legally what can that land use be, period, not what his business is.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he is warehousing he is the owner of one warehouse he can take
from 4 different types of businesses and warehouse their product. One use. What he has
here is breaking up into 4 separate warehouses with 4 separate offices that are under the
control of their tenants.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but all the same use.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is a fine line. I have a motion on the floor. I still have a
motion on the floor and haven't received a second. Can I have a motion for approval with
conditions please.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am going to make a recommendation that we allow with certain
provisions and number one item that would be no retailing allowed on the premises or
wholesaling. The signs will be in conformance to our Zoning regulations. And any
problems to be delegated to Kermit Ent. to resolve as opposed to having the individual
before us. I would like to have the outside storage be restricted to that area as
,r designated, again the owners to be put on Kermit to insure that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, quite possibly what can be done. go along with Joe's motion restricting
the use to strictly warehouse storage, no wholesale or retail sales on the premises, all
C.O.'s, all rental spaces will receive C.O.'s from the Tonw offices and all of the review
will be made by the Fire Inspector, Building Inspector and Zoning Administrator of all the
C.O.'S. And also, that the site be looked at in light of no outside storage and more
increase parking when it goes to site plan review by the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a quesiton. By going by the site plan and then they will say
we have seen it, about 12% of each cubical, each section, of the storage warehosue says
sales and/or office. Now sales would have to come off the site plan, and 2, why do they
need such a large office if they are not conducting business out of that office? I don't
see the scale here.
Mr. Railing stated, we have sectioned off about 1,500 s/f, it could be smaller, we just
petitioned off an area of 1,500 s/f.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is a possibility that 50% of that premises is going to be
office space and the other 50% warehouse.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact of the matter is I don't care how much office space is there
the fact of the matter is that it is a warehosuing operation, period and under the C.O.
request if it is contracting equipment storage it has to come back for a Special Use
Permit. Hans, am I right?
Mr. Gunderud answered, I would say so because right now we are giving the Special Use
Permit for the site.
Page -7-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, now if a tenant comes in and he wants to store contracting material
our Zoning Ordinance specifically states that you ahve to have a Special Use Permit to
store contracting material. They have to come back here and get it.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor with the following conditions as
stated by the members of the Board, do I have a second on the motion?
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #924, at the request of Stephen & Cathy Habich, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §445.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit an accessory
apartment on property located on 18 Monfort Road, and being Parcel #6358-03-194429, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Stephen & Cathy Habich were present.
Mr. Gunderud stated, under Unfinished Business the Habich's are also in for a variance
on the same property and if you might consider that the variance might be probably
discussed before the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, thank you for bringing that to our attention Hans. Mr. Habich, we
would like to hear the variance request first and then hear the appeal on the Special
Use Permit, is that the wish of the Board gentlemen?
The Board agreed.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the record we are going to hear Appeal 4925:
Appeal 44925, at the request of Stephen & Cathy Habich, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§445.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an accessory apartment in on
existing (incomplete) addition where the Certificate of Occupancy is not 5 years old as
required in the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance on property located on 18 Monfort Road,
and being Parcel 446358-03-194429, in the Town of Wappinger.
Stephen & Cathy Habich were present.
Mrs. Habich stated, we. would like for my parents to live with us in this home. The
interior needs to be completed on the addition which I ahve a picture of. That is already
there.
Page -8-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, is that the addition on the side?
Mrs. Habich answered, no that is the living room. It is on the right side, above the
garage.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, do they have a C.O. on that particular portion?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, the addition was before the Board last month and then you
were going to discuss it with the Town Attorney. This is the one accessory apartment,
the addition had been built prior to the time that the ordinance was even adopted for
accessory apartments as a legal bedroom addition, garage, bedroom addition to the house
then after the ordinance was adopted they are now in for including that addition to
accessory apartment.
Mr. Cortellino asked, is the under the mother/daughter?
Mr. Urciuoli answered, yes, that is what they are trying to get.
Mr. Caballero asked, did you close your house and sign...
Mr. Habich answered, yes, its been closed for 2 months.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think their problem has been before us.
Mr. Gunderud stated, they didn't meet all the stipulations...
Mr. Cortellino stated, the requirements for a mother/daughter.
Mr. Gunderud stated, so they needed a variance for the...
Mr. Cortellino stated, the certificate of occupancy is not 5 years old. They want to make
use of the variance of mother/daughter and the building is not 5 years, it doesn't have
a C.O. for 5 years....
Mr. Cortellino stated, they have also have lived there 5 years, thats the law, they have
had to have lived there 5 years before they apply for a mother/daughter apartment.
Mr. Caballero asked, what would be the problem of having a mother/daughter in this
house without a kitchen an accessory apartment regulations. You want them with you to
help them, I don't see where the separation has to be made. Most of the concerns that
this Board has is that people will come in to this Board on a pretense of bringing
their parents or relatives into a home and separating it into 2 separate dwellings and
then renting it out and would end up with 2 apartments in a single family area.
Mr. Habich stated, we understand that, this is strictly family and that is why we
wanted to go this route.
Mrs. Habich stated, we even met with the Planning Board, Tuesday night I got a phone call,
Tuesday morning to come down Tuesday night to meet with the Planning Board. We discussed
this with them, financially my parents need to live with us. They explained to us about
the kitchen, if god forbid my parents pass away, they.might decide to move my husband
and I know that the kitchen must come out. We know all the rules and regulations of this.
As of last time we told.you our house, there wil be a closing on my house. We have
been having a hard time finding a place for my parents, we were given a list of rules
and regulations that we were told we could have a kitchen if we followed all of the
necessary rules. Now, we are more than willing to come back to show you every year if
Page -9-
October 14th, 1986
we have to, it is my parents living there. Go forbid, as I said, if anything happens
we will rip out the kitchen. We have no problem with following, we are aware of them.
Mr. Caballero asked, why is the kitchen so necessary?
Mrs. Habich answered, because it is, it is my parents. The house is a big house. It has
the interior needs to be completed, its, there is room for us to be there and ideally it
would be for my parents benefit.
Mr. Caballero stated, then I don't seeno problem in using one kitchen in the house for
your parents.
Mr. Habich stated, in the laws it says separate cooking in there.
Mrs. Habich stated, it says separate cooking in there, this is why we are here. I'm very,
very confused as to this because we talked to the gentlemen on Tuesday, the reason they
talked to us was about the kitchen, that was one of their biggest...
Mr. Cortellinostated, the kitchen is what constituted the other apply?
Mrs. Habich answered, right.
Mr. Cortellino stated, let me ask you something. You haven't purchased this house yet?
Mrs. Habich answered, we have a...
Mr. Cortellino finished, a retainer on it.
Mrs. Habich answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, now, the purpose, the way the law was written you said you followed
everything, except for one, perhaps monor, perhaps major thing, so to prevent 2 apartments
in a single family residential zone the Town Board, when they passed that ordinance
made it possible mother/daughter apartments they said the people have to reside in the
house for 5 years before they can request a mother/daughter apartment, that is so because
trageties occur in every family and, to prevent coming to buy a house for that specific
purpose, that was the intent why you have to be in 5 years before you ask for a mother/
daughter, it is so that you don't plan on it but hardships occur in family and things
happen they don't want you to come in brand new the first day and say I want 2 apartments
in a single family place.
Mr. Habich stated, it is mostly built, in theory it is mostly all built, just the
kitchen is not there.
Mr. Cortellino stated, like the Chairman said, what makes it a 2 family is when the
kitchen is there and....
Mrs. Habich stated, but I thought there was a difference between, I thought in special
cases you would allow parents to live with their children with separate cooking facilities.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is right if you have lived in your house 5 years.
Mrs. Habich stated, but do you know, when we were here last time, it is impossible to
find a house...
Page -10-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think you misunderstand the law, not that the C.O., Hans correct
me if I am wrong, it is not that the C.O. has to be issued 5 years, the people had to
lived in the house 5 years?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, the C.O..
Mrs. Habich stated, the C.O., and this was built before the ordinance went into effect.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says that it has to be a valid C.O. for the property.
Mr. Cortellino stated, any residence built after the effective date of this local law
shall not be an .......until the fifth anniversary. the C.O.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the problem in this one is the fact that the C.O.-for the addition
was never granted because they never came in for the request for the C.O.. They got the
building permit in 1980 but they never finished the addition.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone int he audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero stated, gentlemen, I think we are being tested under this mother/daughter
law.
Mr. Landolfi asked, I missed the meeting with legal counsel. What did she...
Mr. Caballero answered, basically legal counsel gave us her legal opinion was privy
of the Board at that time. We attended with Mike and Charlie, she gave us the opinion
of what we could do but, the Board does not have to adhere by it. The problem is that
people are trying to buy houses that are legally single family houses and getting approval
for 2 apartments, accessory use apartment, mother/daughter on the purchase of it. The
intent of that ordinance was to allow somebody who has been in the house for over 5 years
and want to bring their parents in to be able to do it subject to removal that if the
parents move out or a blood relative moves out..... They are asking to grant them 2
apartments, double dwelling so that they can buy the property as a 2 family mother/daughter
house which I have a problem with, and my contention is that if your parents have to be
with you there is absolutely no need to have a kitchen.
Mrs. Habich asked, can I ask you what would the problem be with a kitchen, they did I
mean, I can't even, its not your problem but I just, it has been extremely hard on us.
We were here last month...
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think that problem would be with us, its the way the
Zoning Ordinance is written to allow to do that. You are required to be there 5 years.
Mrs. Habich stated, no, it stated that if there was a C.O. on the house, there is a C.O.
The existing house is 23 years old, I mean if I have to come back and sign something in
blood I will do it. You have to understand right now I, as of 2 weeks I am going to
have no place to go. When we were here last time...
Mr. Caballero stated, you have a place to go as long as you don't put that kitchen in it.
And your parents have a place to go as long as you don't put that kitchen in. Its as
simple as that.
Page -11-
October 14th, 1986
Mrs. Habich stated, I mean, this to me is a unique situation. We have not, we were shown
this house as a mother/daughter, now I know,.this is why we are doing this, it is not
us....
Mr. Habich stated, that is why we are asking for the variance for a special, unique
situation.
Mr. Caballero stated, every listed agent is going to show houses in this area, single
family area as mother/daughters from now on and we end up with 2 different, with 2 dwellings
in each singled family house. Our Zoning Ordinance does not allow that.
Mrs. Habich stated, when we were here last month you even stated this looks like the first
legal mother/daughter, you had to speak to the Planning Board. We came up here Tuesday
night, I had to get a babysitter, I missed work to speak to the Planning Board when they
told us that they didn't really see a problem, they knew we didn't purchase the house,
they knew we had a binder on a house, they knew the problem with the kitchen and it was
my parents. This is how we were shown the house. I mean, as you can see from the front
of the house nothing has to be changed. It is just the interior, I mean and your laws
do state blood related relatives, unique situation, separate cooking facilities.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think our hands are tied, Mr. Chairman, I move it be denied.
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. Caballero asked Mr. Hawksley, when the Planning Board gets referral from the Zoning
Board of Appeals do they look to see what the ordinance actually reads before they make
a recommendation?
Mr. Hawksley answered, in a particular case like that, Mr. Chairman, I think the, its
your decision as to the application of the ordinance, we are looking at it from the
view point of if there is any problem of the Planning Boards point of view of having
multiple family house in the area.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close that hearing.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Gunderud stated, Mr. Chairman, we have had opened the hearing on 4924, which was the
Special Use Permit, so, I assume you have to take a vote on that.
f
Mr. Caballero stated, the hearing we just heard was 44925 on the Variance, formally closed..
On the 4924 on the Special Use Permit.
Page -12-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move to deny it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is moved already because it is an illegal.....
Mr. Caballero asked, all in favor.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close Appeal 4924.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close appeal 44924.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next item:
Appeal #930, at the request of Dr. Muhammad Ali Afridi, seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §421, 1f4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a church on
property located on the corner of Myers Corners Road & All Angels Road, and being
Parcel 446258-02-628535, in the Town of Wappinger.
William Moreau, Engineer representing Dr. Afridi, and Dr. Afridi were present.
Mr. Moreau stated, I don't know if you recall but we were here once before and then we
have been to the Planning Board and now we are back to you for the request for the
Special Use Permit at this point. We have also been to the County Planning Board, you
have a letter dated September 10th, stating that they have no objections and we are
currently......
Due to a malfunction in the tape the following portion of the Minutes are incomplete.
Mr. Caballero read letters into the record from abutting property owners Robert Hirsch,
and John Villani who objected to the Special Use Permit. Letters on file.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak for or against the appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Landolf i made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit with the recommendation of
the Planning Board.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to second the motion with the conditions that the Planning Board
require a Long Enviornmental Assessment Form, review the impact on the residential area,
and do impact affect, ingre6% egress.
Page -13-
October 14th, 1986
r 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.
LM
01
Page -14-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #931, at the request of Weldon McWilliams, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
for a detached garage with a sideyard setback of (2) foot where (10) feet is required on
property located onRoute 376, and being Parcel #6259-04-939059, in the Town of Wappinger.
There was no one present.
Due to a malfunction on the tape the next portion of the minutes are incomplete.
John Amama - adjoining property owner.
Objects to 2 foot from the road,asthetics, no other building in area is similar.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you don't want a motion on whether we should grant him.the variance
or not because I am willing to vote on it regardless of whether he is here or not.
Mr. Caballero stated, I will entertain a motion to deny it.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move it be denied. The reason being is that it is too close. There
is no hardship involved and Ialso question the playhouse being, which is shown on the
diagram as being too close.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion to deny the requested va-riance,, I have a second from
Mr. Hirkala.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Themotion was carried.
Mr. Landolf i - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearifing-.
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. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #932, at the request of Michael Lynch, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421,
Assessory uses,59 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the keeping of
3 dogs on a property that is not at least 2 acres where only 2 dogs are permitted on
461 property located on #2 Spring Hill Court, and being Parcel #6359-03-212246, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Page -15-
October 14th, 1986
Michael Lynch was present.
Mr. Lynch stated, just a quick story, before we even bought this 3rd dog we went to the dog
warden and the Town Clerk to find out how many dogs that we could have according to the
warden and the Town Clerk we could have 5 I think, so as far as that requirement. Later on
Mr. Gunderud came up to the house because somebody filed a complaint and that person isn't
present here and he called the dog warden and asked him kind of keep the dogs tied up, he
got tired of the urination on the plants and being ruined and stuff so Mr. Gunderud came
upand showed us the Zoning that it is 2 dogs per acre. Now, previously going back after
Mr. Gunderudcame to the house I made various phone calls to the Town Hall 2 weeks after he
came up, the Town Clerk said you can have 5 dogs, you can have 3 dogs, you can have whatever,
there is the leash law that doesn't state how many dogs you can have, my felling is that the
dog warden says you can have whatever, he is the one who should know.
Mr. Landolfistated, the leash law is not connected to the issue.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, relative to our Zoning Ordinance says is allowed on this?
This is one acre, their property?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, the law states that you can, private kennels are permitted in
the residential zones and the definition section of a private kennel says that......
Mr. Landolfi stated, 5 dogs or more constitutes a kennel and to have a kennel in the Town
of Wappinger you have to have 10 acres.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it says the keeping of 3 or more dogs or 3 or more cats over 5 months
of age not for commercial purposes is a private kennel, and then private kennels can only be
on property that is over 2 acres.
Mr. Caballero asked, so based on that complaint that is why you made him come in for....
Mr. Gunderud stated, well, .....private kennel because they don't have 2 acres.
Mr. Lynch stated, there is a dog license that the Town issues and because of this whole
thing of Mr. Gunderud coming up and I would not want it known but that is where son ended
up with this whole ordeal due to loosing the son and my other son is mildly retarded, he
is wondering if Mr. Gunderuds coming up to the house have had the Town Board take him away
because his dog is being taken away.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I sort of resent the fact that you are sitting there telling us that
you have a family problem that is our fault.
Mr. Lynch answered, no, I am saying I went through the Town and....
Mr. Hirkala stated, when I came in here I was all set to say, ghee this guy has no problem
we have all kinds of good letters and he is sitting there blaming it on us.
Mr. Lynchstated, I asked the Town and what happened is everybody said yes, and now the Town
says no.
Mr. Hirkala stated, fine, we are the Zoning Board of Appeals, you are here to ask us what
the Zoning Ordinance says, that is what the law is not what somebody tells you off the
kw record.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if you came in with 10 dogs the Town Clerk, by law would give you that
license. If you look at the license that N.Y.S. has, and she is just acting as a functionary
Page -16-
October 14th, 1986
for the State. She does not count the dogs.
Mr. Lynch stated, I went to the dog warden and asked him...
Mr. Cortellino stated, the wrong person. The dog warden knows beans about the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Lynch asked, why didn't he tell me that?
Mr. Cortellino answered, I don't know.
Mr. Lynch stated, Mr. Gunderud is the only one who -knows.
Mr. Cortellino stated, Mr. Gunderud is the only one who could possibly.....
Mr. Caballero stated, gentlemen, I think going back and forth is completely out of order.
All we have to do is make a decision with our Zoning Ordinance allows him to have 3 dogs
or it does not allow him to have 3 dogs.
Mr. Lynch stated, here is a picture of my house.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter here from a neighbor that says that the property is
well maintained, that the dogs are kept within the boundries, your dogs are kept in good
health, clean and they are not noisy on the property from a Mr. Jeffrey Fisher. Letter on
file. And you have a picture of the property which looks in excellent shape.
Mr. Lynch stated, all that I am requesting is to keep the 3rd dog until it dies, or until
one of them dies, that is all I am asking. I would rather not get rid of it due to my sons
condition.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak either for
or against this appeal.
Brian Foy - lives directly next door.
I object. Noise at all hours of the morning beginning when theylet them out at 5 o'clock
in the morning.
Mr. Caballero asked, are the dogs running around loose?
Mr. Foy answered, no, ne;keeps he leaves 2 in the pen and he walks one and if 2 of them
decide to act up they act up in the morning at 5 o'clock and I object to it.
Mr. Caballero asked, so your objection is the noise of the dogs?
Mr. Foy answered, the noise of the dogs and the result of the puppies from the ellict use
of the house for breeding.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you making a statement that they using and selling dogs for
business?
Mr. Foy answered, that is right.
LV Mr. Caballero stated, so the objection to the noise level of the dogs would be whether it
was 3 dogs or 2 dogs?
Page -16-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Foy answered, that is right to, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak.
There was no one else.
Mr. Lynch stated, aboutthe breeding, we did breed and the puppies were given away. We
sometime in thefuture we wouldlike to have a business, we realize we can't now, but if
the dogs are given away with our name and make a show dog we have a good building ground
to start a business.
Mr. Caballero asked, so what you are saying is that you would like to breed.
Mr. Lynch answered, it is -non-profit. We don't really want to breed, no. The one we breed
this time had; so we can't breed here.
Mr. Caballero asked, what kind of dogs are they?
Mr. Lynch answered, boxer. As far as ....yes, I do walk them at 5 o'clock in the morning
because that is what time I leave for work and if they see another dog or hear a noise
they will bark sometimes. It is not that I don't try to quiet them down but its the oldest
one, she is slow sometimes going to the bathroom and you have to try to get her in as quickly
as I can to get the other guys out.
Mr. Cortelino asked, how old is the other one?
Mr. Lynch answered, she is...
Mrs. Lynch answered, the oldest is 4 and we have a almost 2 year old and one very old.
Mr. Caballero stated, we also have a second letter from a second neighbor, I believe
is Jean & Jim O'Connor which also they say the dogs are well maintained and they are
considerate people. They arenot barking all day long except for 2 neighbors that say there
isno problem with the dogs. Any additional questions?
Mr. Cortellino asked, where are the dogs kept?
Mr. Lynch answered, in the house unless we are out.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you are in the first?
Mr. Lynch answered, the first house on the right.
Mrs. Lynch stated, Mr. Foy stood before you and made a statement about the dogs that I own.
Mr. Foy takes, I believe at this point, a hardship because when we moved into the area he
has an Akita dog of his own and I asked him to keep his dog restrained which he has since
the time that I had to approach him twice before asking him again that I would go to the
dog warden if I had to which I have done with everyone of my neighbors. Mr. Foy does also
tie his dog outside, his dog does continuosly bark and it causes an upset and my dogs
respond to them.
Page -17-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Lynch stated, again with that, up the street a person does have 10 acres and they have
4 dogs and they roam the whole neighborhood.
Mrs. Lynch stated, we have had up to 8 dogs in our yard, I have boys with medical conditions.
My husband is not here to complain but my son has a very seriuos conditions with his bowels
where all we need is any kind of infection ......... for that reason I have asked my neighbors
to please keep =the dogs ......
Mr. Caballero stated, you understand the Zoning Enforcement Officer, he has a complaint he
has nochoice but to go out and....
Mrs. Lynch stated, we understand that he has to go out and he has...
Mr. Caballero stated, and our duty is to interpret the Zoning ordinance to make a decision
from there.
Mrs. Lynch stated, by the same token I have asked the dog warden to come out and do his
part with the law to. It comes under the restraining law.
Mr. Caballero stated, the dog warden may not be knowledgeable of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Lynch stated, no, and the Zoning Administrator is not knowledgeable either that there
was a leash law in effect.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I am knowledgeable.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think we have heard everything that we wanted to hear. May I
have a motion from the Board.
Mr. Lynch stated, the life span of these dogs are not very long. They are about 7 to 10
years, and the oldest one has hurt her leg so, I don't think that she is going to last much
longer.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make amotion that the variance be granted.
Mr. Caballero asked, on what basis?
Mr. Urciuoli answered, the dogs are well kept, pose no probolems, they are not kept out all
day long on a leash, they are kept inside with the stipulation that if one dog does pass it
is not replaced, it is kept down to 2 dogs.
Mr. Caballero asked for a second on the motion. There isno second on the motion, can I have
a motion to deny the variance?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second his motion with an amendment. That there continue to be
every effort made to keep the dogs on their property and quiet. And, I have a problem with
the 5 o'clock in the morning, I had the same condition where I live and I know it can get
to be real.....
Mr. Lynch stated, yes, that one up the street can keep you up to.
ko, Mr. Hirkala asked, is there some way that at 5 o'clock in the morning you can keep that dog
quiet?
Page -18-
Octoberl4th, 1986
Mr. Lynch answered, either that ormy son can take him out before he goes to school and that
will be about 7.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a second on thEhotion with an added condition in reference to...
Mr. Hirkala stated, that every effort continue to be made to keep the dogs on the property
and quiet and that at 5 o'clock in themorning the dog be kept quiet. And if you have to
wait to walk them you wait to walk them. Do you agree with that George?
Mr. Urciuoli answered, fine.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Cortellino -nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - nay
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero stated, themotion has been denied.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have another motion to make.
Mr. Caballero asked, you would like to make a motion to deny?
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes. I feel very sympathetic, not for the adults but for their:�;ChilO,
a pet, if they would like we move to make a motion where they could keep the third dog
6 months to a year, prepare the kid for giving away the dog to someone else, if they would
like that type of thing. Would that stick you before I make the motion?
Mr. Caballero stated, do we understand the. motion to be to deny the variance but allowing
the appellant to have up to a year, we will check in 6 months to find out the progress.
Mr. Lynch stated, I think the only thing I can do is have the dog put to sleep, I tried
it with some person and.... no.
Mr. Landolfi stated I was going to second that but...
Mr. Caballero asked, the motion was to deny the variance?
Mr. Landolfi stated, 3 of us denied it so it is denied.
Mr. Lynch asked, howlong do I have untilI have to put the dog to sleep now?
Mr. Caballero answered, I think 3 months..
Mr. Landolfi stated, we never said you had to put the dog to sleep, you did.
Mr. Lynch answered, no, but I, that is why I am saying.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public heraing.
AL Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Page -19-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #934, at the request of Donald M. Corbin, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
on a lot which does not have road frontage on a legal town road on property located on
160 Diddell Road, and being Parcel #6359-02-685574, in the Town of Wappinger.
Donald Corbin was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, you have a piece of property that does not have legal frontage?
Mr. Corbin answered, according to Hans.
Mr. Gunderud answered, it is Parcel #2 on the map which is landlocked from Diddell Road by
section of a ROW which is on Parcel U. It is all blacktopped now, the map shows it as a
gravel driveway but actually it is all blacktopped driveway, quite wide.
Mr. Landolfi asked, Mr. Corbin, will you be living in this..
Mr. Corbin answered, one of my boys will be living there.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can I ask for some history on this?
Mr. Gunderud answered, thelot was subdivided recently, subdivision approval was given by the
Planning Board.
Mr. Hirkala asked, which lot was subdivided?
kbo Mr. Gunderud answered, Parcel 1& 2, well Parcel 2 was broken off of Parcel 3 and gave it to
parcel 1.
Mr. Hirkala asked,Parc e 1 2 and 1 were split away from Parcel 3 without road frontage
recently?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no.
Mr. Corbin stated, 2 pieces were already separate parcels, a piece of the larger parcel
was added to the small one.
Mr. Gunderud stated, parcel 1 existed. Parcel 2 was added to parcel 1 to make a large
parcel.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so parcel 1 and 2 no longer exist, they are one parcel?
Mr. Gunderud stated, one parcel.
Mr. Cortellino asked, parcel 1 and 2 are really, some of them is parcel 1 now?
Mr. Gunderud stated, this was before the Planning Board prior before the time I came to
the Town, I came in at the end of the subdivision approval.
Mrs. Corbin stated, we had 2 lots that were on the tax rolls, we were taxed separate for
both parcels. One lot was parcel 1, the other lot was parcel 2 and the other one was 9 ..
Mr. Corbin stated, parcel 2 was taken off of parcel 3 and added to parcel 1.
Page -20-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, so then you have one lot. Parcel 1 and 2 no longer are 2 lots.
They are one lot, you have 1._ tax number for them?
Mr. Corbin answered, yes, one tax number for 1 and 2.....
Mr. Cortellino stated, just so I am sure that I have it right, 43.6 acres of parcel 1 gets
added to 1.38 acres of parcel 2 making a total of 1.74 acres, that is now parcel 1, am
I correct?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, so there is no parcel 2, parcel 1 goes from here to here to the
end of the paper.
Mr. HIrkala asked, so what are you asking for?
Mr. Corbin stated, I say parcel 1 and 2 which is one parcel now, that already has a 25 foot
right of way off ofmy 40 foot right of way. Parcel 3 only has the 15 foot right of way
onto it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words the Planning Board created an illegal subdivision?
Mr. Gunderud stated, yes.
Mr. Corbin stated, it seem like somebody put the cart befo rethe horse. We should have come
here first, right?
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is what it is, and illegal subdivision. Created a lot without
road frontage.
Mr. Corbin stated, I say that it has 25 feet and my house, which is parcel 3 only has
15 feet of road frontage.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no, that is the point. The Zoning Ordinance doesn't say right of way is
road frontage, it actually has to be deeded land to the road.
Mrs. Corbin stated, but parcel 1 had that for years, had a deed with a legal right of way to
the road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you said legal right of way. The Town ordinance says it has to be a
part of the parcel, it can't be a right of way.
Mrs. Corbin stated, the way it is written up in the deed, it is written up as a right of
way. We could not sell that parcel of land, deed the property over without deeding the
right of way.
Mr. Hirkala stated, exactly, and that was prior to the Zoning Ordinance in the Town of
Wappinger, that deed.
Mrs. Corbin answered, right.
Mr. Hirkala stated, after that the Planning Board had no right to subdivide because you had
LV no legal property, right Hans?
Mr. Gu nderud answered, the Planning Board did allow the subdivision, but his subdivision
Page -21-
October 14th, 1986
did not result in anymore lots than were there before, all it did was allow for a larger
parcel. So, you are right in a sense that the Planning Board should have made the applicant
come to the Zoning Board prior to the completion of the subdivision to get a variance for
that parcel combined parcel. It is a good road, it is a macadam road, one of the better
private roads that we have in the Town of Wappinger and there is access to that lot from
that road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, according to the map I have in front of me the blacktop ends near
the end of old parcel 1.
Mr. Gunderud stated, well, that is incorrect.
Mr. Corbin stated, it took a few years to get this passed so by the time the few years was
up why it was blacktopped. It is all blacktopped now.
Mr. Cortellino asked, to where?
Mr. Gunderud answered, all the way out to Diddell Road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you misunderstand. The blacktop, though I don't know where parcel 3
is or what we are trying to do this evening, parcel 3 is over here, right underneath a pro-
posed tile field'of old parcel 2, but they show the blacktop ending before it hits old
parcel 2.
Mr. Corbin stated, the complete right of way, 40 foot right of way is blacktopped.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what I am saying is that it doesn't even show a right of way for
kw parcel 3.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what are you asking for?
Mr. Caballero stated, generally when we get a property like this we tell the appellant
that there is no servicesonthe road. Why are we getting....
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am trying to find out what he is asking for, which lot?
Mr. Gunderud answered, lot 1 and 2.
Mr. Hirkala asked, now what is this existing gravel drive?
Mr. Gunderud answered, in from Diddell Road you mean?
Mr. Cortellino answered, no, it comes in from parcel 3.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is where his proposed driveway ends.
Mr. Gunderud stated, there is a number of driveways and roads over there. You know this
is old property, it goes way back, 10 acres in the back. But if you look at the map
parcel 3 has legal road frontage of 40 feet on Diddell Road. Parcel 3 owns 40 feet
and these other parcels that are off this parcel 3 have easements accross. It is a
simple access lot on a private road which is on parcel 3.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Landolfi to make them aware of what their problems are there.
Page -22-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, we are obligated to let you know that there are, you may be denied of
school bus might not even go in, perhaps oil deliveries may not want to come in, perhaps
fire protection could be questionable if the road is not serviceable.
Mrs. Corbin stated, the fire dept. comes intq our property all the way to the back to out
pond to load up their trucks e verytime they are on Diddell Road so that there is no problem.
The school buses do not go up the main road on Diddell road to pick up anybody, it doesn't
matter if it is Spring Hill, paved Town roads or what so that is no problem. We have had
fuel deliveries for 30 years. We do not plan to sell, we are just, the only reason why we
even went and subdivided was so we wouldnot have this hassle when we want to build because
the other lot which was an original lot was to small.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so as long as you understand that parcel 1 and 2 are one lot now.
Mr. Gunderud stated, there is a filed map.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to grant the variance.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #936, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422, NB, of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a 25 foot rearyard setback where
30 feet is required on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-
574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to close appeal #934.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close that hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Herb Redl was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, was this file ever updated in reference to New Hackensack Road being
widened by the State. I believe that we had a letter from the Town Assessor's that that
road was going to be widened. This is a rearyard setback but anything that we do we have
to remember that New Hackensack Road is going to be widened so there is going to be less
frontal property there.
Mr. Redl stated, I came up before the Planning Board and the Planning Board Chairman said
he had visited with the County and they wrote relative that it was not effective.
Mr. Caballero asked, why do you need a 5 foot variance?
Page -23-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Redl stated, I recently came here months ago for a front line variance and in the
meantime I have gone before the Planning Board since then and received a lot line adjustment.
for a portion of the property that I own so it, is now, originally the property went across
here which why I had to ask for a 5 foot variance all the way across the back in this one
corner now. Because the size of the building and the size of the existing land the lot size
is why I need the 5 foot variance. In fact, I dont know if you recall or not but it was
suggested I not use the front line but consider moving the building back and coming in for
a rear line.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you contemplate coming in for a variance in the front?
Mr. Redl answered, no.
Mr. Caballero asked, suppose the State takes property in the front where you end up being
too close to the road?
Mr. Reld stated, if you exam my lot right now where the road is it sets, the lot itself sets
quite a ways off the road.
Mr. Caballero stated, I see that you have 9 parking spaces in the back, is that including
the 25 feet from the back of the road, of the building?
Mr. Redl answered, no, that is beyond it. The 25 feet is just that one corner off to your
left.
Mr. Caballero stated, a have a couple of correspondence, the County of Dutchess Dept. of
Planning. Letter on file. I also have a letter from the Planning Board. Letter on file.
If I understand it you only need a 5 foot setback variance on this portionof the building.
Mr. Redl answered, that is correct.
Mr. Caballero asked, the other portion of it is?
Mr. Redl answered, meets requirement.
Mr. Caballero asked, approximately howmuch footage is that 5 foot needed?
Mr. Redl answered, I estimate about 20 feet.
Mr. Caballero asked, the total length of the building is?
Mr. Redl answered, 80 feet.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak in favor or against this
appeal.
Joe Incoronato.
I would just like to know at this point, I have sat here various times and heard numerous
variances that have seem to have come from that property, I would like to know how: many
variances were granted on that property.
Mr. Caballero answered, none. On this particular piece, none that we know of.
Mr. Incoronato stated, right now there are 3 distinct uses,there are T.V.'s, T.V. rentals,
cassette rentals,.....
Page -24-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, we are not talking about that property. This would be the transmission
property.
Mr. Incoronato stated, I sit corrected.
Estelle Zak.
I just wanted to know what Mr. Redl had in mind and you just answered my question. I think
you have residents of our street who have come to you the last time Mr. Redl was up here
for a variance objecting to that type of business for several reasons. I think one of
them was safety reasons, chemical, where is he going to put the chemicals that he is going
to be storing or taken away. I think you should really take into consideration some of the
objections of the people that attended that hearing at that time. Also, I think Mr. Redl
has violated so many things in this Town and we still persist to go ahead and do others.
I think we should really make sure that he is not taking away from the character of the
residential area which he has already done.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, can you define any violations?
Mrs. Zak answered, yes.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, such as?
Mrs. Zak answered, many uses, He has got a tractor trailer parked in his premises or he did
have tractor trailers.
Mr. Caballero asked, on this particular property, or on another property in the Town of
Wappinger?
Mrs. Zak answered, he owns all this property. Mr. Redl had been very, very, I just don't want
to come out and say it, but I think he is ruining the entire Town of Wappinger. I know his
reputation in Plesant Valley, I know people who have been dealing with him and he is
really hurt many residential people. Why should we have to put up with it and have the
same thing done to us. We have been living here for 30 years, why hasn't Mr. Redl buy
propertyin Poughkeepsie, or Plesant Valley and take away their character, residential
character? Why does he cane here and spoil ours residents and the way we live? My
property was worth more 20 years ago then it is now because he is taking away from the
character.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is understandable, I believe the request is a variance on a 5 foot
setback...
Mrs. Zak stated, I don't think it should be granted. Why should we be granting variances
all over this Town.
Mr. Caballero asked, for what reason would you like us to deny that 5 foot variance?
Mrs. Zak answered, why doesn't he find something that would be more suitable? Put up
something that is more suitable. Where he is intending to place this I believe it is sort
of a blind corner. We live on Dorothy Heights we come out, we can't see what is there now.
I think he is really hurting us.
Mr. Caballero asked if she had any additions.
A resident asked:
Am I right that upon saying he plans on putting a transmission shop there? Is this the
piece of property across the street from McDonald's?
Page -25-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero answered, I believe their intent there would be if he got a Special Use Permit
to put in a transmission place. This particular hearing we are holding now is reference to
a 5 foot setback from the property line. The ordinance says it has to be 25 feet. About
20 feet of this building infringes on that 25 feet by 5 feet. Regardless of what he is doing
with the building, the only concern of this hearing is whether we are going to allow them that
5 foot variance or not. We make him adhere to the Zoning Ordinance and he cannot put the
building in that 20 feet that infringes on the 25 foot backyard setback. This is the concern
of this hearing only. There might be other appeals for Special Use Permit or for other
variance concerning what he wants to do with the property. This appeal is strictly whether
we are going to allow him or not allow him to infringe on the 25 foot rear setback.
The resident stated, suppose I put it this way. Now if you do go along with that request,
his next thing left with another variance request, is that?
Mr. Caballero stated, yes, he might come with other variances or Special Use Permits and
those are separate hearings. We have some that have been, hearings that we have sent the
application to the Planning Board for their review to other interested concerns, highway
department, the engineer and those have to come back to us before we make a decision and we
also have noted residents comments on that.
The resident stated, I just thought I would say this one thing. I may not be here at the
next meeting. We do have 2 transmission places on 9 now. Riverview and one down at the
corner of the light at Grand Union there, we don't need another one there in the immediate
area if thats the case. I just want to go on record saying that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you should let the people know that under our
current Zoning Laws that this a permitted use in that particular area.
Mr. Caballero answered, yes, but I am strictly addressing the 5 foot setback. The appeal
they have in front of me. There is another appeal later on for a sign variance and there
will be an appeal for the Special Use Permit. Under a Special Use Permit he is allowed by
right to put in that Transmission place on that property as long as he meets all the
requirements and adheres to the restrictions that we may put upon him.
Mr. Incoronato stated, Mrs. Zak brought up the issue of trailers, and I am not sure what
property they sit on but there are a number of trailers seem to have mushroomed over night.
Mr. Caballero stated, the trailers are on the other property where the storage is and I
have concerns about those trailers there, whether they are allowed to be on that property.
The Zoning Officer would have to check to see if he is allowed to do that, and if he is
not then he should be asked to remove them from that property. That is a separate property
altogether. Once before we had a case similar to this and we found that our law says that it
has to be on the same property. As far as you know Hans, is there any violations of this
particular property that we are addressing?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no,there are none.
Mr. Caballero stated, no violations on record.
Mrs. Zak stated, I just wanted to say that I think Mr. Redl had long term plans when he came
in for his first variance or the first permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, but he never received it.
Mrs. Zak stated, well, he came to the Planning Board with a site plan for those warehouses
Page -26-
October 14th, 1986
he was not given permission to cut down any trees and we went ahead and cut them all and
what did our Town do about it? And he had those plans long in mind and now you are letting
him go ahead and complete those plans.
Mr. Caballero stated, what I am looking for from you people in the audience is to tell me
why should this Board not grant this 5 foot setback variance. That is what we are looking
for.
Mr. Incoronato stated, the Board should not grant the variance because in §514 it says that
the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not grant any variation or adjustment in the strict
application and provisions of this ordinance unless it finds, and it pointly sights 3
conditions, that the hardship is due to unique circumstances and not the general conditions
of the neighborhood. Is it doing unique circumstances? Nothing about that house being 5 feet
over or under the ..... Second condition, if a hardship shall not have resulted from any
action or the applicant, that house was there when he bought the property, andy hardship he
has created he has created.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is no house there, there is a garage going to be built.
Mr. Incoronato stated, the point I am trying to make is that whatever results, whatever he is
appealing is a result of his action or lack of action so he controls his own destiny. It
says that the hardship shall have not have resulted from any act of the applicant. The
hardship would result only if the applicant puts the garage up of those dimensions. So they
can put a smaller garage, and third, for reasons fully set forth on the finding of the Board
strict application with provisions of this ordinance with deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of such land or building. You can still use that land for general business
application. You have to scale the building down, it is as simple as that. You don't
satisfy any of the conditions that this Board can technically grant a variance for and I
say under the, what you have in the way you cannot because not only do you violate one of
the tenants, any one violation would constitue grounds for denying the application but what he
is proposing violates all 3 conditions.and this is what you would like to consider.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this variance on a 5 foot setback.
There was no one else.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a question, I would like to know why he can't make the building
smaller to fit the, realizing it is a unique lot, it is an undersized lot in the zone.
Now, it is undersized, it is unique only in the fact that it is undersized, there is no
practical difficulty as far as developing that lot as far as natural, contour of the land,
rock outcropping, wetlands or anything like that as far as that land is concerned?
Mr. Redl stated, it is the size of the lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so it is the size of the lot that creates the problem. Now, why can't
you reduce the size of the building?
Mr. Redl answered, because it is a transmission agency and it is a franchise, in fact, for
the, we have reviewed this before, and not for the public though, this will be a unique and
one of the very first probably in Dutchess County that the large overhead doors will be in
kw the back of the building. The front of the building is designed to look like a store with
shrubs and so forth across the front. We have also minimized parking in the front and have
a great deal of greens and shrubs and so forth. Again, the building will be of earth colors
to comply with some of the thoughts of the Board.
Page -27-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, Mr. Redl, if you remove 5 feet from the back of that building by the
amout of footage that you are infringing on the 25 foot setback could you or could you not
build that building there?
Mr. Redl answered, you could build it but the, it would cause a hardship on the use of the
building.
Mr. Caballero asked, on what respect?
Mr. Redl answered, because there is certain amount of room needed in the front of the vehicle
and the rear of the vehicle to be able to move around.
Mr. Caballero asked, how much room do you need in front of the vehicle, in back of the vehicle
and how much space ........ From the back view of this building you have 1,2,3,4,5,6 bays?
Mr. Redl answered, that is correct.
Mr. Caballero asked, and in the front you have an office space?
Mr. Redl answered, in the front there is just an office door.
Mr. Caballero asked, couldn't you remove one bay and make that office smaller so that you
could adhere to our Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Redl answered, this is the minimum size they would accept, ARMCO.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think our concern is what AAMCO sets the building.
Mr. Redl stated, you could reduce the building down to meet the requirements but if I could
get them to accept it.
Mr. Caballero stated, but you are asking us to give you a variance on our ordinance so that
you won't have to ask them?
Mr. Redl answered, I have, but, in fact I have even been before the doctors, gone before the
doctors that own the property behind there trying to buy the property so I wouldn't have to
even ask for this variance but I have been unsuccessful.
Mr. Caballero stated, so you could make the building adhere to our Zoning Ordinance by reducing
the size of the building in that portion of the...
Mr. Redl answered, I would loose the tenant.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is not the question. You could make the building adhere to our
Zoning Ordinance by removing 5 feet off the back for the amount of space, the footage that
you are infringing on our ordinance?
Mr. Redl answered, yes. The other point I want to make, at that end of the building where
the larger doors are where you handle vehicles that is where the space is needed most.
Mr. Caballero answered, I can see that, you can move them to the other side and leave the
r reduce the office space. That is an alternative that you have available to you. Move the
larger panels to the other side and put a smaller office space by 5 feet, 5 feet by 20.
Mr. Redl stated, I think we have been trying to work around just to accomplish that so that
we wouldn't have to be asking for the variance. But because of work space, storage area
Page -28-
October 14th, 1986
inside and the offices in such, AAMCO, they have pretty strict requirements what is need@d.
Mr. Caballero stated, it seems that you are loosing 20 s/f, as I see it. If you say that
you are only infringing on 20 feet of the building and you only have to go back 5 feet you
are only loosing 20 s/f of your building to meet our ordinance. I don't think that is much
of a amount of space, that surely wouldn't make a difference on the project.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think there has been any proof of practical difficulty.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to make a comment.
There was no one.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to deny the variance. The fact that there is no practical
difficulty involved in this.
Mr. Cortellino 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. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #937, at the request of Thomas J Morley Jr., seeking a variance of Article IV,_
§411.2 & §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the subdivision of a
lot, into 2 lots where one suck lot will have frontage only on a private road and the other
such lot will be less than the required 80,000 square feet lot area requirement, but will
have legal road frontage on property located on Smithtown Road, and being Parcel #6156-02-
930942, in the Town of Wappinger.
Thomas Morley was present.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, one of these lots will not have the proper acerage for
that particular...
Mr. Gunderud answered, right, since the total lot is 3.52 acres and the Zoning Ordinance
requires 2 acre minimum per lot, that would be approximately 4 acres, no way you can get
22 2 acres out of 3.52.
Mr. Morley stated, I guess the R-80 is what, 60,0002 160,000 total comes out to 153,000
so 6,000 is with 668 square feet short.
Mr. Caballero asked, how short?
Page -29-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Morley answered, approximately 6,668. That is an approximate that dotted line there.
Mr. Caballero stated, if we grant a variance this would have to go to the Planning Board.
Mr. Morley finished, for subdivision approval.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, do you own this property now?
Mr. Morley answered, yes. I owned this prior to the new zoning laws. It was originally,
I guess R-40.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a question Hans. I think I only see 2 properties that are
2 acres or more. The 2 acre zone, everything else is of the 2 acres.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the Zoning changed.
Mr. Caballero stated, you are only here because you want to maximize this lot into 2?
Mr. Morley answered, I want to build on that second lot if possible. At this point that is
what I amthinking of doing, building on the second lot. I have a house which exists on
the private road lot and I want to build a new house. The house that I have now is too
small for me as it stands, so I am thinking about building a brand new house.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you know on the lot where you have no access to the road that no
services will be granted by the Town on that, to that particular lot.
Mr. Morley stated, the rule is the same, basically as I hear earlier. We have all the
services and its a paved road, our private road. You are talking about what?
Mr. Caballero answered, bus, fire.
Mr. Morley answered, we have bus, we just walk down to Smithtown Road, thats all.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anybody in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this particular appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero stated, I see your point Charlie that there are alot of .5, .7, .7, .1 acre.
I see a 4.2 on top and most of these lots are under and acre, a majority of them. A vast
majority of them.
Mr. Morley stated, of the 15 lots that surround my property only 4 are currently .4.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, they are all under 2 acres but they are all over an acre. 2.1, 1.5,
1.6, 2 acres, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.
Mr. Caballero stated, most of them are less than 2 acres.
Mr. Urciuoli answered, yes, but they are all over an acre.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he gets this variance, both of those lots will be over an acre.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it would be about and acre and a half, the other lot.
Page -30-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I personally don't see any problem.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what type of topography is on that property?
Mr. Morley answered, there is a slight, basically it goes downhill, I am on a hill.
Languilli's property starts to slope off the other side, it comes down on the south side of
Smithtown Road jsut open, I think that thats considered, it might be considered wetlands
but on my property its all dry, its a downhill slope.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, are you familiar with this property?
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the grade on this property?
Mr. Gunderud answered, somewhat, 10% or so.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you see any problems with this property being broken up?
Mr. Gunderud answered, I would rather not comment because its, as far as the Zoning
Administrator goes it is an R-80 zone, the lots are under R-80 zoning.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have only one concern. The Town Board in their wisdom, they
must have seen all these lots, I pointed out that they are all under 2 acres, why did they
zone it 2 acres. Legally we have no right to create a problem when there is enough acerage
on the lot that conforms right now. I don't know why the area was re-soned 2 acres, but
since it is we should not be creating a less than lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is why I asked the question on what the grade is. One of my concerns
is if we grant a variance to subdivide and it goes to the Planning Board, draws the line, the
Planning Board approves the subdivision but there are other problems with the lot other than
what we can see here, such as contours, whatever, it might very well be that the property
shouldn't evern be subdivided but he will end up with a subdivision because the Zoning Board
of Appeals says its okay to do it. This is what I am concerned about. We are not in the
business of determining whether a subdivision, a site plan is valid or not on a subdivision.
The Planning Board is.
Mr. Morley stated, I don't think there is enough of an angle of slope to the property to
warrant concern.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is not a steep slope. There may be some other concerns.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there is a slope, number one, not a steep one, rock outcroppings, water
runoff, drainage problems that might be created with a second lot. Where are the wells
located and septic located on the other lots.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think you are missing my point. My point was, since it is zoned
2 acres, and there is not 2 acres, what legal right do we have to create a less then 2 acre
lot?
Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is ....legislating if we do it.
,,Mr. Caballero stated, that is why the appellant is here, to get a variance which is to go
away from the strict interpretation of our Zoning Ordinance. I see here a large lot. Every
other lot there is, with the exception of a few, less than 2 acres.
Mr. Cortellino stated, but the Town knew that when they rezoned.
Ober1
' o14th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have another concern. This is not a surveyors map. The proportions
that are drawn on here are obviously not right. If you are looking at one little parcel as
1.79 acres, next to something that is going to be 1.5, the 1.5 is 3 times bigger. Proportion-
ately it is not right. It is not done to a scale.
Mr. Morley stated, that particular section there, I don't understand what that is either.
This came off of your map. However, the measurements I guess are all specified by deed, I
would imagine in order to be down....
Mr. Hirkala stated, 77 x 175 is not 1.79 acres.
Mr. Morley stated, asides from that that is not relevent, I don't think. Of the 15 parcels
you are looking at right there we only have 4 from the ......that says 2 acre, the R-80
right now. Basically, all are non -conforming and we also have the precident of Mr. Reager,
within the last year subdividing his property. Piccone purchased that lot I guess in the
last year and a half.
Mr. Caballero asked, you mean the bought it within the last year and a half and didn't
come in for a variance?
Mr. Morley answered, Reager came down with the whole process to. He subdivided his 1.5 to
Piccone.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they are both legal lots on Town Road.
Mr. Morley answered, they are both on a Town Road, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you have 208.4 feet, why couldn't you just draw a line on it, you would
still end up with one undersized lot.
Mr. Morley asked, draw the line where?
Mr. Hirkala answered,up the middle.
Mr. Morley answered, the natural lay of the land, I have a couple of pictures here. The
barriers,the reason that I came up with this line here is because I am going with the
barriers, there is a row of Hemlocks which conform roughly to this, this is my approximation
225 feet in heading to the west there off the southeastern corner of the lot is where the
tree line hemlocks start heading North. There currently is a hedgerow of approximately
40 foot hemlocks that conform to that line so I figured it would be easier to cut the line
across the back of these Hemlocks, creating a separate lot which from my current house you
wouldn't be able to see the other property. This is the corner of the property looking in
off the private road. We have solid hedgerow of hemlocks going to the west and then cuts
back up to the North and what I would like to do is have a surveyor go along the west side
of that North running stand of trees.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically you have a lot that doesn't conform and we would have to
bypass our Zoning Ordinance to allow you to put 2 lots in that property.
Mr. Morley stated, right, that is why I am here.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move it be denied. I do not see how we can grant it. We would
be setting up an illegal lot. The place is zoned 2 acres, it is not our perogative to
override the Town Boards Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Page -32-
October 14th, 1986
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
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 #938, at the request of Frank & Juliana Garolfalo, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a mobile home to be used as a
permitted caretakers cottage on residential property which is being used as a legal stable
use on oronerty located on Smith Crossing Road, and being parcel 46359-01-110650, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero stated that the Board would take a 2 minute break. Break was called at
9:10 P.M..
Called back to order at 9:30 P.M..
Frank & Juliana Garofalo were present.
Mr. Garofalo stated, me and my wife operate a thoroughbred racing and breeding farm at that
location. The total acerage is about 140 acres. The mobile home is located almost in the
dead center of the farm.
Mr. Caballero asked, did you say the mobile home is located or you are asking for a variance
to put it in or it is there already?
Mr. Garofalo stated, it is there. We have a permit for it.
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes, years ago they were given a permit for it, now what is your
reason, the permit is expiring?
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, because supposedly .....to replace it given a period of time. A
real college was supposed replace the mobile home.
Mr. Garofalo answered, no. The, as I said we raise thoroughbred race horses and we require
a great amount of help because of the nature of that animal and of course of the changing
nature of the surrounding property and the people available to care for these horses are
limited we have had to provide housing on site. These grooms and excercise boys and
blacksmiths and we request that this be maintained as a residence for one of our employees
who is essential. Prior to this we had our family members, sons and daughters who helped
but they are all married and we are just not physically capable of handling this ourselves
anymore and it has become a hardship and would be a tremendous hardship if we didn't have
enough personnel to assist us with the race horses. We respectfully request that you permit
us to continue having this mobile home. Incidentally, this mobile home is grounded by about
Page -33-
October 14th, 1986
30 acres of woods. It is not visible from either road and has never been an annoyance
to anyone.
Mr. Caballero asked, that mobile home is there now under what circumstances did it get there?
Mr. Garofalo answered, we requested from this Board a permit for use for an employee and
his family. His wife and a child.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that was granted?
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that must have been about 5 years ago, maybe 7.
Mr. Caballero asked, how did this get before this Board today? Were you cited as a
violation?
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes, because the permit was been expired.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it had a time limit on it. The mobil home had a time limit on it. So
the time Dr. Garofalo was going to build his own residence that mobile home was placed
there so that there could be some protection on the site prior to the building the residence
and then he is now developed the property further and as it stands the number of horses
so he does have additional needs now so that is why he is trying to keep the caretakers
cottage, the expansion.
Mr. Caballero asked, what I am trying to get out is did he come in on his own or somebody
complained or you had to cite him or you just happened through paperwork?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it wasn't a complaint per say, because of another appeal that is
before the Board tonight there had been some, lets say, I don't know if you would call them
charges, an individual that complained about another property which has stable use on it
also asked my office to check into other properties or similar uses in the Town of Wappinger.
So there are several other stables in the Town of Wappigner and I did some research and
found out that yes, there were some things that slipped through the cracks, if you will.
It wasn't in a sense a complaint, in that sense. Nobody was bothered by it they just, we
have to conform to all requirements of zoning, you better make sure that all the other
stable are, that is why this is here.
Mr. Caballero asked, the original request to put the mobile home in that spot was because
you were building a house and you wanted to be on the property while the house was being
built?
Mr. Cortellino stated, exactly.
Mr. Garofalo stated, we lived in Bedford Hills and when we bought the property to develop
we had to have somebody on the property while the buildings were being built. The original
purpose of that cottage and we had several horses on the property at that time as well. They
were horsemen caring for those horses. But the main residence was not, the barns were built
before the house was built, but they actually took care of the horses and lived in that
mobile home.
Mr. Cortellino stated, there seems to be a number of residences. Who lives in the main
house?
Mr. Garofalo answered, my wife and I.
Page -34-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, and then there is a caretakers house.
Mr. Garofalo answered, that is the manager's house.
Mr. Cortellino stated, and then there is the helps quarters.
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes there is grooms quarters.
Mr. Cortellino asked, who is living in the mobile home?
Mr. Garofalo answered, the blacksmith. Thoroughbred race horses require a great many people.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how many years has that been there?
Mr. Garofalo answered, I think that is about 6 or 7 years, I believe.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, has that been inspected in a while?
Mr. Gunderud answered, not recently but it was inspected when it was installed, he got a
building permit and a certificate of occupancy, there is no real reason to believe that it
can't deteriorate.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, is there any real reason why this application couldn't
have included that particular application?
Mr. Gunderud asked, the original one?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Mr. Gunderud answered, it could have. I really didn't think it would be relivent.
It was a legally placed mobile home. The caretaker cottage itself is permitted in the
zone and the only questions is in this case can a caretakers cottage be a mobile home. He
has over 100 acres of land. 140 acres of land.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you said the mobile home could be the caretakers home. The manager
is the caretaker, the question becomes what do you call the mobile home, in other words
how many workers can you have, and how many building residing on a piece of property. There
is, as far as I know, one caretakers cottage no matter how larger.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think that legal notice is misleading.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I disagree with that Charlie....
Mr. Landolfi stated, it says here to allow a mobile home to be used as a permitted care-
takers cottage. He already has a caretakers cottage.
Mr. Gunderud stated, this is another caretakers cottage.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many is he allowed.
Mr. Gunderud answered, I think in a case like this I think you have to be practical and
look at what the situation is. He has 140 acres and there is a number of horses there and
I feel that the Zoning Ordinance made.provisions so that you can have some flexibility with
zoning. If you have a use that is permitted, thoroughbred race horses and he has, I don't
know how many horses he has, Mr. Garofalo says that there are a number of professional
people that are requried to support that whole use I would consider them all in a sense
caretakers for the use.
Page -36-
October 14th, 1986
One may be a caretaker taking care of the shoes.
Mr. Garofalo stated, we have grooms, we have jockeys, we have hot walkers and blacksmith
and we have a maintenance man but he doesn't live on the property.
Mr. Hirkala stated, right now the mobile home is being occupied by the blacksmith?
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what happens when the blacksmith no longer lives on the property?
Mr. Garofalo answered, we will get another blacksmith. In this terrain it is very
difficult on race horses, that is why there are very few race horse farms here.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think what I am trying to say is, is there a necessity that the
blacksmith live on the property?
Mr. Garofalo answered, yes. It is a necessity because their shoes loosen all the time and
no hoof no horse and they are definitely a necessity.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, how many horses do you have?
Mr -Garofalo answered, 35.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or
against this appeal.
Ann Fiber.
I don't see where Mr. Garofalo is hurting anybody by having a, the mobile home is already
there in the middle of 30 acres. I am familiar with the care of horses. He is not kidding
when he says he needs a resident blacksmith and if you can offer residence to these
people. You know it is hard to find good help on a horse farm and if you can offer them
residence it helps to hang onto them. So I really don't see where he is hurting anybody
by having this already present.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I imagine this is a very expensive operation, number one, the land,
all the help, the horses and what not, I don't see why the mobile home can't be replaced
by a cottage. I am not objecting to another building being on the site, I am objecting
to a mobile home being on the site. And originally the only reason the variance was
granted was on a temporary condition.
Mr. Garofalo stated, all I can tell you from that, your comment, that the horse business
is pits today, everybody in the horse business today is loosing their shirts and to
build another house there I would just as well get rid of the place. Horses are worth
about 20% of what they were worth 5 years ago. And 5 years ago I had 3 helpers, my
children.
Joe Incoronato.
I think we all appreciate the open country side and the wilderness that first attracted
most of us to Wappinger. I think this gentlemen here holds out the promise of keeping
it a little greener a little longer, if they are a little flexible. I am normally strict
..as you gentlemen will attest to, but I think in this case there are extenuating
circumstances. There is no injury visible or toherwise to surrounding neighbors.
No one even knew about this ....... and again it is just one more element in an equation that
make Dutchess a pretty nice place to live in and as long as we can keep a rural character
a sense of flavor to the Town I think we are all better off and I would
Page -37-
October 14th, 1986
....that you grant him the variance.
Joe Emsley.
I am the property on Smithcrossing Road, right opposite the Garofalo's. They have a
beautiful piece of property there and over the years they have kept it up and the mobile
home in question is completely hidden from the road and I see no reason in the world
why this gentlemen can't continue to have it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I move that the variance be granted. I see no reason why, it is not
changing the character of the neighborhood in any way.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second it with the condition that the mobile home, when the
use stops the mobile home is removed. The problem I have from the mobile home being on
a piece of property like this is that the gentlemen sells the piece of property to
somebody who subdivides it, the mobile home there, ghee we got a lot here, a mobile home
here. We could use it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will amend it to include that condition.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, can I add something to it, that the mobile home meets all Town codes
and it can be inspected.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would go along with that.
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 #939, at the request of Joanne Oakley, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
for a screened in porch where the rearyard is 20 feet when 25 foot is required on property
located on 62 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel 46257-06-341773, in the Town of Wappinger.
Joanne Oakley was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, I believe we have heard this before and it was denied, I am looking
through my papers here. We had a public hearing on this variance on July 15th, 1986
and the request was denied. The Board is under no obligation to re -hear this unless it
elects to.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the concern I have. I believe, I failed to make our meeting with
our legal council, but I believe a recommendation was forthcoming to review those lands
that abut conservation lands, etc..
Page -38-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero answered, we met with counsel, Mike and Charlie were there and we had
another case with a similar problem where the legal counsel told us that we did not have
to rehear a hearing that we already had, this could continue on forever. If we heard it
and denied it there is no, we'are under no obligation to rehear it again.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I thought we discussed the setbacks with her relative to all the
decks and so on in that area. I was just wondering that as of a result of that that would
impact her in any way.
Mr. Caballero stated, nothing has come forward in reference to any changes and then
changes would have to come from the Town Board.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I wasn't at the meeting with the Town Attorney either, but, I know
that under a re -hearing there is a special section of State Law which sets specific
requirements for a re -hearing of an appeal but that is when the applicant himself requests
a re -hearing within 30 days of the time of the denial then the applicant does not have to
pay for a new appeal and so on but in this case Mrs. Oakley has instituted a new appeal,
it is not a re -hearing, it is a brand new appeal and so on but in this case Mrs. Oakley
has instituted a new appeal, its not a re -hearing. This is a brand new appeal, it is on
the same issue. She has, and I have spoken to her, she has some additional information
and she did pay the $35.00 to come for an appeal. I just want to make the Board aware
that I feel that this is a......
Mr. Caballero stated, previous to that we had a case where our Attorney, counsel memo
us on a similar situation and the Board is under no obligation to rehear it even it she
paid for the appeal. It has been denied.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I never heard that.
Mr. Caballero stated, well, I will submit it to you from my correspondence from Jennifer.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have a different question before you even look. Normally, when
a person requests a re -hearing they normally come and request it of us.
Mr. Caballero stated, the other particular case they came and requested a re -hearing and
we voted, as a matter of fact it was a tie vote whether we would hear it or not so the
appeal is incorrectly phrased.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I would disagree. I feel the appeal is a brand new appeal number,
the appellant paid a new fee and has a right as a resident to come before the Board
any number of times she feels she wants to. Any resident can.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I had told the Zoning Administrator, last week or the week before that
on the same subject that we had correspondence from the attorney on that particular subject.
Did you ever bother checking on my comments, did you ever bother checking with the
Attorney to see whether I was right or wrong?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I remember on the re -hearing, that is a different section of State
Law.
-a Mr.Caballero asked, do you have additional information that you feel would sway this Board
to change their denial that was given to you on July 15th?
Mrs. Oakley stated, I think so and I would appreciate it if you could hear me.
Page -39-
October 14th, 1986
IL
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think the same question has to be raised, is there anything new?
Mr. Caballero stated, she says there is. I will take it, as a Chairman, to allow this
hearing to be conducted, I am going to hear it.
Mrs. Oakley stated, thank you. I have never built anything before in the Town of Wappinger.
When it came time to ...screened porch I hired a builder who, he doesn't do this part
time, this is his profession, he was recommended to me and I told him, we sat down and
decided what needed to be done. I told him I wanted all the paperwork done because right
up front was my consideration ...besides not really wanting to break the law was at
future time I would like to re -mortgage my house and I can't do that if I did have
something illegal anyway, and he gave me his professional advice that he has done many,
many things before in this manner. He built in Wappinger and other areas and due to time
schedules and what not he should go ahead and put it up and take care of the paperwork
afterwards which is what happened. I was a little leary and I said to him I want to make
sure that this is going to get done and on a little piece of paper that was the contract
I had hime write down will meet building inspection and he said sure there wouldn't be
any problem. Subsequently, as you know, there was a problem. Now, I also feel that this
is a unique situation because behind me I have at leat 1,000 feet of my property and the
woods that go all the way to Lake Oniad that will never be allowed to be built on by
residentailly or commercially and I feel that the 5 foot is significant and it doesn't
take away anything from the spirit or the looks of the land while at this point going on
the professional advice and I have no other to go by of this builder this structure is
there and it would really prove, I am a single parent and I need something there because
the .... at least 10 feet off and I need to have something there and a financial hardship
of taking it down and having to replace it with something is, I feel that would be a real
financial hardship. I would be more than willing to write in any way the Board found
possible they wanted. I have no intentions of turning the screened porch into a room.
I never want it to be that. It wasn't designed to be that and if that is a concern of
that Board I would write anything that would need to be done to state that I wouldn't
do that.
Mr. Cortellino asked, who was your builder?
Mrs. Oakely answered, James C. Erceg.
Mr. Hirkala asked, have you talked to an attorney in reference to the possibility of
suing this builder?
Mrs. Oakley answered, I have but I find that the fees of the attorney's want is very
prohibitive. It seems like I am kind of stuck in the middle here. I realize what was
done was wrong, and I acknowledged my mistake in it but for what ever it is worth, right
from the beginning I had every intention to do it the right way I just did it backwards
but it was on his professional advice.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you both signed the contract?
Mrs. Oakley answered, I believe so. I don't know.
Mr. Cortellino asked, so there was no building permit, right Hans?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. The contractor did not get a building permit.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what action can we take against the builder?
Mr. Caballero answered, none what so ever.
Page -40-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino asked, for illegally putting up a structure, we can't?
Mr. Gunderud stated, the zoning would only be able to enforce on the property owner.
Mr. Caballero stated, you will only be able to enforce on the young lady who allowed
him to have it on her property.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if I see a lot and I take my 2 x 4's plywood and go around with a
hammer, you can't touch me? I could go around and put up shacks all over Town.
Mr. Gunderud answered, we could stop you if we caught you in the middle of it. The only
thing, I talked to the Town Attorney and she said the only thing we can do is if you come
in with an application for a permit, issued a permit if it is proper and then watch you
every step of the way.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
There was no one to speak.
Mr. Caballero stated, one of the problems we found here the last time we listened to
this case was that on this particular Fieldstone Blvd. every other resident is going to
come in for the same variances because of that Conservation Subdivision. Once a neighbor
sees your porch the next neighbor wants one, they feel that they come in and can have it
because you got a variance, they should have a variance.
Mrs. Oakley stated, I feel perhaps maybe because of the situation of my land being right
behind the woods that it is a unique situation. I would go around the neighborhood
tacking up signs get a permit before you go, don't trust the builder, I mena if that would
help, this was really, I understand the Board's concern and I am not trying to set
precident. I am trying to get out of a bad situation that I got myself in. I do have
the woods behind me, the original builder that development cleared even more than my
property so gosh, I have at least 450 from the back of this structure even to the woods
which I maintain, I see it, I fertilize, I mow and there is bolders, I brought in pictures
bordering the woods so it even looks like my property. So, from a viewpoint of the
landscape of the neighborhood it doesn't even, there is at least 50 foot from where this
structure ends right to where the woods begin which is even more than what .......
Mr. Caballero stated, it was designed that way as a Conservation Subdivision. They wanted
to keep it forever wild. That is why they did not want infringements on the 25 foot
setback.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have got a tough one here. I think if you decide not to grant the
variance on this the only alternative of the Zoning Enforcement Officer is to continue
working on taking that deck down and the enclosure. If she is denied again she can
contest this in court, that means a larger expenditure in dollars for her to get an
attorney and go through that process. Probably she would not win in court. I think you
should give consideration to the plight that the young lady has.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think her honesty cost her here. She could have just as well
perhaps didn't like the neighbors and did nothing at all and I am sure that she wouldn't
even be before us this evening. I think that is another consideration the Board should
look at.
Mr. Caballero asked, what is the pleasure of the Board?
Page -41-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, what are we going to do with the precident?
Mr. Caballero stated, make sure that when you word, if you make a motion to approve it,
make sure that you word it properly so that it cannot bite us in the tail later on.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to make a motion to grant the variance. I feel the
hardship was inherited on her part, not something that she did on her own in any way.
I think in this particular case its is kind of unique because she has a hardship, the
one here that this builder created. It would be a bigger hardship for her to correct it
and I think that is one of the pleasures of our Board to grant variance where there are
hardships and I consider this to be a hardship.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion with a condition that a letter be sent to the Planning
Board that on future Conservation Subdivisions that deed restrictions be checked to
see if people are allowed to put on decks.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would amend his 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 this appeal.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #942, at the request of Jeraldine Latham, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit for a solar
unti with a (13) for (7) inch setback where 20 feet is required on property located on
Chelsea Road, and being Parcel #6056-01-262505, in the Town of Wappinger.
Jeraldine Latham was present.
Mrs. Latham stated, the reason we ask for the variance is because the west side is the
only side that we can put the solars on in order to take advantage of the Southern
exposure. My house is sitting quite far back off the road from the other houses.and
I know that it won't take away from the nicety of the neighborhood and the primary
purpose for it is so that we can take advantage of the solar capability plus my husband
is a amateur horticulturist and he has about 80 plants so those are, it won't be used
for anything else but the solar passive capability and for keeping the plants.
-� Mr. Hirkala asked, this is a greenhouse?
Mrs. Latham answered, right.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am wondering why they can't put the solar units on the roof and its
a greenhouse.
Page -42-
October 14th, 1986
Mrs. Latham stated, well, the solar unit on the roof is only for hot water and we don't,
that is not what we have it for. What the... of this greebhouse would be, we initially
had planned to build a solar house on the property that had a 2 story solar greenhouse
passive unit to it. What happened is we had the mortgage in our hand and the builder
went into the hospital and died and nobody else would build the house for the same price.
I think the next guy came in like at 30,000 and at the time we hade a 15% interest rate
and it was too much. So, what we did is we went out to look for another house that had
quite a few windows in it and we had the builder angle the house so that it would be
in due south so that we would get the sun capability and we decided to take the house that
we were going to build, we could not have a basement because the structure of the floor.
Had about 3 layers of stone then you use flat blocks and then you pour concrete so this
is, we wanted to take the capability of that floorand do the same thing in this greenhouse
and then you would have a mechanical fan in there that would create that, take that heat
that is generated and push it through the family room. We already had double doors there
because that was where the deck was original, for the house that we have now.
Mr. Caballero stated, what the application is says solar unit and what you are looking for
is a greenhouse.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the greenhouse creates passive solar...
Mr. Caballero stated, I see that you have room to place that behind the house without
infringing on the sideyard setback.
Mrs. Latham statedm behind the house is North and...
Mr. Caballero stated, no, but the side of that solar will also fire the benefit of the
sunlight being behind the unit.
Mrs. Latham stated, in order for you to maximize the passive capability you have to have
the curve part facing south and if we were to put that in the back, first of all it would
almost be on our well and the curve part would be facing North so it would defeat our
purpose. It wouldn't do anything. Initially when we, when that first deal fell through
with the solar house we knew, since my husband was into plants we always knew that
eventually if we got the money we would like to put a unit there. We had already had
the house laid out, this particular house that we have now and the County would not,
the County made us put the driveway in the way it is because if you go out on Chelsea Road
there is a hill there we wouldn't have a safety variance so we couldn't run it up on the
west side because we had already laid the house out and the garage was on the east side.
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. Hirkala asked, why can't you put it in the front?.
Mrs. Latham answered, you see the smaller part of the house, the house is 2 story but that
smaller part is 1 story, is 12 feet wide and about whatever the legal amount is from
the building to the septic system is, we would really have to put this over the septic
system in order to put it in the front of the house.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the septic system is that close?
Mrs. Latham stated, there is a dry well, whatever that is. It is pretty close to the
house.
Page -43-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, can we look at what you have of what it is going to look like?
Mrs. Latham answered, yes. I didn't think to ask any of my neighbors if they would
atest to how my husband keeps the property with his rose garden and all of that.
Mr. Caballero stated, abutting property owners were notified, if they had any objections
they probably would have been here.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is this a standard size?
Mrs. Latham answered, well, it comes, you can get different sizes. It comes in bays and
the bays are 3 feet.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we are only lacking 6 feet. Can you get one 6 feet?
Mrs. Latham answered, if we got one only 6 feet in depth then most of my husbands plants
would have to be right where they are now in our living room, that is why I don't have
any furniture in there because he has about 80 plants and some of them are sort of exotic
and I am the person who is really pushing for this because he sprays in there, you know
like outdoors so......
Mr. Hirkala asked, what kind of variance are we looking for here?
Mr. Landolfi answered, 6 feet.
Mr. Hirkala stated, because I know that you can buy these things in 8 foot. Burnum has
�Ir them in all different sizes.
Mrs. Latham stated, I initially went to Hudson Valley Sunrooms for that same greenhouse
for him to purchase it like that it would cost us $16,000.00 but by going with these
people we knew about them and went down and got the brochures and stuff, its a factory
and therefore you can get it, if we get the variance we will put it up ourselves but the
unit only costs $1,800.00 by going to the factory and to get it smaller, to save money,
but it wouldn't be a solution, because this really isn't big enough but its.....
Mr. Caballero asked, if you were to make that longer and narrower you would infringe
on the setback less.
Mrs. Latham stated, Reiger Homes built the home and what I did when we started intitially
thinking about doing it I knew that our well, the pipes came in someplace close to
around there so if we were to make it longer I think they told us that we would be going
over one of the pipes so I something was to happen to the pipes....
Mr. Hirkala stated, pipes can be moved. The problem here is you have got 300 some odd foot
length of lot here and you are trying to pack it all into one spot.
Mrs. Latham stated, I am not really trying to pack it in but that is the most feasable
place to put it. It would be the maximum, we would get the maximum rays, that is what
we are looking for because, it would also help the, you get a certain kind of fan to
help push that air through the fist floor of the house.
Mr. Landolfi asked, do any of those plants ever die?
Mrs. Latham answered, yes.
Page -44-
October 14th, 1986
+' Mr. Caballero stated, okay gentlemen. I think we have a bigger picture of what is
involved here. There is nobody in the audience that is interested in the appeal. What
is you wishes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think there is a hardship. There is no..., there are other
alternatives.
Mrs. Latham stated, after we got the estimate from them, we went to New Jersey they had
a 20% sale on them....
Mr. Hirkala asked, so you bought it?
Mrs. Latham answered, yes. Because it was the only way we could save $4,000.00.
Mr. Caballero stated, but on the property there are other places where you can receive
more exposure to the sun.
Mrs. Latham stated, no sir. There isn't because that is the only place, you can't put it
on the east side because that is, the house is, if I look out of my bedroom window
that is like a 20 or 25 foot drop down so I could never put it on the east side that is
where the garage is.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are looking to put it on the west side of the house. The proper
place to put it is on the south side of the house which is the front of the house.
%W Mrs. Latham answered, right, which is where it is. That is the way it is going to be
facing. It is both directions, it will be facing west and south.
Mr. Hirkala stated, make it narrower, make it longer.
Mrs. Latham stated, it is ordered and I paid most of the money for it.
Mr. Caballero stated, unfortunately the Board tries not to grant a variance when it is
not absolutely necessary and I can tell by the non -motion or the non -movement that they
have a problem with it. Would anybody like to make a motion on this variance?
Mrs. Latham asked, would it help if we get the people we purchased this from to come and
explain about how that has to...
Mr. Landolfi asked, how about if we met you halfway and gave you 3 feet?
Mrs. Latham stated, the only way I would know was if I call the factory to see if they
already cut that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you know what could happen here. We could table this thing and say
to you, you come back here with documentation from the factory, in writing that there is
nothing can be done, you are stuck with the total cost of this thing and even then legally,
you created your own problem, we can't help you, do you see what I am saying?
Mrs. Latham answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, legally, we have a problem with the legality of it, and we can't grant
you a variance if you created the problem. That is why he is saying you have to compromise
if you don't want to compromise we will have to say no.
Page -45-
October 14th, 1986
Mrs. Latham stated, I want to compromise. When I put the action in first to get a building
permit, I don't know who the person was, the building inspector, he asked me if, initially
I think the rule was, like this I wanted to put a deck or something it would be 10 feet,
is that correct? That is R-20, so he asked me whether, can you enter this greenhouse only
from the outside and I said no, you come in through the house and he told me thats a
law change.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what he is saying is that if this greenhouse was free-standing it
could be 10 feet from the property line. Because if it was attached to the house it
becomes an ... part of the house and you have to follow the house setbacks but if it was
free-standing it is an accessory building.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how about if we give you time to go, like Mr. Hirkala said, and get
some documentation to show us.
Mr. Hirkala stated, even then we can't grant it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I know it is not automatic but it at least will give us a better
insight.
Mr. Hirkala stated, why don't we just table this thing and you go back and see if you can
find some way to cut down the variance.
Mrs. Latham asked, that would take me getting a letter from....
Mr. Landolfi tated, the same function, a little smaller.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have 13 feet of greenhouse. Lets say you come back to us
asking for 10 feet of greenhouse, that means that we would be giving you a 4 foot variance
rather than a 7 foot variance.
Mrs. Latham asked, say if they already started the order.
Mr. Hirkala stated, suppose it costs you another $500.00 for them to redo everything.
You might be better off doing that than us coming back here and saying you probably
would be better off doing that than coming back and us saying I can't do anything
and we have to say no and then you are stuck for the whole thing.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have problems with that. I don't think we should string out the
applicant to come back here next month with any sort of plans and hold this order open
another 30 days. If she has the possibility of cancelling it now and getting some of
her money back. There is no guarantee that we would even grant it for the 3 foot variance
when she comes back. I don't think the Board wants to take that responsibility of
buying a greenhouse. I move that the variance be denied. The applicant has not shown
any sufficient hardship.
Mr. Cortellino stated, legally, that is all we can do. I will second it.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Page -46-
October 14th, 1986
Mrs. Latham asked, does that mean I can't come back?
Mr. Urciuoli answered, that means you can cancel your order as soon as you can so that you
don't loose any money and then you can try to come back when you don't have any legal
responsibility to your greenhouse.
Mr. Caballero stated, don't buy it first. Wait till you get a variance.
Mrs. Latham stated, I am just saying that since I already paid a large portion of the
money now. If I can't cancel it then are you telling me that I can't come back?
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you can't cancel it I suggest you try to change the size of it
somewhat, work some kind of a deal with them so that instead of having a variance asking
for 6 feet see if you can get them to cut the size of the greenhouse down from 13 feet
to 10 feet or less if possible. And then if you can't, the best they can give you is
10 feet then come back in and ask again, but for a different size, that is what I am
saying.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, the longer you wait to cancel that order, the longer you are going to..
Mr. Urciuoi 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 46944, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.62 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a free standing sign with a 16 foot
frontyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on New Hackensack Road,
and being Parcel 466158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Redl stated, I believe I have got a solution so I don't have to request this
variance at this time.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you removing the appeal from our agenda?
Mr. Redl answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated that the Board was going to take a break.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
APpeal 46948, at the request of Clark Zeaman, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an attached garage to be built with
a 25 foot frontyard setback (on a side street) where 50 foot is required on property
located on 69 Brothers Road, and being Parcel 466258-04-979208, in the Town of Wappinger.
Clark Zeaman was present.
Mr. Zeaman stated, what I want to do is to attach a garage to the existing home keeping
the roof line in keeping with the rest of the home that is there now. If I place the
garage to the rear keeping it in line with the edge of the home now it will shut off my
sliding glass doors in the back of my home.
Page -47-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't see a deck on this drawing, do you have a deck?
Mr. Zeaman answered, yes, there is a deck on the back, a concrete slab lays, porch lays
on the back of the house and there is a screened porch.
Mr. Landolfi asked, you have a garage now?
Mr. Zeaman answered, right, there is a single car garage. What I am going to add is a
2 car garage on the end and eventually turn the existing garage into living space.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what are the demensions of the existing garage?
Mr. Zeaman answered, it is about 14 x 18, I believe.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what are the demensions of the existing house there?
Mr. Zeaman answered, 67 x 34. I have a scale drawing of the property with the proposed
garage being in the dotted line area there.
Mr. Caballero asked, and the only reason why you won't put it behind the house because
you will do what?
Mr. Zeaman answered, the slab and the sliding glass doors are right directly behind that.
It would cutoff my whole porch.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am confused. When I first asked you about the sliding glass doors
you told me there is a slab. Now you said earlier theres a porch, now is it a slab or
a porch?
Mr. Zeaman answered, well, there is a concrete slab and then a screened in porch sits
on that slab. Half of it is screened in and the other half is a porch.
Mr. Cortellino asked, it is built with the slab as foundation?
Mr. Zeaman answered, right.
Mr. Landolfi asked the 67 feet you gave me, does that include you existing garage?
Mr. Zeaman answered, yes it does.
Mr. Hirkala asked, that driveway goes into the existing garage now?
Mr. Zeaman answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, and where were you going to put the addition on?
Mr. Zeaman answered, the addition will be on the end of the house to match up the roof
line and so forth.
Mr. Hirkala asked, give me the demension of the existing garage?
Mr. Zeaman answered, 14 x 18.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how long have you lived there sir?
Mr. Zeaman answered, 20 years.
Page -48-
October 14th, 1986
Mr.
Landolfi asked, can I ask how large your family is?
Mr.
Zeaman answered, 4, my wife and 2 boys.
Mr.
Caballero asked if there was anybody in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal.
There was no one to speak.
Mr.
Landolfi asked, how many cars do you have sir?
Mr.
Zeaman answered, presently we have 3.
Mr.
C6rtellino asked, what is 35 feet from the road edge the house?
Mr.
Zeaman answered, yes, well the proposed garage would be 35 feet.
Mr.
Caballero stated, we are concerned only with the property line.
Mr.
Zeaman stated, from the property line, 25 feet. But there is 35 feet of actual
space there.
Mr.
Caballero stated, I have a problem granting any variance over 50%.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, well I think there is another alternative.
Mr.
Landolfi stated, out of curiosity, what could you live with there sir?
Mr.
Zeaman answered, well we could move it towards the back.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, take 14 feet off of it.
Mr.
Landolfi stated, but then we are down to only 11 feet variance.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, the fact still exists that he hasn't got any hardship.
Mr.
Zeaman stated, the only thing is that if you do do that the, it is pretty hard to
to
match that up with the existing roof line that is there.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, it is 24 x 24 which means you are going to have 24 feet and 24 feet
wide,
you are going to put 2 cars in 2 deep, is that it?
Mr.
Zeaman answered, 2 cars width wise.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, you could put a driveway in off Edgehill Road, put a 2 car garage
in
there off of that end and come within the setbacks.
Mr.
Caballero stated, if you build it behind the house you don't infringe on any
property lines. You.may have to move your deck and enclose porch but your sliding doors
will be access to the garage.
Mr.
Zeaman stated, well the other thought that I had to in doing this was, it is a
better looking building having it run with the roof line. The second thing is, if
putting it behind there does cut off the view of the back of the home from the sideroad
from a security point of view.
Page -49-
October 14th, 1986
Going further back I end up having to excavate the bank back there that is about 6 foot
high.
Mr. Caballero stated, the other alternative is to make it a one car garage on the outside
but you would still need a 12 foot variance. What is the pleasure of the Board?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I move to deny because he hasn't proven an hardship.
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. Cortellino 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 4949, at the request of F. Jason DiPalman, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy on a home built with a 40 foot rearyard where 50 foot is required on property
located on Robinson Lane, and being PArcel 446359-04-900088, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. DiPalma was present.
Mr. DiPalma stated, the construction of my home is a long slow process. Two reasons,
one I didn't have the money at the time to pay the excess costs so I thought at the
time it would be easier if I acted as general contractor and sub -contracted through
people in the area for the different jobs involved. Secondly, it has been a long
procedure because I tried very hard from the beginning to follow the letter of the law
and I was informed in the very beginning that I would need a 50 foot distance to the
boundry. Upon the first plot plan they found that we didn't have that so I went out
and ...from one property on that side of the house so I would have that distance to
extend past my driveway. In the very beginning when we subdivided the property that we
had I was informed that I needed more space on the side of the house to provide the
necessary 50 feet so what I did was I went out and I attained more property from that
side of the home so that would that 50 feet would be there. The reason I point that out
to you know is to show you that it is as though I built the house and was trying to get over
on the limitation there. What happened, I hired a local excavator, Mid Hudson Excavation,
and they came out, we added the additional property, the surveryor added the property that
we thought was needed the excavator came out and I was with him and I explained to him
when he did it that we needed 50 feet to the boundries of the property. He maped it out
in front of me, he did it when I was right there and I was under the assumption that the
50 feet was correct. It was staked out, the excavator came in, he dug, put the footings
in, the building inspector came out, approved it, although I didn't realize it, I taiked'=
tb=the building inspector when he came, we checked everything, evidentally that is not
the case and that is not his job but I wasn't aware of that at the time. The house was
Page -50-
October 14th, 1986
built, according to all specifications I believed, submitted my final plot plans, had
the surveyor come back out, submitted the final plot plans and was suprised when Hans
told me we were shy 10 feet. In checking I found that the reason, I believe, well,
there were a number of reasons why the house was placed where it was, but, when it was
measured it was measured along the back wall, directly out to the boundry, which is
50 feet, along the side wall directly back to the boundry which is 50 feet, however,
I was told later, just recently when I was denied the occupancy permit that because
it is an irregular lot, the way they measure it is different than the way they excavated
and measure it. The way they measured was on a right angle from the boundry line to
the nearest point to the house. I realize that ignorance is no excuse but it was really
done for that reason. Originally I wanted the house built much farther forward but I
wasn't, allowed to do that because the Board of Health said that they wanted the leach
fields and the septic system where it is indicated, directly in front of the house, that
is where they wanted that. Also, the home was placed on the angle it is placed so that
I was hoping in the beginning that the bedrooms should be on the eastern south end of the
house, the garage should face north, for the cold in the winter time to help with heat.
Those are all reasons why it was done. The reason I built out there in the first place
was my mother was .... and my father was sick and subsequently passed away this past spring
and I wanted to be near her. We originally wanted to make her home into a 2 family so that
I could be near her but separately but that was denied. So I thought the next best thing
would be to build, I never realized the difficulties involved and the problems that we
can get into but that is whats happened and at this point I really don't know what else
to do. To be perfectly honest with you I don't have the money to, at this point, to appeal
it in court if that was necessary.
Mr. Caballero asked, this house is completely finished and occupied, you just need the
Certificate of Occupancy?
Mr. Di Palma answered, yes sir.
Mr. Hirkala asked, this is your house?
Mr. DiPalma answered, my house.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, you have about an acre and a half?
Mr. DiPalma answered, about that.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, why do we need 50 feet away from the side there?
Mr. Gunderud stated, that is the rear lot line.
Mr. DiPalma stated, the reason that we added property onto the end of the house because
I was told that I didn't have 50 feet at the time and I couldn't place the hosue any
further in the other direction because it would then be too close to the back boundry so
I obtained more property on the side of the house, placed the house where it was, thinking
I was clear.
Mr. Caballero asked, what makes it the rear and not the side?
Mr. Gunderud stated, the Zoning Ordinance in the definition section defines what constitutes
different yards and it generally says in that section, it says the lot line that is
parallel or opposite the front lot line is the rear lot line. And the lot lines on the
side are the side lot lines. This lot has 2 distinct side lot lines and it appears to
have one rear lot line.which is approximately parallel with the rear lot line. It is an
odd shaped lot.
Page -51-
October 14th, 1986
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. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion the variance be granted.
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. Hirkala 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 item:
Appeal #900, at the request of John Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§421, 118 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing 3 family
_dwelling, which was built prior to 1963 and which containes over 3,000 s/f of useable
floor area to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on Route 9D, and
being Parcel X66157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Durcan and Harold Reilly, Attorney was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have letter here adressed to us from the Town's Engineer,
Paggi & Martin. Letter on File.
Mr. Caballero asked, did we request a long EAF?
Mr. Landolfi answered, yes. The last time that this gentlemen was in I believe the
Board felt to properly assess it that you needed some additional information. We had
very little to go on if you recall the first time you came in.
Mr. Hirkala asked, didn't I ask for a long for a on that?
Mr. Durcan answered, your concern was about the density and you referred that to the
Town Attorney. I was not asked for a long form.
Mr. Caballero stated, I believe the minutes will say that when we referred this to the
Planning Board we requested that they get a Long EAF.
Mr. Reilly stated, this is an application for a Special Use Permit and as far as I know
kw he complied with all of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. If this is a concern
I would ask that he be granted a Special Use Permit subject to a determination into the
sewer system ........... which he will meet ....from the Board of Health.
Page -52-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read a letter from the N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero stated, Charlie, myself and Mike met with our Attorney and her opinion
was that we would have to make a decision on the Special Use Permit.
Jon Thew - owner of the house next door.
I would like to go on record opposing turning the area, which is single family residential
into apartments and I would like to point out to the Board here that this...... clause
that is allowing this use permit was really designed for other areas within the Town.
Othere density areas and not in this area and I would like to point out that if we
continue doing that what is the sense of having the zoning. You take any ranch house in
the Town that is 1500 s/f, you add a new roof, come before the Board for a new roof,
you make it steeper so that you get some useable space up there, you get your 3,000 s/f
so you can take any residential area and turn them into apartments. The point is that if
we want to make apartments in Hughsonville, what we ought to do is change the zoning
for the entire area.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak.
There was no one else to speak.
Mr. Reilly stated, just to answer that. The provision is in the Zoning Ordinance, he has
complied with it. If it is objectionable to the residents and to the Town Board then
it should be changed. The provision is there and he has complied with it -and I think he
should be granted a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, just for clarification, A Special Use Permit is only on those
structures prior to 1963 -or 62, so you can't take an existing building today at
1500 s/f to it and then try to do this. You can't put an addition on and call it existing.
Mr. Thew stated, that is not an addition, it is a new roof and then you have an attic
and you make it inot useable square footage.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how big is this site?
Mr. Durcan answered, .60 acres.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to see a long form. Enviornmental Assessment Long form,
I want you to do a long form on a Special Use Permit under S.E.Q.R..
Mr. Reilly stated, I don't think a long form is required under Special Use Permit.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it is. You are talking about 6 families on .6 acres. You
are talking about a high density per acre. If we require to go with,.......
Mr. Reilly stated, all you are required to do is comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, under S.E.Q.R. we are required to look at everything on a Special
Use Permit.
Mr. Thew stated, I have been going on the assumption that Mr. Durcan owns the lot in
kw back. Now we are talking about the .6 so that changes the rules. It is my understanding
right now that Mr. Durcan's property is going to be used as a parking lot, it has to
be and the existing septic system will now be abandoned and there will be routing to the
fields out in the back, there are a couple of acres back there and that is where he is
going to get the septic systems for 6 apartments. .6 acres, what he has right there is
Page -53-
October 14th, 1986
just not acceptable. My property right now gets the runoff from the slope. The water
in my garage everytime that we have the heavy rains, it wasn't until Mr. Palmateer
had the septic system redone a number of years ago that we didn't have it flooded with
every rain so I can atest to the fact that we have the soil problems and what not but
that has never been an issue with me because my assumption is, and I think if you go
back to your records one of the first things you did was ask for that Enviornmental thing
that was the first item that came up in the first time that this hearing came up so I
am surprised that we are now down to, its a .6 acre lot, because it isn't, he would have
to incorporate the adjoining lot for, to figure out the septic system because there is
just absolutely wouldn't be enough room to park cars and also have a septic system in
that lot the way it is today.
Mr. Reilly stated, it is true, there is no quesiton about it, he is going to use whatever
is necessary to incorporate the adjoining lot whatever is necessary to put an adequate
septic system in. He has to go to the Board of Health and he has to do what they mandate.
Mr. Cortellino stated, however, even under a Special Use Permit, you are right, what you
were saying earlier about maybe not requiring an enviornmental but we can deny a Special
Use Permit for very serious reasons. One of our concerns is the Health and health and
safety are 2 paramount issues for which anything can be overridden so while you may want
to go to the Health Dept. for their permission, I want to see the Health Dept. permission
before I issue the Special Permit.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to see the long form and go through the S.E.Q.R. process.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if I can't get the long form enviornemntal then I want the
Health Dept. okay on it before I consider it a Special Use Permit because health and
safety is ........So, either it is a long form or the Dept. of Health before I go on a
Special Permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, we can go further than that gentlemen. We can go and ask for the
long form, we can have the Dept. of Health....
Mr. Reilly stated, we will consent to the adjournment of the hearing for the purpose
of providing you with documentation that the Board of Health will approve the septic
system.
Mr. Caballero stated, all right, we want to go down the line. Everything that this
Board is allowed to ask, Superintendent of Highway, the Enviornmental Council, the
Fire Dept., Dutchess County Soil, water conservation district, Dut. Co. Dept. of Health,
N.Y.S. Dept. of Enviornmental Conservation and the long Enviornmental form before we
render a decision on this.
Mr. Reilly stated, I thought that it was either if we got you the Board of Health permit.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to see a S.E.Q.R.. My one vote says I want a S.E.Q.R, I want
to see a Long Envirnmental Assessment Form. What else is required is besides the point.
It is more than just septic conditions here. We are looking at traffic conditions,
I want to see it under an official procedure.
Mr. Reilly stated, I don't think it is mandated.
Mr. Caballero asked, can you make another motion Mike, including all the other Dept.'s
that I requested?
Page -54-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you want to amend it I will accept all your amendments.
Mr. Caballero asked for a second on the motion.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we request all of the.... agencies to get information back to us
in reference to this project before we make a final decision. Down the line. I make
a motion to adjourn the hearing until all the information is provided to us.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4906, at the request of Patrick & Ruth Clark, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing house
which contains over 3,000 s/f of useable floor area and was built prior to 1962, to a
in the Town of Wappinger.
Patrick Clark was present.
Mr. Clark stated, I was here before and I have the apartment .....in the building for
about 5 years. I recently purchased....
Mr. Caballero asked, Mr. Gunderud, this is a variance and not a Special Use Permit?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it is a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this appeal.
Jon Thew - this house is on the other side of my property.
Again, we are in a residential community here and we are making it into apartments and
it doesn't make sense to me. I have owned this house for almost 20 years not, 19 years
and it just doesn't make sense.
Mr. Hirkala asked, this house is directly across the street from the other one?
Mr. Clark answered, same side.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, how many apartments are in this house now?
Mr. Clark answered, it is 2. Upstairs and downstairs. Essentially all they did was put
a kitchen in. There are people living in there now.
Page -55-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I think we should do the same thing that we did with the other one
and get all long EAF, and go right down the line with the Highway, Town Engineer, the
works.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make that in a form of a motion.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Clark stated, I have alot larger piece of property and I am not looking to put....
Mr. Caballero stated, we want to address all the concerns that may come up before we make
a final decision.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you are not converting quite as large an area like the other
gentlemens. You are really doing the same type as we look at it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact that you have a larger piece of property is in your favor.
y You may have the long form and get it back to us chances are we will find less wrong
with your request than with his. There will be less conditions probably.
Mr. Caballero stated, this hearing is adjourned until we get the information requested
of the appellant.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4920, at the request of John Esposito, seeking a variance of Article IV, §445.8
of the Town of Wappinger ZOning Ordinance to allow for an accessory apartment addition
to an existing residence which will increase the perimeter of the building on property
located on 9 Applesauce Lane, and being Parcel 46258-04-682043, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Esposito was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. Esposito, you were here before, do you have anything else to add
to your request?
Mr. Esposito answered, I am waiting for the lawyer.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically you have no additional information?
Mr. Esposito answered, no.
Mr. Caballero stated, let me understand this right, is this property yours?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes it is.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you are selling it to somebody else?
Mr. Esposito answered, I am not selling it, it is mine.
Page -56-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, its your property?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you intend to live there and make an accessory apartment for your...
Mr. Esposito answered, it is already made. I had the guidance by the Town which was all
wrong, okay. I went ahead with the building with the inspections and when it came down
to the end he wouldn't give me a C.O. because he says the kitchen all of a sudden appeared.
Mr. Caballero asked, when you say he?
Mr. Esposito answered, the Building Inspector.
Mr. Cortellino asked, did you tell him you were going to put in a kitchen?
Mr. Caballero asked, which Building Insepctor?
Mr. Esposito answered, Kriegsman, I think his name is, Danny.
Mr. Caballero asked, who inspected your house, Mr. Kriegsman?
Mr. Esposito answered, only some of it. He wasn't there for the foundation, okay. He
wasn't there for the footing inspection, he was there for the insulation and the final
when everything was all done.
Mr. Caballero asked, when was the kitchen observed that decided that you couldn't do it?
Mr. Esposito answered, at the, when he came for the final C.O..
Mr. Caballero asked, previous to that had he seen that there was a kitchen?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes, I pointed out to him. He wanted to know what the socket
was I had it built down. I pointed out to him, that is a socket, what is that, thats the
pipe coming for the kitchen sink.
Mr. Caballero asked, was that Mr. Kriegsman or was that someone representing Mr. Kriegsman?
Mr. Esposito answered, well, the Fire Inspector was there at one that he couldn't make
because he was in school, which is the Building Inspector was in school. So the Fire
Inspector came in on the. I believe it was the structural, all the wood.
Mr. Caballero stated, alright gentlemen. I spoke to the Fire Inspector in reference to
him being there. He was there on behalf of the Building Inspector covering for him and if
he was asked to testify before this Board he would say that he did see the plumbing for
fixtures. So, Mr. Esposito is saying correctly that somebody from our Building Inspector's
office did see that a plumbing fixture was being put in for a kitchen. I personally
don't think that has any bearings on the ordinance what so ever, he might now have been
aware that that was not legal or that it wasn't supposed to be there.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if I understood the last time you came before the Board it was stated
that you presented a set of plans to the Building Dept., is that correct?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Page -57-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, in the building plans that you presented to our building department,
they did not show a kitchen at that time?
Mr. Esposito answered, no, because for one reason...
Mr. Landolfi stated, excuse me, is that correct sir?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes it is.
Mr. Landolfi stated, all of a sudden we go out to check and low and behold we have all
kinds of plumbing in.for a kitchen. Now, if you gave me a check to cash for $100 I
certainly can't add a zero and cash it for a $1,000. Again, it was my understand as you
presented to us you, you gave the plans to us, we okayed the plans, the plans did not
show any plumbing at that time. Subsequently, you went ahead and did whatever following it
not when our guy goes out he see that there is a ....and a kitchen has emerged. The
plumbing has emerged for a kitchen that is when it was haulted. Is that correct?
Mr. Esopsito answered, no. It was haulted when it was completed 100%. At the final C.O..
Mr. Landolfi stated, well I guess I am confused why your plans didn't show it. If you
were in fact going to put a kitchen in, why didn't you show it?
Mr. Esposito stated, I had spoken to Danny about it, the Building Inspector and I told
him, I says we were going to originally put the kitchen in the other end of the house,
which isn't on the plan so, which is the existing part of the house and then he says,
well we can go over and do that later, then we changed our minds and we were going to
put them in the existing, in the addition part of the house, and he says we can do all
that later, which is no problem, okay, and then when he came down to the C.O. he said he
wouldn't give it to me. He knew all along that this thing was a mother/daughter apartment.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't deny that he probably knew it was a mother/daughter, I am
confused again, if you were going to'why didn't you put it in there. I guess I am
hung up on that point?
Mr. Esposito answered, we didn't know exactly how we were going to do it. We didn't know
how, if I could have got the plumbing in from the back or in from the front because in
the front part of the house I have got my main right there. I told him, I went to
Irene Paino in the very beginning.
Mr. Landolfi asked, Irene Paino?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am not sure, help me to understand what she has to do with this
process?
Mr. Esposito answered, I didn't know the process in the beginning and I asked her what
I had to do to build a mother/daughter apartment. She says you get a set of plans, you
bring them to the Town, and you tell them what you are going to do, and that is what I did.
Mr. Caballero stated, yes, but the set of plans did not show a kitchen. It didn't show
a mother/daughter request.
Mr. Landolfi stated, in reading the minutes we are talking exactly the same thing we said
a month ago.
Page -58-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, it says dining area and a kitchen in the existing building. It does
not show any area in the expansion of the building. My personal opinion, gentlemen, is
that this gentlemen would have to remove that kitchen and get a C.O. for the addition and
then make a proper application for a mother/daughter apartment then we can hear the
mother/daughter case. But, he would first have to get a C.O. on the addition.
Mr. Esposito stated, that Building Inspector, my mother in law and father in law sold
their house in Yonkers and it was around the time that the house was finished so I
told him this and he said, well it is okay for them to move in.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is not reason why your mother and father cannot live in your
house using your present kitchen facilities without the extra kitchen until you get this
resolved.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, when was this building permit taken out?
Mr. Esposito answered, I believe it was April or May of 1985, or June, something like that.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I believe that the last time you said that you spoke to the Supervisor
was Frank Versace, not Irene Paino.
Mr. Esposito answered, no, I never even spoke to Frank. No I did not.
Mr. Urciuoli read from the Minutes, Mr. Esposito stated, I asked the Supervisor what
procedure is for mother/daughter apartment.
Mr. Esposito stated, Mrs. Paino.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the permit application date is 1985, she wasn't Supervisor.
Mr. Esposito answered, she was on the Town Board.
Mr. Caballero asked, is there anybody in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal?
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero asked, what is the pleasure of the Board, gentlemen?
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move to deny it.
Mr. Caballero asked, on the basis?
Mr. Cortellino answered, it was illegally installed, as far as the evidence before me
appears.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Page -59-
October 14th, 1986
`✓ Mr. Caballero stated, denial of the variance that you are requesting at this time. My
suggestion is that you remove it, get a C.O. for the addition and then follow the format
set by the Town on a mother/daughter ordinance to the letter.
Mr. Landolfi 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 #928, at the request of Carl & Helen Von Hagen, seeking an amended Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §430 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend stable use under
"Watkins" approved stable on property located.on Brown Road, and being Parcel #6357-01-
081767, in the Town of Wappinger.
Carl & Helen Von Hagen were present.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have additional letters here.
Mr. Cortellino read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Carl Wermer. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals of October 14th, 1986
from Irene Paino, Supervisor. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero read another letter to Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator of October 14th,
from Irene Paino, Supervisor. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, did you get an opportunity to check on this?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, I just got this today.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like the letter from the Planning Board read into the Minutes.
Mr. Hirkala read the memo from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals dated
October 8th, 1986. Letter on file.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, I would like to say 2 things. First of all on this last letter
from the Planning Board, which I have a copy, I think it came from the Zoning Board and
didn't the Planning Board send you a letter that we had not appeared at 2 of their meetings?
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is what I just read.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, I think, isn't it incumbent upon the Town Board agencies to inform
their people, we knew nothing about these 2 meetings that we were to appear, that we were
on the agenda.. We are on your agenda. You sent me a copy of it, I am here. I knew
nothing about that. The only time I found out, I think Mr. Gunderud will back me
up on that, last Tuesday, the 7th, I was here to attend a voters class, inspectors class
and I stopped into see Hans. That was 3 o'clock in the afternoon and I was told that
there was a meeting that night of the Planning Board and it would be good for me to attend.
My husband was out of Town that day, there was no way that I could be here that evening.
That is when I heard about the meeting. We knew nothing about it. I think that if we
had known, like I am here, I would have been there.
Page -60-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, as I understand the Planning Board Secretary sent an agenda to
the Von Hagen's as well as the other people.
Mrs. VonHagen stated, she did not and I just got this.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have been asked to table this until we get further information
so you will have ample opportunity to address the Planning Board in reference to it and
we will make sure that our Secretary notifies you of the date set of that Planning Board.
Mrs. VonHagen stated, on the letter from Mrs. Paino and Mr. Cantazarro. We had an
unexpected visit on Sunday from the Game Warden from the Conservation Dept. to inspect the
complaint that is mentioned in the letter. He told us he was going to be here tonight,
that he was supposed to be here tonight but I dont' see him tonight. In any event. he
found nothing to substantiate what is in that letter. He was quite impressed with the
operation and told us that that is what he would report here and I had hoped he would
do it this evening.
Mr. Caballero stated, we will be glad to accept a letter from him.to that respect.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, he said that he had gotten a call and he was sent over to inspect,
and he was there, unexpected.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
Ann Fiddler.
I would like to speak for the Von Hagen's. This all started, somewhat of a tangled thing,
it all started when a complaint was lodged by another stable in the Town of Wappinger
against them. He looked into the old Zoning which was against the Watkins property,
which was then 9 acres. Now the Von Hagen's have 35 acres, they are looking for a variance
to keep the 31 horses that they have, well they don't have quite that, but approximately
31 horses on their property. They bought the property in good faith, advertised as a
31 stall barn with a capability of keeping 31 horses. No one informed them of the old
zoning that was on the Watkins, but then again the Watkins had 9 acres, so I can see that
they would want to keep the number of horses down. I don't see why there is such a to do
and I was there when the Conservation Officer came and I observed all this and what she
said is true. I don't see why they have to go to the Planning Board and be unwittingly
certainly none of you gentlemen are doing this on purpose but they are kind of being
jerked around. If the other stable is allowed to keep 32 horses on 35 acres and have
horse shows and spread the manurein the fields why not the Von Hagen's who also have
35 acres, 31 horses, would like to have horse shows and mainatain a business. They really
have improved the property like that letter says, you have to see the place, it is really
lovely and I don't see why they should have to go through all of this just to do what other
people are allowed to do since they do have more acerage then the Watkins originally had.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, on 35 acres, how many horses are they allowed?
Mr. Gunderud answered, 17 and a half horses.
Mrs. Fiddler stated, there is a stable of Diddell Road that has had 32, 33 horses on
32 acres.
Mr. Landolfi stated, they are not looking for a variance. They are looking for a Special
Use Permit, not a variance.
Page -61-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I think part of the problem to is some of the acerage is in the Town
of East Fishkill.
Mrs. Fiddler stated, my daughter boards her horse there and we are very pleased there and
we don't like....
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anybody else in the audience interested to speak.
There was no one else.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to table pending the outcome of the request by the
Supervisor and the Planning Board referral.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4933, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, request for a re-application for a
Special Use Permit to allow gas service & car wash on property located on Route 9.& Old
Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Vitiritti was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, they were here last month and the Board had a tie of 2 votes against
2 votes to re -hear this request. We are under no obligation to re -hear it, only if the
Board wished it so.
Mr. Landolfi asked, this is just the request then.
Mr. Caballero stated, they have further information and they would like to be re -heard.
According to our Town Attorney we don't have to re -hear the same type of application for
the same type of property but it is our wished whether we do or not. At the last meeting
we voted, it was a tie and now we have a fifth member so it could be a tie breaker. The
vote was 2-2 and Charlie, you can break the tie.
Mr. Landolfi stated, he is just requesting so that he can come back to use at a later
date if we grant a re -hearing.
Mr. Cortellino asked, he will go to Hans and get a different number?
Mr. Cappelli stated, I thought we had already submitted a new application, new submission,
not on the same exact request that we had last time and they way I thought we had left
it, there was contreversy as to what the interpretation was as to accept to use car wash...
Mr. Caballero stated, no, you were here on a re-application, whether we would hear it
again and it was a tie vote, 2 people wanted to hear it again and 2 people did not.
Charlie was not present at that meeting so we put you on this agenda and it is a request
for a re-application for the Special Use Permit to allow a gas service and car wash on the
property located on Route 9. Charlie would be the determining factor whether we re -hear
it or not.
Page -62-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi read from the Minutes, Mr. Caballero stated, the question between us is
whether we are going to entertain this re-application. So, you are in now with a full
Board.
Mr. Cappelli stated, but maybe, whether it was me and I led everybody to believe
incorrectly but it is not the same application as we did 6, or, 7, or 8 months ago.
Mr. Caballero stated, re-application. You have additional information, new information,
you want to re -apply again.
Mr. Cappelli answered, that is correct.
Mr. Caballero stated, I told my Board that counsel had told us that we did not have to
re -hear a re-application on this particular property. You all have the confidential memo
on that. So, gentlemen, what are your wishes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, I am the only one voting? I vote no, I don't wish to hear it.
Mr. Caballero stated, okay, the Board on a 3-2 vote has elected not to re -hear this
re-application. The denial stands.
Mr. Cappelli asked, so in the future any other use that I want to have on this property,
that I want to utilize on this property, if indeed your approval, you are saying that I
can't come back on again?
Mr. Caballero answered, that is not what we are saying. If you have a use for that property
and you want to have it heard make the appeal. If you are coming in for gas station, and
car wash again....
Mr. Vitiritti stated, the first one was for gas station, car wash and deli. The deli
is not included any longer.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, last month you came in for a re -quest for a re-application for a
Special Use Permit to allow gas service and car wash on the property located on Route 9 &
Old Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger, and I gues on a 2-3 vote the Board decided
not to hear the re-application for that which is very similar to the....
Mr. Cappelli stated, but the original was the car wash, deli and the gas station and we
filled out a whole new set of forms and everything, that is why I am a little bit confused.
Mr. Caballero stated, but the application was strictly to seek a request for a re-application
Mr. Gunderud stated, I would just like to state again, as I did with the last previous
hearing, this is my mind is a brand new application.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have got a memo here that you name is checked off on that you
received on the very same thing from the Attorney. Are you disagreeing with the Attorney
or not?
Mr. Gunderud stated, just because it is checked off doesn't mean I got it.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud to read the memo.
Mr. Gunderud stated, when I read it I see that he is coming in with a new application
which produces evidence in addition to that produced at the previous hearing and the Board
he has a right to submit it.
Page -63-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, and who makes the determination?
Mr. Gunderud stated, there are 2 things, re -hearing and re-application. Under a re -hearing
he falls under state law which says he has to do it within 30 days and to get a re -hearing
one of the members of the Board has to introduce that to the other Board and the Board has
to vote on it unanimously.
Mr. Caballero stated, and we voted it down, not to re -hear it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, a re -hearing.
Mr. Caballero answered, right.
Mr. Gunderud stated, but what he is doing is a re-application, a whole new application.
Mr. Caballero stated, a request for a re-application for a Special Use Permit. If he
makes an application......
Mr. Hirkala stated, there is no substantial change, in our view.
Mr. Caballero stated, in other words we can turn somebody down 200 times a year.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is our call not yours.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I am not sure you....
%W Mr. Vitiritti stated, ...you heard the evidence.
Mr. Cortellino stated, all you did was take out the deli.
Mr. Gunderud stated, before it was denied because you thought there were 3 uses.
Mr. Caballero stated, regardless, we will be going back and forth. The Board has decided
that we will not re -hear the re-application. If you care to make a new application for
whatever you are doing, submit it to the ........
Mr. Vitiritti stated, that is what we did.
Mr. Caballero stated, we already denied the re-application. Your alternative is to
re -submit a new application telling us what you want to do there for a Special Use Permit
or for a variance, whatever.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4923, at the request of Edward Sellian, seeking an interpretation of §404 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, non -conforming use & structures.
Joel Hanig, Attorney and Edward Sellian were present.
Mr. Caballero asked, you want us to interpret 404?
Mr. Hanig stated, well this application is really more for drawing guidance of the Zoning
Board of Appeals by ourselves as well as the Zoning Administrator. Hans and I had some
lengthy discussion regarding this use of the building as a warehouse for a Soda Systems
and Hans thought that he would feel very comfortable if we brought the matter before the
Board on the interpretation simply because the prior owner of the warehouse used 3 vehicles
Page -64-
October 14th, 1986
during the course of the business and Mr. Sellian uses 6 vehicles during the course of
his business. Now, that.....
Due to the tape running out this portion of the Minutes is incomplete.
Mr. Caballero stated,....... by blocking the total road, and I have got pictures of that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have been there when that happened.
Mr. Sellian stated, we had construction going on, we had, it was a very bad day, in a
matter of fact a few days there was rain, there was about 2 or 3 inches of water all over
the property.
Mr. Caballero stated, no sir, there was nobody around, just the tractor trailer back in
the middle of the road and I took pictures all the way around that building. No
construction, nobody outside, it was a dry day.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and I have to say I came by there one time and there was a tractor
trailer blocking the north lane, which would be the west bound lane and I had to drive
around the tractor trailer and he was unloading and it was a sunny day.
Mr. Sellian answered, fine, but there was no paving, it was all dirt, mounds of dirt all
over the place when I took over the building. I am sure that you can go by there everyday
and you will see that there is a dramatic change in what I went there and what I have now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the point before us. The point before us is that you
don't have a site plan ....work has been done there. Even for the change of the loading
from a worse situation to a better situation, you don't have approval for that either and
you come from an area where if you don't move with approval you go to jail, Westchester
County so you can't tell me that you don't know better.
Mr. Hanig stated, there were building permits issued for the renovations which did go on.
They were attached to the application. In fact, we did also pay a downstream drainage
fee for the paving in the parking lot.
Mr. Hirkala asked, did you ever go to the Planning Board?
Mr. Hanig answered, no, this was not before the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, whos signature is this?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the Building Inspector, Dan Kriegsman.
Mr. Caballero stated, gentlemen, we have got problems.
Mr. Hirkala stated, was it ever submitted to the Building Inspector any plans showing
the work that was done outside the building?
Mr. Hanig asked, the paving?
Mr. Hirkala answered, the railroad ties, the loading dock, the establishment of parking
spaces, the establishment of a loading area for the tractor trailer, any of that stuff?
Mr. Sellian answered, there is no loading dock.
Page -65-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, well, where does the tractor trailer unload now?
Mr. Sellian answered, right in front of the building.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in front of the building? What is that right along side there?
Mr. Sellian stated, a place to, for the 4 cars to come in there when they take the trucks
out.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he unloads right at the door he would be blocking off the road.
Mr. Sellian answered, it runs parallel to the road.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, for a building permit wouldn't there be some type of
plans submitted?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't now whether, did you submit building plans?
Mr. Hanig asked, for what purpose?
Mr. Gunderud stated, for the renovation.
Mr. Sellian stated, we changed ....or updated the wiring to code, it was not coded. We
painted the outside of the building.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it would be a call of the Building Inspector. It the Building
Le Inspector felt that repairs and plumbing updating, stuff like that there were no plans
required.
Mr. Caballero stated, but the change of the use of the building should have been submitted
to the Zoning Board of Appeals from whatever it was before to whatever it became.
Mr. Gunderud stated, that is the discussion I had with Joel. Originally, Mr. Sellian
the use didn't change, there was a soda dispensing system...
Mr. Caballero stated, the first soda dispensing company did not come before the Zoning Board
of Appeals to get that approval.
Mr. Gunderud stated, he was there for probably 5 or 6 years, and how he got there...
Mr. Caballero stated, not previous to zoning. But he was there illegally. The soda
distributor was there illegally without a permit or a variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals.
Mr. Gunderud.stated, that is correct.
Mr. Caballero stated, and I am very familiar with this property. One reason why I didn't
purchase the property was because I would have to come in before the Zoning Board of Appeals
and all the other. This is before I got involved in zoning. Non -conforming use subject
to additional requirements. What kind of interpretation are you looking for?
twMr. Hanig stated, well, simply our only question was the question of confirming what we
felt our interpretation was that the 6 vehicle use of the property was not an expansion
of having 6 vehicles on the property. We did not change the size of the structure. It
was still being used the same warehousing type of purpose as it was before and we really
Page -65-
October 14th, 198E
want to rest the discussion between ourselves and the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Caballero stated, okay, the discussion comes now that that is an illegal use on that
property because it was never approved from the previous person that was there.
Mr. Hanig stated, we respectfully contend to the Board that this is not an illegal use
of the property. The property has been used as a non -conforming use for years and years.
and what we have now is actually, even if you go back all the way to the Balitri, it is
a less detrimental use of the property and then Balitri was making it years ago in its
non -conforming use was probably fitst established. He was using it as a construction yard
with heavy equipment and warehousing with construction materials and that was certainly
much more objectionable use back then the use that is being made now which is......
Mr. Caballero asked, did he have that use prior to zoning?
Mr. Hanig stated, I guess he did.
Mr. Caballero stated, well then he had it grandfathered. When he left the property
whoever came in there would have to get permission to put whatever they were going to do
there under the Zoning Ordinance and that was, the Board found out that that was less
conforming they would have granted it. They found that it was more non -conforming, worse
situation they would have denied it but no Board has ever looked at this project.
Mr. Hanig stated, the fact is that this property has been used as non -conforming uses over
the years and I think in Mr. Sellian's credit that he perhaps is coming in to bring the
matter before the Board and is working with the Zoning Administrator to have this Board
LO review the parcel and to, if necessary to have guidelines for his use of the parcel if
the Board felt sc disposed.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you read in our Zoning Ordinance everything in our Zoning Ordinance
aims, when it comes to non -conforming use, aims at decreasing the non -conforming use. If
possible, eliminate it. It even states that if it ceases for 2 years it reverts to the
use that it is zoned now, the non -conforming use is no longer valid. Everything in the
ordinance aims in that direction. You can't ask us to say, well gee, he is doing a
good, so we should allow him to increase, that isn't our perview. If the zoning is wrong
go to the Town Board.
Mr. Hanig stated, we don't fell that it was an increase and he certainly bought the parcel
with the property being used for the same purpose for any number of years prior to the
time that he bought it and we are not coming before the Board in really an adversary
position. We are coming before the Board simply for the Board's guidance in the use of
the parcel for the purpose that he is using it for ...... meant for a necessary application
to the Board.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think that our Chairman speaks for, you are asking for an
interpretation and I think you have got the feeling of the Board as where we are coming
from.
Mr. Cortellino stated, one way of looking at it, and being a businessman and a lawyer,
you should have :Looked at it, is what Mike said before, whether a non-confoming use
A has ceased for 2 years it reverts back to what the district is. Since the previous soda
distributor did not have permission to be a soda distributor, as far as this Board is
concerned nothing is happening at that building for the past 5 years, therefore, you are
coming in as a non -conforming, that is one way of interpreting it. You should have found
out if the previous soda distributor was legally in there, not us.
Page -66-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hanig stated, the previous soda distributor also did certain renovations to the
building during the time he was there and also those renovations were allowed and he was
given a C.O..
Mr. Cortellino stated, if he goes around murdering somebody that doesn't give you the
right to murder somebody.
Mr. Hanig stated, Mr. Phillips, who was there was also given a C.O. in 1983 for certain
renovations that he did to the building during the time that he had a soda distributorship
in there. I mean, besically, I can see Mr. Sellian's reliance on the paperwork that he
was presented with at the time that he bought it from Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, when somebody comes in to fill out a building permit, that is usually
when the Building Inspector or then the Zoning Administrator will deny the use of the
building. Mr. Sellian here has a building permit filled out and he specifies the building
use to be storage of liquid, soda and CO2, so he has on here what he is going to use the
building for, therefore, he has a signed building permit. No one told him that it was
non -conforming or, at that point he did what he was supposed to do. Has a further
application filled out and again it is signed by the Building Inspector. I mean, I don't
see where this is any kind of devious misinterpretation or anything done. If he never
came in for the building permit at all and just went in there an renovated it I could
understand. I can see what,you are saying about non -conforming use and all, I understand
that....
Mr. Landolfi stag. ed, we are not trying to preclude that he is doing anything illegal there,
he is looking fol, an interpretation.
Mr. Urciuoli staged, but at that time it should have been the Building Inspector that
knocked this down.
Mr. Caballero stated, well, suppose the Building Inspector didn't have the knowledge to
knock it down at the time that he looked at this. Right now, Appeal #931, Weldon McWilliams'
is asking for a 2 foot variance. The man did not show up over here, he has a building
permit for that and it is 2 feet from the property line. Somebody is making a mistake.
The Building Inspector has granted a building permit, did he grant a C.O. on that particular?
case?
Mr. Gunderud asked, on his garage?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes, yet the fella has built the garage 2 feet from the property
line without a variance from this Board.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, well maybe on his application he didn't put the demensions down.
Mr. Caballero stated, well maybe this inspector didn't now that he could not grant a permit
on that property for that use.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, where does it get knocked down?
Mr. Hirkala stated, George, there is another consideration here, earlier this evening we
had a request for a, the building on Stage Door Drive for 4 tenants and we had concerns
about what was going in there with tenants. What we as a Town are told a year or 2 down
the road as to what is going to happen to that building, what is going to happen to that
property, that might very well be in violation of State Law, not only our Law, but, here
we have an application for a warehouse, storage of liquid and CO2, 2 of them and the other
Page -67-
OCtober 14th, 1986
says storage warehouse and yet they run a service business out of the place so now we are
looking at soemthing else that the 2 are tied together, the servie business is because
the storage of the product for the service is there. But now we are looking at an
intensity that is increasing because now we have alot more traffic on that property from
that property on the road that is commercial traffic that wouldn't be there normally if
the property was used in the zone that it is in. So, these are considerations that we
have to think of. You are thinking of your business and you bought a piece of property
that you thought you could use and what I am talking about an expansion of an existing use
from 3 to 6 trucks, we are talking about a heck of alot more traffic, an 100% increase
commercial traffic off that road. I have seen it, I have been there, I have seen you trucks
go back and forth and last year I was wondering where the are these trucks coming from,
I have never seen them before, and all of a sudden I look and follow one and see that it
is coming out of that place, scratching my head why, well I remember there was something in
there so I figured that the Zoning Administrator was on top of it. But, aside from that
as I say there is an expansion of a use there, technically and these are things that we
have to consider, no matter how much good you do for the property we still have to be
within the law.
Mr. Sellian stated, I have been working within the law and when I go to a closing and I
buy a piece of property and I am handed the C.O. with the Town's signature on it, or
somebody from the Town representing them from 1983, and I am 1985, 1986 when I am buying
the property the man....
Mr. Hirkala asked, for what use, does the C.O. say for what use?
Mr. Sellian answered, same, storage warehouse, whatever you want to call it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I know alot of history on this property and its an old apple warehouse
which isn't going to fall down, the walls are about 2 feet thick and it was falling down
about 1979-1980 time period. I think a permit was issued to replace the roof on the thing
because I think at some time in the past I condemned the building because the roof was
falling in and I was the Building Inspector.
Mr. Caballero asked, was that building being used for anything at the time that you
condemned it?
Mr. Gunderud answered, I don't remember an active use out of it. There was equipment in,
there was a storage trailer along the side, Mr. Valetri was still involved with the
property and wanted to keep the, I often tried to get rid of the trailer that was parked
along side the building and his answer was that he didn't want to get rid of the trailer
that was parked there because that was part of his original approval and he felt that if
he got rid of the trailer he would loose non -conforming status for that property. And I
issued a building permit to replace the roof, I think the C.O. that was.mentioned is just.
a C.O. on the roof repair work, I am not sure whether it says. I am not sure whether it
would say anything about the use of the building, just simply that the roof, that the
permit that was issued for the roof repair work.
Mr. Hanig stated, I thought it was a C.O.having the roof repair, it did not say what the
use was at that time.
Mr. Gunderud stated, there were many complaints about that building over the years and if
you remember years ago it was all completely grown up, the leaves were growing right over
to Middlebush Road and I believe that when Mr. Phillips came in, it probably might have
been my interpretation at the time that he could just continue, he came in I think with
one truck and he said he was going to put in a soda route truck and at that time he had
Page -68-
October 14th, 1986
one truck.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I used to see one of those big Coke trucks parked in there or something.
Mr. Gunderud answered, one truck and....
Mr. Caballero asked, and at that point you interpreted that he could, and you let him.....
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't think there is anything official ever written to him or
anything like that it was just that he came and said, I said will you clean up the whole
property and satisfy the neighbors because they think it is an eyesore and they want it
to be torn down and there is no way to tear the building down because the roof caves in
on this 2 foot think concrete wall stays there it is not a hazard so, it would be an
eyesore to the neighbors, so for the benefit for that area of the Town I probably agreed
to allow the Phillips to repair the roof and put his soda truck in there.
Mr. Caballero asked, and then somebody else bought it and they have continued expanded the
use greater and greater?
Mr. Gunderud answered, well, Mr. Sellian now, his use, that is why I was concerned when
I came back to the Town and then saw the Soda System, well at that time he didn't have
a Soda System trucks there but there was alot of construction vehicles down there and I
just wondered what was happening on the property and that is when I started conversations
with Mr. Sellian about the, what was going to occur on that site and things occurred
without getting a, the blacktopping is normally not placed in on the lot until it is
approved by the Planning Board, there was no site plan approval to go by so it was like
just happened, so we assessed, I said, okay, the best thing I can do is make the assessment
for the downstream drainage fee, which I did and he did pay that.
Mr. Caballero asked, wouldn't it be right for you to cite him in violation for doing the
blacktop?
Mr. Gunderud answered, that is where the discussion came in as to whether the use was a
change from the previous use.
Mr. Caballero stated, I believe that this property is in a residential zone, R-20 and the
use that he is having is non -conforming.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it might be advisable to send him to the Planning Board for site plan
review and have the Planning Board look at the drainage and.....
Mr. Caballero stated, okay, but this appeal that you have here is for an interpretation so,
we believe that it is a non -conforming use on that structure.
Mr. Hanig stated, which we don't disagree with.
Mr. Caballero stated, you take it from there.
The Board agreed this was a non -conforming use.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
kW Appeal 46935, at the request of Edward Lawrence, seeking an interpretation of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the keeping of pigeons in a
residential district.
Page -69-
October 14th, 1986
Edward Lawrence was present.
Mr. Lawrence stated, basically, I have had a pigeon coop, I live off of Stoneykill Road,
I have had it for over 7 months. New road is a County Road, we have everything from
tractor trailers to dump trucks, commercial vehicles, farm vehicles running through it.
I currently have 4 farms within that particular area, or I have commercial property as
well as farms. Within this particular area there are 9 homes that have been, relatively
new homes that have been built in the last few years, I think they are in R-40 as well
as additional acerage behind it. There is everything from ducks, chickens, cows, pigeons,
peacocks, rabbits, horses, you name it in the particular area. I don't feel that having
a particular pigeon coopy within a particular area is detrimental or out of line with what
is in the current area itself. The pigeons that I have there are homing pigeons they
are not the ones that you find sitting on buildings in New York City. Basically, for the
x number of months there were no complaints with the pigeons back there. There at a point
in time I had the property finally surveyed and staked at which point one of my neighbors
lost 20 feet of property on his left hand side and had to remove some pine trees that were
erroneously planted on my property. He was a little disturbed after the property was
staked and the following day the Zoning Board received a physical complaint saying that I
had 200 pigeons, I let them out, they fly all over the place, land on his roof. These are
homing pigeons, they do not sit on roofs. They are basically restricted, controlled
enviornment. They live in a coop, they are let out, they fly around, they land on the coop
they race, they fly hundreds of miles in races, and they go directly back in the coop. If
they go on his roof he has my permission to blow them off with a shotgun. I don't want
them, they are useless to me. In the quality of the pigeons, what youare trying to do
is breed them like thoroughbreds. Your minimizing the amount, the ones that come home
first you keep and the other ones you get rid of. The pigeons, like I say are controlled,
they are not let out at random, they are my kids pets and hobbies. I think my kids have
gotten alot out of it, feeding them, taking care of them.and I would hate to have to see
them go and I basically find nothing in the zoning what so ever, pigeons are not considered
poultry. Like I say, they are pets, they are hobbies, they have been sanctioned in other
placed within Westchester County on quarter acre, third acre zoning, half acre zoning. On
an acre plus, almost on an acre and a half of property within a particular area. I think
Hans can qualify that the coop is very well camouflaged from the street he could not notice
that it does exist. If anything can be done to even camouflage it even further I would
be more than willing such as a stockade fence in front of it to hide it even more, but
you don't even notice it is there. I see really no harm in it. According to the zoning
I could have rabbits back there or something else and I have no desire to. So, basically
what I am asking for is the interpretation of my ability to keep a pet a hobby on my
premises, there is not specifically stated that I cannot and if so, what quantity am I
allowed to keep. And I think other questions that I am asking is the problem in the
fact that I do have a pet outside in a shed or if the pet was in my house would that make
a difference or is the fact of letting a pet out and loose. I believe that my pets are
more controlled than the dogs and cats in the neighborhood and the horses and other
animals. They only fly around for 10 or 15 minutes, they come back down and they are in.
I have dogs running around rapid, I have neighbors with 3 or 4 cats etc., and basically
I am trying to find out what the problem is and I am looking for some guidance and stuff
from the Zoning. I think there were several things that were of interest pertaining to
the statue of liberty, symbol of liberty, 5,000 pigeons were let free as a symbol of
freedom. They took photos of the events on the fourth of July, they forward those with
carrier pigeons back to the newspaper in Mamaronek because cars and other transportation
could not get it there. You had other instances in France where there were articles
4,04 written up on million dollar radar systems up in the Alps that detect missles and they had
problems that they had pigeon coops right next to them to carry messages back in case
electricity goes out or other things. I think some of those instances have proven that
they are domesticated pets. If you look it up in Webster Dictionary it will tell you it
is part of the dove family. I am adjacent to Stoneykill and the Stoneykill Reserve is an
Page -70-
October 14th, 1986
,r enviornmental reserve next to me despite all these other animals. I could see if I was
living in executive row where I had all 2 acres, nice estates and stuff like that, I
believe that the people moved into these areas knowing that animals do exist, that there
is farm land in here, and I believe that I am not infringing upon them in any way, shape,
or form and I believe that I have a right to utilize my property in this fashion to keep
my pets.
Mr. Caballero asked, how many pets are there?
Mr. Lawrence answered, I have 50 sir, of which out of 50,twenty cannot be let out at all.
If they are let out they will return immediately to their old home and it could be a
period of 5 years and they still would return home. If I was told to take my pigeons and
get rid of them and somebody had them, a year from now they let them go they would return
to their home. They are homing pigeons, they are trained that way.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, how many fur bearring animals are we allowed in a
residential zone.
Mr. Gunderud answered, none.
Mr. Caballero asked, this is a one acre, 2 acre residential, R-20?
Mr. Gunderud answered, R-40.
Mr. Caballero asked, was there a complaint on this Hans?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, was it subsequently removed the complaint and it was not.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the complaint was withdrawn.
Mr. Lawrence stated, it was due to the staking of the property. Having it surveyed.
When I originally moved in my house, I sold my house in brewster and I had to get a house
fast and I wanted it up in Wappinger Falls and I went form 0 to closing in one month
period. At that point in time I was only capable of getting an update to my original
survey. A year later I was able, in a position financially to get my property staked.
Upon having it staked my neighbor had trees planted, that he just got through planting
a couple of weeks ago that were planted on my property. After he saw the stakes in the
following day the Zoning Board got a complaint in reference to the pigeons. The trees
were on my property and he was disturbed that he was going to have to move them and he
called and complained about the birds and the complaint was dropped afterwards. There is
no outstanding complaints pertaining to it.
Mr. Caballero asked, as far as you see on the Zoning Ordinance he is allowed 50 pigeons,
he is allowed 150 pigeons, 200, as many as he wants to keep on that property Hans. or
do you have any problem with it?
Mr. Gunderud stated, my letter stated that the pigeons are not permitted on the property.
Not permitted in residential zones.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that is in our Zoning Ordinance?
Mr. Gunderud stated, my interpretation based on what is in the Zoning Ordinance itself and
what is not in the Zoning Ordinance. For instance, the sentence up on the top which gives
a listing of uses says any use not specifically listed shall be deemed to be prohibited.
Page -71-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, so if it is not listed it is prohibited.
Mr. Gunderud stated, you have to work through it because it doesn't say that he can have
rabbits but there is a section that says you can have farm use and so many animals on 4
acres of land. 2 animals per acre.
Mr. Lawrence stated, I believe the fact something is done specifically specified in there
such as having a parakeet or canaries, love birds, having tropical fish within your
home. I believe that you have to look at the quantity you are talking about. You have
to look at the enviornment in which you are dealing with and you have to look at the neigh-
bor hood in which you are confronted with. Like I said, I could see if this was an
executive row. I believe that you have to look at all of the questions and why. I believe
that you cannot compare one R-40 area to another R-40 area within the Town. I have 4 farms
on that particular area that were there pre -zoning that have all these animals. They are
there in the neighborhood. It is not detrimental to the character of the neighborhood,
the structure of the neighborhood. Is it the quantity of having 50 fish in a fish tank
or your fish go out and walk on the street.
Mr. Caballero stated, my interpretation would be that they are not in the Zoning Ordinance,
they are not allowed, they shouldn't be there. If it is the wished of the Board to
follow my interpretation signify by aye.
The Board all voted aye.
Mr. Caballero stated, the interpretation of the Zoning Board of Appeals is that it is not
in our Zoning Ordinance, therefore, you are not allowed to have 50 pigeons.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any comments in reference
to this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero read the next 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), being Parcel #6156-02
794847, in the Town of Wappinger.
Al Cappelli was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, this is storage and sale of electrical supplies, one building?
Mr. Cappelli answered, one building. 19,600 s/f on 2 acres on Stage Door Drive. Mr. Zeno
plans to sell electircal lighting fixtures basically such as N & S up the street is
plumbing supplies. We have been through the Planning Board, unfortunately we went to
3 or 4 meetings before it was discovered that we had to be here since we fall into the
classification of electrical,.etc. and we have really a complete set of plans here which
we have accomodated them very well. We have already filled out a Long EAF and has
been reviewed by PAggi & Martin, etc.
Mr. Hirkala asked, this is a wholesale electrical contracting operation?
Mr. Cappelli stated, we are going to counter operate. Wholesale, retail, lighting fixtures
basically.
Page -72-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #941, at the request of Jerry Druker, seeking an interpretation of Article II,
§200, Subsection 220 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for an interpretation of
the word "use" in the definition of a "lot".
Jerry Durker was present.
Mr. Druker stated, that is a specific question. I will start wil a vague overview of the
project than we can narrow into those questions there. We are proposing a 12,000 s/f
retail facility on Route 9 up by Scenic Garden Drive. Directly across from the Holiday
Bowl. We are interested in 4 retail facilities within this one building. We have
mentioned that to the Planning Board said that we should come talk to you folks to the
ruling on whether that is multiple use. I have looked through this zoning manual
that the Town has and I am hard pressed to find anything that specifically says that this
is multiple use from my own research through the Zoning Ordinance. I also understand that
well my interpretation is that the use would be retail. If you want multiple use it would
be retail, fast food, things of this nature but to have 4 retail facilities within the
building would still be one use as retail. It is my understanding that the Town Attorney
also feels this was, I don't know if this would have any bearring on your decision.
Mr. Caballero stated, our interpretation of that use in a HB -2 zoning has always been
with footnote "f", again, 2 uses shall be permitted in HB zoning where said one use is
a business to be operated by the owner/resident and said parcel, however, is not in no
instance shall have more than one residential use on said parcel. That means one use only.
Mr. Cortellino stated, one use, the only use being if you live there.
Mr. Caballero stated, a restraurant, dry cleaners, laundramat, one use.
Mr. Carver asked, the question is what is use.
Mr. Caballero stated, if you want shopping center you need 10 acres to do it in. There you
can put in multiple stores or GB. Highway Business is one use. That settles the
interpretation, I believe.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I disagree.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
The motion was carried.
Page -73-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, you could ask for a variance I believe, submit an application.
Mr. Druker stated,what if you had one, a person going in there under an owner going in
and opening up and having 4 different items being sold in the store, wouldn't that be the
same as having 4 different businesses even though the partitions are going.
Mr. Caballero answered, not under our interpretation before.that the one use, if you have
4 different businesses it would be 4 different uses.
Mr. Druker stated, what I was saying is that if you are selling 4 different items, lets
say.....
Mr. Caballero stated, if you have a convenient store you are selling a hundred of items.
Mr. Druker asked, the fact that you are using one name is what you are saying is going
to determine it?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think that is a to broad and interpretation. We choose to interpret
a little bit tighter than that.
Mr. Caballero stated, there have been variances granted to properties that have only one
use similar to this and we have allowed them to have 2 or 3 different uses. We have looked
at the property at a hearing and granted a variance on that respect, on that individual
property. You are welcome to submit that on this property.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I want that Board to define what retail is. Retail is a use.
Mr. Cortellino stated, then the 2 uses that you are permitted on a lot, you are permitted
2 uses on a lot, that takes care of all business because it is eother retail or wholesale
or you are out of business.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, retail is a use. There is alot of forms of retail but it is still
retail which is a single use.
Mr. Cortellino stated, forget about retail as a use. How about selling as a use. Now
we are taking care of the whole world because the buyer doesn't need a lot, it is only
the seller. So, you either sell tires... thats selling. Selling is not retail.
Mr. Druker stated, I disagree with you.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what is selling?
Mr. Druker stated, that is to broad an interpretation.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, reaail is a specific business use, just like we talked earlier, a
wholesaler or a warehouse cannot have retail. We defined that retail is a use. We did
it earlier, so therefore, we have already set a precidence that we defined retail as a
use. It is just like the Grand Union in Wappinger, they sell produce .............
Mr. Hirkala stated, Grand Union is not in HB.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, they have a defined bakery within, they have a defined fish market
within, a defined butcher shop, deli.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is in shopping center.
Page -74-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Carver stated, your own zoning book where it lists the uses for HB -2A it says uses,
and one of these uses written right in your book is retail that you are allowed to have
on this facility. Your own book is causing some of the problem here.
Mr. Caballero stated, over the years we have tried to address that with our different
Boards and we have never been able to get them to change it so we work along with what
we have.
Mr. Hirkala asked, where is this property that you are talking about?
Mr. Caballero stated, they asked for an interpretation.
Mr. Carver stated, Scenic Garden Drive, Route 9.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4943, 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, and part sales on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-04-703107,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we have a request here for a Special Use Permit and we have no plans.
This is what I tried to say before, what constitutes an application, a legal application.
It specifically states in a request for Special Use Permit you refer to the site plan
provision of the ordinance. And here we site and we have no plans in front of us..
What do we refer to the Planning Board?
Mr. Hartman stated, I have a site plan.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a part of the application. It is supposed to be submitted
with the application.
Mr. Caballero stated, well he has it and we send it to the Planning Board for recommendation'
and when he comes back we better see something, the plans.
Mr. Hirkala asked, and where is this located?
Mr. Hartman answered, north of Stanley Cole.
Mr. Hirkala stated, DeCar fence is opposite Osborne Hill Road, there is another one that
was just approved next to that which is the oil change job, now this is another one and
how much screaming have I done about a service road over there in that section and not
only we want to see the plans before hand so we can make a recommendation to the Planning
Board as to what to look at traffic wise in a Special Use Permit request or aren't we
here for what the Special Use Permit request is supposed to be for.
Mr...Landolfi made a motion to refer this application to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Page -75-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal X6946, at the re uest of Maria G. Rabasco, seekin 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 #6156-01-436690, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Rabasco was present.
Mrs. Rabasco stated, first of all I want to say that I didn't know the procedures to ask
for a permit. In March of 1985 I had a fire in my house and I had several problems with
that. Since the fire .... but I am....
Due to the tape running out, the next portion of the minutes are incomplete.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this application to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next item:
Appeal X6946, at the request of Ellen R Youssef, seeking an interpretation of Article IV,
§404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance that the Zoning Board of Appeals make
,a_determination that replacing one mobile home with another is a similar use.
Ellen Youssef was present.
Mr. Gunderud stated, there is a number of mobile homes there, there is a number of cabins.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you feel that that is an objectionable spot for a mobile home?
Mr. Gunerud answered, well, the existing mobile home that is there and is legal on the
site I think that from looking at her picture I think what she has would certainly enhance
the area itself problem that we have with this lady who went to Florida and is very
reluctant to come back and do anything with the property.
Mr. Caballero stated, I make a motion that, I feel that this mobile home being replaced
with the similar size home, newer home would improve the property and the area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the request is whether or not she can replace one home with another.
Mr. Caballero stated, if it is an improvement of the property, why not.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the request for interpretation is where or not replacing one mobile
home with another is a similar use.
Mr. Caballero stated, in this particular case, it is a similar use and it would probably
upgrade the property.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Page -76-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4947 at the request of Joseph G Dell, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§421, 115 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a professional medical
office/medical clinic on property located on 2 Pye Lane, and being Parcel #6257-02-907853
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Dell was present.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this application to the Planning Board.
Mrs. Schaefer.
I am against this. I think this residential area should stay residentail. I am also
very concerned about the increased traffic.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience.
There was no one.
Mr. Caballero stated, you said here that you want to put a medical office and a medical
clinic, what kind of medical clinic?
Mr. Dell answered, well, I am a dentist. What I came here for was to basically get an idea
if I can do this or not because if you people are going to tell me that you are against
it then I don't want to waste my time on my own persuing this any farther. The thing is
I know in the Town of Wappinger if someone wants to put in a medical offic whether it is
an MD or a dentist or whatever usually the requirements are that we live there, at least
that is my interpretation. The thing is, I have my own home, which is in East Fishkill.
I have an office right now that is over by, or just by the bridge. New road is going in,
new bridge is going in and it is going to be a problem to stay there. What I would like
to do is get out of there and set up another place. Now, at this property on 2 Pye Lane,
if I have to live there than I understand it and I won't pursue it any further because
that is not my intent, I don't want to live at the same place I have my office but if
I can set that up as a separate office without having to live there. It is 2 floors, and
each are about approximately 950 s/f and if I can use that to put in a medical facility
for myself and have a rental.
Mr. Cortellino stated, not far from there there is a medical clinic going up.
Mr. Hirkala stated, permitted principla use is, on of the permitted principal uses is a
medical clinic but what you would have to do is go through a full blown site plan approval,
for a medical clinic as an application and you would have to determine whether the site
is suitable for it.
Mr. Dell stated, what I want to know is if you people think that there is going to be a
problem with that because I don't want to.....
Mr. Hirkala answered, we can't tell you what the problem is going to be. All that we know
is that the ordinance says, the ordinance says that it is a permitted principal use.
Whatever the problem would be would come out as you go along.
Mr. Dell stated, what I want to know now though is if you think I have to live there.
kw
Mr. Landolfi stated, a medical clinic is a permitted use. That is different than a
dentist who lives in a residence opening up an office within his home. That is a little
different.
Page -77-
October 14th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, a medical clinic is an allowable use. You have the right to come in
under the Zoning Ordinance and request approval for a medical clinic. You will probably
get the approval for a medical clinic because it is a permitted principal use without
having to live there. I will tell you right now you are going to go through a full site
plan approval.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we can limit you hours of operation, things of that nature if we feel
that would be a detriment to that location.
Mrs. Schaefer stated, I just didn't understand. You are saying that this is a residentail
area.
Mr. Landolfi stated, there is about 12 different uses that are permitted.
Mr. Caballero stated, by right, under a SUP, in other words, we are able to set conditions
on it and I personally I don't like a project like this in that area so I will ask for
alot of different agencies to get involved looking for a way to deny it.
Mrs. Schaefer stated, I have to say that I would get alot more active and talk to all the
neighbors about this to myself. It is residential and.....
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 A.M.-
lb
M
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals