1986-08-12ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 12TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
TOWN HAIL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 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 square
feet of useable floor area, to a six (6) unit apartment building on property located on
Route 9D, and being Parcel #6157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #902,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 located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel
#6158-04-980125, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #908, at the request of Edmond Loedy, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a frontyard setback of
29.5 feet where 75 feet is required for an addition to a commercial building on
property located on Route 9 & Middlebush Road, and being Parcel #6157-02-610920, in
the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #912, at the request of Robert Herrmann, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to apply for a variance on the west
sideyard of 11.3 feet which violates the required 15 foot sideyard on property located
on24 Fleetwood Drive, and being Parcel #6156-01-440805, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal #913, at the request of Stanley Porco,
§404.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
of an existing non -conforming service on property
Parcel #6158-02-880530, in the Town of Wappinger.
seeking a variance on Article IV,
to allow for an additional expansion
located on Widmer Road, and being
6. Appeal #915, at the request of Terry Glass, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.7 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a
building permit on an undersized lot without having to combine said lot with a
contiguonsly owned undersized lot on property located on Monfort Road, and being
Parcel #6358-01-158534, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal #916, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company, seeking a variance
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for floor area ratio, and §476.23 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for off street loading requirements on property
located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-03-278358, in the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal #917, at the request of James Buckley, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition with a 12 foot
sideyard and a 40 foot frontyard where 15 and 75 feet are required on property located
on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel #6156-01-440565, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINSHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #856, at the request of 22 Associates, seeking a variance of §474 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning
Administrator that 210 parking spaces are request, based on the Zoning Administrator's
calculations, rather than 86 as set forth in calculations in proposed site plan; or,
in the alternative, a variance on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and
being Parcel #6157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -2-
August 12th, 1986
2. Appeal #910, at the request of Peter F. Murphy (Murmac Enterprises, Ltd.), seeking
kw a variance of Article IV, §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow
for a sign on an existing sign pole which will result in a total area of 80 square feet
where 25 square feet is allowed on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel
46156-02-666989, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4918, at the request of Kermit Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of
§422, GB, 1f4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for storage & sale of materials,
contractors establishments, 20,000 square foot building - divided into 4 sections for
equal uses on property located on Stage Door Drive, and being Parcel 446156-02-865914,
in the Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 12TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 12th, 1986,
at the Town Hall, Middlebush Road, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.
Members Present:
Mr. Cabellero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Cortellino 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. Cabellero explained how the meeting would be conducted, and then asked the
Secretary if all of the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office.
Mr. Cabellero read the first item:
Appeal 4900, 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,
and being Parcel 446157-01-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Durcan was present.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the total square footage of the house, to start with?
Mr. Durcan answered, 4,200 square feet.
Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Gunderud, was the sole criteria for this application based on
the fact that he could squeeze it all into this house, because as I read this portion
of the Zoning Ordinance it seems to me that as well as all the requirements of this
ordinance are met we have a density unit requirement in our ordinance that specifies
what are maximum density will be on any zone. Now, granted that he might have the
right to go to maximum density, but the maximum density is RMF 5, has anybody figured
out what would be allowed ont his property under that particular formula.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the interpretation of that section has been, as far as I recall,
you have the right to make as many apartments as long as the minimum size is 650 square
feet.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not what I read here. Conversion of an existing dwelling
unit prior to 1962 and having a useable floor area of not less than 3,000 s/f for a
2 family or multi family residence or other use as permitted in the district provided
each dwelling unit produced from such conversion shall have at least 600 s/f of useable
floor area, not total floor area, and off street parking requirements as well as all other
requirements of this ordinance are met and I read that as meaning that we have a
density unit formula that is a maximum density in the Town.
Page -2-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, density unit doesn't fall under that.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the maximum density allowable int he Town?
Mr. Gunderud answered, in RMF zones there is a density, but not, it doesn't coorelate.
There is no coorelation between density units and these existing uses in a residential
zone.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Hirkala, your contention is that he is maximizing it?
Mr. Hirkala answered, I don't know this, I would like to know this. I would like
to know what, my feeling is that the density unit portion of the Zoning Ordinance is
applicable because we do have a maximum density allowable per acre int he Town and this
thing says and all as well as all the requirements of this ordinance are met. It
specifically states that, all other requirements of the ordinance, and there is a
requirement in this ordinance that specifically states the maximum density will be
RMF -5. Now what is a density unit allowable under RMF -5 under the density unit
formula?
Mr. Gunderud stated, RMF -5 is the zoning district and RMF -3 is a zoning district.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the maximum allowable density allowed in the Town?
Mr. Gunderud answered, in this case it would be 600 s/f.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not necessarily, I don't agree with that.
Mr. Gunderud stated, that has been interpreted by me and other Zoning Administrator's
since the Zoning Ordinance started and there have been other conversions in the Town
on similar lots on similar houses which had only 3,000 square feet and that has what
had been ruled by the Zoning Board in granting Special Use Permits.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have the same type of question. He is in an R-20. Now in a
typical R-20. tells us there what is...
Mr. Gunderud answered, density unit is one.
Mr. Landolfi asked, could you equate it to any footage so we can kind of use, he is
right. It appears to me that this gentlemen is just looking for like a carte blanche
to put, like if he could put 15 in he would put 15. There has obviously have to be
a coorelation of footage here. I am saying in an R-20, we have allowable limits
within an R-20.
Mr. Gunderud stated, not really because somebody could build on a single family lot a
10 bedroom house if they had 10 kids and wanted it. Now, density units has to do with
how many bedrooms the place has. A density unit is equal to a one bedroom apartment.
A 2 bedroom apartment is, I think 1.5 density units. A 3 bedroom apartment has 2 density
units. So, that is where it comes into in only dealing with apartments and that is
specifically for the Zoning districts in the Town which are zoned multi family in an
apartment district.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he is making an apartment house.
Mr. Gunderud stated, this is an exception under the normal rules.
Page -3-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't agree with the fact that the exception means that the man
can do anything he wants to do as long as he has the space to do it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the only lying factor is that he can have every apartment 600 s/f
minimum if he had 6,000 s/f he could have 10 apartments. He has 3,000 s/f, he has 5
apartments. That is what has been consistently ruled on this and that is where I would
stand on it.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have the opinion of the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Hirkala
disagrees and Mr. Landolfi has reservation also on it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to make a motion that we refer this to our Attorney
to see what the Attorney feels legally is the interpretation of this particular...
Mr. Cortellino stated, let me amend that, we make the interpretations, we will send it
to the Attorney for a legal opinion.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, I believe that when it comes to Zoning Interpretations
this Board does it. If you have any doubt on whether something is permitted or not
that is the time to send them here.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I interpret on the front line and if the people differ with my
interpretation they come to your Board for your final interpretation.
Mr. Caballero asked, your interpretation is that he is allowed the 6 apartments in that
square footage?
Mr. Gunderud answered, at least 6 because he has over 3,000 square foot.
Mr. Caballero stated, your opinion is that.
Mr. Gunderud answered, that is my interpretation.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I disagree with that also. I think his job is not to interpret
but to give an opinion.
Mr.Gunderud stated, that is my legal responsibility.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Durcan if he has anything additional to add.
Mr. Durcan stated, I indicated to the Zoning Administrator that the proposal not is
for one bedroom units. The plan that you have in front of you is for 2 bedroom units
and we have amended that to one bedroom.
Mr. Caballero asked, and there is only going to be 6 apartments. There are 3 there now.
Mr. Durcan answered, it is a legal 3 family at the moment. I am advised by the
Zoning Department that it is a legal 3 family. That is the information that I have
available.
Page -4-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, are we saying that these plans are not current with what...
Mr. Hirkala stated, in other words he is not building what is on this paper.
Mr. Cabalelro asked, the plans that you submitted now are not current with the...
Mr. Durcan stated, it will be revised to one bedroom.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
John Thew - adjacent to this property.
Mr. Mother lives in a single family house next door. My first question is, I am not
aware of the ordinance in which we are ruling here in that if its in existence 3,000 s/f
you can expand it to whatever, and I had some familiarity with some of the Zoning
Ordinances in Wappingers back in the 60's but I am wondering, was that ordinance the
original ordinance?
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think you misunderstand. It isn't if you have 3,000 feet you
can expand it. He is pointing out the amount of feet he has so that he can qualify
for the number of units.
Mr. Thew stated, I understand but, first of all, I have owned my property almost 20 years.
And when I go on it my understanding was that it was an R-40, I heard to night that it
is R-20 area and secondly the appeal is based on the section of the Zoning Ordinance
that calls for built prior to 1963 and which contains 3,000 s/f of useable area. That
seems to be some clause on the basis of which we are now going to be dividing this into
apartments. I was not aware of that clause and my question is, was that in the original
Zoning or is that part of the changes made in 1980?
Mr. Caballero answered, in my understand this was probably pre zoning, pre our Zoning
Ordinance of today so it was an allowable use to have 3 apartments there then.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think what the gentlemen is asking is that was in the original
1963 ordinance also. It was on the schedule of what was permitted in the residential
zones.
Mr. Thew answered, okay, then I will jump right into my comment. My understanding
when the Zoning went through in 1963 that this was a 3 family house and it was purchased
by Charlie Palmateer and subsequently converted to a single family house. At the time
it was a legally non -conforming 3 family house in a single family neighborhood. It is
my understanding that the zoning of Wappinger when we brought it through was to make
that area single family and I a non -conforming use, once it becomes a conforming use
we are complying and I think that is what you folks are here for and I would like to
say that I don't believe that 6 apartments is conforming to what the Town intended nor
the neighbors in the area intended for the property. It is single family dwellings.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Durcan when he purchased the property?
Mr. Durcan answered, I am under contract to purchase the property.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you haven't bought it?
Mr. Durcan answered, not yet sir, no.
Page -5-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino asked, that took care of the original 3 apartments?
Mr. Durcan stated, I know the electrical is for 3 apartments, there are 3 meters and
one electrical meter services the middle apartment and one services the end apartment.
Mr. Cortellino asked, are the 3 entrances separate and distinct? In other words,
if I come in through entrance 2 I can only go to a certain portion of the house, I cannot
go to another portion of the house?
Mr. Durcan stated, you couldn't get the the apartment on the left from the entrances on
the Palmateer property itself. There is no connecting link between.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is my question. Are all 3 apartments separate and distinct
they are each served by a separate entrance or is there a common entrance?
11r. Durcan answered, there is an entrance to the 2nd floor, there is a stairway going
up to the second floor which would connect the first and second floor and there is an
entrance in the second floor from the downstairs.
Mr.
Thew stated, he has not purchased it, let me just point out this, Mr. Palmateer did
make the decision to convert it to a single family house, I believe to change the
zoning or get the variances he has to show undo hardship and peculiar circumstances.
Mr.
Caballero stated, this is not a variance. This is a Special Use Permit.
Mr.
Hirkala stated, it is an allowable use.
Mr.
Thew stated, both points are applicable to this Special Use in that he has to
demonstrate some sort of unnecessary hardship. Mother-in-law wants to move in or
soemthing
like that, but just to convert the property to 6.
Mr.
Caballero asked, are you saying now that that house now is only a one family house.
It
was 3 apartments and now it is presently a one family?
Mr.
Thew stated, I believe that it is now 2 apartments, it subsequently went back up
but
the house went from legally non -conforming 3 apartments when Mr. Palmateer bought it
to
a single family house for a number of years.
Mr.
Caballero asked, and then it was put 2 apartments back in without coming back in
for
a use permit.
Mr.
Thew answered, on apartment, one additional apartment, yes.
Mr.
Caballero asked, is this correct that right now there is only, there is 2 apartments
in
that house?
Mr.
Durcan answered, I don't know how you would describe it. There is one separate
apartment
and Mr. Palmateer's family occupies the remainder of the house I understand.
Mr.
Caballero asked, and they rent another apartment?
Mr.
Cortellino asked, how many separate entrances are there to this building?
Mr.
Durcan answered, 3.
Mr. Cortellino asked, that took care of the original 3 apartments?
Mr. Durcan stated, I know the electrical is for 3 apartments, there are 3 meters and
one electrical meter services the middle apartment and one services the end apartment.
Mr. Cortellino asked, are the 3 entrances separate and distinct? In other words,
if I come in through entrance 2 I can only go to a certain portion of the house, I cannot
go to another portion of the house?
Mr. Durcan stated, you couldn't get the the apartment on the left from the entrances on
the Palmateer property itself. There is no connecting link between.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is my question. Are all 3 apartments separate and distinct
they are each served by a separate entrance or is there a common entrance?
11r. Durcan answered, there is an entrance to the 2nd floor, there is a stairway going
up to the second floor which would connect the first and second floor and there is an
entrance in the second floor from the downstairs.
Page -6-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I think he is under contract to buy so he might no know the
house as well as you want him to.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the only comment that I was going to make and Mr. Thew's point
might be well taken that Mr. Palmateer changed the house from one thing to another
but it really doesn't have any bearing on this particular proposal because whether it
was one family 2,3, or 4, the Zoning Ordinance doesn't differentiate. The Zoning
Ordinance only says that it has to have met 2 criteria. One, built before 1963, and
two, have over 3,000 s/f so the tax records do show that the house was carried as a
3 family and that was checked recently.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, Quiet Acres was built before 1963.
Mr. Gunderud asked, are there any houses down there over 3,000 s/f, I doubt it.
Mr. Incoronato.
Checking the Zoning Ordinance, and from the statements that you provide here tonight it
seems that this non -conforming use ceased for some period of time. Now, in §404.34 of
the Ordinance it says that if such non -conforming use of a building or structure ceases
for any reason and it continues for a period of more than 2 years, and may well be more
than 2 years, or is changed to a conforming use, which it apparantly was when it went to
one family, or if the building in which such use is conducted.... then any future use
of such building or structure and the land on which it is located shall be conforming
with all provisions of this ordinance for the district in which it is located. This says
that if he converted that to one family home anytime after 63 thats a one family home
period, now and forever more. Assuming that 3 apartments are legal, and I have grave
doubts to that, but assuming that that is correct, §404.32 says, such non -conforming
buildign or structure shall not be structurally altered or reconstructed except for
such alteration, maintenance and repair work as is required to keep the said building
or structure in a safe condition. So even assuming that he has got a valid 3 family,
he cannot make any alterations except to keep it in a safe condition. Thats 404.32.
So you have 2 questions here, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the law is
concerned, §404.32 & §404.34, either one of those would spoil this request.
Al Cooke - lives across the street.
You were in contract for 2 pieces of land, is that correct in that area?
Mr. Durcan answered, yes.
Mr. Cooke asked, they are in no way connected to each other, only by the back. Do
you have a plot plan so I can see if it is as deep or as long ont he road. Does it just
go in because I have a concern about the septic system. If a septic system was put
in, would it have to be put in at this.time before 6, or would it be changed and be
subject to health laws.
Mr. Hirkala answered, most definitely.
Mr. Cooke stated, so therefore, if the land is not big enough and you cannot get your
septic tank in, and your leach fields, and your wells away from other peoples in that
area then it could not be granted?
Mr. Caballero stated, that wouldn't be our decision but it would be the Board of Health
decision not to grant the permit.
Page -7-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cooke stated, I think before the Board can even make a decision on it that some of
those questions should be answered by the Health Dept. and presented that it is a
feasable plan. If it is not it should not even be before you.
Mr. Durcan stated, I have spoken with the consultant engineer, Mr. Friedman, who
has given his approval from the plans that were presented and to do a study of this
area and to bring everything to meet the requirements of the Dutchess County Health
Department.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that was one of the concerns that I had in the long term without
even, I would like to get the Attorney's interpretation as to what the density should
be on this particular property because contiguous to this property under the same
ownership is another piece of property that might possibly be added to this piece of
property and make one lot to make this particular thing and all these apartments legal.
If that being the case then this septic and requirements might very well be covered
under that. There is a large piece of property connecting the back of this one that is
under the same ownership right now and it might possibly be a situation where the density
requirement would require that both lots be required and made into one big lot for
this apartment to be okay.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if we are going to send this to the Attorney, I have one more
thing brought to he attention. I have been hearing various individuals saying, like
it is legally non -conforming and it is my interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance that
it is not a legall non -conforming structure, it is a permitted use for a (03 building,
so it is more, I can go through every building that was built before 1963 in the Town
that has more than 3,000 s/f according to this ordinance and put in apartment of the
minimum size. So, it is not a variance, it is not legally non -conforming, it is a
permitted use. The same as putting in a hospital, nursery, it is a legal use, not
a legally non -conforming use. Just to eliminate any doubts fromt he people in the
audience, I would ask the attorney, when you refer your comments to her to go along
and interpret that.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he would accept the amendement to the motion.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Aye.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the sudience who wished to make additonal
comments.
Mr. Caballero read into the record a letter from an Attorney of an abutting property
owner dated 8/8/86 from Mr. Milone's Attorney Stephen 011endorff.
This letter on file.
Mr. Hirkala stated, along this is going into the record I would also like to put into
the record that there is a mistake because the statement that adjacent property owners
were not notified is eronious because the property in question on the request for a
Special Use Permit is not the back piece of property to which this gentlemen is
adjacent. So there is a piece of property besides the one that is requesting a SUP
separating these 2, Mr. Milone's property and this particuar property, so just for
the record he is not an abutting property owner.
Page -8-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Thew stated, I am just not clear on how we interpret things and I am a little
bit aprehensive in the fact that you are going now to refer this to the Attorney's.
Theoretically, you already had a public hearing, does that mean that we know have
another opportunity for a public hearing or is this a closed issue.
Mr. Caballero stated, what we are going to do, most likely is we are going to have
our Attorney give us their opinion and from there we will make a decision.
Mr. Thew stated, the reason I asked that is because I am very much concerned. We have
a Zoning Ordinance and that Zoning Ordinance is up for interpretation. When we first
...various opinions from the Board, in fact 3 different variations.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think the 2 interpretations on the Board are the same as I
heard them. We have a non agreement with our Zoning Board.....
Mr. Thew stated, my basic point that I am trying to say is, I bought a home in what I
thought to be a single family area. And now what we are saying is we are making this
into apartments merely because there is a little tiny clause in the Zoning Ordinance that
says if we have got 3,000 s/f we can subdivide and I don't believe that one little tiny
line like that can subjugate entire Zoning Ordinance that goes into paragraph, into
paragraph of uses, in non -conforming property you can do only 50% more kind of things,
and now we are saying, hey, we are conforming because we are 3,000 s/f. It bothers me
in the fact that I don't think that everything has been said now we are referring it
to the Attorney's interpretation would be made and that can be.
Raymond Hudson - adjacent property owner.
Would this be the last time we would be able to address the Board on this matter?
Mr. Caballero answered, it would be basically on what motions my Board gives me that
that decision would be made.
Mr. Hudson stated, my concren is the septic system. The drainage is bad at best where
we are and with heavy rains that back yard is a pond, between the house and the back
line of that property in question and its over half full. Now, that has to seep through
into the septic system. Now I know it is going to have to be enlarged to accomodate
6, I mean they are operating on one right now. The apartment that is in there now is
not allowed to use the washer machine because the septic system, whatever, and the
drainage is not that good. My property is not, is a little higher, but I am concerned
for the neighboring area and it has to saturate the septic system and the leach fields
even the way it is no because when we get a heavy rain the backyard is just full and
the drainage is not good, it is clay and I dont' think that it would accept the
system for the 6 units he is planning on putting in.
Mr. Caballero stated that that would be the Board of Health decision.
Ruth Speedling - adjacent property owner.
My property is adjacent to this large track of land and I believe that you are
considering the whole track of land behind the house you are going to buy to?
Mr. Durcan answered, yes, I am in contract.
Mrs. Speedling stated, what I am concerned about, I don't know whether I should bring
this up at this time but if he is allowed to put apartments in there what is he going
to do with the back property? Is he going to build more apartments? I mean we don't
want apartments in the back there.
Page -9-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Durcan answered, I have no plans to build apartments, and I am sure that I am
not allowed to build apartments. I have no plans.
Mrs. Speedling stated, that is what I mean. If he gets permission to do the apartments
right now, one thing leads to another and then he gets a little more and this runs
right behind our house and is all single family.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any concerns why you would not like to see those
apartments, that house converted into 6 apartments, that is what we are looking for.
Mrs. Speedling answered, I don't think any of us want 6 apartments there. It would
bring more people into the area, more cars, and there is enough there now. We have
alot of congestion in the area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in light of a few things said here the question seems to arise as
to whether or not the septic can handle it. Whether or not the drainage is going to
be proper and the, I havev nothing in front of me from the Planning Board as to the
review was on the Special Use Permit, and I haven't seen anything as far as an
enviornmental assessment form is concerned. It is quite possible that before, prior to
a decision on the Special Use Permit, granting, aside from the request for an opinion
from our Attorney, we might take an enviornmental look at this thing and make a determin-
ation as to whether or not it is feasable in that light. I sort of shy away from
leaving the whole enviornmental issue sitting in the County Health Dept.'s lap. They
don't live in the Town of Wappinger and we do.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I move to adjourn the public hearing so that at a later date if
any other information comes to light on thie piece of property we can legally accept
it.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to adjourn this meeting until next month until
we get an opinion from our attorney.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
n4 n
school on property loc,
the Town of Wappinger.
Al Cappelli and Tanya Mortenson were present.
Mr. Capelli stated, we are here this evening to discuss an existing 2 story building
located on Myers Corners Road, opposite Spook Hill Road which Ms. Mortenson would like
to add onto and convert the building, plus the addition into a nursery school/day care.
You may be familiar with the Tots n Us on Old Hopewell Road. It is the same organization
that plans to expand and put another another facility in the Town of Wappinger on Myers
Corners Road. Existing building is about 2,200 s/f, the total addition will total
approximately 7,500 s/f for total of 10,000 s/f and total on the project site is 19 acres.
Page -10-
August 12th, 1986
We have been here before, we have gone to the Planning Board and one of the major
concerns that we are in the process of addressing at the present time we do not have
any answers that was the concern of the Planning Board was the traffic perhaps generated
and the bad corner that the project site is situated on and in particular our entry
location. We are working it out with the County. The study is being presently undertaken
by Pizzagalli, etc., so we hope to work something into that to satisfy everyones wishes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what have you done about straightening out the problems that you
have on Old Hopewell Road?
Mr. Capelli asked, from the Department of Public Works?
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is right.
Mr.Gallo stated, I was in touch with Bill Bathrick, there was a telephone pole in the
middle of the apron that we had to finish. The telephone pole was taken down Friday.
That is the reason that the curbing wasn't put in and the blactop wasn't finished.
The first coat is down but we have been in contact with them for the past 3 or 4 months.
Maybe we should have done it sooner, but we didn't.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you had 2 years, and it took 2 years to take down a pole.
Mr. Gallo stated, they just took it down Friday. We have sent Marcajohn a telegram,
in fact that went out today that he is to get over there now and finish and I explained
that to Bill Bathrick, I think about a week ago and he understood.
T Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter from the Dutchess County Director of Engineering
and it is in reference to a request from us on an opinion on your project on that road
and they will not review the process because of your existing violation on county
permit #84-130, at you aware of that sir?
Mr. Capelli answered, yes, I have seen this letter and I have been in contact with Bill
about it.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would like a report in writing that this is cleared up
so that they can review the project and give us there opinion.
Mr. Caballero asked if they submitted a Long EAF.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically you have 3 item here that you have to clear up. One is
from the Dept. of Highways and the other one from the Dutchess Planning and you have to
submit to us the Long EAF.
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 made a motion to table until items are taken care of. Planning Board,
Public Works, Planning and submit a Long Form EAF.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like in writing an explanation of why it took 2 years
S�e to get Hopewell Road straightened out because I don't want Myers Corners to take 2 years
to get straightened out.
Page -11-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The Board called a break at 7:50 P.M..
Meeting called back to order at 8:00 P.M..
Mr. Caballero tead the next appeal:
Appeal 4908, at the request of Edmond Loedy, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a frontyard setback of 29.5 feet
where 75 feet is required for an addition to a commercial building on property located
on Middlebush Road & Route 9, and being Parcel 46157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Ed Loedy was present.
Mr. Caballero read a letter from the County dated July 2nd, 1986. Letter on file.
Mr. Loedy stated, we are here to request relief from the setback requirement as outlined
in the ordinance and we have submitted our applications and our position is basically
this. There are 3 requirements according to the ordinance regarding that particular
setback. One says 10 feet thats if it were to be moved to sideyard. Originally the
building was ruled to have the front entry at the frontyard so one can make a case
that this was at some point considered a sideyard. We meet that one even though that
has become obsolete since the change was made in the ordinance where next to a State
Highway there were 2 additional setback requirememts and one was 75 feet from the
property line and one 100 feet from the center line of the road. Now, we obviously don't
meet the 75 feet from the property line that is why we are here. We are 140 feet from
the center line of the road, so it is my feeling that we are definitley within the
spirit of the ordinance even though we don't technically need it. I have prepared a
map here that shows the green area are the lawns in front of these different buildings
on that intersection and after we went through it we found out that the State took
more property in front of Norstar than on any of the other areas and as a matter of
fact, we measured from the center line of the road to the 4 buildings that are right on
the corner because you are, part of the application we have to show that we are in the
spirit of the area. Now, we measure 142 feet to our addition. The new building here
is 162, across the street, the old stereo magic is 138 and the Mobil station measured
85 feet so out of the 4 there are actually 2 buildings that are closer to the highway
then our addition would be. Also, if we were to interpret this very strictly, the
setback would fall so far behind the building were it exists the only way for us to
add anything to the building would be to literally add is on the west side and that is
where the bank presently has the drive-thru. If we added something there we couldn't
add the drive-thru, it would be making it very difficult to follow the ordinance to
a tee. So it is our feeling that this is a unique situation because of the setback
here, the State taking is wider than anywhere else on the intersection. It would
create a hardship for the bank and basically couldn't expand its quarters. And we also
feel that we have, we are within the spirit of this ordinance because the 100 feet
requirement from the center line of the road to the building, we actually exceed that
by 40 feet. And other than that we would ask this Board to take that into account
and obviously make some decision.
Mr. Cortellino stated, he was doing a very good job up until he came to the drive -up
window. Saying that if he was to do the addition on the west side would mean to
eliminate the drive-in window.
Page -12-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Loedy stated, what I said is no other place to add to it if we respect the setbacks.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if you did it on the side where the drive-in window, what is
your objection to that?
Mr. Loedy answered, what I am saying is the bank is trying to meet customer demands
and expand its facility.
Mr. Cortellino stated, forget the setback. Lets go on the west side of the building.
If you were to put the addition there, what is the problem?
Mr. Loedy answered, there is presently a drive -up window there.
Mr. Cortellino stated, fine. You are going to build a building on the east, the addition
is going to be a building extension. If you put a building extension on the west side
and moved the tellers booth over to that wall on the west side, why can't the drive -up
window still be on the west side?
Mr. Loedy answered, by adding the addition to the west side we block out a perfectly
operating drive -up window.
Mr. Caballero asked, yes but can you add the drive -up window after you put on the
addition?
Mr. Loedy answered, what I am saying is that in order to add to the building we have
to in effect make our perfectly operating part of it non-functional.
Mr. Caballero asked, is it possible to add your extension where the drive-in window is
and build a drive-in window further out from the building? That is my question. Not
whether it is expensive or it is not practical, but can you add the addition where
your drive-in window is presently and put the drive-in window further out from the
building?
Mr. Loedy stated, we are also proposing additional drive -up windows so it is impossible
to do that.
Mr. Caballero asked, where is it in this public notice that you are proposing, in the
future you are going to ask for additional.....
Mr. Loedy answered, it is on our site plan. Our site plan, which we submitted to
the Planning Board had shown an addition to the east side at which we are here for the
variance for and also showed an addition to the west side for additional drive -up
lane.
Mr. Cortellino stated, but everything you say still can be done if you build on the
west side. If you wanted to go all the way down to Old Route 9 you still could put
a drive in window on Old Route 9 in fact you might be better off. You are not telling
me why, I don't care if you have 4 drive-in lanes, you are not telling me why it can't
be on the west side extended out.
Mr. Loedy answered, there is not enough room there. There is physically not enough
room.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how much land do you have to the west side?
Mr. Loedy answered, the point that I am making is that it is hardship. It would cost
twice as much to do something and your ordinance requires to demonstrate a hardship
Page -13-
August 12th, 1986
that is all I am doing. You are saying, could you do it? I assume if the bank wants
to pay double that they probabaly could but I think that qualifies as a hardhsip.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not to a bank. A hardhsip is that you don't have the money.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it is not one that you inflict on yourself. We are trying to
avoind, perhaps, granting a varinace and still be able to help you here.
Mr.Loedy stated, presently we have a total of 165 feet from the existing drive -up, the
end of it to the property line and by the time we add the parking that is required and
drive thru lanes there is no way to add it.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, the drive up lane doesn't count in the setbacks,
its the building only that counts in setback?
Mr. Gunderud answered, well the drive up lane has a canopy. There is overhead shoots
that bring the money into the bank.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is there anything that would justify the request other than the fact
of having to put more money into the building?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes, I have carefully followed your application which requires me
to make 3 points. One is that this is a unique situation. What I am saying strict
application of the ordinance, here is my building, I can't add to that building anywhere
except in the back where there are present drive up windows. I think that is a
hardship when everybody else can add to anywhere else.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is then is that it would cost money for you to
adhere to the ordinance. You keep saying its a hardship. This Board makes the deter-
mination whether or not its a hardship. All you do is say I have a hardship and
prove the fact to the Board, if you can't prove the fact to the Board you haven't proven
it. So what I am trying to tell you is that the only thing, what I am trying to get from
you is the only thing that stops you from adhereing to the ordinance is the fact of
how much money you have to spend on the building to get what the bank wants.
Mr. Loedy answered, no sir. It is physically impossible for me to add these things
into the back and fit them into the property to the back.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what you are saying is that what the bank would like to have there
what the bank needs there to make a viable business is physically impossible to put on
that property?
Mr. Loedy answered, by trying to put this addition back by the drive up, yes. The
Planning Board even requested us to build a retaining wall, a reinforced concrete
retaining wall and push the property to the west to permit us parking so that we could
drive thru the property so obviously nobody like to build a reinforced concrete
retaining wall unless they have to so we pushed that side of the property as far as
we could.
Mr. Caballero stated, that the Board looked at the plan and I also see that there is
room for expansion behind the building, why was that not contemplated?
Mr. Loedy answered, in order to drive behind the building and keep .... there is no
room. In order to park your car and drive around the building, if you have ever been
in back there its probably a little tight as it is.
Page -14-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, a few months back you needed alot of signs because nobody knows
where it is and now we need 2 drive ins, business must have improved since we did not
give you the signs.
Mr. Loedy answered, these drive ins at the time we came to you with the signs this site
plan was approved.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you needed a sign so that people knew where you are. Without
the signs people must have found you if you need another drive in.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have actual number figures where you could substantiate the
hardship, financial harship that you have on this property?
Mr. Loedy answered, no, not with me.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see a cost comparision between going out the back
and going out the side and I would like to see verification of the fact that they cannot
use the back green area for addition on the building. It may be that it would cost
more money but I don't feel that is a hardship. I wish you could show me a hardship
but I can't see where a bank has a hardship financially.
Mr. Loedy answered, well the fact the bank deals with money I don't think it would make
them any different from anybody else. They are in business just like everyone else.
Mr. Landolfi asked, if you did not add on here at all you are still going to function as
a bank and a very reputable bank at that.
Mr. Loedy stated, I think the bank is planning of expand because of customer demand and
I don't think they would be functioning as well as they could.....
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero stated, as I see this this property was purchased and it might not be
the size and the building may not be big enough for the new owner of the property and
I don't see a need to grant a variance. They need a bigger building, they have to
go to a bigger building someplace else. The lot is not enducing to expanding. That
portion would come closer to Route 9 and in addition to that they would be adding
additional drive in windows, to small.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like to see a cost figure for expanding compared to the
west.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that the variance be denied. The appellant has
not showed sufficient hardship for granting a variance.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Page -15-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4912, at the request of Robert Herrmann, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to apply for a variance on the west sideyard
of 11.3 feet which violates the required 15 foot sideyard on the property located on
24 Fleetwood Drive, and being Parcel 46156-01-440805, in the Town of Wappinger.
Robert Herrmann was present.
Mr. Herrmann stated, I would like a variance so that in the future I decided to sell
and move to another piece then I believe to get a CO for the people buying would have to
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have a structure that infringes on that 15 foot sideyard
setback?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, yes.
Mr.
Caballero asked, what do you have there?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, a house, the edge of my house is 11.3 from the edge of the property.
Mr.
Cortellino asked, you are trying to correct an existing violation, is that correct?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, I assume that is what I am doing.
Mr.
Hirkala asked, was the violation created by you?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, no, the house was built in 1972 and I bought it about 3 years
ago
and from my understanding at that time that through no mistake of mine a CO was
granted to me and so I was able to buy the house but if I wanted to sell the house
then I would need to get a variance so that the people who would buy it from me would
be
able to buy it.
Mr.
Hirkala asked, when you bought the house did you know the violation existed?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, I don't think so.
Mr.
Caballero stated, and at that time it didn't conform and you were still able to
buy
it?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, yes. I don't know remember who I got the word from but the
word
was that evidently the CO was issued.
Mr.
Landolfi asked, did you have a lawyer representing you?
Mr.
Herrmann answered, yes.
Page -16-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, the question on this property, invariably we have
seen this mushroom, but like for instance, is it just the paperwork catch up to this?
Mr. Cortellino asked, he didn't do anything, the house was there all along in violation?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, but you have a CO issued in 1972.
Mr. Gunderud stated, at that time the Town did not require a certified as built plot
plan to be submitted prior to a CO so the Building Inspector had said that the house was
going to be 29 feet and 25 feet and the Building Insepctor probably at that time probably
didn't have any reference and probably took the word of the builder that he put it in
the right spot and it was never picked up until 1983. At least the house was on the right
lot.
Mr. Caballero asked, why was it picked up in 83? You had a survey done and that was
when you discovered?
Mr. Herrmann answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
Joseph Incoronato.
I live right down the street, about 10 houses down and the house has been there all these
years as indicated by Mr. Herrmann and he is just validating something that has existed
from the time of its conception, so I support his request for a variance.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to grant the variance.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4913, at the request of Stanley Porco, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.3
of teh Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for additional expansion of an
existing non -conforming service on property located on Widmer Road, and being Parcel
46158-02-880530, in the Town of Wappinger.
�Iw Stanley & Gino Porco were present.
Page -17-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Porco stated, we are here to seek relief of the Zoning Ordinance of our property
on Widmer Road being non -conforming. We want to add on some space to that. We also
are going to enclose some existing patio space that is there. The reason for that
being that as a situation exists right now we have no room available to serve a
business that we call a coctail hour, in other words, as the Board knows we only do
social function and that type, we don't do anything else but social functions. When
we don't have a social function the place is closed. Our functions are Saturday.
Unfortunately there are no other business any other day but Saturday. The problem
that we run into very, very often is that we don't have the room to serve a social
hour to perspective customers daughter that is getting married. They come over and
they want to have a social hour in one room and then have the dinner in another room.
What we don't have now is that room to accomodate them so therefore if they wanted
a social hour as part of their daughters wedding package there we wind up not booking
that party if that room that we have, which we only have one room like that, happened
to be taken, and the other person comes in at the same time and he wants a cocktail
hour we cannot take the party because we don't have a place to serve it. So, what we
are trying to do is with this new space that we want to add onto is strictly for a
useage like that.
Mr. Cortellino asked, the existing floor space that is the footprint, not the useable
space, how many square feet is the building now?
Mr. Porco answered, 14,207 square feet.
Mr. Cortellino asked, and what do they wish to go to, including closing the patio?
Mr. Gunderud answered, an additional 4,800 square feet.
Mr. Caballero stated, he has received that 50% expansion before so this will be additional
to that 50.
Mr. Gunderud stated, well he is asking for a variance of that because that section
limits him to 50%. He is asking for a variance of that section.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so he wants to go beyond that 50%.
Mr. Porco stated, we don't have the facilities of taking that extra party. We have the
room where they can have their party, the room is ther but we don't have that other
extra axiliary room to serve that extra hour in there. The hour before the dinner.
If we don't have that we are loosing business and we have no other time to make it up
since we are only talking about a Saturday business. There is no other business at
any other time.
Mr. Caballero, asked are you planning extensive renovation of the property?
Mr. Porco answered, renovation, yes, the lobby, re -do the lobby.
The Board looked over the plans.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if the parking was adequate.
Mr. Gunderud answered, under the new proposed plan it appears to be adequate.
Mr. Porco stated, I also have a petition signed by some of our neighbors.
Page -18-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, as part of this deal is the roadway will be realigned and you
pick up the cost, am I correct?
Mr. Porco answered, no, we are willing to donate the land to the Town.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have for the record I have a letter from Albert E. Berberich.
Mr. Caballero read the letter into the record which was in favor of this variance.
This letter is on file. Also a petition signed by a number of neighbors in favor of
this request. This is also on file.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, with the new addition how many people will you be able to handle
totally in the building?
Mr. Porco answered, it would be the same amount of people we would be handling now
because the addition that we are proposing to put on they would not use it for actual
dining. I would be more than happy to elaborate a little more about this room for
social hour or cocktail hour.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, what I am asking is how many people can you seat dining?
Mr. Cortellino stated, say under 500.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, under 500 people and you only have 161 parking spaces. How is
that?
Mr. Caballero stated, basically I am familiar with the property and basically what
would be happening, they may have those 3 wedding parties there and that total amount
of people but they may, what they are looking for is to offer a cocktail hour to one
or more of those rooms. They can only offer a cocktail hour to one room presently
with the space that they have.
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 stated, at this point maybe we have the opportunity to try to eleviate a
potential problem. If you have a potetial of 500 people and you reduced it by half to
250 cars at any one given time on this site that only has 161 parking spaces where are
you going to park the roughly other 100 cars?
Mr. Porco answered, the site plan shows the amount of cars required.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I haven't really reviewed the plans because it is under site plan
review yet, but that would be reviewed.
Mr. Parsons stated, our comment right away was that he already used his 50% and before
we got into it any deeper, because we had a concern about traffic, straightening out
the road, there were alot of things that had to be resolved. Before we got into them
first we had to find out whether you people were going to allow them to do the addition.
If not then it was a dead issue.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what he is saying is the fact that the are going to have to
review the site plan no matter what.
Page -19-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, while it is a large expansion, I am familiar with the property
and I have no objections to it but I would want all of the concerns addressed. What
George says about the parking and what Bill says, that is a bad, even though the Town
is supposed to straighten out the turn there, I want all the other safety features
taken care of, so which comes first, the Planning Board or us? These concerns have to
be addressed. I am not opposed to the concept of the expansion of the building, I am
just concerned about all the safety features and the parking.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would be willing to put that into a form of a motion, to pass it
on with those considerations as Mr. Cortellino stated.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with the parking. I would like to hear from the
Zoning Administrator that he goes through he parking situation, to see that with the
addition with the revision of the parking area there would be enough parking spaces
to be no impact on the road.
Mr. Caballero asked if they had room to add additional parking.
Mr. Porco stated, it is my understanding I think with the concept. having been before
the Planning Board before that all these issues have to be complied with before a site
plan is approved. The site plan has to conform with the all the requirements such as
parking and whatever else. We also intend to re -align the entrance to the building.
Now we have 2 and it has always been sort of a concern and the Highway Dept. as well
as the Zoning Administrator now we propose to have one ingress and egrees, just one
main driveway which the site plan shows. If we couldn't provide enough parking for the
amount of square footage and all the other things that we have to provide we would never
have a site plan approved.
Mr. Parsons stated, I think we are getting back to the same old MacGeorge situation.
The man has applied for a variance to increase the size of the building beyond what
he is normally allowed to do by law...I think you are beyond what you should be doing.
You are supposed to be dealing with a variance, whether you can allow it fell you
should allow it. The site plan, the driveways, the parking, has no bearring what so
ever, it is not the ZBA's job to do it.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have people on the Board who disagree with you.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Porco, at any time did you have 3 parties in all your rooms
filled?
Mr. Porco answered, yes, sometimes.
Mr. Caballero asked, have you had any problems with parking outside of your property?
Mr. Porco answered, no, because now when you go to a party people travel in alot of
people in one car. We used to have a problem with parking but we had the nightclub.
Since we closed to the public and just do weddings and parties.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion to grant contingent on the necessary approvals.
Adequate parking and the safety features, especially with the turn on the road.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Page -20-
August 12th, 1986
The motion was carried.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal :
Appeal 4915, at the request of of Terry Glass, seeking a variance of Article IV, §411.7
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
on an undersized lot without having to combine said lot with a contiguosly owned
undersized lot on property located on Monfort Road, and being Parcel 46358-01-158534,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero stated, this has been removed from the agenda. I believe the Zoning
Officer found a way, legally, to allow them to.....
Mr. Gunderud stated, the Town Attorney did research on it and came out with points of
law which did not require a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have no problem with that, but I believe if the Zoning Officer
questions, is not sure and requires to go to the Attorney for an opinion that it still
should be the perview of the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear the case and determine that
rather than to be determined by the Attorney and the Zoning Enforcement Officer rather
than the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gunderud answered, what happened with Zoning is that, I enforce the Zoning Ordinance
and if I make a decision that that person doesn't like they have the right to appeal
the decision. I made a decision based on the facts thatwere gathered that he could not
get a building permit, subsequently, additional facts were gathered and the Attorney
were involved and when all the facts became known then the basis of my original decision
was...
Mr. Caballero asked, so my understanding is that the Attorney of this Town is researching
Mr. Gunderud stated, has finished researching, has sent a legal memorandum, it is a
confidential legal memorandum which I could make available to the members of the Board
but not to the public.
Mr. Caballero asked, isn't it up to the appellant to do the research and get their
attorney to prove to us that it is legal rather than our attorney do that reasearch?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the Town Attorney was engaged at the instruction of the Town
Supervisor because there was a complaint made by a neighbor so the Town Supervisor
in researching the complaint asked the Town Attorney to varify documents that were
sent in by both parties and talked to the Attorney for the Applicant and the result
of all this a legal letter which outlined all the points of law which apparantly had
not required a variance to be granted in the first place.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am looking at a situation here which we are faced with a confidential
memo that made a determination to reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator which
is not public property. Is that right? You made a determination then you changed your
Page -21-
August 12th, 1986
mind based on a letter from a Attorney, Town Attorney.
Mr. Gunderud answered, a complaint came in concerning the lot, that the lot was created
as an illegal lot. So, based on that complaint and information that was supplied by
the complaintant I had to believe that that person was right, that the lot was illegal
until it was proven otherwise. So, I told the individual that was going to develop the
lot that he had to stop work until he proved otherwise to me that the lot was legal.
Mr. Cortellino asked, since I am not familiar with this property, I would like to
ask you a question. Is this 2 lots also form an L as the lawyer says?
Mr. Gunderud answered, they form an L, yes.
Mr. Gunderud stated, so, the lot in question was through deeds that were or were not
recorder years ago, before zoning came into effect had certain parcel number on it and
normally I would not give a permit to part of a lot which has one parcel number. In
this case there were 3 deeds which covered that one parcel number and I had always
thought that the parcel number would take precidence. I did not issue a permit on part
of the property. But the legal research and case law that she submitted that had been
agicated in NYS said, as my memo says here that the deeds were the governing factor
that the legal deeds were obtained prior to zoning and the lots existed and continuously
held whether or not there was one parcel number or two or three, it was in material
that was an administrative problem on the part of Dutchess County Tax Office or some other
body that making our taxes assessment years ago and not assigning separate parcel numbers.
But the fact was that there were 3 deeds, 3 separate parcels and the building permit was
being applied for on one of those parcels. Then the question came in under our zoning
it says that if a lot is undersized in the zone it has to be combined with adjoining
lot, if the lot adjoining is owned contiguous by the same person and thats when I
narrowed down, okay, well out of the 3 deeds, two lots were owned by the same name,
the third lot was owned by somebody of a different name, they are the same people but
is owned differently, that has been held in court to be different. There is no single
deed. So if it had only been 2 lots which were L shaped as Charlie pointed out which
are owned contiguous to each other the case law had shown that, as I pointed out in
there that the courts ruled that those lots are not legally contiguous if they form an
L shape and only have a section of what was in court of 100 feet so the Attorney said
that then the lots are not considered contiguous and then that wiped out the need for
a variance because there was nothing else that the lot was in violation of.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you said all three lots were taken care of at one time.
Mr. Gunderud asked, you mean deeded?
Mr. Cortellino answered, yes.
Mr. Gunderud answered, they were deeded back in the later 40's or early 50's. One was
deeded somewhere in the late 40's and I believe the other 2 were deeded simultaneously
in the mid 50's.
Mr. Cortellino asked, is there a relationship to that fellow of the L even though it
is a different name?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, tell me again why the 2 lots can't be combined to make it legal.
Page -22-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud answered, because it had been tested in State of New York court.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what has?
Mr. Gunderud answered, when they are L shaped, when there is a rectangular lot like
this and there is one little spur that goes off the L shape as this does, it had gone
through the court system in the State of New York and the courts had ruled that that
is not considered a contiguous lot. There is a further complication in the fact
that Schultz's have their septic system on that L shaped piece. I didn't mean to
withhold the legal memorandum from you. I did not know who got copies of the memo
because it was addresses to the Town Supervisor.
Mr. Caballero stated, I guess my problem is that if you give us a case for where you
think is a variance and you have a doubt that I think that the Zoning Board of Appeals
is the forum to satisfy and request and information for the Attorney for them to give
the Zoning Board of Appeals the legal memorandum for us to make a judgement on it and
make a decision rather than to be done administrative on your end. That is the problem
that I have with this. At the beginning you thought it was not according to our
Zoning Ordinance so you did put it into our agenda and then it is scratched off
our agenda to research done activated by other people other than the Zoning Board of
Appeals. That is my problem with it. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I still feel that the fact of the reason why it was scratched,
it became a public matter when it was put on the agenda. It was published in the paper
on the agenda it was a public matter. Now the reason why it is scratched is a private
matter, I don't think that holds water.
Mr. Gunderud stated, Its not private, it is a public matter, the reason it was scratched
was done by me as a public official.
Mr. Hirkala asked, why?
Mr. Gunderud answered, because ....
Mr. Cortellino stated, because of the confidential memo that the public can't see.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is my point exactly.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't have the power to release the information in a confidential
memo from the Town Attorney.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think we have a matter here that has to be clarified and I don't
know how to do it.
Mr. Landolfi asked, who is going to pay for the legal notice in the paper?
Ms. Berberich answered, the applicant.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think that the only way that this can be solved is with a
workshop between the Zoning Board of Appeals, Zoning Enforcement Officer and maybe
our Town Supervisor.
Mr. Hirkala added, or the members of the Town Board and the Town Attorney and set down
and what will be confidential legal memo and what won't be.
Page -23-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Incornato stated, it has been advertised as a public hearing and I am here on
behalf of one of the neighbors, I am not sure that he is abutting, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Ryan
wrote to you Mr. Caballero and in Mrs. Van Tuyl's correspondence it does not address
the section that was pointed out to you §411.7 and I think that Mr. Gunderud may have
misled you on the recording of the deeds and that was related to you in this letter
of August 4th. It said that the deed, although the property was bought in 1951, the
final deed upon which is the object of this hearing, non -hearing, whatever the case
may be was not recorded until May 1986 and according to you existing undersized lots,
this is on 411.7, "a lot, a area or dimension of which are less than that required
for the district in which it lies may be deemed to qualify for the issuance of a
building permit provided that all the following requirements are met" and the first
requirement 411.71 is that the lot met the zoning requirements at the time the most
recent deed of the lot was recorded. It was recorded in 1986, this lot did not comply
to the ordinance in 1986 and it is given as a deed recorded May 20th, 1986, Liber 1707,
page 223 in the County Tax maps. Now I don't know why he said they were all recorded
in the 50's, that is not the fact at all, so Mrs. Van Tuyl's letter, and I was privy
to it because the letter was sent to Mr. Ryan, there is nothing in that letter that
refers to 411.71. She cannot see the tree through the forest. She gave 3 pages
worth of judications but none of them address the key note question here. The recording
of the deed which was in 1986 and it did not comply or conform to the ordinance at
that point in time. That undersized lot is an undersized lot and is not a buildable lot.
And that is in the letter that Mr. Ryan addressed to you.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think this is serious. I would not have made an issue of it
if I didn't think it was a problem. I think the way we can handle it is by having a
workshop with Hans and with our Supervisor and the Town Board. Also, Mr. Ryan has
,r an opportunity under Article 78 to bring this back.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no he does not. Not article 78 because of the reversal of the
Zoning administrator, Mr. Ryan has the option to appeal the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and come right to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a decision.
Mr. Gunderud stated, that is the whole point. My decision was based on, I think, on
facts and on law and the Town Attorney did address it. The point that Mr. Incoronato
just brought up specifically, in her letter, and she specifically said that that works
in favor of the Schultz's because of the was the law is, the fact that it was a separate
lot, it was deed, even if you consider it was deed in 1986, its still a legal lot.
If you want to have a workshop, thats fine, but I will say that based on, the reason
that I put it on the agenda is because of a young person that is trying to build a lot
was held up for a month and a half or 2 months because of the complaint by a neighbor
which is fine, there is no problem with that, however, once the information came
through, the legal documents came through that satisfied me, from my knowledge of
zoning and law that there was no longer a variance needed for issuing a building permit
then I sent the letter to the applicant and said that I will issue a building permit
on that lot, I will sign off for the issue of whether it is an undersized lot or not
that to me is a closed matter and I will issue, I will sign off the building permit
and that if you meet all of your requirements. So there was no reason to come to the
Board.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but I think that the problem exists in that the fact that the
initiation of the Attorney to the Town doing the research, did not come from this
Board, it came from somewhere else, even though this Board had it on the agenda.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I would hope she would come up with the same decision whether
your Board had asked her for the information or whether somebody else did.
Page -24-
August 12th, 1986
,r Mr. Cortellino stated, what Angel is trying to get at is that we go through channels,
procedures.
Mr. Landolfi stated that there seems to be a gap somehwere.
Mr. Gunderud stated, i disagree that there seems to be a gap and disagree that there is
a procedural problem. I make hundreds of decisions every week and anyone of those
decisions you can send the person to the Board. Sometimes because of deadline, because
the Board only meets once a month and there are several weeks before the Board meets
there is a deadline so its a month and a half before the person could get on the Board.
This individual was trying to meet a commitment to buy a house and develop that lot
before the winter sets in and he looses his commitment, so once the legal information
was handed to me I thien made a decision that the building permit, all blockage was
released, I could issue the building permits and then there was no longer a need to
come before the Board. If I had gotten those decision 6 months ago and then he came
in for a building permit from somebody else down the block, because there are other lots
in the Town like that. This now has set a precidence to me, so those other lots that
meet the same qualifications, where deeds have been recorded or property has been deeded
prior to 1963 I will no longer tell those people they have to come to the Zoning Board
of Appeals. That is what the legal ruling has been.
Mr. Caballero stated, being that it was a public notice put in the paper and there is
people here that are concerned I would have to entertain any comments from the
audience in reference to it.
Mr Incoronato stated, I think most of you gentlemen have attended these planning
conferences and we heard from Roger Akely about a year ago since the the CZAC was in
session that the law in the courts uphold the word of the ordinance. Your ordinance
has explicitly stated here, it says that one of the conditions, and I want to reiterate,
one of the conditions for issuing a building permit is that the lot met the zoning
requirements at the time of the most recent deed that the lot was recorded. That is
clear on the surface of it. And the second thing is, and if I am to believe that the
documentation that Mr. Ryan has provided that this deed was recorded in 1986 there is
no question that this, to issue a permit, Mr. Gunderud's interpretation, lies in the
cface in the clear wording of the ordinance, its not a gray area or something thats
clouded by neaunces and misinformation or lack of information. Its clearly stated
here and I don't see how you could waive your right to legal interpretation by Mrs.
Van Tuyl when again she never, and I saw the letter, and I think that you should see
it. If you can't get it I will show you copies of all of it, I have it. Mrs. VanTuyl
never referenced her various decision and interpretations in relation to 411.71 and
that is what you people have to garvigate upon. That is what you have to ground
yourselves to that provision of the ordinance, not what Mrs. Van Tuyl says, the
ordinance is the bible as far as you are concerned in the court of law and Mrs.
Van Tuyl should know that, and again, she overlooked that for some reason, I am not
certain what the situation was. She did not touch upon that segment of the ordinance
and I wish that you would focus upon that and the letter that Mr. Ryan has written to.
Those are the basic facts.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think that the Board entirely is not disagreeing with you.
That is why we are bringing the subject up, when the appeal was removed from our agenda.
Basically, if the Zoning Administrator has permitted it then the gentlemen that
objects to it is going to have to make an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision
to this Board and then we will take it from there. I don't see any other way of handling
it.
Page -25-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Incoronato asked, so a permit has been issued?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. He has not applied for a permit yet.
Mr. Caballero stated, then we are up in the air again. You haven't issued a permit yet?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. I sent a letter that I know that he is gathering his
information and he is going to his surveyor and getting the proper information together
to submit for a permit. Now, I told him that I would sign off on the permit in regard
to the fact of the lot was undersized in that zone, that is not an issue. He hasn't
applied for a permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, I disagree that you could grant him a permit and I think that
some of the other Board members might feel the same way. It would have been better
if he did appeal it to the Zoning Board of Appeals, we make a decision for or against
him and then take it from there, but you have not issued a permit yet?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no.
Mr. Caballero stated, so if he does issue a permit then Mr. Ryan would have to appeal
the Zoning...
Mr. Gunderud stated, he could appeal my determination. He could appeal the fact that I
saidit was withdrawn because he doesn't need a variance. I personally feel confident
that the Town Attorney researched all aspects of this case.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I have a problem with on this whole thing is the ordinance
says one thing, the Zoning Administrator is saying that he doesn't agree with the
ordinance because the Attorney....
Mr. Caballero stated, the Attorney is an opinion the same way she gives us an opinion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, exactly, but the ordinance says something here and the ordinance
says one thing and the Zoning Administrator says he doesn't agree with it based on the
fact that the Attorney gave him another statement. If the ordinance is wrong then
lets change it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, for the record that is not true at all. I don't disagree with
the ordinance, I am complete agreement with what the words in that section say.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says that it must be a recorded deed as of, it must comply with
the ordinance in time of recording of deed. Now the deed was recorded May 1986, now,
it didn't comply in May of 1986. Now, if there is a technical thing legally where
the recording of the deed is not the criteria then the ordinance is wrong.
Mr. Gunderud stated, that is not true. The most recent deed refers to the most recent
deed at the time that the ordinance was adopted which was 1963, not now, you have to
understand zoning to understand the Zoning Ordinance, otherwise, if you had a subdivision
where if you had a section of Town, just like we have, for instance know where they made
a 2 acre section in the Town of Wappinger down by Smithtown Road, there are many lots
and they are being sold today. So what you are saying is that ifo somebody sells a
half acre lot down in a 2 acre zone right now that is an illegal not. That is not
the case with zoning. What that says is the most recent deed at the time that the
Zoning Ordinance was inacted, 1963. Mr. Incoronato is not correct in his interpretation
of the law.
Page -26-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, since we have an appeal that has been removed form our agenda
even though it was legally advertised as such, all we basically do is, I think we
shoudl copy this whole conversation to the Town Board so that they are made aware
of the problem and anything that is done Mr. Ryan would have to appeal the decision of
the building inspector.
Mr. Incoronato asked to copy to Mr. Ryan also.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think it would be fair to copy to Mr. Ryan since it was a
public notice issued on it and he is an abutting property owner.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4916, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for floor area ratio, and
§476.23 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for off street loading requirements
on Dronerty located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46158-03-278358, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Doug Schner was present.
Mr. Schner stated, I am here tonight to ask the Board for 2 variances. The first variance
is the dealing of the loading dock requirement to the Town Zoning Ordinance you are
required to build 15 loading docks per building size of 156,600 s/f. As you may recall
in the past those of you who have been on the Board prior development on Myers Corners
we do not need the number of loading docks that are required based on the use of the
buildings and therefore we are asking for relief from that portion of the ordinance
to allow us to have less than the 15 loading docks as required. The variance was
granted on prior applications by .... of this Board. Considering the building is Office
Research type use there is, the ordinance calling for 15 loading docks, you don't need
that many loading docks for OR facility. That is normally used in a warehousing that
has heavy in and out trucking. Loading docks are not necessary, that number of loading
docks are not necessary for this type of use.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, the last time that we granted this variance didn't we put a
stipulation on there that if it was removed from OR that the loading docks had to be
added back to the building?
Mr. Cortellino answered, I would imagine so.
Mr. Caballero asked, this office building is going to be used for research?
Mr. Schner answered, office research.
Mr. Caballero asked, no, it is not going to be a building with chemical research done?
Mr. Schner answered, no.
Mr. Caballero asked, the footage that is going to be added to this property, is that
footage within what is allowed of the total area there?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. The second part of the variance has to deal with floor area
ratio, but are you asking me about the area on the land?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Page -27-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud answered, The footprint....
Mr. Schner stated, the footprint falls within the 15%.
Mr. Caballero asked, does that include the loading platform, if there was to be?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no. That wouldn't fall within the footprint anyway because
it is not a structure.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone present who had any comments either for or
against this appeal for the loading docks.
There was no one present.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to grant the variance for the loading docks. In the event
that the use of the building is changed from office research that the 12 remaining
loading docks that are required are added back to the site.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - abstain Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would now go to the next part of the request of §422,
floor area ratio.
Mr. Schner stated, under the OR -10A zone there are certain criteria which the applicant
must live within. One of them is the setback requirements and another one is your
percentage of building coverage and the other is your floor area ratio. This project
conforms in all areas other than the floor area ratio. The 15% footprint variation
allowable, we have a potential of a footprint being 201,407 square feet. With the
addition to the buildings on that site the total square footage as percent of lot coverage
would be 163,651, so we have almost 40,000 s/f of additional percentage lot coverage
on the lot coverage area that could be put on the footprint basis, not using up the
total footprint allowable under the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero asked, your problem is with the floor area ratio?
Mr. Schner, so that the next ...is to look at the floor area ratio. Under your Zoning
Ordinance you are allowed a .2 ratio of the floor area to the total lot size. In this
case the lot is 30.8244 acres which converts to 1,342,711 s/f. If you take your
point .2 ratio total allowed would be 268,542 s/f. However, the prior resolution by
the Town Board when we built phase one on this parcel the Town Board allowed us to build
274,000 s/f.
Mr. Caballero asked, but our Zoning Ordinance says that you can only build how many?
Mr. Schner answered, 268,542.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you want to build how much?
Page -28-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Schner answered, and we want to build a total on that site of 377,046, and what
that does is it takes the .2 ratio and if you use that same ration number that puts
it up to 2.78. The next step in the Zoning Ordinance allowed is the OR -1A zone which
is a .4 percent of floor area ratio to the same lot and then the PI zone is also a .4.
On the OR -10A, from what I understand is more restrictive.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are not going to re -zone that area for you again.
Mr. Schner answered, no, I am using that as a reference point sir is what I am trying
to do.
Mr. Caballero stated, so basically you are asking for a variance for the distance between
that 3 million 7 and the 2 million 6.
Mr. Schner answered, 377,046 against 268,000.
Mr. Hirkala asked, earlier you talked about 163,000 and 201,000. Earlier you came up with
2 figures, 163,651 and 201,407.
Mr. Schner answered, 163,651 is your percent of lot coverage that we will be using. The
next section that you look at is floor area ratio, so the next number then would be,
we had existing on that site right now of 220,454 we are asking to build 156,592 for a
total of 377,046 s/f as a percentage of your floor area ratio.
Mr. Hirkala asked, and what is allowed?
Mr. Schner answered, 268,542.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the interest of getting his presentation complete I am going
to let him continue uninterrupted, incoluding on my part, until for finish your total
presentation.
Mr. Schner stated, the front section of this parcel, of this complex is zoned PI -1A
and that has got 2 buildings on it connected with a connecting.... under that zone
we could effectively put a 3rd story onto this building, 63,000 s/f and another
42,000s/f on top of this building. We also would have a right to build approximately
50,000 s/f in the rear of this building, the building on the site that we are talking
about. Now, not only is this not the most cost effective way of going but it is not
the most optimum method on solving a space problem on a site. So what we are looking
at has the potential of taking this 155,000 s/f that we show here, knowing that it
could be built on the total complex site, have the parking to support it and develop
a scenario where we could build a new building to the rear and to the North of the
existing, what they call building 922, with a footprint of approximately 53,000 s/f
and be less disruptive to the present operation and to be available and also less of
an impact on the land, upon other areas of the site. To familiarize yourself a little
bit with the site, I brought an aerial photograph which probably is much easier to read
then the blueprints. This is the existing site as it stands today. This being Myers
Corners Road, main entry point going into the site, secondary entrance and exit point
here, this is builidng 920, 921, 922, as they are identified by IBM. As I pointed out
on the prior thing that we could put a 3rd story here, portions of a 3rd story over
here and an addition on the back here. If you look at this we already have this land
is already disturbed back here. We did this as part of our site planning and site
utilization when we built building 922. What we are looking to do is to try to utilize
the space of the already disturbed areas by placing the smallest footprint building
that we could get in there and still requirements of approximately 53,000 s/f and stay
Page -29-
August 12th, 1986
within the confines of the already disturbed area so, virtually the only area that we
are disturbing is for a little road network coming out here to increase the parking as
necessary for this building. So, what we are asking for virtually is a, if you look
at the utilization of the building as was done by the Planning Board back in 1984
when you look at the net useable to the, I know the Town Ordinance calls for gross
s/f, if you look at the net useable, because there is so much mechanical space there,
cafeteria space, or unpopulated space, the actual populated area, or unpopulated
area is 41,000 s/f plue circulation within the building is another 31,000 s/f so the
variance that we are really looking for, as far as the total utilization goes is really
only 35,000 or almost 36,000 s/f of useable floor space and that is difficult to
comprehend but thats the way the buildings are generated here because the heavy mechanical
areas that are set aside in this building the way the... so although the numbers you
came up with before were well over 100,000 s/f, we are asking for a variance of the net
useable square footage is minimal as far as our utilization of that building.
Mr. Caballero asked, why do your require additional parking if you are going to use so
little part of that building?
Mr. Schner answered, the additional parking, as required by your Zoning Ordinance which
calls for a one space for 600 s/f.
Mr. Caballero asked, if we were not to grant you a variance, what would be the size of
building that you could put on that space?
Mr. Schner answred, 50,000 s/f.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you want 53, and additional 3,000 s/f?
Mr. Schner answered, I want, as far as total square footage goes?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Mr. Schner answered, I want 155, around 155,000 square feet.
Mr. Caballero asked, you are allowed 53,000 s/f?
Mr. Schner stated, I am allowed 50,000 s/f approximate, these are rough numbers.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you want 150?
Mr. Schner answered, that is correct sir.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either
for or against this appeal.
Dawn Fitzpatrick.
Isn't that alot more than they should be getting?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes, by 100,000 feet more.
Mr. Parsons stated, I would like to clarify a couple of things, Doug, I have to give
koo you credit, you are great with numbers, you really dazzle people. Lets take the front
section as far as 4 stories that you talked about which would be flexible whether you
would be allowed to do it other than the Zoning, Number one, you don't have enough
parking for it, number two, its a different zone to start with. You are talking about
a separate piece of property that you can't transfer but is available from one to the
Page -30-
August 12th, 1986
other, and you know that.
Mr. Schner stated, that is correct.
Mr. Parsons stated, you go back to the second one, in order to get the re -zoning back
in 1982 or 1983 your agreement that the maximum amount of building space you put in
there was in the 268, 275 range and the footprint, and I forgot what it was now, and
that was because of the fact that there wasn't .... over utilizing a piece of property.
Now you are coming in here and want to add not only what was the maximum allowed but
you want to add twice as much again. And getting back into the number of people and
all those isles that aren't used and all this stuff, that doesn't count, and you know
if doesn't count, and plus that the EAF that you presented to the Planning Board you
said that there was going to be 600 additional people in that, so naturally it is
going to be additional traffic, the whole thing. I just want those points brought out.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to elaborate on the agreement that Mr. Parsons brought
up about when the property was originally re -zoned. I dont' recall that. Can you
tell me more about it? Mr. Parsons brought up the fact that an agreement when the
property was originally re -zoned for maximum utilization?
Mr. Schner answered, the re -zoning that we got for this for the OR -10A and certain
stipulations in it and one of the stipulations was there was to be a total of 274 or
275,000 square feet to be built on this site. That reverts back to the point to
floor area ratio which we are well aware of, thats why....
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to know more about that agreement, was that an agreement...
Mr. Schner stated, it was not an agreement sir, it was......
Mr. Hirkala stated, well you said the word agreement, that is why I asked this.
Mr. Schner stated, I said a resolution.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so it was a part of the resolution?
Mr. Schner answered, it was a part of the Town Board resolution.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then we can't even act on it. We can't override the Town Board
its a legislative matter.
Mr. Schner stated, no sir, because that reolution referred it to the Planning Board.
The Planning Board, this application is now under the Planning Board's jurisdiction
and the Planning Board has requested us to come to the Zoning Board to
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is
under the re -zoning where the property was originally re -zoned to OR -10, the Town
Board put as a part of that resolution for re -zoning a maximum utilization of 274,000
square feet, is that true?
Mr. Schner answered, that is correct.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how can we override the Town Board legislative matter? It is not part
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Page -31-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Schner stated, the Town Board instead of stipulating itself the 274,000 square feet
referred that judgement to the Planning Board as part of their action in reviewing ....
Mr. Hirkala stated, if it is part of the resolution it is a legislative matter. As a
part of the resolution for re -zoning a stipulation that there is a maximum utilization
of that property. It is not a part of the Zoning Ordinance which means we don't
have anything to say about it. They have to go back to the present Town Board and
have that recinded as a part of the resolution and then they come under the .2 whatever
it is and then they come back to us for an override on it. But we can't go over 274
because it is a legislative matter, it is not part of the Zoning Ordinance. Its a
resolution that the Town Board passed legislatively.
Mr. Schner stated, the way that that resolution was written, it re -zoned the piece of
land. That is the only action that the Town Board would take was for re -zoning and they
referred back to the EIS that was done as part of the re -zoning effort. In that EIS
it refers to maximum square footage, it refers to parking, it refers to traffic, it
refers to an awful lot of things, one of the items that it referred to in the resolution
under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board was the 274,000. The only area that the
Town Board was responsible for was the re -zoning. The balance of the review process
would go to the Town Planning Board as part of their review and then refer back to the
DEIS that was done for the re -zoning process.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see what the limit is of the 274, why it was set,
and I can't see us overriding it if it was set there for a reason, what are we doing.
Mr. Parsons stated, I disagree with Doug because my understanding back in that day was
it was a very tickilish subject as you well know and there was alot of controversy over
it. The Town Board laid the guide rules. It said that the maximum building size would
be so and so. You would do certain improvements to the road, you would... all these
things were part of the package and it was a Town Board resolution that was part of
the package when they re -zoned the property. And that was the idea, there was a lot of
concerns about the property, the use of it, the traffic, everything else and they put
those guidelines in there. The Planning Board worked under those guidelines. You
turned around and built a little smaller building .....and you can still turn around
and build 46 and change more now but, I don't see how, the way I understood the
resolution, you can turn around, nor can the Planning Board give it to you. I understood
when they re -zoned the property they made all those stipulations as part of it. That
was my interpretation.
Mr. Schner stated, I am in disagreement with you.
Mr. Caballero stated, both arguments are duly noted as part of the record and in my
part I haven't heard anything in his presentation of why a variance should be granted
for the additional 100 s/f. Basically that they want 100 s/f. 100,000 square feet.
I can't go along with a variance for that project.
Mr. Urciuoli asked Mr. Schner to outline the property line.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, so there seems to be a right of way coming in there?
Mr. Schner answered, this is a feed, what we own is a feed but under the, our agreement
as part of the 250 foot buffer zone which was created here and under the agreement with
the Town Board this would never be developed except for a utility car.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that was a part of that resolution?
Page -32-
August 12th, 1986
kW Mr. Schner answered, that was part of that resolution.
Mr. Caballero stated, so, you can come back to us and ask us to give you a variance
using that road later on.
Mr. Schner stated, there are 2 separate catagories, and I am sorry that I don't have
my file here, because it is very specific of what the Town Board resolution specified
under their jurisdiction and what was referred to the Planning Board under the EIS
designation for the Planning Board review and there were 2 separate issues taken on at
that time. Very, very sepcific.
Mr. Urciuoli asked to look at the aerial shot again. The land surrounding the complex,
is there any lands that Pizzagalli Development are in contract to purchase now, any
additional lands?
Mr. Schner asked, how do you classify contract?
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. Gunderud stated, I can make available the documents that Doug is referring to are
available here in the Town Hall, if you want to review them you could table this...
Mr. Caballero answered, I don't think so Hans, and I don't think the Zoning Officer
should be helping an appellant in an appeal in the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gunderud answered, I am not helping the appellant. I am trying to get facts out
for the public. One minute you accuse me for not doing it and the next minute I am
trying to offer documentation and you are accusing me...
Mr. Caballero asked, what documentation do you want to submit to this Board?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the resolution that is in question.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that available at this time?
Mr. Gunderud answered, that is what I am saying.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would adjourn the meeting for 5 minutes until you get that
resolution.
Mr. Parsons stated, one thing that you want to remember though is that the EIS that
was developed by Pizzagalli on that particular piece of property and spelled out the
uses and what it was going to do to the enviornment, the size of the building, everything
else was handled by the Town Board. They were the lead agency. Not the Planning Board.
The Town Board was the lead agency, not the Planning Board. The Town Board was the lead
agency and the Planning Board had to abide by the lead agency and what was specified
in that EIS.
Page -33-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Parsons stated, so it... the perview of the Planning Board is to how big or small
the building could be or anything else, that was dealt strictly by the Town Board in
the EIS. That was the full impact statement.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a problem with any variance that comes in here and asking
that kind of relief of that magnatude. Actually double what they are entitled to do
there, triple. I would still like to see this resolution that Hans would like to submit
for the record.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the reason I ask for, to go onto another, because I am not sure if
I can lay my fingers on it in the next 2 minutes or so. Give us 10 minutes or 15 minutes
I could make the document available.
Mr. Caballero asked what the Board's pleasure was.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't see any hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion from the Board either to approve
or deny or to table to wait until we get this resolution.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to deny based on no hardship.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - abstain Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #917, at the request of James Buckley, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition with a 12 foot
sideyard and a 40 foot frontyard when 15 and 75 feet are required on property located
on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel #6156-01-440565, in the Town of Wappinger.
James Buckley was present.
Mr. Buckley stated, I am here to request a variance for the sideyard and frontyard.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any particular reason why that addition has to be
placed in front of the house when there is plenty of room in the back?
Mr. Buckley answered, yes. Due to the nature of the ground, the septic system had
to be quite large and in order to ...the back, this plan doesn't show the deck that is
constructed to the backside. In order to do such construction I would have to either_
replace the deck or construct the bedroom from the deck and then I would have to put
Page -34-
August 12th, 1986
r the deck in another place, in that case that would put me in another variance situation.
The request on the frontyard, I don't feel that it is very out of line because my
house presently is farther back from the road then any of the other adjacent houses
and accordance to the zoning ordinance ..of the adjacent and have been there for some
time, I don't have the exact wording its an allowable for another house to be put
there. If I were to construct the addition I still would be in line with the existing
house as also, to the right side which would be a new construction that had a variance
granted. The zoning in that area specifies 35 feet but there is an override by the
County since it is a County Road. It has to be put 75 and the house to the side of me
has asked for a 35 frontyard setback and I believe that it was granted not to long ago.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what type of addition is this?
Mr. Buckley answered, I am going to be adding a living room.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what is the zoning there?
Mr. Gunderud answered, its R-15.
Mr. Buckley stated, I don't think that I am asking for anything that is out of
character for the neighborhood.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the last time that a variance was granted because the request was
made due to the fact that there was notification from the County Health Dept. that there
was no other way to build on that lot other than the way it was. There was documentation
from the County Health Dept, that there was no other way to build it. I would like to
see something from the County Health Dept. that there is no other way to go.
Mr. Buckley stated, I think to go to the County Board of Health is a little out of hand.
What would be the purpose to go to the Board of Health, I just explained that there is
an existing structure there?
Mr. Caballero stated, so, this is the evidence that you want to present at this time
in reference to applying for this variance to build on the front of this house?
Mr. Buckley stated, that and also that the natur of the construction would not be
detrimental to the adjacent land owners since they are closer to the road than I am
already at present.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino asked if they received anything from the County.
Ms. Berberich stated that she received a phone call from Bill Bathrick from the Dept.
of Public Works and they had no objection, it is a matter of local concern.
Mr. Buckley stated, I would like to make on additional comment for what it is worth,
we are expecting a second child with a 3 bedroom house, and that spare bedroom is
presently used as somewhat of a family room for my daughters playroom and other things
rather than use the living room. So we are trying to re -negotiate the space within
the house as compared to using the basement space.
Page -35-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, my personal opinion, gentlemen, is that there is plenty of room
in the back of this property to make an addition back there and I see no evidence of
any reason why they can't go in the back instead of infringing on setbacks and
sideyards.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many feet do you have on the other side of the house?
Mr. Buckley answered, I believe it is 30 feet, 35.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can't you go out there?
Mr. Buckley answered, I chose not to do that because I would have to reconstruct the
bedroom area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, once again, we don't have a hardship.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move we deny the variance.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would take a 5 minutes break at 9:55 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 9:55 P.M..
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4856, at the request of 22 Associates, seeking a variance of §474 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator
that 210 parking spaces are required, based on the Zoning Administrator's calculations
rather than 86 as set forth in calculations in proposed site plan; or, in the alternative
a variance on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel
46157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger.
Jack Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated, last night at the Planning Board we had several discussion relative
to the site plan. That parking has been resolved, and Hans can verify that. The only
action now before this Board, which I think is being scheduled for a Public Hearing
next month is for the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero stated, now again this appeal is on my unfinished business and was an
appeal made to us and the contention is that the parking should have been 210, Hans.
Mr.Gunderud answered, that had to have been made a determination.
Mr. Caballero asked, who made that determination?
Page -36-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud answered, Anna Angel Young.
Mr. Caballero asked, and it was changed to 86 parking spots? Who made that determination?;
Mr. Gunderud answered, I did.
Mr. Caballero asked, on the basis that the ordinance said that it is 86 spots?
Mr. Gunderud answered, based on the review of the plot plan. The facility now was
re -zoned and has been accomplished, and so on. The latest revised plot plan was
submitted. Before half the property was residential...
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think the way they were calculated in the beginning was a little
eroneous. There was a question as to her calculations.on those parking spaces.
Mr. Caballero asked, Hans, you made the determination according to the Zoning Ordinance
under the re -zoned total area, that 86 spots now meet the criteria?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have no problem with that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to know on what basis the determination was made.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think it is another procedural thing, to be honest with you.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to know, for the record, what the determination was
that changed it from 210 to 86.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think basically, my opinion, Hans explained that the previous
Zoning Administrator miscalculated and did not calculate the re -zoning that was done
on the property. When the property was re -zoned then Hans recalculated the spots
needed and like he just stated, 86 is sufficient.
Mr. Hirkala stated, re -zoning has nothing what so ever to do with parking spaces.needed.
The building has to do with how many parking spaces are needed.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it was the calculations that she used, originally was the delta
here.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the Zoning Ordinance says it is one space for every 100 s/f of
gross floor area.
Mr. Gunderud stated, for retail use. That is the determination, what exactly.....
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says, retail or service business, one space for each 150 s/f of
gross floor area, period.
Mr. Gunderud stated, but then there is another section.which has to do with how many
spaces you need for areas used for storage, warehousing, the other sections and in
taking into consideration the building that was presented and looking at the actual
area of the square footage that was presented on the plan of what constituted as retail
area of the building, what constituted office area, and what constituted storage area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is that there is an office use, an office area
a retail area, and what else, storage area.
Page -37-
August 12th, 1986
I want a clarification.
Mr. Caballero stated, we may have a possible way of addressing this when they come
in for their Special Use Permit. We grant a SUP subject to -retail space and parking
areas.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have another little problem. I dont' like to see it
divided up into office,storage and retail. What is the business, a retail business
or is it a warehouse? It is a retail business. How do they divide up the building?
The parking spot has to do with the principal use which is a retail use.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I would say one thing, the Planning Board has been striving to
reduce the number or cars on site and parking spaces.
Mr. Caballero stated, but then they would have to go back and change the Zoning Ordinance
if they want to strive that. They address the Town Board and then the Town Board elects
to change our Zoning Ordinance we will be happy to interpret it to what it says in the
Zoning Ordinance. Until they do that the Planning Board can suggest, but unless it
meets the Zoning Ordinance, we will take it for what its worth.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4910, at the request of Peter F. Murphy (Murmac Enterprises), seeking a Variance
of Article IV, §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a sign
on an existing pole which till result ina total area of 80 square feet where 25 square
feet is allowed on property locatedon Route 9, and being Parcel 46156-02-666989, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Steve Galderese was present.
Mr. Galderese stated, I am basically back for help because when I left the last time
I was told to discuss the situation with D'Agostino's to see if they would reduce their
sign. Well, they are not about to. Now, I have 2 questions that I have just got to
ask, I don't want to put anybody on the defensive or anything but I just have to have
a clear clarification from the Board, is it okay to ask those questions?
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think the Board is here to answer questions. They are
here to hear an appeal and make a decision on the information that you provide us.
Mr. Galderese stated, well, it is about terminology regarding the case. I need to know
what a hardship is.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then ask your lawyer.
Mr. Galderese stated, that is an answer, that is fine.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the point is that the hardship is, we don't say you have a hardship,
that is State Law, case law.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if for instance you feel the hardship that specifically your case
might be financial you, by law, have got to show us through some financial records
which would be notarized as a result of you not having your sign, it has created this
financial hardship. Now, that is a type of hardship, one approach. The other approach
has nothing to do with your property per say, like in this particular case you knew
how many feet, I think you are 400 ft back from, I guess what the Board tried to explain
last time, you knew that when you rented your property, so, you had to be somewhat privy,
Page -38-
August 12th, 1986
you had legal counsel as to what you could put up in the way of signs.
Mr. Galderese stated, Joe, you are correct, we overlooked it for whatever reason.
We knew how far back off the road we were, but we never, ever thought that would only
be allowed one sign for the situation.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what could you live with?
Mr. Galderese stated, according to the law, the D'Agostino's sign, maybe he has a permit
for it, is already larger than whats required. So, I don't know what I can do next.
In other words 25 s/f is required and he already consuming over that. What are my
choices?
Mr. Hirkala stated, work a deal with him..
Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. D'Agostino also applied for a permit to enlarge that sign.
He was denied. He was well aware when he rented the property that the sign would not
be increased.
Mr. Galderese stated, my questions are,...
Mr. Urciuoli stated, as a matter of fact, I believe with D'Agosinto's was permitted a
variance to have an additional use we stipulated that that would only be one sign, it
could be D'Agostino's Nursery and pools, whatever.
Mr. Galderese stated, that is fine, I appreciate you saying that, but out intention is
to come to this Board, since it is the Zoning Board of Appeals is to appeal the decision
maybe I am wrong, I don't know.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have not made a decision to turn you down or grant you the
variance.
Mr. Galderese stated, I have no guidelines to go by. The only thing I can say is that
I don't want to beat a dead horse, we are so far off the road, the traffic pattern is
so fast through that particular section of Town that I cannot prove for another site
that has a similar problem. In other words, my point is the that if a building is
10 feet off Route 9, or it is 455 feet off Route 9 they are allowed the same signs.
My secondary point is, it is said and done, if you have 3 businesses on a piece of
property set back so far, there has to be some recognition. Since our previous
building was demolished we receive many calls from people outside the immediate area,
I think people who live in Wappinger and Fishkill know where we are, but we spend so
much money in advertising in Putnam and Westchester County drawing business into this
area, and they call up and cannot find us. And that is my problem.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, let me tell you what will happen. When we granted D'Agostino's
variance he had 7 acres out there. In ...he could subdivide into 7 one acre parcels
and subsequently put up 7 signs on those parcel and in giving him the variance to
have almost a multiple use, as you will, on that one site, we told him we would not
have 7 signs hanging there, that it would be one sign similar to say a Lawrence Farms
thats next door to you. Even though they are sub -leasing a fish market inside it still
says Lawrence Farms on the sign, there is still one sign on that site.
Mr. Galderese stated, if I can comment on your point, you are correct.in a sense ...
Mr. Urciuoli stated, it is a problem between you and your landlord, its not our
probelm.
Page -39-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Galderese stated, I agree with you, but, it is an appeal and that is why I am here.
Because his sign is already to large, I can respect the idea that you don't want to have
signs hap hazardly scattered throughout the Town.
Mr. Urciouli stated, Hans, do we know this sign is to large?
Mr. Caballero answered, it meets the code, I believe. It is exactly the 25 s/f.
Mr. Galderese stated, there is something else that has been bothering me and I just
was to make sure that everyone understands, I don't want an additional 80 s/f, in
other words his sign plus mine total square feet.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I didn't understand that, you made it very clear the last time
that you were in. You couldn't have been clearer, in fact your request very clearly
stated that you wanted an 80 s/f sign and your reason was that you were 100 feet off
of Route 9.
Mr. Caballero asked, that sign that you have in front of you is 16 by what?
Mr. Galderese answered, this sign is 16 x 30". This is an existing sign and this is
what I want to add to it. Mr. Gunderud can verify the fact that this was our original
plan. The agenda stated total area of square feet, theres plus mine.
Mr. Caballero stated, that sign there is 40 s/f, that is still way over the 25 s/f
total that is allowed. I saw that sign and I understood what you had there and I told
you that that would be to much to ask this board to give you a variance on. That is
what you showed me right there. The 40 s/f.
Mr. Galderese stated, the whole thing, for this to be effective on that road, that is
what would be necessary. In other words, it would look nice and neat, match up. Would
you prefer if I ask for a separate sign pole?
Mr. Caballero stated, you can make a motion, an appeal to this Board for anything you
wish to do on that property. We will listen to your case as we have the last week and
this week and then make a decision. We thought that your request was way more than
we could really consider and we gave you an opportunity to come back with a different
proposal. Do you have a different proposal on the sign that you want to put on that?
Mr. Galderese answered, to answer you question kindly, no. To answer it with reason
the reason being, a, I wasn't sure the whole Board understood what I want. I have
no other alternative.
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes you do. The alternative, and he has to get again with his
landlord, and we are not here to solve your problems, you should be addressing
D'Agostino's. Do like we have up at New Hackensack Plaza, just one sign.
Mr. Caballero asked, the landlord told you that he would not reduce this 25 s/f?
Mr. Galderese answered, the landlord ...told me that, his exact words, one of the
partners of the D'Agostino's Associates wanted to come to you for a larger sign, and
I said, ghee fellas, I don't think it is going to work. I asked them because I knew
what they were going to say but I wanted to fulfill my end, I asked them and they
denied me.
Mr. Caballero asked, at this time you do not have any alternative to ask this Board
for a smaller sign or an alternative to what you presented last time?
Page -40-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Galderese answered, I only have proposals because it has to be decided based on,
I keep going back to this, individuality of a case.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have heard that already and it is on record and you have stated
it a couple times over again. Do you have anything new to add?
Mr. Galderese asked, would this Board allow me to have a separate sign, conforming to
the law, 25 s/f a separate side.
Mr. Caballero answered, no. My opinion, only 1-25 s/f.
Mr. Galderese stated, now I am going to have to ask for help. What would the Board
allow me. It is great for me to guess and come back with a different idea, but I
think it would be a waste of your time as well as ours. I really need help with this
that is why we came here.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, the point that we are trying to make is that we stipulated to your
landlord on day one when we granted him the variance that that was sign. He should
have conveyed that to you....
Mr. Galderese stated, I agreed that something was missed in negotiationswhen we were
leasing but it is to late now, now I am in trouble and I need help.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, he should have told you.
Mr. Galderese stated, he didn't and it is to late now. I am there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the point is that we have to operate from the law. Because you
have a problem that to you is of major proportions. Fine, that is your problem. The
Board is here to operate under what the law says and the law says that you conflicted
this problem upon yourself because when you rented that place you have been in the
area long enough to know that you should have researched and made a deal with the
landlord prior to signing of the lease and you didn't. You inflicted that hardship
upon yourself. Case law in NY State specifically states that if you inflicted it upon
yourself we cannot grant you a variance.
Mr. Gunderud stated, when he came for his variance he was looking for another sign
on the existing pole and that is what I sent him to the Board for because it is not
permitted by zoning. Tonight he is bringing up the fact that he can add a second
25 s/f sign on that property, the answer is yes. If he comes to me tomorrow with
an application for a second 25 s/f sign facing onto Smithtown Road I will have to
grant him a variance. The Zoning Ordinance says that it would have the face the
street of which the sign abuts. It appears that the sign would have to face Smithtown
Road, it could be at the corner of the property 25 feet back from Route 9 and 25 feet
in from Smithtown.
Mr. Caballero stated, if he can put another sign on the property meeting our Zoning
Ordinance, by all means, get your permit and do it.
Mr. Galderese asked, in other words you don't care if it is painted on both sides?
Mr. Cortellino answered, no.
Mr. Galderese aksed, another alternative to making the sign smaller. I am trying to
get in touch with the desire, what if I were to eliminate all this dead space and
just go by the letters. Measuring the letters and then affixing it to this pole, would
Page -41-
August 12th, 1986
decrease the size of this sign.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think that we have listened to enough eveidence and enough
going back in forth for the Board to be able to make a decision.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion that the variance be denied.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4918, at the request of Kermit Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of
§422, GB, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for storage & sale of materials,
contractors establishments, 20,000 square foot building - divided into 4 sections for
equal uses on property located on Stage Door Drive, and being Parcel 446256-02-865914,
In the Town of Wappinger.
Keith Gordon and Jack Railing were present.
The Board looked over the plan.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The mtoion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to request a Long EAF.
Mr. Railing stated, the Long EAF was submitted with the application. This is an
application for a Special Use Permit for uses as proposed and are permitted in the
district and we would like to move forward on it. This is a 2.15 acre parcel, it
is in a HB -2A zone, what we want is a SUP to install a 20,000 s/f building for the
purpose of storage and sales of materials. So basically we consider it a warehouse
with associated offices. It is located on Stage Door Drive. It fronts on that and
also Smithtown Road. The building is shown is in compliance with the setback requirements
of the ordinance, the parking that is shown on the proposed site plan is in compliance
with the ordinance and all other aspects are in compliance with the ordinance. The
only request that we are making is for that Special Use Permit. The warehousing
wil be divided into 4 sections, one sign, 25 s/f maximum. As you know or may not know
the Stage Door Drive has recently been upgraded by the owners of that private road,
Monfort & Nestler. They are about 70% complete.
Page -42-
August 12th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to go into executive session.
Mr. Landolfi made the motion.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The Board went into executive session at 10:30 P.M. to discuss correspondence from
the Attorney to the Town.
Mr. Landolfi made a.motion to come out of executive session.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All aye.
The meeting was called back to order at 10:45 P.M..
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:48 P.M..
lb
c
Respectfully submitted,
%%u�C r, �.� O -z -,op c--4---
Linda
-4--
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals