1986-09-09ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 9TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M..
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal #854, at the request of 22 Associates,
of §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
materials on property located on Route 9 & Osborne
04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger.
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
Ltd., seeking a Special Use Permit
to allow storage & sale of building
Hill Road, and being Parcel #6157-
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 #911, at the request of Immanuel Christian Reformed Church, seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, §421, 14 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend
the site plan for an addition on the existing church on property located on 253 Myers
Corners Road, and being Parcel #6158-02-845570, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #919, at the request of Margaret & Richard Koriniskie, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a screened in
porch with a 15 foot sideyard where 20 feet is required on property located on North
Fowlerhouse Road, and being Parcel #6157-04-562345, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. 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.
6. Appeal #922, at the request of Ronald Dierks, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.52
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, "a free standing sign shall not be closer
than 25 feet", we request a 12 foot setback on property located on Middlebush Road, and
being Parcel #6157-02-608885, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. 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.
8. Appeal #926, at the request of Regina Parisella, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 and §200 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a hair and nail
services home occupation as an accessory use in an existing dwelling in the R-40
district on property located on 11 Tor Road, and being Parcel #6257-02-857800, in the
Town of Wappinger.
9. Appeal #927, at the request of Victor & Lorraine Margiotta, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit
to be issued for an attached 2 car garage with a 14 foot sideyard where 20 feet is
required on property located on 5 Mina Drive, and being Parcel #6157-02-978849, in the
Town of Wappinger.
10. 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.
Page -2-
September 9th, 1986
11. Appeal 4929, at the request of E. Bruce Hultmark, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit to be
issued for a 2 story addition with a 13 foot sideyard setback where 20 feet is required
on property located on 18 Quarry Drive, and being Parcel #6158-01-015515, in the Town
of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4900, at the request of John Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 1f8 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 46157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4902, at the request of Tanya Mortenson, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 14 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to establish a day care/
nursery school on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46158-04-
980125, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4924, 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 allow an accessory
apartment on property located on 18 Monfort Road, and being Parcel 46358-03-194429, in
the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4930, 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 allow a church on
property located on Myers Corners Road & All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6258-
02-628535, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 4933, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, request for a re-application for a
Special Use Permit to allow gas service and car wash, on property located on Route 9 &
Old Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEPTEMBER 9TH, 1986 - 7:OO P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, September 9th,
1986, at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Mr. Caballero - Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Hirkala Mr. Urciuoli
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion from the Board to accept the August 12th, 1986 Minutes.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero then explained how the meeting would be conducted.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office.
Mr. Caballero read the first appeal:
Appeal #854, at the request of 22 Associates, Ltd., seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning ordinance to allow storage & sale of
building materials on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel
#6157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger.
Jack Railing and Mr. Piazza were present.
Mr. Railing stated, this particular site is located on the northwest corner of the
intersection of Osborne Hill Road and U.S. Route 9. The owner of the property is 22
Associates Ltd., the area is 5 acres. It is proposed that they requested the Special
Use Permit granted for this particular site under §422 of the Ordinance to allow for
the storage and sale of building materials on this property. The site plan, which you
have copies, shows the proposal for the Lloyd's Home & Building Center. Its a 30,000 s/f
building, with 900 s/f office. It is located within a HB -2A zone, and the use as
shown on this parcel is in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
We do need a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero asked if the Board had any questions.
Mr. Caballero stated, I see here on other remarks that you say that you have a storage
and sales of building materials. You are storing materials and retailing material?
Mr. Railing answered, within the building and we can go through an explanantion of the
operation and the facility if you would like. We do have a representative from Lloyd's
here to explain the type of operation that they have in the building. Primarily it is
a retail operation for the general public, it is not a contractors outlet that type of
operation occurs elswhere in this County. This is for the homeowner to come in and
Page -2-
September 9th, 1986
purchase, on a retail basis, materials that he might need to repair his home, there will
be other types of retail goods, again, let me know if you want me to elaborate on this
because we do have a representative from Lloyd's.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have a concern with the storage, if the location in Fishkill is
any evidence of the type of storage, its not the most attractive scene. I can't speak
for the Town of Fishkill, but I can for the Town of Wappinger. I think we are going to,
we will not allow, permit if you will, that type of storage that lends nothing to our
community, if you will. We are going to be quite emphatic about any type of storage
that it be somewhat, enter into the neighborhood of some sort, rather than looking like a
railyard.
Mr. Railing stated, the site plan does show a controled are for that storage.
Mr. Landolfi asked, you are the same Lloyd, is that correct.
Mr. Bucksbaum, Vice President of Lloyd's.
You are one hundred million percent right and I stand here, quite frankly, quite ashamed
of our Fishkill operation. We are not talking about anywheres near that type, completely
different type operation then we have there. Just, although it isn't terribly important
to Wappinger what we are doing in Fishkill, but it is because, you have seen, you must have
seen the property adjacent, on the North side of that being leveled off. We are going
to be moving materials on there to straighten up that facility and we will be turing
that, redoing that whole facility so that we have a much more orderly business there,
a business that we could be proud of also. We have outgrown that site tremendously.
That site will be turned into a professional sales site and the retail buyer, you and I
under normal circumstances will not be able to go there and buy anything because we won't
have the type of materials there that we would be looking for and we wouldn't even have
the facilities there to sell that. What we are going to be having here will be a completel,
modern home center business similar to, infact identical to, almost identical to the one
we have in Poughkeepsie, I don't know if any of you had the opportunity to see it, but that
the type of location, we will not have, if you want to build a home, you won't be able to
buy the products at this location, they will be able to sell it to you but it will be
delivered out of Fishkill type location or a location like that in Brewster. The lumber.
that we intend to have here will be kept small quantities, the whole thing will be
completely different. It is more an embarassment to be then it is to anybody else the
condition of that, and within a 12 month period that whole operation will be completely
different because we are going to be taking down some of those buildings and putting up
some new ones. We will have a small delivery truck here which will be slightly larger
than a pickup truck.
Mr. Caballero asked, will there be any outside storage what so ever on this property?
Mr.Railing answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, how much?
Mr. Railing answered, it is illustrated on the map, it is at the rear of the building
and it is approximately a 40 x 130. I haven't got that demension ready.
Mr. Piazza stated, that storate are that is being asked for here, provided for here is
for primarily to take that flow of goods that comes in on a seasonal basis, such as
railroad ties, bags of chips, that kind of stuff when they deliver it. The majority of
storage in this building, is all underneath the building, enclosed with overhead doors
and is totally out of sight. The trucks that would deliver products to the building
Page -3-
September 9th, 1986
will drive into the building, unload inside the building and pull out after. So that is
primarily the only reason for the exterior storage is for the seasonal type goods that
will be involved at certain times of the year.
Mr. Hirkala asked, my original problem with this site is 82 parking spaces and as I
read the ordinance, as the Zoning Administrator has interpreted, the plan, it only requires
82 parking spaces. Now, I would like to know on what basis that intepretation was made.
Specifically what basis that was made.
Mr. Railing answered, as a result of discussions that we had at the last meeting,
Hans and I sat down and in an effort to use the most conservative approaches towards
parking, you will note the plan recently revised as a result of Hans Gunderud's and
my meeting, now indicates a layout for a total parking spaces units of 164 of which,
and we explained this before, the actual need of this particular project is that of
only 84 spaces, actually slightly less than that. What we did with Hans is we ----
where those spaces could go, and those spaces are to the rear. In an effort to illustrate
that should the use ever change where there might be the need for that additional
requirement that area does exist. The question is is that we have shown on the site plan
allocation for 164 spaces.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so in other words what you are saying is that the Planning Board has
granted a reduction of spaces to 50%?
Mr. Railing answered, that is our request of the Planning Board.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the Planning Board has reduced your parking requirements by 50%
provided it shows for future use?
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so in other words there is 164 spaces according to the ordinance on
this site plan?
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I just wanted to clarify according to the ordinance. When we went
through_ the original number I still believe that the original figures that we came up
with are figures that have been consistent with other site plans. In other words, breaking
out those areas of building which are used for storage, warehousing, and office, and so on
and giving those numbers which the Zoning Ordinance requires, however, Jack came back
for further disucssions and we looked at what the concerns of the Board was and said if
the use was something else, and we had to go with the full parking then that number we
came up with 180 and some spaces. I am not really changing what my original interpretation
was, I stillam accepting site plans, I think you will see on the ones that are before
the Planning Board now and the ones that are coming in, the ones that have been approved,
consistent way to calculate the parking spaces, that the applicant's engineer or architect
will break down those areas of the building and then we will assign the numbers to meet
the zoning ordinance based on what the ordinance says for the type of use. In this case
they went ahead and did all the parking spaces that are required and got the waivers from
the Planning Board, so there is no questions about this particular site plan.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, does this storage area have a canopy or a covering over it, or is
it just open air?
Mr. Railing answered, just a fence.
Page -4-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, I see the sign conforms as far as the square footage, however, how
about the setback, does that conform to that?
Mr. Railing stated, I believe we have tried to represent the plan as meeting all the
aspects of the ordinance, yes.
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 asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, all my paperworks is older paperwork because all I see here is variance
requests dated 1985, 10/19/85 request for variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is for a Special Use Permit and the correspondence that I have
from the Dept. of Transportation was actually addressed to the Planning Board, you are
welcome to review the ones that I have in my hands which are the current ones for the
Special Use Permit. Is it your intention to send this back to the Planning Board for
review again, is that what you are looking for Mike?
Mr. Hirkala answered,no. I would just like to know if my information here is up to date.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Railing, are you aware of the correspondence from the Dept. of
Transportation to the Planning Board?
Mr. Railing stated, we are more than aware of the items relating to the entrance, etc.
to the Planning Board, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, did they see this before or after they make the recommendation to
us?
Mr. Railing answered, they have seen it all through the process. If you will recall,
particuarlily, a plan and application and what it has been through in the last year you
know that that has been thoroughly studied by everyone concerned, and the plan that you
see before you was the identical entrance and exit that was shown on the original
application.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the record the Dept. of Planning had some concerns with the
sight storm water, which direction the stream on the parallel or not into the County
Road, that it would not go into the County Road, has that been addressed to?
Mr. Railing answered, the stream flows away from the County Road. We have submitted to
the Town Engineer, relative to the site plan and received conceptual approval last night
by the Boards of our proposal of the storm water management system.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have in front of me also the resolution that that portion of that
property was changed to HB -2A and that is all part of the record. What is the pleasure of
the Board?
Page -S-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, in reading this correspondence I would like to know from Jack what the,
for the record, what the reaction is from these people, if any, in light of the re -zoning
and the conditions of the re -zoning.
Mr. Railing asked, which are these people?
Mr. Hirkala answered, the State of New York for one, the Northbound problem, item 1 & 2.
It seems to me that this was all covered under the re -zoning requirements and I want
to know what the reation is.
Mr. Railing answered, the actual information relating to the N.Y.S.D.O.T., the entrance
is acceptable to them as we show it on this map. The other area which related to the
zoning involved the traffic signal.
Mr. Hirkala added, and the closing off of the median.
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct. We have provided the State of New York with the
traffic analysis by Dr. John Collins who analyzed both intersections, he has given that
information to them. The indication is that there is a warrant for a traffic signal
and the state has indicated that they are willing to do as required by their laws to
install that..in conjunction with the applicant. They are now studying that report to
make a determination as to the location of that signalization.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so right now, as far as we stand with the State of New York and all
the discussion that we had on this particular project and the traffic situation, the
State of New York still hasn't gone along with the request of the Town?
Mr. Railing answered, yes they have.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words they say there will be a traffic signal at Smithtown
Road, and there will be a closing of the median?
Mr. Railing stated, the only difference would be if they elect to put the signalization
at Osborne Hill Road.
Mr. Hirkala asked, rather than Smithtown?
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct. Either way, my point is, either way it is
independent of this entrance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one of the problems I have with that intersection was with a traffic
light at Osborne Hill Road this ingress and egress on Route 9 still allowed cross
traffic attempt for Northbound situation, northbound leaving there, it is still allowed
for that and my contention is that if we don't close off the median at Osborne Hill Road
and install a traffic light at Smithtown Road, I disagree with the ingress and egress
of this property and I want to see egress on Osborne Hill Road, not on Route 9.
Mr. Piazza stated, we have gone over this with great bit of detail and a great deal of
study as you well know and it has been resolved by the Town Board telling us that unless
such a traffic signal installed either by us or by the State of New York, in time for
the CO that we would not get a CO. We have worked out that arrangement with the State
that now they are making the determination and they make the determination, we don't
was to spend $90,000 to put a traffic signal but we are doing it to accomodate our
needs and to satisfy an existing problem that is already in the Town of Wappinger. It is
already there. The study that we did proved it, now we are willing to do that and we are
willing to go forward but the State will dictate to us as they will to the Town, as to
Page -6-
September 9th, 1986
where they want the traffic light on their property and we will have to abide by whatever
the state tells us. We are not here to debate where it is going to be and the closing
of the median we intend to do as well.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the point that I am bring up now is that all that we have been
through, what I am hearing now from Jack is the possibility that the State will override
that.
Mr. Piazza stated, well they have ultimate decision making capability, but, ....
Mr. Hirkala stated, my accidents at that intersection, the state could care less about.
Mr. Railing stated, my opinion is there is a very slim chance because of the angle of
the intersection of Osborne that you will find that signal there, and I think we all
realize that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the stated and their infinite widow can turn around and say this is
not what we want, we want this and everybody has got to listen to it and my contention is
that if that is the case then I want to see a different egress on this property.
Mr. Railing stated, If you have the benefit with many meetings with us with the state
they have to go through the motions, if you will, before they say.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason that I am saying that is because right here it states it
in the County considerations. The County letter itself states that they want to see a
egress off of the property on Osborne Hill Road.
Mr. Piazza asked the date of the letter.
Mr. Hirkala answered October 3rd, 1985.
Mr. Piazza stated, they had initially proposed something like that, October 3rd, 1985,
we have had 2 or 3 meetings with them since that time and they have left those meetings
with the understanding that whatever the state came up with they would abide by. The
Osborne Hill exit is not a good exit traffic wise, safety wise, in any case, because
any traffic flowing southbound off of 9 onto Osborne Hill Road with an intersection so
limited within so many feet of the intersection is very bad.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if the site was easy to develop we wouldn't be here all these months.
Mr. Piazza stated, the site is not a difficult site to develop we have proven that.
It is a matter of accomodating other requests that the Town has made of us and that
request is focused on an existing problem that we are here to help solve and we are
prepared to do it. We have to do it on the property of the State of New York and we
just can't arbitrarily go in and say we are going to do it there unless they want it.
We are prepared to do whatever the State tells us.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in light of what is being said now I would support, if anyone is
going to make a motion to grant the Special Use Permit an amendment to the motion that
any change from the original re -zoning conditions that the State wanted would require
T coming back in for another look at ingress and egress because that is the reason we went
�i that way originally the re -zoning condition was because of the ingress and egress, the
problem on Route 9 and if it is going to change somewhere down the road we are going to
have a whole different ball game in my view.
Page -7-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Piazza stated, I don't think the purpose of our being here tonight is to discuss
whether there is going to be a stop light at a particular intersection because that is
not our jurisdiction.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not what I am saying.
Mr. Piazza stated, the zoning was granted on that a stop light will be put in on Route 9.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I hear you but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is
that a condition of the SUP which the Zoning Board of Appeals has the right to set
conditions, if they see a possibility of any undue situation that might arise from this
development and my feeling is that one undue situation that might arise is that the State
will negate the agreement between you and the Town and if that is the case then we have
a whole new ball game. The ingress and egress on this property is a problem at that
intersection and if the State does something other than what we had agreed upon then the
state is not going to dictate, in my view, to the Town what they are going to do. The
Town has another problem created.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to go back and forth all evening on this particular
issue. Mike, do you want to make a motion to grant the SUP subject to the condition?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I won't make the motion to grant it, but I will do is request anyone
who makes the motion to put my condition on it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make the motion but I just, while I don't disagree with Mike, if
there are any changes they would have to come back through anyway. They just can't make
a change from that plan before going back before. I will make the motion to grant the
SUP with the condition as stated by Mr. Hirkala.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
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) unit
dwelling on property located on Route 9D, and being Parcel #6157-01-180640, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Patrick Clark was present.
Mr. Clark stated, this apartment has existed for some 6 years as it is. We recently
purchased it from members of my family at which time, going through the mortgage process
it was brought to our attention that the apartment was never -legalized. We are just
trying to remedy the situation.
Mr. Caballero asked, when you bought the house you found out that it wasn't legal, you
didn't have a CO on the house?
Mr. Clark answered, I owned a portion of this house, it was in my family since my fathers
death, I recently bought out the other members and we moved in, the apartment has been
Page -8-
September 9th, 1986
rented. Like I said, for the last 6 years or so and if we didn't go through the mortgage
process we probably wouldn't be here tonight.
Mr. Caballero asked, is this apartment, the additional apartment for family use or are
you planning to rent it out?
Mr. Clark answered, it is rented.
Mr. Hirkala asked, where exactly is this located?
Mr. Clark answered, make a left out of Middlebush and it is the fifth house on the left
almost at the crest of the hill.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, say if we did in fact grant this variance, would that
be subjected to any kind of inspections at all?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the Building Inspector, as well as the Fire Inspector.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
John Thew - owns the property next door.
The Clarks' have been there for a number of years and as far as I knew there wasn't any
other apartments other than its a single family house and it has always been occupied
by the Clarks or members of their family. I am hearing for six years we have has an
apartment there, maybe it is an apartment, but I considered it to be members of the
same family, so, I don't understand that. I would also like to oppose my objection in
that it appears that if you are going to legalize an apartment which was not, was formally
members of a family in the house we are going to now make it a legal subdivision, if you
will, a 2 family house, we are now getting into the relm of changing the character of
this neighborhood, so, on those grounds I would like to object, I will be up here again
this evening over the apartment, or the house on the other side where we want to make
6 apartments. I would like to object.
Mr. Caballero asked, on the basis of what sir?
Mr. Thew answered, on the basis of number one, sir, we are changing the character of the
neighborhood if we legalize that. Up until this point in time, as far as I have ever
known, or my mother has ever indicated to me, the Clark's next door its been members of
the same family, so I would disagree with the fact that we have had an illegal 2 family
house for 6 years. The doors to the house haven't changed, we don't have a 2 family
house there, it is a single family house.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else from the audience who wished to speak.
There was no one else.
Mr. Clark asked if he could answer his questions.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically he says that there was no apartment there before and you
said that there was.
Mr. Clark answered, well the apartment has been there, it was never rented to family.
Our ultimate goal is to eventually to get rid of the apartment, but the situation now,
financially, we need it.
Page -9-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli asked, who is living in the apartment?
Mr. Clark answered, my wife and I live downstairs. My sister lived there and for a
short period of time the apartment wasn't inhabitant, but there has been 4 different
tenants there to the best of my knowledge. There is a newlywed couple living upstairs.
2 people.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if this was the first time they heard this appeal.
Mr. Gunderud answered, 2 months ago.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have a recommendation from the Planning Board and they see no
objection to granting this Special Use Permit, correspondence from August 14th from
the Planning Board. We wanted to confer with our Attorney today in reference to this
Special Use Permits on this pre 1963 large footage houses that could be coming in
requesting to put in apartments and unfortunately we were not able to meet with the
Attorney so we didn't get a legal opinion to the Board in reference to this. I think
may be we should adjourn this until we do get an opportunity to speak to our Attorney
because this seems to be a common problem with the larger homes that are in the Town
pre -1963 Zoning. If any member of the Board would wish to make that motion.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we get with our legal council for discussion.
We do have several of them, this is not the only one.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Thew, to answer your question, at this time my opinion is
that we would have to grant this Special Use Permit. I am looking for a method or a
way through a legal opinion from our Attorney to probably be able to deny it, so at this
time we are going to adjourn, we are going to confer with counsel and if counsel
advises that there is no way we van deny this use permit this gentlemen is going to get
his permit.
Mr. Thew stated, I understand that, my question was coming from, based on what I have
heard and what you were saying, last month you referred to the Town Attorney.
Mr. Caballero stated, our Attorney was supposed to be here this evening to meet with
us before we had this meeting. Unfortunately there was a court case they could not
be here.
Mr. Thew stated, okay, so therefore, does that postpone the action on the house that is
on the other side of me?
Mr. Caballero answered, I imagine that when we get to that hearing we will probably
be taking the same type of action.
Mr. Thew stated, on that house, last month you postponed contingent talking to Jennifer
Van Tuyl.
Page -10-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero answered, and we didn't get a chance to do that.
Mr. Thew asked, you didn't get a chance to do that, does that mean that that...
Mr. Caballero answered, most likely when I get to that hearing we will handle it that way.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4911, at the request of Immanuel Christian Reformed Church, seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, §421, 1f4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend
the site plan for an addition on the existing church on property located on 253 Myers
Corners Road, and be-i—ng Parcel 46158-02-845570, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mel Willard, was present.
Mr. Willard stated, we are currently right now improving our site plan at a recommendation
of the Building recommendations. We would like to go forward with this program. We have
reviewed it with our neighbors and to our knowledge no one has taken objection to our
expansion. The expansion will be done in such a manner that it will not change the
character or the nature of our facilities there or the appearance of our facilities.
Mr. Caballero asked, are your privy to our correspondence from the County Planning Dept.
in reference to your parking and your landscape and drainage?
Mr. Willard answered, no sir I am not.aware of that.
Mr. Caballero presented Mr. Willard with a copy of the letter.
Mr. Willard stated, we intend to work with the Board completely to comply with all their
requestes. Our intent of our facilities is not to create a problem with the neighborhood.
Although, I am not aware of that letter, working together with the Town of Wappinger I
am sure we will meet all their requirements, that is one reason why we have hired an
engineer to come in and give us an updated site plan to make sure that we address all
those concerns.
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, what is the percentage of increase of the space?
Mr. Willard answered, it is a 4,000 s/f addition. Presently today we have 3,000 s/f
sanctuary, we would like to increase that to 4,000, so we could go from today we have
53 families in our church and we would like to ba able to go about to 73 families.
Our existing sanctuary would then become a recreation center for the community such
as boyscouts, girlscouts, and whatever organizations would like to use it. We would
not be changing our educational facilities and we would be strictly the church on Sunday
morning services, sunday school starts at 9:30 in the morning and the church is over at
1:00, so we really shouldn't create any traffic problems. That is what our purpose is.
One of the things that, an experience is, when a church becomes crowded many times people
would come, they would like to worship with us and then find it is just to crowded and
we would like to be able to service our community in that way.
Mr. Landolfi asked, does that exceed the allowable.
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, because in this case it would only be a percentage of the
total lot and they are way under the percentage of the lot.
Page -11-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero brought up the fact that the fees were no paid to the Southern Dutchess
News for the legal notice.
Mr. Willard stated that he would take care of the fees.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will be willing to pass on that provided that those fees be paid.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor that we grant this Special Use subject
to fees being paid.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing on Appeal #911.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4919, at the request of Margaret & Richard Koriniskie, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wpapinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a screened in
porch with a 15 foot sideyard setback where 20 feet is required on property located on
North Fowlerhouse Road, and being Parcel #6157-04-562345, in the Town of Wappinger.
Margaret Koriniskie was present.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this is a neighbor of mine and due to that fact I think it is best
that I abstain from voting but I am privy to alot of information that has gone on before
because I lived there for a long time, so I would like to......
Mr. Caballero stated, your background knowledge of the property would be helpful to the
rest of the Board.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I must abstain from voting.
Mr. Koriniskie stated, the porch is approximately 9 x 20 foot, it is an existing structure.
It has been up for approximately 7 years. I have lived in the home for 4. Carl's Home
Improvement put the porch on at that time. They did not get a Building Permit and now
that my home is sold and I am moving out the title does not show that there was a proper
permit so I had to apply for a permit, for which I have, it has to be inspected and
I don't know what else to say.
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Gunderud, I see here that the property line is only 4 feet
away. Can you enlighten the Board in reference to that?
Mrs. Koriniskie stated, actually its 12 foot 9 inches.
Page -12-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, the property line goes at an angle so its 4 feet from the frontyard.
Mr. Landolfi asked, this is not correct or it is correct?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, that is correct. The porch is far back.
Mr. Caballero stated, yes, but I also see a family room there that is 4 feet from the
property line.
Mrs. Koriniskie stated, the property line is on an angle so......
Mr. Caballero asked, at any point is that family room 4 feet from the property line?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, no, its probably, it gradually gets wider as the yard gets...
Mr. Caballero asked, what is the shortest distance between the family room?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, well the distance between the beginning of where the porch is
is 12 foot 9 inches, I believe that is the exact measurement and the end of the porch
is 12 foot 11 inches.
Mr. Caballero stated, I understand that but there is a family room there, how close is
that family room to the property line?
Mrs. Koriniskie stated, 4 foot from the garage, from the beginning of the garage, now,
my garage is 25 x 25 and then the den is.....
Mr. Caballero stated you are misunderstanding us basically e
, y g y th measurement that we are
looking for is from the family room where the house is already there, forget about the
porch, how far is that away from the property line, that is what I am looking for?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, I would say 10 foot.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what is this 4 feet?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, that is the garage.
Mr. Landolfi stated, to the line it is only 4 feet, that is a bigger violation than
what we are addressing.
Mrs. Koriniskie stated, there is a variance, that structure has been up since 1973.
Mr. Caballero stated, you say there is a variance for that family room?
Mrs. Koriniskie answered, yes, that has been up since 1973.
Mr. Caballero asked if she had any paperwork on that.
Mr. Gunderud stated, a variance was granted.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this particular house was almost totally rebuilt by an owner at the
time, his name was Malabar, I believe. He regutted and redid the whole house and put
an addition on and at the time there were a few variances granted in my neighborhood,
this being one of them. Across the street there were a couple other ones variance that
are within 5 feet of the property line and it is one of these things where neighbors
don't complain about neighbors.
Page -13-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Hirkala, I am only concerned whether he did get a variance.
If he got a variance and he is 2 feet from the property line.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my understanding is that garage had a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, so then there was a variance given for this garage and the family
room?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I am quite sure that we looked that up and confirmed that there was
a variance.
Mr. Koriniskie stated, that is the reason why, because the house is sold and I am ready
to close all the paperwork was necessary and this was the item that was in question.
Mr. Caballero stated, now this existing porch, gentlemen, I don't think is going to
infringe anymore on the property line since they are going 4 foot in and it is already
there. So, I just wanted to establish the fact that the garage and the den are legally
conforming because they did receive a variance. So, 4 feet from the property line, that
is pushing it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the builder there, he has built in our area before, hasn't he?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no oneP resent.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - abstain Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion that the variance be granted.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - abstain Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated, let the records show that we are doing this because there is an
obvious hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, let the records show that we are granting this variance because
a previous variance, granted on a family room and a garage and we are not obstructing
into the sideyard setbacks anymore then the garage and family room.
Page -14-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #920, at the request of John Esposito, seeking a variance of Article IV, §445.8
of tIc Tnm„ fn Wnnninacr 7nnina nrtlinnnra to Allnw fnr an arracanry anartmant additinn
John Esposito was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, when did this property receive a C.O., in 1985?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it has not received a C.O. yet. The house received a C.O., yes,
in 1981, May 13th.
Mr. Caballero stated, so the house had a C.O. for 5 years?
Mr. Gunderud answered, right.
Mr. Esposito stated, I just want a C.O. on the house, on the addition, the addition is
already built.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud to explain a little bit how this comes about.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the building permit was requested for an addition on a house
that had a C.O. 5 years old. The plans were submitted, it was approved by the Zoning
Administrator, Building Inspector, and construction started.and the Building Inspector
was doing the inspections of the construction and in some point in time near the end
of the project the Building Inspector refused to issue a Certificate of Occupancy because
he said it was now going to be an apartment which was not permitted and that is why the
C.O. was not issued.
Mr. Caballero asked, this is not pre 1963?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. I was not involved with the project itself, it was done
during the time I was not with the Town. I have researched the file, I have been
involved since I came back to the Town in March or April of this year and looking through
the records I noticed that the initial building permit application did not say specifically
that there was going to be an apartment, although Mr. Esposito has maintained all along
that that was his full intention and that was what was built during the framing, during
the whole course of construction and....
Mr. Caballero asked, but the original permit does not say that it was for an additional
accessory apartment?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it just simply says for a residential addition which is, unfortu-
nately kind of standard in the office, sometimes we don't differentiate whether it is
going to be an addition with a bedroom and bathroom or just an addition for a playroom
or anything else. The construction was apparently going along very nicely until some
point near the end of the project the Building Inspector decided, for whatever reason,
that it was not.....
Mr. Esposito stated, he said that all of a sudden the kitchen appeared.
Mr. Caballero asked, were you presented when you asked for this variance with a sheet of
paper that tells you what is your responsibility to present to this Board so that you
can get a variance?
Page -15-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Esposito answered, yes, just recently, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, what is your presentation, what are you going to tell us, just that
you want a C.O. is not going to cut it.
Mr. Esposito stated, I got the okay from my inlaws to move in the hosue from the Building
Inspector when the house was...
Mr. Caballero stated, your inlaws can move into your house anytime they want, what you
can't do is put in an additional apartment in the house without a permit.
Mr. Esposito stated, we got a permit for the addition.
Mr. Caballero stated, but not for another apartment.
Mr. Landolfi asked, did it occur to you that that is a residential area and that was a
little unusual that you had an apartment and no one else had on out there?
Mr. Esposito answered, before I went ahead with this I asked the people on the Board...
Mr. Landolfi asked, what Board?
Mr. Esposito stated, I asked the Supervisor what the procedure is for a mother/daughter
apartment. It is very simple you go to the Town, you tell them what you want to do and
they give you a building permit. I submitted a set of plans, told them what I was
going to do and that is what I did.
Mr. Caballero asked, so what you have there now is a second apartment with bathrooms and
with kitchen, etc.?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, separate entrance?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, the thing that is kind of puzzling is that these plans do not show
any bathroom or kitchen they just show one big room.
Mr. Esposito stated, I had gone over this with the Buildign Inspector and I told him
that we didn't know exactly, I was originally going to put the kitchen in the existing
house and that was changed and we put it outside.in the addition. So he says fine,
just keep on going, and that is it. And then when I asked him for the final C.O.
for the final inspection he says all of a sudden a kitchen appeared which was false
because the .....he was supposedly gong to school and the Fire Inspector inspected it
and he told him about the plumbing and the soffit that was all that showed.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I don't know if at this point he would even know that there is
a kitchen in there. He is asking you—the rough plumbing and everything else.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think as a Zoning Board of Appeals board it really doesn't
matter what the Building Inspector or what he was told. I sent Linda out to get the
criteria of granting a variance so that this gentlemen would understand what he has
to prove to us in reference to getting a variance.
Page -16-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, are you then implying that you are requesting a mother/daughter
type apartment?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes I am.
Mr. Landolfi asked, are you aware what happens when the use ceases, when you request a
mother/daughter apartment? God forbid, you are moving in with your inlaws now, right?
Mr. Esposito answered, my inlaws are moving in with me.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if, god forbid, time goes on and they pass on that has got to revert
back to a single family dwelling, are you aware of that? That is a nice section out
there and you are all single families, people love it. I do not like to see apartments
going up out there because that changes the character of the neighborhood and that is
not the intent. People bought homes to live in a single family area, they pay taxes
accordingly. I don't think it is fair for one person to have an apartment in a single
family area.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, are we just looking at it just for a variance as an apartment or
are we looking at it as a mother/daughter?
Mr. Landolfi answered, no. He applied for the variance. He didn't mention, there is
nothing in here that tells me this is a mother/daughter in any way.
Mr. Gunderud stated, Mr. Esposito has another application awaiting submission to the
Board. This appeal is for the fact that the addition was added to the house, and of
course the accessory apartment law says that there can be no increase in the perimeter
of a house for an accessory apartment. Now there was an increase in the perimeter of
the house by the fact that the addition was added so this appeal is only to get over
that particular aspect of the accessory apartment law. He meets all the other criteria
for an accessory apartment. The C.O. was issued on the house over 5 years ago, it is
his blood relatives, he does has documentation to prove who they are and so on, so he
would normally qualify, and his house could be converted were not for the fact that this
was an addition to the original house, and that is what the variance is for tonight.
Mr. Landolfi asked, isn't there something in the law that says there has to be a sign
posted to.
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi asked, did he post a sign?
Mr. Gunderud answered, well he has not applied for the accessory apartment. He now
knows that he needs a variance, he can't simply just apply because it was an addition.
If the variance is granted so that this addition can be now considered part of his house
and you waive the 5 year requirement for a C.O. being issued then he will come in and
apply for the mother/daughter and do the posting, he has a copy of the ordinance and it
it kind of complex. I think he knows alot of the points, like you mentioned about it has
to revert back if the situation ever changes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my quesiton is do you have a copy of this section of the ordinance?
The section that you are appealing? The reason that you are here is because of this
section, do you have a copy of it?
Page -17-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, have you read it?
Mr. Esposito answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you understand everything that is in it because there are alot of
requirements in here over and above just his perimeter. For instance, there is recording
requirement that you have to come back in and get re -approved every couple of years
I believe.
Mr. Gunderud stated, every year.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I get the sense that there is not an understanding on what we are
here for. I get that sense that this man is here because he wants to put his inlaws
legally in the house and wants to get a C.O. and that is the end of it.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to hear the Building Inspector's version of this.
Was it Dan Kriegsman?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. I believe there are special circumstances with this situation
and it might be useful to get the full report from the Building Inspector as well as the
Fire Inspector because the Fire Inspector has certain.knowledge about what was said, what
was approved by a Town Official which led this individual to believe that he was
completely conforming with the law and this is my understanding of the situation.
Mr. Caballero stated, I will entertain a motion to table this.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that we table this until we can get with the
Building Inspector, the Fire Inspector and find out some more data on what actually
happened.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
"The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero called a 10 minute recess at 8:00 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 P.M..
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #922, at the request of Ronald Dierks, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.52
of teh Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance "a free standing sign shall not be closer than
25 feet" we request a 12 foot setback on property located on Middlebush Road, and being
Parcel #6157-02-608885, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -18-
September 9th, 1986
Morton Marks, developer of the property located on the Southwest corner of Middlebush
Road and Route 9, it is a new office building being erected and the reason that we made
the request for a variance is because subsequent to our site plan approval for the
project the N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation came in and aquired a piece of land on
Middlebush Road where they are widening the road and the sign that we wanted to put up
was to be at the curb cut or close to the curb cut where there would be an identification
and directory of the tenants that would be located within the building. Now because
the widening of the road has impacted our plan and thus nisusitated us coming before
you requesting this variance because I think for people traveling the road the directory
should be within eyesight, that the could see the occupants of the building and I think
you have a rendering as to what.........
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a rendering but I do not have any map showing me where the
sign would be on the property.
Mr. Marks stated that he had a map and presented the Board with it.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what is the square footage of the sign?
Mr. Marks answered, 25 square feet.
Mr. Caballero stated, that meets with the code it is strictly the setback. If you move it
25 feet back you will be in your parking lot?
Mr. Marks stated, you could see that you would be in the driveway there.
L� Mr. Caballero stated, it doesn't have to necessarily go into that particular spot.
Mr. Landolfi asked, did the state take this over after this plan was submitted.
Mr. Marks stated, they have taken it already.
Mr. Gunderud stated, after the site plan was approved.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, is this the only sign that you are going to have?
Mr. Marks answered, there will be a sign on the corner because we are on 2 streets we
are entitled to 2 signs. There will be another sign located on Route 9 just stating
Executive Square. We wouldn't put a directory there because I think it would be
unsafe.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was a response from the State.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if the County was notified on this request.
Ms. Berberich answered, yes. You have a memo. Bill Bathrick called me and they have
no problem.
Mr. Caballero stated, we did have a call to the Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary from
Bill Bathrick and he stated that the County does not have any problems with the request
as long as it is not placed in the County Right of Way.
Mr. Landolfi asked, will this be illuminated?
Mr. Marks answered, from within. It is a plastic letter and it will be illuminated from
within.
Page -19-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Marks stated, the lettering on the sign itself, once we put a directory in there
the lettering will only be a certain height.
Mr. Caballero stated, I am concerned with our Zoning Ordinance. Our Zoning Ordinance
required to be 25 feet away from the property line and we pretty well, this Board has
pretty well adhered to that with anybody who has come forward us unless there was a
circumstance that allows us to give a variance. There is other places where you could
place this sign 25 feet back from the property line so you must show me a uniqueness, a
reasonable loss of return and that you are not going to change the character of the
property.
Mr. Marks stated, I think the problem arose, the layout was originally done for the
parking lot and that was the preferred location for the sign. We didn't know that there
was going, the State didn't know that they were going to take away part of the road there.
That came after the fact and that took away some of the distance from the road. We are
trying not to put any signs on the building because we think asthetically the building
looks alot better without putting any signs on the building. It looks more like an
office building and its not a retail type operation and normally when you put a directory
sign to an office building is at a curb cut and that would be the most appropriate spot
and there is only one curb cut to the property and as people would be driving to and from
and this is a slower road than Route 9 and I think it would be appropriate to put the
directory sign right at the curb cut or the entrance into the parking area. If you put
something on the building it is going to require a much bigger sign and I don't think
that is what the Town would be looking for.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, if doesn't have to go on the building, it can be moved into the
next isle in and once you are in the parking lot you can't stop your car and read the
sign.
Mr. Marks stated, those letters for the directory ar approximately 3 inches high.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how high off the ground is this sign?
Mr. Marks answered, approximately 18 inches.
Mr. Caballero asked, where is the other free standing sign?
Mr. Marks answred, on the corner, Route 9 & Middlebush, 75 feet back I think.
It is 100 feet from the Right of Way.
Mr. Caballero asked, is it 25 feet from the property line?
Mr. Marks answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, the other one has the tenants on it?
Mr. Marks answered, right.
Mr. Caballero stated, one of our members drew that directory sign on the bay for the first
parking area there which is at the entrance, is visible from the road, it is parallel to
the road instead of perpendicular to the road.
Mr. Marks stated, I did that.
Mr. Caballero stated, that would be your alternative?
Page -20-
Spetember 9th, 1986
Mr. Marks stated, that would be an alternative but I don't think you could read the sign
from the road.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have an executive square you can read that from the road and
whoever wants to find out who your tenants are can pull into the parking lot and read
it in the parking lot without obstructing the road. What are the dimensions of this
sign?
Mr. Marks answered 2x12.
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 asked if the Board members had additional questions.
There were none.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to deny the requested variance. The applicant has not shown
any hardship, uniqueness or an unreasonable return as we request for placement of the
sign.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is also an alternative placement for that sign without
infringing on our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - nay Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think the sign looks good.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
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.
Stephen & Cathy Habich were present.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you aware that there is a provision in this Town for putting in
a mother/daughter apartment but the property has to be, have a C.O. for 5 years?
Mr. Habich stated, there is a C.O. on the house.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the house itself is over 5 years old but an addition was put on
in 1982. The addition was for a member of the family but did not include kitchen so it
was a legal addition, the building permit was obtained, construction was started and
Page -21-
September 9th, 1986
after a certain point during construction before they had finished the inside construction
stopped and thats is the way it has been sitting for about 2 or 3 years now, unfinished.
It looked finished from the outside but it it unfinished from the inside and now they
want to utilize the space as an accessory apartment.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that accessory apartment for a relative?
Mr. Habich answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, will you tell the Board why you want to put this accessory apartment
in.
Mr. Habich stated, because I would like to have my parents remain with us. My father is
disabled and we would like to remain together as a family, I have a young child that my
parents do babysit for.
Mr. Caballero asked, what would you do with that apartment if your father and mother
decided to move someplace else?
Mr. Habich stated, we would probably move to.
Mr. Caballero asked, what are we doing, putting in a kitchen in the accessory apartment?
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against
this appeal.
Bill Pottenburgh - 20 Monfort Road.
I have no objections to the accessory apartment provided that it is a mother/daughter
type.
Nilda Ferrer - 21 Monfort Road also speaking for Mrs. Gambino - 18 Monfort Road.
No problem.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak for or against.
There was no one.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the picture shows an addition on one side. I am trying to equate what
we have here on file.
Mr. Habich stated, the addition is up but the rooms aren't finished off that is how we
are going to design the rooms.
Mr. Hirkala asked, this is the way that you are going to lay it out?
Mrs. Habich answered yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter here from Mr. Irwin Kriegsman our Building Inspector
in reference William & Camile Gambino - 18 Monfort Road, Town of Wappinger, Grid
#19-6358-03-194429. The N.Y. State Building Code was adopted in 1963 thusly no
building permits or certificates of Occupancy were issued prior to that date. If you have
f any further questions please feel free to contact this office or the office of the
Assessor's. The house was built in 1962, the Building permit for a shed received a C.O.
issued 11/21/80 so this house has been in existence for over 5 years.
Page -22-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, he doesn't say anything about the addition.
Mr. Caballero stated, the addition, I imagine, when he asked for a permit for the
addition he was not going to put in a kitchen and he has a legal permit to do and didn't
finish it, thats not here or there.
Mr. Uriuoli stated, the addition changed the perimeter dimensions of the house.
Mr. Caballero stated, the problem is that the house changed the perimeters .....
Mr. Hirkala stated, the perimeter changed within the last 5 years.
Mr. Gunderud answered yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, is the kitchen in now? How did this come about?
Mr. Habich answered, no. To finish off the rooms and complete it and put the apartment
in for my inlaws.
Mr. Caballero asked, the kitchen is not there now?
Mr. Habich answered, no.
Mr. Caballero asked, you would put it in if you got.....
Mr. Habich answered, yes.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is a combined appeal. The accessory apartment part of it would
be handled under that §445.3. They do need a variance for the fact that the perimeter
of the house was ...within the last 5 years. The C.O. has not been issued on that
perimeter addition.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what would be the hardship for the first step?
Mr. Hirkala stated, the question here arises is, is that perimeter change reflect to
the original date of building or after the date, does the starting date of the 5 year
clock at the point of the addition or at the point of the original building?
Mr. Caballero stated, I think this is another one that we are going to have to table
or adjourn and talk to the Attorney in reference to it, in which direction we are
going to go, but I just don't understand why this became that complicated. This addition
was put on the house legally?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, and the C.O. was never issued because it was not finished?
Mr. Gunderud answered, right.
Mr. Caballero asked, but the house did have a C.O.?
Mr. Gunderud answered, well the house pre -dated the time when C.O.'s were required
but it is a legal house.
Page -23-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, under new business I see here an application for an accessory
apartment. That does not fall under the mother/daughter.
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Thats accessory apartment was the official title of that
section, it is called the mother/daughter ordinance, but because the addition does not
have a C.O. it doesn't meet that one section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi stated, Appeal 4924 would have to be referred to the Planning Board for
their review. He is trying to do it in steps but I would question the legality of the
first, that one addition there.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the addition as it stands right now is completely legal, it doesn't
have a C.O. but it could get a C.O. if they finich it off without the kitchen but these
people want to have a kitchen so that their parents could live there.
Mr. Caballero asked, if they did finish it off and got a C.0 without the kitchen and came
back before this Board we wouldn't have the problem in front of us of the addition, we
would just have.....
Mr. Gunderud stated, yes you would because then the C.O. would be issued, say next
month.
Mr. Caballero asked, the C.O. on the total house or just on the addition?
Mr. Gunderud answered, on the addition.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think the way the Zoning Ordinance reads and the situation
we are encountering here would need some kind of legal opinion.
Mr. Gunderud stated, well it has been interpreted that...
Mr. Caballero stated, I still believe that we interpret and if a previous Board had
interpreted it now is our prevy to interpret it now.
Mr. Gunderud asked to make a statement....
Mr. Caballero answered to Mr. Gunderud, I am having a problem whenever a statement is
made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer that it might tend to come off as help to the
appellant, so it it is going to be a statement about help to the appellant I would
prefer that it doesn't come on public record.
Mr. Gunderud stated, my statements are always to help clarify the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero answered, okay, if you have a statement to clarify the Zoning Ordinance we
would be glad to entertain it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the interpretation of this through the Town Attorneys' previous and
myself and the Town Board is that we have to look at the most recent C.O. because
otherwise the person could build an addition, lets say last year on a house that was
maybe 5 to 10 years old for the sole purpose of making an apartment and come before the
Board and get approval. That seems to be stepping around what the spirit of the ordinance
is.
Mr. Caballero stated, but that means that everybody that made an addition and got a C.O.
presently would have to wait 5 years before they could put in a mother/daughter apartment
Page -24-
September 9th, 1986
and I don't think that was the intent we had when we wanted to allow the mother/daughter
apartment in the Town. The way it is legally is going to restrict us from doing that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it is rather unusual, but I do have a tendency to agree with
Hans on this situation. In reading the ordinance it is very vague, it says Certificate
of Occupancy. It doesn't say most recent Certificate of Occupancy so it could be
taken either way. I would like to get an opinion from the Attorney on it. But, aside
from that in looking at the plans that were presented, it seems to me that I read in the
ordinance that there is a bedroom maximum on the apartments and I don't think this plan
suits that, that maximum.
Mrs. Habich stated, 5 bedrooms.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, you still have the problem that the perimeter has been changed and
the original C.O. for the house or looking at it from the most recent C.O. which the
addition doesn't even have yet, so, it still becomes very similar to the last case.
Bill Gambino.
The apartment was started and completed outside in 1982. There was jurisdictions for
mother/daughter at that time so it really doesn't apply because at the time mother and
daughter didn't exist.
Mr. Caballero answered, but a C.O. wasn't issued.
Mr. Gambino stated, but it still didn't apply to the law because there was no law in
affect.
Mr. Hirkala stated, on the bedrooms, once again, it says 5 bedrooms agrigate, 3 and 2.
This plans shows 4 plus a den on one floor.
Mr. Habich stated, this is in the extension.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what you are saying is that there is going to be a separate wall?
Mr. Habich answered, yes. We sold a house and we put a binder to buy this house and
we are looking to purchase it and we would appreciate we are doing this because we like
this area and we want to move up in this area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they have a contract to buy here.
Mr. Caballero stated, that makes it worse not better. See, if you were living there and
you parents were living there without a kitchen and the Board would be looking for a way
to grant it so that you could stay and have their separate facilities, but we have a
problem with the way this, the C.O. and the way it works out that we are going to have to
sit down with legal counsel and come up with a resolution to it because it is going to
happen again. If I understand it correctly, Hans, if this house had a C.O. 5 years ago
and there was no additions put on it that didn't require the C.O. this Board would
probably have no problem in granting that. The problem is that there was an addition
and a C.O. was not granted so now it puts it into the scope that it was not 5 years
since the C.O. has been issued. We have to go by what our Zoning Ordinance says.
Anytime you are here is because you are looking for us to give you a variance, relief
from what our law states or else he would grant you the permit to do whatever you
want to. If he cannot because it is against our Zoning Ordinance it comes before this
Board and we have to give it thorough thought of how we are going to grant variances.
Page -25-
September 9th, 1986
We may end up all over Town with 2 or 3 apartments in a house in areas that we don't
decide that and people who live there don't decide. Your neighbors stated they don't
mind so that is a plus for you. By the same token we are going to have to get an
opinion from our Attorney and then make a decision. I will entertain a that young lady.
Mrs. Gambino stated, I am the present owner, my husband and I, and he became disabled
that is why he didn't finish it. I know that is not your problem. My only thought is
that these people are quite suited for the house and the area as far as we are concerned.
The house, the way it is now if it remains one family, and we can sell it either way,
it doesn't make any difference to us, but we prefer that after all the hard work and
keeping it up all these years we know the Zoning Board has the jurisdiction over how
many bedrooms can go into that house now, if it become a mother/daughter, you have
parking that you can control on how many cars can be all over the property, also the
septic system control, if that house gets sold as one family you don't know how many
bedrooms, legally as one family that could go in. The house is a big cow right now
and it could hold 12 or 13 bedrooms if so desired by a new one family owner and this
why we have appealed to you that the mother/daughter is to keep a hold on our beautiful
property and keep it the way that we had it for 24 years.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, what you have to understand is if we grant a variance at the same
time we are also setting a precidence. We had a case earlier this evening that was
very similar where somebody changed the perimeter of their house, what you did and how
you did the bottom line to us is the same thing. The perimeter of your house has
been changed, the mother/daughter accessory apartment is designed to be contained
within the existing perimeter of a house. Yours has been changed, even though you haven't
been given a C.0 which complicates it more.
Mrs. Gambino asked, does it matter that it was changed before the law came through?
Mr. Urciuoli answered, no, because you wouldn't have been granted an accessory apartment
that was anyhow if you put a kitchen in it. If you put bedroom in it then you could
have added on, it would have been fine.
Mrs. Gambino stated, we just felt that because it was built before ours was different
than someone who just decides to build the exterior of the house now.
Mr. Caballero stated, we might find that after we research it and speak to counsel and
decide that we might agree with you and yet we have to give ourselves the opportunity to
look into it completely and fully.
Mr. Habich asked, is the problem the kitchen?
Mr. Caballero answered, the problem is that I think your allowed, the expansion was
approved and you can get a C.O. as long as you don't put an accessory kitchen in there.
Mrs. Habich stated, it says in your zoning ordinance section, I don't know exactly
what section but it says cooking facilities.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is for the Special Use Permit request but we can't grant a
Special Use Permit request because a C.O............ Somebody could walk into that door
with the same situation as you, put up an addition tomorrow and say you gave it to them
why can't I get it.
Mr. Gambino stated, it is unlikely in the Town of Wappinger that there is another building
like this that has a valid building permit right now that dates back to October of '82
and I don't think there is another piece of property in the Town of Wappinger that has
that category, that falls into that category, that has a valid building permit from
Page -26-
September 9th, 1986
kW October 1982, one year prior to the establishment of the mother/daughter. There would be
nobody, I don't think, Hans could research that, but they couldn't possibly be, almost
5 years a building permit still in effect, so I don't think that a precident would be
set if you issue a favorable .....right not.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is duly noted. May I have a motion from this Board to close
this public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to table this item until discussion with the Attorney to the
Town.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have closed the public hearing, we have tabled this to discuss
it with our Attorney.
Mr. Caballero read the next item:
Appeal 4926, at the request of Regina Parisella, seeking a variance of article IV, §421
& §200 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a hair and nail services
home occupation as an accessory use in an existing dwelling in the R-40 district on
property located on 11 Tor Road, and being Parcel #6157-02-857500, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Regina Parisella was present.
Mrs. Parisella stated, I am asking to do hair and nails in my home 2 to 3 days a week
with no more than 4 or 5 people per day with no signs hanging, nothing on the mailbox
that states it is a business and basically it will be friends and people I know by word
of mouth.
Mr. Caballero asked, can you accomodate that many cars parked in that driveway?
Mrs. Parisella stated, 4 or 5 in a whole day? I am doing 4 to 5 people per day, 2 to 3
time a week. I have a six car driveway.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many cars do you anticipate at one time?
Mrs. Parisella answered, 2 at the most. Thats for 2 people with one person in each car.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, do you have any idea what the square footage of your house is?
Page -27-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Merril stated, 48 foot raised ranch with a finished basement..
Mr. Caballero asked, this is not a permitted use under the Special Use Permit?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. It is a variance of what is permitted in home occupations.
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. Urciuoli asked, do you plan on having any employees?
Mrs. Parisella answered, nobody, just myself.
Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Gunderud, you are saying that this is not a permitted use as an
accessory?
Mr. Caballero answered, that is why it is here as a variance and not as a Special Use
Permit.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the other requires a Special Use Permit. She is asking for a variance.
In other words there are certain home occupations allowed with a Special Use Permit,
this particular case this is not permitted, she is looking for a variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says office, studio or home occupation. There is nothing in
here that says anything about home occupation being defined.
Mr. Gunderud answered, in the definition section it says, page 7, specifically ...of
that section, a conduct of a clinic, hospital, barber shop, beauty parlor, tea room.
torist room, animal hospital, and so on would not be deemed to be home occupations.
It lists some specific things which are, they don't include as home occupations.
Mr. Caballero asked, this would strictly be without any signs, people that you know who
would come and use your service but no advertising, no signs?
Mrs. Parisella answered, right.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, no employees?
Mrs. Parisella answered, no.
Mr. Caballero asked, is there any reason why you can't practice this trade or occupation?
Mrs. Parisella stated, out of the house, I have a bad back. I go to the Chiropractor
3 times a week, I have 2 of the vertebra rub together in the hip, after more than a
couple hours on my feet I have to sit.
Mr. Caballero stated, but if you are doing this in the house it would be the same as if
you went to a beauty parlor and do it.
Mrs. Parisella answered, no it wouldn't, I am only going to do like 3 or 4 people, 2
to 3 times a week. A perm is the longest thing that there is. It takes 2 hours tops.
Page -28-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, what the Board might be afraid of is that that could be very
well true and I am sure that it is but you ahve another girl come in and there are 6 or
7 cars in the driveway and there are alot of people being done at the same time. My
wife has her nails done and she does get it done by someone in Poughkeepsie that does it
in the house and there has been arguments where she is up there about the cars parked
in the street or on neighbors property so I am a little bit familiar with that type of
situation being done in the home.
Ed Lawrence asked, can a dentist have an office in his house, or a podiatrist, or something,
of that nature? In those cases those have been granted by the Zoning Board and most of
those of those cases they could hire a lab technician to come in so they could have
multiple clients in there at a particular point in time. This is worse than what the
lady is asking for and I am just curious. How old is that ordinance that says only one
or two things are allowed, is that many years old, does it need to be updated?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the difference is that those uses are permitted with a Special
Use Permit so they get a full review by 2 different Boards and they have to meet certain
requirements for parking, upgrading septic, and things like that. Whereas this use
could be approved tonight and there wouldn't necessarily be any other review and the
Building Inspector would go to the house and inspect the setup and grant a Certificate
of Occupancy to include that use so it is a different type of procedure that you would
have to go through for a doctor.
Mr. Lawrence stated, things like a dentist office would be worse.
P Mr. Hirkala stated, the problem I have is the variance fact of this things. The fact
that the variance goes with the house. I have no problem with her operating a business
out of her home at her, what she is saying, no cars, no signs, no nothing. How do we
grant a variance without it having to go with the house, with the dwelling and somebody
else comes along and says I can operate a beauty parlor, before you know it we have a
full blown operation 5 or 8 years down the road that we are stuck with and we can't do
anything about it.
Mr. Landolfi explained, for us to be allowed to grant a variance you have to demonstrate
that there is some type of hardship. In other words, I have not heard anything. I have
noting against you conducting a business. In fairness, the way that our Zoning Laws are
written if you had to for some reason, financial or otherwise, supplement your income
and you demonstrated that to the Board that would be a form of a hardship. Maybe
we can allow you to vary from the law, but just, the only thing that you said is that
you would like to do it, that isn't......
Mrs. Parisella asked, what if I brought the chiropractor in with me with the X-rays?
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am not sure that allows are Board to let you perform in your house.
You bought that house is good faith as a residence and you have a beautiful home, well
kept, etc., I believe you are living quite comfortably in that house. It is a residence.
It is not intended to have a dual purpose. But as Mr. Gunderud pointed out, there are
professional uses that are permitted under, this is not considered a professional use
under our Zoning Laws.
Mrs Parisella's father asked to make a statement,
I don't understand why you couldn't grant her a variance with stipulations stating that
if she sold the house or did anything else that the variance was totally void.
Page -29-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi answered, we could. We do that, in fact. That is a normal procedure.
We haven't gotten to that stage though.
Mrs. Parisells's father went on:
I think she would feel very, very comfortable with that in writing. I don't understand
where you are coming back and talking along hardship. She has a skill where she wants
to make couple nickles and dimes on the side and its got to come back as a hardship
where you have to come back and you don't bother anybody for selling ... or selling a
multiple of other things and she is trying to do it legal.
Mrs. Parisella stated, Even if you wanted to make the stipulations that, to make it that
there are no more than 2 cars in the driveway, I am willing to sign that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, by way of comment. I think a case can be made to the fact that if
the lady has a physical impairment she has a right to do her thing, to earn a living.
If she has a physical impairment that does not allow her to earn this living with her
skills outside the house she has a right to be able to do it inside that house to a
certain extent in proving this fact to us. Fine, but I still get back to the variance
factor. We hear stories from various sources, official sources, that variances connot
be granted for time limits and I have a , this is legal, it is not something that we come
up with. This is something that is case law and this is something we have to go by and
if a variance can be written in such a way that it is over with fine. I have no problem
with that and its tight enough where the restrictions that she herself has voluntarily
come up with then I have no problem with it. But the problem I have is with being able
to have the variance stop with her and I don't see how legally we can do that.
r Mr. Gunderud stated, variances go with the land, not with individuals.
Mr. Caballero stated, also, there is a problem with changing the character of that
neighborhood. The applicant must prove that the request modification will not change
the character or the quality of the neighborhood in addition to spirit of the ordinance
of a local law should be ..... there might be a problem with cars parking in a situation
where they come in to have their nails done and you also have the people who live there
and relatives that might create a problem with the other neighbors in the neighborhood.
I have a problem with it.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, if you could come in, and you don't have to bring your chiroprator
in, with a medical statement that says that you are unable to work more than 2 hours
on your feet because of back problems....
Mr. Caballero stated, if they are coming to her house and she is doing the nails she is
working. The only thing would be that it would be more comfortable or no travel to do
someplace else but she is still working and doing the physicaly work.
Mrs. Parisella stated, it doesn't take me more than 2 hours to do a perm or nails. In
2 hours I would be done, if I did just one person that one day. If I didn't feel like
doing more I wouldn't.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, she could work at her one pace at that point. If it was a Special
Use Permit we wouldn't have any trouble with it. For a variance she has to prove a
hardship or come in with a medical report that says she has a hardship then we have
Something to work with.
.r:
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact still remains that this is a residential area and it is a
variance that goes with the piece of property and if somebody comes up with a way to
write a variance approval that stops when she leaves or decides to go out of business,
fine.
Page -30-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli stated, if the applicant comes in and proves that she has a hardship then
you have to grant her the variance, right.
Mr. Caballero stated, she has to meet the 3 way test and that is uniqueness, reasonable
return and character so, as far as I am concerned, it fails under character situation,
other members of the board it fails under hardship. I have a problem with it. I will
entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, as it stands right now as a variance I feel I have to make a motion
to deny it as it is here because there is no hardship. There is no facts of a hardship
proven.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #927, at the request of Victor & Lorraine Margiotta, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit
to be issued for an attached 2 car garage with a 14 foot sideyard where 20 feet is
required on property located on 5 Mina Drive, and being Parcel 46157-02-978849, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Victor Margiotta was present.
Mr. Margiotta stated, what I am requesting here is that a variance be granted so that
I can obtain a building permit to construct a 2 car garage, attached to my current
residence at 5 Mina Drive. As the sketch indicates the rear of the structure will be
at 14 feet of the sideyard and the front of the structure will be 21 feet, 20 foot
sideyard is required.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, does the house have a garage in it now?
Mr. Margiotta answered, it does have a garage inside the house, a side entrance garage.
However, its very difficult to enter due to the lay of the land and the way the
driveway approaches. You come up on the side and it takes alot of jockeying to get the
cars into the garage because of the hill that is on the side. Now, originally I had
the original property line allowed ample room for the construction of this garage and
however, the property was, the lot lines were altered in 1979 because of a placement
of a house on the lot next to mine that was to close to the property line so it was
agreed upon to redraw the lines to allow for that structure to be legal.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is this a conforming lot now?
Mr. Margiotta answered, yes it is. I have a copy of the plot plan showing the altered
lines and the original lines.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how long have you lived there?
Mr. Margiotta answered, it is going to be 9 years in October.
Page -31-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, how big is your family?
Mr. Margiotta answered, it is a family of 4.
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. Caballero asked, where is the garage located now, the same side?
Mr. Margiotta answered, the garage will be constructed in the area that is currently
blacktopped to allow for... it is fine for a small car but for a full size car it is
very difficult and I can't alter the grade because that part is kind of close to my
neighbors yard and the elevation of the property next to mine is.... it looks like
it is between 6 or 8 feet.
Mr. Landolfi asked, could you cut that size down in any way? In other words you are
asking 24 x 24, could you be able to cut that in any way?
Mr. Margiotta answered, it is a possibility, I would have to determine the, certainly
it is not going to be any larger and I would believe that the depth would be shorter,
it would probably be 22 feet because of the currect utility fixtures being right in the
front corner of the property I probably would not want to start right there. But as far
as the side goes I would like it to be useable, it is a permitted structure a 2 car
garage and I want it to be a normal size.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am trying to save you getting a variance.
Mr. Margiotta stated, it would end up being a one car garage if I would go down to the
allowable distance. 17 feet is not wide enough to put 2 cars in.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, you would drive straight into the garage?
Mr. Margiotta answered, straight into the garage. There are other garages in the area
that are front entrance garages.
Mr. Landolfi stated, they don't have a variance.
Mr. Margiotta stated, my point being that it would not change the nature of the
development.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is that you need the addition because it is
to tight to turn around your cars? I suspect whats happening is you want to finish
the garage off to make an extra room in your house.
Mr. Margiotta stated, well, that might be my intention at some point as well, but...
Mr. Hirkala stated, you could put a retaining wall in there to increase your turn around.
Mr. Margiotta stated, I am going to have to start removing rock on the side hill. This
is a rock ledge area. Plus, the map does not really show the driveway as it is. The
driveway comes up along side the house and then turn this way. If the driveway was
put in the way that it is depicted by the surveyors at the time showing an entrance on
an angle and into which would be a normal side entrance, my driveway does not look like
that. We approach directly with the end of the driveway along side of the house you
swing opposite the garage in order of get in. You are backing in and out, in and out.
Page -32-
September 9th, 1986
It was fine with a Chevette but not with a larger full size car.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are asking here for a 6 foot variance. 24 foot garage, and
not to require a variance he would have to build a 14 foot garage?
Mr. Landolfi stated, 18 foot.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is it going to be a one story addition or a 2 story?
Mr. Margiotta answered, 1 story, just the garage without changing the grades.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are looking at a lot that is averaged out to 16,000 s/f so it is
an undersized lot to start with.
Mr. Margiotta stated, it is not undersized for the zoning ordinance. The minimum is
15,000 s/f.
Mr. Hirkala asked, its a half acre zone?
Mr. Margiotta answered, its a half acre zone, R-20, minimum requirement of 15,000 s/f.
Mr. Hirkala stated, underlot averaging.
Mr. Margiotta stated, these properties were the original Pondview Subdivision.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the had to average them out to allow the builder to get....
Mr. Hirkala stated,I have a problem with, he is saying that he needs alot, he needs a
variance to be able to put a 24 foot garage in and yet he doesn't have any problem with
going out 24 feet for footings but he has a problem going out an extra 10 feet or so
to increase the turn around.
Mr. Margiotta stated, the structure will be right in the existing turn around area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, well that says 17 feet according to this plot plan.
Mr. Margiotta stated, that plot plan does not show what these are, I will clarify it,
and tell you what does exist. The current paved area is not as it is depicted on the
plot plans. Certainly, the paving was done by the builder but after I was granted
a C.O. on the property and the way that it is paved is it runs straight up perpendicular
to the front of the house and then the area itself swings to the right opposite, the
area is expanded opposite the garage but not in a way that is useful for munipulating
an automobile. It was my original intention in purchasing the home to be able to
expand this at some time but certainly not being financially able at that time I
didn't pursue and now being able I am pursuing it.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think he has proven a hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have the same situation. You haven't shown me anything where
you have proven a hardship that the strict compliance of the regulation would cause you
Page -33-
September 9th, 1986
a practical difficulty other than you have to back up and forth your car when you are
going into that garage.
Mr. Margiotta stated, I have a garage that is not currently useful.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to deny the variance based on the fact that there is no
hardship proven.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4928, 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
446357-01-081767, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Tiihonen, Attorney was present.
Mr. Tiihoney stated, we are here to request a variation of the Special Use Permit that
was issued in April of 1976. As specifically as the 3 conditions among 14. One, I
believe you have a copy of the original where it says no more than 20 horses shall be
kept on the premises. We would ask that to be changed to a number of 31 to reflect
the number of stables, stalls that are on the property. Number 2, we would request
that the limitation as to horse shows, I believe that as far as we understand every
stable in the area does have horse shows and this is almost as schematic that when you
have a stable you have horse shows to show off your animals and your riders so there
is an inter compition among the stables everywhere. And then as to number 7, we have
an acerage here of almost 50 acres and to require a separate container for manure is
really something that was contemplated for a congested area not a farm area because
the manure is taken and spread out in the fields. Almost every horse farm on the
eastern seaboard does and this is commensory for good argricultural pursuits as well
as practical from the point of view of the stable. All the other requirements we have
no objection to.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal.
Joan Sanford.
I am representing at the Oakland Equestrian Center, they have asked me to represent them
to support the Von Hagens'. They have really improved the property over the past year
and a half anyone that goes by can certainly see that and they have asked me to show
this to you, and read it please and see that we have both signed it and we would like
you to consider the zoning changes.
Mr. Caballero read the letter into the record dated September 2nd, 1986 from the
Oakland Equestrian Center, Inc.. Letter on file.
Page -34-
September 9th, 1986
�,� i Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak either
�1i for or against.
Gale Nolan Johnston.
We boarded a horse at this farm when the Watkins owned it. I believe they had fewer
than 20 acres at the time. We left because of the poor conditions. We are now back
because of the extremely fine conditions and the manner in which the stable is run.
In as far as containers are concerned, I have never, we have owned horses for 15 or 18
years and we have never heard of such an arrangement. I have never seen it. We have
been all over the country. We have never seen containers, we have never in a city
location, let me clarify that, but on a farm the usual routine is to spread the manure
in the fields.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak.
There was no one else.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, she just said that you have 20 acres.
Mrs. Von Hagen answered, no, we have about 35 and a half on the Wappingers side and
then its split by Sprout Creek in the Town of Wast Fishkill. The original Special
Permit, the original site plan only contained 9 acres at which time they were granted
as you can see #1 on the restriction.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, that was when you had 9 acres?
Mrs. Von Hagen answered, 9 acres. Now I have over 35 in the Town.
Mr. Von Hagen stated, we have 31 stalls, one horse per stall, but that was there when
theyg ave the variance for the ..... they gave 12 stalls in that ring when they granted
this variance but there was a pre-existing barn in the back for years where there were
19 stalls.
Mr. Caballero stated that he has a letter from the Dutchess Co. Dept. of Planning.
This is all from the 1976 original permit when it was granted. What we are doing
here is expanding, they are requesting to expand that original permit for additional
horses and to able to do a show there.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, I think there is an inconsistency in the original variance that
was granted because if they allowed 12 stalls and permitted 20 horses it doesn't make
sense.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it was a Special Use Permit sir, not a variance.
Mr. Hirkala read a letter into the record from Raymond Walker dated September 2, 1986.
Letter on file.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, I don;t know who Mr. Walker is.
Mr. Caballero stated, he must be an abutting property owner who was notified.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, they are the only ones. I don't think he realizes what we are
changing, what we are asking for. Because we are actually not asking for very much in
changes. First of all the restrictions that are on this list pertain solely to the
farm, the second farm that was built in 1976 with the indoor riding ring and permitted.
There was an existing barn there with 19 stalls, 20 that they allowed on the Special Use
Permit applied only to the new barn that was built. As far as it being a residentail
Page -35-
September 9th, 1986
to the people who lived there before us the Watkins, those houses were there. Mr. Walker's
house was there when the Watkins built this and I don't think that he had any complaints.
There have been no other complaints. He has never expressed a complaint to us and none
of the other neighbors have expressed a complaint to us. In fact, I think that they are
very happy about having us there, it is a nice place and we keep it very nice.
Mr. VonHagen stated, I would estimate that this house is at least 500 or more feet
away from the property.
Mr. Caballero stated, on that previous appeal the Dut. Co. Dept. of Planning stated that
under §411 that the Town Ordinance stated that every building shall be located on a
lot and there shall be no more than one building per lot. An ordinance definfition "lot"
as parcel of land devoted particular use or occupied by a building or is accessory
building.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he knew what that referred to.
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. There was an original, there was actually an appeal about an
Article 78 proceedings brought against the Town because the Town at that time, the
Planning Board was in control of SUP at that time. The Planning Board denied the SUP
on the basis of some of that type of information, that it was 2 uses and the applicant
went to an Article 78 proceeding and there was a ruling that it was agreed to by the
Town Attorney that the dwellings were accessory to the stable use so it was not 2 uses.
It was not 2 principle uses so that issue was handled back in 1976. A non -issue today
I am aware of the property, I know that there were 2 apartments in the house for many,
many years and it was a caretakers cottage on the property so there are actually 3
residences on record and it is no problem because it has gone through many stages of
hearings back in 1976.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, I would just ask that one other point be clarified and the only
reason it came up is we had a charity show for the 4H club and we were granted special
permission to have that show because it was months in advance before we ever knew about
this where it says there shall be no sale of food or beverages, there is no sale of food
or beverages but at this occasion when the people came one of these vending wagons
came so to provide beverages to the people at the show. I would presume that this would
per permitted as opposed to selling it on the premises on a continual basis.
Mr. Gunderud stated, normally a SUP gets referred to the Planning Board for their review
and in this case its a, its not really a change in the site, per say, there is no change
to any structure, the land there, its just a change of conditions.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think we still should refer it to the Planning Board in reference
to traffic.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it is more than a reference to traffic. What we are looking
at here is an increase in intensity of a commercial use in a residentail neighborhood.
It is as simple as that. They have got a SUP to operate a commercial use in a residentail
neighborhood and they want to increase the activity. Want to increase the impact.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, we are not increasing the activity.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, we want to use what is there. We are going to use the stalls that
err++ are over there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they are not in use so you want to increase the activity.
Page -36-
September 9th, 1986
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, no, they are in use.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in other words you have got more than the allowable horses in there now.
So you are in violation.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, I am in violation because that 20 horses for that particular barn.
that was built. That was a Special Use for the one barn. I only have 12 in that barn
not 20. But I have an existing barn there with 19 stalls in it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, then why do you want to increase it to 31?
Mrs. Von Hagen answered, because 19 and 12 make 31.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and you are allowed 20 or 21.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, that SUP was for a barn to contain 12 stalls that they allowed
us to keep 20 horses. But there was an existing.....
Mr. Gunderud stated, on the property, the total property, all the barns and all the uses
that were on the property that is why what my interpretation has been about use. The barn
was an issue because it was built, or it was planned to be built, I don't know what
Mr. Watkins started ebfore or after the approval was given, but the SUP goes with the total
property the Watkins owned. That 9, whatever acres it was and included all the barns.
To my knowledge that was what the record shows.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, I can only go be the heading where it says subject to a SUP to
establish a public... indoor riding ring and stalls. That was a completely new
structure that was put up. The other building is pre-existing for 34 years and that had
19 stalls in it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is still not clear. You were allowed 20 horses, that is 20 horses
on the premises total?
Mr. Von Hagen stated, there was always 31 stalls.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what happened to the other 19, or the other stalls?
Mr. Tiihonen stated, there are 12 stalls in the rink that the application was made for
and on that application they granted 20 horses on the premises.
Mr. Hirkala asked, there are 12 stalls in the new building?
Mr. Tiihonen answered, in the indoor riding ring, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so they allowed you 20, which means you had 8 horses somewhere else?
Mr. Tiihonen stated, we were not there at that time.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that has nothing to do with us now. The fact is, what is the approval
for.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, 19 stalls in a pre-existing building prior to any zoning changes.
That has been there for 34 years. The only change that was made was the application for
an indoor riding ring with 12 stalls and that was granted.
Page -37-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what is the problem?
Mr. Tiihonen stated, we want permission to have the use of the full 31 stalls.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in the existing building?
Mr. Tiihonen answered, in the 2 existing buildings. The rink and the pre-existing
barn.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it seems to me the right to use the pre-existing zoning building
was there anyway. Wasn't it Hans?
Mr. Gunderud stated, to my understanding that there were hardly any horses on the
property prior to the Watkins asking for the SUP. The use had dwindled over the years.
So, under zoning, since it is non -conforming in the district they would not be able
to simply put on bring back the 19 horses. The Zoning Ordinance says that you have a
non -conforming use, if it dwindles down to a certain number for a couple of years you
don't have any rights to it. So, apparently Watkins came in and built a new stable with
12 stalls, whatever, and I supposed he assumed he was going to use some of the stalls
that were existing in the existing barn and the Planning Board gave him approval for
22 horses based on the number of acres he had. At that time there was a formula, under
the old Zoning Ordinance, .... so many animals per acre. Under the new Zoning Ordinance
its one horse per 2 acres.
Mr. Caballero asked, how many acres in total?
Mrs. Von Hagen answered, 35 and a half in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero stated, so by our new Zoning Ordinance they would be allowed about 15 horses.
In the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and they also want to have shows. I seem to recall some discussion
on this back when it was originally granted in 1976. It seemed to me that the intent
of the applicant at that time was this was going to be like a family thing for his
daughter to do things with. We have to review those minutes some time to see what the
intent was because I think that is important.
Mr. Caballero stated, they have a SUP for what they presently, but they want to expand
that so it is up to us to decide whether we want to let them expand on it or to maintain
the present format that they have. We can elect to send it to the Planning Board for
their referral and then make a decision or we can make a decision tonight.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have to agree about the horse shows like they pointed out. My
daughter rides and every stable has a show, I guess why that was put in there was more
to eliminate any commercialism if you will. I have no problem. Its part of a stable.
Mrs. Von Hagen stated, I would like to elaborate on your point. We have alot of young
people and they commit. This is not riding.... where people come in and they borrow a
horse, ride the trails for a half hour for 5 dollars. This is not that. This is a
boarding, we board. People pay alot of money to keep their horses here. We are
responsible for them. They are specially fed. They do not graze. They are turned out
in paddocks for exercise only at the rate of 2 at a time. These are very expensive
horses. They are not hack horses and you must understand that this is not that type of
a business. This is a riding stable where people are very, very serious, and it is a
very nice thing for these young people to come, they spend alot of money to do this.
As a matter of fact I would like to point out to you to 2 years ago we had a Canadian
Page -38-
September 9th, 1986
Olympic team staying there and which was very nice for the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, to my knowledge I understand that there is no such restriction
on any other stable in the Town.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, are we aware that they are following all the other
provision of the SUP?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the reason they are really before the Board is because the new
owners, the Von Hagens, the did not realize, apparently, that there was all of these
restrictions. They have exceeded the number of horses.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I understand that but can I be assured that they are following all
the other.....
Mr. Gunderud answered, as far as I can determine yes. I have no made a full site
inspection.
Mr. Caballero asked, so how did they get here and ask for additions to the SUP?
Mr. Tiihonen stated, someone filed a complaint against us. I believe that it was
another stable owner and then we found out the first time that we had all these
restrictions. We had special permission to continue that benefit show, otherwise, they
were going to stop us and then we were informed we would have to make this application
and we have done so.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem referring this to the Planning Board for their
recommendations but the thing that I ahve a problem with is an expansion of a commercial
use in a residential area. That is what I have a problem with. Where do we draw
the line as to how much expansion would be allowed of a commercial establishment in a
residential area. This thing was originally with a SUP that was restrictive, somebody
sold it, somebody else moves in not familiar with the SUP restrictions thinking they
are going, this is typical of what happens many times in the Town and it is the only
problem that I have with the impact on the residential area, traffic wise, they want to
have horse shows. Fine, move the barn into the middle of the property, give me two more
accesses, all from 3 different towns, we are looking a a whole full blown site plan
operation, what is the impact.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, I think the impact, just from what I have seen in this whole area is
tremendous.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is my point and we have to look at it real close.
Mr. Tiihonen stated, what we are doing here, there is no impact or change if anything
we are holding the fort against changing at a great expense of Mr. & Mrs. Von Hagen.
They have gone out of their way to improve this property. The traffic is only in the
event that they have a show.
Mr. Hirkala asked, didn't you have an idea of asking for an Enviornmental Impact
Statement on this?
Mr. Hirkala answered, I would like to see what kind of an impact we are going to have
kao on traffic and also, one I forgot to even mention is the fact that spreading manure
on that property. I am not an expert and I wouldn't even know what the impact would be
but that is our Town aquifer.
Page -39-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Tiihonen stated, the County and State requirements we would certainly compy with.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is a motion on the floor to send this to the Planning Board
for their recommendation to us. Can I have a second.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #929,a t the request of E. Bruce Hultmark, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit to be
issued for a 2 story addition with a 13 foot sideyard setback where 20 feet is required
on property located on 18 Quarry Drive, and being Parcel #6158-01-015515, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Bruce Hultmark was present.
Mr. Hultmark stated, my existing home has a one car attached garage, if you look here the
red portion is the existing one showing the one car attached garage. What I would like
to do is add an additional garage and a room above the 2 garages. The new garage and
the additional garage. Now, the reason that we want to do this is the house is one of
the smallest raised ranch houses in that particular development.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am not sure that that means anything.
Mr. Hultmark stated, I want to explain why I am doing this. My 21 year old son is still
at home with us and we want to give him the downstairs, the playroom, a bedroom and a
bath which leaves my wife and I with a 13 x 13 living room upstairs. This additional
room would be our combination living room and playroom above the garage.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what happens when your son moves?
Mr. Hultmark answered, we will just keep it.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have 95 feet int he back of the property, why can't you put
the extension back there?
Mr. Hultmark answered, I would like another garage and I believe that the precidence has
been set in the area. Just up the street the same exact house has been granted a variance
to make the same addition. This is my house and that is the existing house up the street.
The only difference is that I have a reversed gable on my room where he maintains....
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to know why that variance was granted.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have proof when this was granted and by what Board, what time?
Mr. Hultmark answered, no, about 4 or 5 years ago.
Mr. Caballero stated, as far as we know he might not have need a variance to put that
garage next to his house.
Page -40-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Hultmark stated, well I would like antoher garage and if you do not permit this I
would like to put up an accessory building which is within 10 feet of the property line
not attached to the house.
Mr. Caballero stated, we can only go on what you are asking for now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you would have to go through the Building Inspector for that. If
you don't need a variance we have nothing to say about that.
Mr. Hultmark stated, if I can't put one up there would you rather see an unattached garage.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have to give us eveidence for us to grant you permission to
have this variance.
Mr. Caballero then asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either
for or against this appeal.
Mr. Hultmark stated, I do have an affidavit form my neighbor.
Mr. Caballero read the letter from Gary Parker, 20 Quarry Drive. Letter on file.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that the property right next to you, the one that would be
effected by the addition?
Mr. Hultmark answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, ket the record show that there was no one in the audience who
wished to speak for or against this appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion that the variance be denied. The applicant hasn't shown any
evidence of hardship.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirakala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
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 contains over 3,000 s/f of useable
floor area to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on Route 9D, in
the Town of Wappinger.
John Durcan was present.
Page -41-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, this case is similar to other cases we have heard earlier this
evening. I am going to allow the appellant to present his case and I will also hear
from any of the public comments so that we can put it into the records. I think from
the concensus of the Board that we are going to confer with our Attorney in reference
to this particular project. We were suposed to do that before this hearing, this is
your second time here but we were unfortunately not able to meet with the Attorney in
reference to it so we have that problem to contend with. Do you want to add anything
at this time to your appeal?
Mr. Durcan answered, no sir.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor or
against this appeal.
John Thew, Brewster, NY.
My mother lives in the house next door. As a matter of fact I lived in that house. I am
interested in knowing, as I understood it last month you postponed the public hearing
until this month on advice from counsel, my question is are we doing that until next
month for advice from the counsel?
Mr. Caballero answered, correct.
Mr. Thew stated, I just want to make sure that I have a chance to be heard.
Mr. Caballero stated, if you have a statements you want to make and put them into the
record they are admissable today.
Mr. Thew stated, one inquiry that I have is I would like to understand what the
dimensions of the house are and how we calculate 3,000 s/f.
Mr. Durcan stated, the exterior dimensions of the house are 32'1" x 69.
Mr. Thew stated, so that are we in access of the.....
Mr. Durcan stated, I have an amended drawing here to indicate that my application for
one bedroom units. 6 one bedroom units.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you going to submit that to the Zoning Board of Appeals now?
Mr. Durcan answered, yes.
Mr. Thew stated, last month the plans were incomplete so that we didn't have an
understanding of where the parking lot would be and we also, I understood that there
would be some information coming in from the Board of Health as to the septic system.
Mr. Caballero stated, the Zoning Board of Appeals is strictly concerned whether it is
permissable by our Zoning Ordinance. Any other concerns would be done by the agencies
involved. The Planning Board, we asked for recommendations from them and they will
address the issue and tell us what parking adequacy is, etc.. Do you have any questions
at this time?
Mr. Hudson - property adjacent.
Last month the Board of Health was mentioned as far as septic systems and so on. It seems
to be just kind of going on, would you please tell me who we have to see or who we have
to contact to see that this property has been inspected, soil samples taken etc. to
accomodate the septic system for 6 until apartment.
Page -42-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud asked Mr. Durcan, are you dealing with James Napoli or..?
Mr. Durcan answered, I am dealing with Mr. Friedman who indicated that he will do a
survey of the property and indicate whats required and what his suggestions are after I
have done....
Mr. Caballero asked, is he an employee of the Board of Health?
Mr. Durcan answered, no sir, he is a sanitary engineer. An engineer that specializes in
sanitary. He is a licensed engineer.
Mr. Gunderud asked, do you know if it is going to be submitted to Poughkeepsie?
Mr. Durcan answered, the Board of Health in Poughkeepsie.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it will probably be Jim Napoli in the Poughkeepsie Board of Health
Office who will review the plan when it is submitted but his engineer is apparently
still designing the system now.
Mr. Hudson asked, you concern now is just with the structure itself?
Mr. Caballero stated, we are only concerned with the use of the property as is in our
Zoning Ordinance. That is our only concern, other than that the agencies involved will
have to take care of that. Our concern is only with our Zoning Ordinance, that is it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, our concern with the Zoning Ordinance as far as a Special Use Permit
process is concerned. We are concerned with the legality of the whold problem as far
as our Ordinance is concerned, that is what we are waiting for from our Attorney for a
meeting with our Attorney for us to make a decision as to what the legality of the
entire project is. After that, we make that determination, we make a determination on
a SUP that we could set conditions on the permit if we see problems with the plan. Other
than that it is in the hands of the Planning Board to make site plan approval. That
would be the point in which the Health Dept. approval would come into it, the whole bit.
We could request some of that information if we see a need for it prior to that. This is
not the only public hearing there is going to be on this particular project.
Mr. Thew stated, one thing for the benefit of the Attorney, Jennifer Van Tuyl, one
thing that I take exception to is the fact that it is even going through as a 3 family
home which I don't consider it to be. It was at one time a 3 family home but it went
to a 1 family home, subsequently today it is a 2 family home and now we have it coming
through this Board as a 3 family home that is going to be 6 family home and I take
exception to that.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is duly noted on the record and you made that exception at the
previous meeting. We have gotten advice form other people involved in Planning and
zoning and we don't necessarily agree with what they are telling us so we are going
to listen to the Attorney and then this Board, by a vote method is going to make a
decision. I think you have been helpful with the information you have given us, your
objections to it but we will council with our counsel and then make a decision.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to adjourn this appeal until we have a chance to meet with
counsel.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Page -43-
September 9th, 1986
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4902, at the request of Tanya Mortenson, seeking a Special Use permit of Article IV,'
§421, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to establish a day care/nursery
school on property locted on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46158-04-980125, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Al Cappelli was present.
Mr. Cappelli stated, unless there is anything that the Board has we are not prepared.
We are undergoing a traffic study right now per the request of the Planning Board and
other enviornmental issues so we are not prepared at this time.
Mr. Caballero stated, we will make a motion to table it at the request of the appellant.
Mr. Cappelli answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala made that motion.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4924, 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 allow an accessory
apartment on property located on 18 Monfort Road, and being pacel 46358-03-194429, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Stephen & Cathy Habich were present.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is a Special, Use Permit which is the same one, what we want to
do here is refer this to the Planning Board for their critique, their advice and be
coming back at the same time we will be hearing, discussion the other situation with the
Attorney.
Mr. Habich asked, how long does it normally take.
Mr. Caballero answered, we are meeting with the Attorney on the 18th then this will be
set up for the next Zoning Board meeting.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Page -44-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4930, at the request of Dr. Muhammad Ali Afridi, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a church on
property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-628535, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Dr. Afridi was present.
Dr. Afridi stated, we want to be allowed the construction of a church.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how big is your congregation?
Dr. Afridi answered, we have about 50 members and we expect about 25 to 35 people to meet
there.
Mr. Landolfi asked, does you church entail activities on a daily basis as opposed to
just certain days of the week?
Dr. Afridi answered, it is mainly certain days of the week like Friday and Sundays. On
other days of the week there is very liberal activity. The main congregation is on
Fridays and Sundays.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is most of the activity religious or alot of social activity.
Dr. Afridi answered, religious.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close this appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motin was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #933, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, request for a re-application for a
Sepcial Use Permit to allow gas service and car wash on property located on Route 9 &
Old Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Al Cappelli and Frank Vitiritti were present.
Mr. Cappelli stated, this was submitted some time last year an application for the
previous PMI gas station which is now amde something else for the addition of a car
wash ...the existing gas service facilities and adding a small food type of store
similar to 7 -Eleven across the street. We since amended our application if you will
to maintain the existing gas facility, eliminate the food service facility and just add
a car wash which we feel is an accessory use and a Special Use Permit ...per your
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant originally had an automobile repair there and since
Page -45-
September 9th, 1986
of course, as I am sure you are all aware eliminated those automobile repair facility
and will remain useless so that there prime use again will be gasoline sales and one
bay car wash.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, are there any violation on this property at this time?
Mr. Gunderud answered, there is no violations as far as I know.
Mr. Caballero asked, isn't there a gasoline truck?
Mr. Gunderud answered, there is a gasoline truck there and the Fire Inspector has been
in contact with Mr. Vitiritti and trying to work out some....
Mr. Vitiritti stated, he was under the impression that we were storing gasoline in the
vehicle and he was concerned on the assumption that it was being used as a storage
container which I let him know that the reason, it is not used for starage it is used
for transportation of the gasoline to our other locations. When it comes back to the
location it is empty. I told him he is free to come at anytime to climb on top of the
truck and open the tops and check it for fuel and he has since come by and he has never
contacted me again.
Mr. Landolfi asked, this vehicle is going to be there then?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, we would like it to remain there is possible. If when we get the
car wash, if you grant the permit, then we will be able to park that vehicle right in the
back behind the car wash. We won't require the parking spaces that are shown there so we
can use those spaces to park that vehicle out of site.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I had a question, myself to parking that vehicle on the site. I
talked to Mr. Vitiritti and in my opinion it was not shown on the site plan therefore
it was questionable as to whether it is allowable to be aprked there and I knew that he
was coming in before the Board with this application so in conversation with him we
thought that issue should be raised and discussed with the Planning Board or the
Zoning Board and a decision then to be made as to whether parking that delivery truck
would be permitted under this site plan approval or not. Right now its is a question,
I haven't made a violation, I haven't made a determination whether it is a violation,
I am saying I question whether it is permitted and this review could bring that issue
around.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think that truck should be there and it would ... you to
move it out of there until you get this straightened out. Our direction from this
Board. This Board can elect to re -hear this re-application or it can deny re -hearing
the application completely. We heard the case, it was denied, and through counsel
Their advice is we could re -hear the re-application or completely not hear the application.
We already made a decision on this property. Also I have a problem with the notice of
appeal, I feel that instead of a Special Use Permit it should be a variance because a
car wash is a separate business from a gas station. Accessory to a gas station would
be to me, one of the bays being used to clean up cars, but to put in a full car wash
with a stack of 8 cars behind the gas station and keeping the gas station that would be
a second use in my opinion requiring a variance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have to agree with you there. I don't believe that this is an
accessory use and my question.....
Mr. Caballero stated, but as the application stands we are allowed to re -hear it if
the Board so desires or we can deny having a re-application hearing completely.
Page -46-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I have heard you all night saying that you have to show a little
bit of a need for an additional use. Now, it is come that it is almost, it is getting
very close to impossible to make ends meet on just selling gasoline. So we do need
as a necessity to remain in business an extra use on the property so that we can get
an extra income. Right now we are buying regular gasoline for a little over 74 cents a
gallon. We are selling it at 74.9 cents a gallon, now the reason for that is because
7 -Eleven has been busting our chops bringing the prices down because they can rely on
their foods which we only have to rely on our gasoline. So, by denying this you are
laying down a hardship on us that we can't compete with 7 -Eleven on a one on one basis.
They have a second use, they have something to fall back on, they can rely on their
food sales to supplement their gas sales which is what they are doing. Now, if our
gas sales, if we have to work on less than a penny a gallon and not have an additional
use it makes it awful rough, it makes a hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, that property was there and another organization let it go
because it wasn't pumping enough gas for them to be there.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, they had a service repair shop there at which time you told me, or
the Board told me, last time, I was here last year, that you were upset because of the
cars parked there becasue we had a repair shop there. You had told me, the Board said
that if you get rid of your tenant that you would have a better opportunity on getting
this permit. I since then got rid of my tenant which was paying $1500 a month and
he moved out last January and I lost $1500 a month on top of that which was a supplementary
income. Now you have told me that I cannot have my service guy there and now you are
thinking about not letting me have a second use there.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think that is what the Board told you.
Mr. Landolfi stated, here is what we told you. We had an objection with all those
junk cars and you said well they are not mine and we didn;t say to you, that is your
property.
Mr. Hirkala stated, number one, a service station, you can have a service, utilization of
a garage, fine. There is no reason why you can't run a clean operation. That operation
was not a clean operation, it was an eyesore and thats what we told you. We didn't
tell you to get rid of it, we told you we want a clean operation, clean up the act
you have a viable operation, you don't clean up the act you don't. Number two, the
question I have at this point in time is what kind of business are you running from
that site?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, gasoline.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are selling gasoline. Retail or wholesale?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, retail and wholesale.
Mr. Hirkala stated, is that area suitable for a wholesale operation? The question that
arises, wholesale operation ..the gas station with the tank truck parked there, that
is a violation in my view. If it is a wholesale operation you would have to go
through site plan for wholesale operation. You are trying to do alot of things but you
have to look at the law first.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I am looking down the road, down Route 9, where 7 -Eleven has
gasoline......
Page -47-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, basically the decision before us is whether we are going to
entertain this re-application. Thats one, and if we do entertain this application this
is the proper application, is it a Special Use Permit or is it a variance.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I have a letter from Hans that says it is an accessory use.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is Han's opinion. That is not our opinion.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think if I maymake a statement. Since I am the Zoning Adminsitrator
I believe that it is a Special Use Permit because it is a gasoline filling station and
§220 of the Zoning Ordinance has a definition of a gasoline filling station and it
does say that there, any area of land, including structures thereon, or any building or
part thereof that is used for the sale of motor fuel or motor vehicle accessories, and
which may include facilities for lubricating, washing, or other minor servicing or motor
vehicles, but not including body work, major repair or paintint thereof by any means.
Mr. Hirkala stated, minor.
Mr. Gunderud stated, minor servicing of motor vehicles.
Mr. Hirkala stated, or other minor servicing of motor vehicles.
Mr. Caballero stated, he could wash in the bays that are there, he doesn't need a
building in the back with a car wash.
Mr. Hirkala stated, his primary use is going to be washing cars not servicing vehicles.
Mr. Gunderud stated, what I am saying is that I think the Zoning Ordinance says that
washing cars is a minor car repair.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not if it is the primary business.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, gasoline is the primary business.
Mr. Caballero stated, all statement duly noted. Can I have a motion to close the
public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, The question between us is if we are going to entertain this
re-application.
Mr. Landolf i stated, I think we have always been kind of a reasonable Board I feel and
very fair. I would be willing to re -hear but by the same tokens I would like some
cooperation. I feel like I am begging you for us to help you. Those cars have been
on that property going back. You brought it up I didn't want to bring it up. They
were on there, it was a hideous site and I didn't cause it and nobody here caused it.
It is the same way, you heard that that truck is in question, I would think that you
Page -48-
September 9th, 1986
would try to work with Hans, either try to hide it or whatever.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, we have had a vehicle on our property for 2 months, over 2 months.
They were dumped on the property, we called the State Police, they refused to do anything
about it. We called them twice. They refused to do anything about it. So finally
we had to call Hans and Hans to give proper notice to the people and after 2 months
one of the vehicles has finally been moved. Now we can't just go towing vehicles because
we don't want the liability that comes with it. But yet people feel free to leave their
cars there. We can't move them. In the past when the other vehicles were there they
were all licensed, registered vehicles. They weren't abandoned vehicles. They were there
being serviced or in storage. We knew who the owners were, where they belonged.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I went over and identified myself, I wanted to talk to someone over
there and I got some hard time from the people working there. I am going to give him the
benefit of the doubt, I make a motion that we grant him a re-application.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, explain what it means, he has to come back and show us a hardship or
just....
Mr. Caballero stated, he has to go through all the process of it and my situation was
that I believe it is not a Special Use Permit it is a variance.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I second it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I will go along with granting the re -hearing on a variance. I don't
believe that this is a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will amend it but maybe since we are going to meet with Jennifer
maybe we can ask her that also.
Mr. Caballero asked, will you gentlemen be willing to change your appeal for a variance
rather than a Special Use Permit?
Mr. Cappelli stated, it may be once the determination is made, I would like to say that
these guys have been up here as you know previously to try to do something.....
Mr. Caballero stated, but we denied them, Attorneys got involved, it didn't go anywhere
and it is probably still involved in litigation and your request here is for a re -hearing.
Mr. Cappelli stated, that is correct but if the opinion of the Board is at this point
that we are not going to get anywhere at 2 or 3 meetings or if you would like to see
perhaps, maybe an alternative use like, Mr. Vitiritti perhaps you would be better off
maybe going back to the service or whatever the case may be and....
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want, for the record, I want it known that I told Mr. Cappelli
myself, on this particular application that I had a problem with the car wash. Am I
right or wrong?
Mr. Cappelli answered, absolutely correct.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in his asking me what I thought the problem was with the application.
It is a multiple use application which is not allowed, in my opinion, the car wash in
my opinion is not suited to that particular site. I think a car wash coupled with a
filling station is a multi use application and yet here it comes back in with the
grocery store dropped with a gas station, and now it is a gas station with a car wash
which flies in the face of what my felling was to begin with so, he knew coming in this
Page -49-
September 9th, 1986
door there was one vote out the door with this application, he knew it. If this is
the one that we have to re -hear we might as well not even re -hear it.
Mr. Caballero stated, I still have a motion on the floor to re -hear this application,
that is the motion.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the Special Use Permit or the variance?
Mr. Caballero stated, it says on here a Special Use Permit. Do we want to entertain..
Mr. Landolfi stated, can I just maybe amend it to if in our discussion with Jennifer
and she says they are right in asking for the SUP we will allow that also. In other
words we will meet with her before the next meeting.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think I heard a motion to re -hear this application for a SUP
and I got a second from Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Hirkala - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero stated, we have a dead tie so we will have to wait to the other Board members
are here to break the tie.
Mr. Cappelli asked, in the mean time is it possible to get an interpretation from
Jennifer?
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to do that anyway.
Mr. Caballero stated, as per requested, they have scheduled a workshop for 9:00, Sept. 18,
with the Town Board and Hans Gunderud. There are alot of things we have to discuss and
this is the perfect opportunity to do it or we can't continue complaining up here. So
I suggest that every member put his objections together and either hand it to me as the
Chairman for me to speak for him to attend that meeting. I also suggested that we
meet that same day with Jennifer Van Tuyl or somebody from her office, it doesn't have
to be her to also discuss the situation with the apartments, the 6 apartments in the 2,
the situation with the houses that have been enlarged and they are also asking for a
mother/daughter situation, there is 2 of them.
Mr. Gunderud stated, as to the meeting with Jennifer with the apartment for, especially
for Esposito with the question of what the Building Inspector did or did not do I would
like to request that the Board also allow Mr. Esposito and perhaps Tim Classey to
participate in those meetings. They can be excused at anytime. Mr. Esposito...
Mr. Caballero asked, is that an appellant?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero answered, no way.
Mr. Landofli asked, why would we want him there?
Mr. Gunderud stated, quite frankly the Building Inspector told him it was all fine and
dandy to do it and at the last minute,.......
Page -50-
September 9th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, the man has quite a hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he has that type of hardship, he presents it before this Board
and we will make the decision whether he has the hardship or not. If we decide that
he doesn't have a hardship he will have to contest it in court.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like the Boards consideration to look at procedures as to
what constitutes a complete application, how it is done. I asked Linda and I asked
Hans what they thought and there is nobody who says what is a complete application and
what I notice is that we get applications and then hand us a plot plan and say this is
what it is. We should have that in our hand prior to the meeting. That should be a part
of the package. This is what I would like, what constitutes a complete application and
who makes that determination prior to it being on our agenda. Quite possibly some of
the stuff that we are not seeing now should be a part of our package when we get it
a week before.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Hirkala to make suggestion and have them ready for the workshop.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
lb