Loading...
1986-07-081 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL JULY 8TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MIDDLEBUSH ROAD AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #902, at the request 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. 2. Appeal #904, at the request of Joanne Oakley, seeking a variance of Article IV, §411.92 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit in a Conservation Subdivision for a porch where the rearyard will be 20 foot when 25 feet is required on property located on 62 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel #6257-06-341773, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal #905, at the request of Patricia Morphew'seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for screening in of existing deck on property located on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel #6257-06-332759, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal #907, at the request of Walter S. Roeper, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a porch addition with a 25 foot setback where 35 feet is required on property located on 2 Bungalow Lane, and being Parcel #6157-01-441986, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal #908, at the request of Edmond G. 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. 6. Appeal #909, at the request of Robert E. Schilling, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition with a 16 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required and also to allow for a deck with a 12 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on 80 Brothers Road, and being Parcel #6358-03-010289, in the Town of Wappinger. 7. Appeal #910, at the request of Peter F. Murphy (Murmac Enterprises, Ltd.) seeking 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 #6156-02-666989, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #903, at the request of -Edmond G. Loedv, seeking a variance of §416.51 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to place one (1) wall sign facing each road and to install two (2) internal traffic signs on the site on property located on Middlebush Road & Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #906, at the request of Patrick & Ruth Clark. seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing house, which contains over 3,000 square feet of useable floor area and was built prior to 1962, to a (2) unit dwelling on property located on Route 9D, and being Parcel #6157-01-180640, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #911, at the request of Immanuel Christian Reformed Church, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV§421, 114 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend the site plan for an addition on the existing church on property located on 253 Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-845570, in the Town of Wappinger. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 8TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MINUTES TOWN HALL MIDDLEBUSH ROAD WAPPINGER FALLS, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, July 8th, 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 Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Cabellero asked Ms. Berberich if all the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich responded that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Cabellero explained how the meeting would be conducted. Mr. Cabellero then read the first appeal: 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 DroDerty located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46258-04-980125, in the Town of Wappinger. Tanya Mortenson was present. Ms. Mortenson stated, my Architect, Al Cappelli has not arrived yet and he has all the plans. Mr. Cabellero asked, so you are not prepared? Ms. Mortenson answered, he should be here any second. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to set this appeal on the side until her architect arrives. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: AL1 ayes. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 44904, at the request of Joanne Oakley, seeking a variance of Article IV, §411.92 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit in a Conservation Subdivision for a porch where the rearyard will be 20 foot when 25 feet is required on property located on 62 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel 446157-06-341773, in the Town of Wappinger. Joanne Oakley - 62 Fieldstone Blvd. was present. time Ms. Oakley stated, I want a 12 x 23 screened porch. Mr. Cabellero asked, you have a 12 foot deep porch, you have 32 feet from the rearyard so you are asking for a variance of 5 feet. Hans, in this subdivision you need 25 feet? Page -2- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Mr. Cabellero stated, so basically you just want the 5 foot variance because you would like to have a porch in the back? Ms. Oakley answered, yes. There is alot of mosquitos back there so I want a screened porch and I have a child so I though 7 feet would..... Mr. Cabellero asked, are you asking for a porch or are you asking for a screened porch? Ms. Oakley answered, a screened porch. Mr. Cabellero asked if the Board had any questions. Mr. Landolfi stated, it is not a question, more of a concern with our famous subject of decks again in that area. I think we have discussed at prior meetings and I am really not sure what the answer is on how we can get a control over, like the size of the decks and the construction of them. There seems to be something lacking in the building process and its very prominent in that particular area. I don't know whether it is because of a particular builder but I suggest perhaps we try to make a special meeting with the Town Board and our legal council to discuss what course of action, if any, we have. We seem to be getting these on a monthly basis. I am not sure what the answer is. I really don't have a problem with this particular one because the young lady does even keep the land even back further because of the bugs and mosquitos which I can see being a problem, but, there are some problems with decks in the Town and I am not sure what the answer is but I suggest we really try to get a meeting together and maybe our legal council can give us some suggestions here. Mr. Gunderud stated, I have one comment about keeping the land clear back there. The purpose of the Conservation area was to be forever wild. In order for that to be forever wild it was supposed to be left untouched, unmowed, ungroomed, unplaced with swingsets and satellite dishes and I as the Zoning Administrator am empowered by the Planning Board to make sure that that is to maintain the forever wild area and I notice that the hamlet Subdivision, the trees and stuff are starting to grow up again along Myers Corners Road. Although I see there now that a number of people are starting to mow the grass to Myers Corners Road. I think one of the problems is in the Conservation Zone it is the property line in a sense and we are beginning to encroach on it with decks and other things that are built there which were not designed and is in their deeds and it is on the Subdivision map where the boundries are and what could be built and what should be built in the subdivision. Ms.Oakley stated, I agree with you 100%, I think the Conservation land should have been left wild, however, the builder in his wisdom got permission to clear the whole thing and now this is Conservation land, I mean it would be easier for me to not have to maintain. I have some pictures of, this is how he cleared it and this is the amount of conservation land that is back there. If it was woods I can understand it but I have at least 40 feet further from where the twelve foot would come out until I even reach the wood and that is an area that I have to maintain now because the builder tore it all down otherwise it will just grow up to be weeds and a mess. It would not grow back to the trees he cut down. Mr. Gunderud stated, the trees that he took down won't grow back but new trees will grow. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem and I have to agree with Joe that there definitely has to be some kind of a problem here because we get decks constantly. Now, one of Page -3- July 8th, 1986 the problems that I have is with the screened porch concept with the variance. We are looking at an enclosed room with a variance which is actually an addition on the house from the visual stand point and not only this area but we have has this in a few other areas where you are looking at a Conservation Subdivision or small lots and the intent of the Conservation Subdivision is to not build on the whole piece of property and to leave some property there. Whith these people buying in these Conservation Subd. it seems to me that they shouldn't be able to have the assumption that they can add onto these houses because they are not built to be added onto. They are built to be as they are because you have all that free area around otherwise you are going to have in the, concept you are going to have a splitting up of the property, standard size lots and that is the way that it is going to be, you are going to have a grid subdivision. The Conservation Subdivision is meant to have all that open space and a Town House concept. The town house isn't made to be built on. That is my problem. The decks, that is another question. Mr. Cabellero stated, I believe that we did send a letter to our Attorney last month in reference to addressing this problem to see if we could avoid having those sliders put on the houses unless there was enough backyard area to put in. I still agree, and if Joe will make a motion that we ask the Town Board to meet with us in reference to that specific problem. Mr. Landolfi stated, if we have not already covered it in previous correspondence I will definitely make a motion. If something hasn't gone onto them relative the subject. If persue it as an ongoing problem throughout the Town and we are looking for some relief either from the Town Board or legal council or both as to what we can do to control this. Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't see where we need any relief from the Town Board or from the legal council as to what we can do with these because we just don't have to grant the variances because there is no relief. Mr. Cabellero stated, that is understandable but we are getting them over and over. What we are trying to do is stop it before they have to come in. Mr. Hirkala stated, fine, but what we are looking at is a planning problem. We are not looking at a legal problem. We can just say no more variances period, that is the end of it. Mr. Cortellino stated, what we want from the Town Board is way of preventing these occurances. We do not want to sit here night after night hearing the same requests for variances for the same reason, so the Town Board would be the one to put in a local law or whatever, amend the building code so that you could not put in sliding doors that would elliviate the problem of hearing 10 cases a month. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All Aye. Ms. Oakley stated, when I bought the house the builder knew what my intention was. He really didn't believe there were any problems. Sliding glass doors were put on the back with no steps to go down. I fell out and my daughter has and I see there is a problem that the board has and I am sympathetic to it but I just feel as though we who have bought there and being misled by the builder, perhaps, are the ones that are stuck in the middle and I would like to see it get changed at a higher level before the builder. Page -4- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero 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, to comment on what Ms. Oakley just said, I ask her the question as to whether there were barriers on that sliding glass door when she bought the house. Ms. Oakley answered, no, none. Mr. Hirkala asked, how high off the ground. Ms. Oakley answered, 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Gunderud asked, when did you take possession of the house? Ms. Oakley answered, October 3rd. Mr. Cabellero asked, do the Attorney's question why those sliders are put in when there are no decks? Ms. Oakley answered, I have no idea. Mr. Hirkala asked, when you were in the process of negotiating for this house, was there ever anything said to you that the back stairway off the sliding glass doors was an option that you could get or do for yourself? Ms. Oakley answered, I don't recall it. Mr. Hirkala asked, in other words was that an extra? Ms. Oakley answered, nobody got them and we have people that have at least a 12 foot drop and nobody got stairs or barriers or anything like that. Mr. Gunderud stated, I would disagree whole heartedly. When I was Building Inspector in the Town there was always a barrier on every single one built and Jim Klein built all the houses nows that I would have never given CO's, so it would have to have been a year ago. Grace McCulsky - lives in the same complex. Can I ask what a variance on a CO looks like because I am a little more fortunate and I only have a 2j, 3 foot drop out the back. When I watched the house go up..... Mr. Cabellero stated, there is not a variance on a CO. Mr. Gunderud stated, the barriers, he put a 2x4 nailed across that. Ms. McClusky stated, no, there was no. When I entered my house on August 22nd, 1984 there were no 2x4's across the sliding glass back door and there was...... Patricia Morphew - 69 Fieldstone Blvd. There was nothing, there was nothing there, there were no barriers there when I moved in and also I was going through a litigation at the time with the building of my home I brought up the issue of the sliding to the woman, the Zoning Inspector and she, and we asked how a builder could build homes like this with...7 or 8 feet drops from patio doors and she said she didn't know, but nothing was really ever done about it. Page -5- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero stated, we have addressed this issue before and Hans explained to us last month of the similar situation that there is no way that he could stop them or not give them a CO because they have sliders in the back even though in the future the owner would have to get a variance to put a deck in the back of that house. But, when he does the process, grant them the CO, at the time that he was the Zoning Inspector, all he would have to see is that the barriers are up but they could put the sliders in there. We are trying to get the, our Attorney and the Town Board to do a change in the law so that those sliders cannot be put on, on a house unless they don't require a variance on the backyard setback. Ms. Morphew stated, when I bought my house I inquired about having a deck put on the house at that time and not only......... by Mr. Klein. He never told us that we would have to come for a variance. He told us that we would have to wait for over a year for the ground to settle before we could put in a deck. Mr. Cabellero stated, I think that is a matter that you would have to litigate with Mr. Klein. Ms. Morphew stated, but this is what the people who bought went through. Mr. Cabellero stated, our problem on this Board is that every month we hear the same cases over and over again, and unfortunately, the patience of the Board has worn out and I think I have the feeling of the Board that they are going to start just denying these variances on setbacks. That means you have no alternative but to just put steps down or forget about putting a deck. We are looking to address the Town and the Town Attorney to see if they can stop allowing them to put those sliders in the back of the houses that cannot build decks without variance. That is basically our concern as the Zoning Board of Appeals. Do you have anything else to add Ms. Oakley. Ms. Oakley answered, no. Mr. Cortellino stated, my original deck, and I have much more setback then you do, was 8 feet deep. You are asking for 12. Could you live with 8? Ms. Oakley answered, I would rather not. I have a child. She brings children out there. I would be very narrow with a table. As I said I have 46 feet beyond where that 12 foot come out that I do maintain and I don't think it would be any ..... on the landscape. Mr. Hirkala stated, in the direction that Charlie is going, I have to state that, as I said at the last meeting, there was another requesting for a screened porch. I have to strees screened porch, roof and all, not a deck. That is an addition on the house. If we are talking screened porch, we are talking addition that can have windows put in it, I don't about promises, you end up with another room on that house and we are looking at the planning concept, conservation subdivision. We are not looking at a grid, 1 acre piece of property here. This changes the whole ball game from our, some of our problems over in Pondview. Mr. Cabellero asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Page -6- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero stated, we will have a little discussion between the Board and we may or may not render a decision tonight. Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the variance be denied. It does not quialify under the guidelines for which we can grant a variance. The property still can be used as a house and so forth. A smaller deck could be used. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 4905, at the request of Patricia Morphew, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for screening in of existing deck on property located on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel 446257-06-332759, in the Town of Wappinger. Patricia Morphew was present. Mr. Cabellero stated, I see that you already have.... Ms.Morphew stated, last month you gave me a variance for a deck, I said I would come back. My original application for a variance was approved then and I want to screen in half of it and you gave me that variance for the deck and you said I would have to come back to screen it in. Mr. Cabellero stated, Ms. Morphew you realize the position that you put us. Ms. Morphew answered, I am sorry. Mr. Cabellero stated, this Board probably saw your request, something in it to grant it and now you are going to stretch it out further by requesting for screening it? Ms. Morphew stated, no I am not stretching it out. I discussed this last time, when I processed the application for a variance, I failed to state that I wanted enclose half of the deck, not enclose but screen it. I have a water problem in the back of my house. Mosquitos breed back there.The water does not drain off. It breeds mosquitos and it is impossible to enjoy the deck and a little further down the road from me, not that far away there is also a swamp area there. And in addition I have my mother who has emphasima, she has a sever ..... arthritus, she requires fresh air and it is impossible for her to sit outside. She is also allergic to bee and ....bite. I am not going to... all I want is to screen in half of the deck. Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to make in my view anyway, my vote for the by the land, she showed us pictures the screening. You have a variance was how many feet? Mr. Gunderud answered, 15 feet. a comment to Charlie that this was the deck variance, deck variance was based on the hardship created and I think I brought up the same comment about for a deck. Now, the variance granted last time Mr. Hirkala stated, so now she is asking for a variance to screen in that deck that the variance was granted on the full 15 feet, now you are asking for half of it. Page -7- July 8th, 1986 Ms. Morphew answered, no, I didn't ask for the whole 15 feet. The deck was 12 x 30 on the back of the house. All I want to do is screen in half of the deck. Mr. Hirkala asked, so how much of the deck do you want to screen in? Mr. Cabellero stated, 50%. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this appeal. There was no one present to speak for or against. Mr. Cortellino asked, when you say screened, I am trying to determine what you mean by screened, in other words, would it be screens with a frame set in 2x4's or would it be, lets say almost like latice work which the screen is stapled to the latice work. What I am trying to determine is, like how permanent a structure would be the screen part? Ms. Morphew answered, it would be four posts with a screen on it, stapled. Mr. Cortellino asked, would the screen be nailed or stapled, not set in a frame? Ms. Morphew answered, stapled. Mr. Cabellero stated, I would tend to think that by adding a roof to it is actually extending the back of the house. You are making an extension of the house. Mr. Landolfi stated, we should be consistent, the prior case was a similar one of a request in the same area. Mr. Cabellero asked Ms.Morphew is she had any more to add. Ms.Morphew answered, no. Mr. Cabellero asked to entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr.Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All Ayes. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think we set a precident in the Hamlet and a few others. It is a Conservation Subdivision. Those buildings are not made, designed, and set on the property, reviewed by the Planning Board to have additions put on them. If you look at the type of home that you can start to add onto. You buy a single family dwelling in a standard grid layout and you start to adding onto it with all the property you need. These are small lots. Mr. Cabellero stated, I think what I am asking for is a motion. Mr. Cortellino stated, I move the variance be denied for the same reason as the previous one. Mr. Cabellero stated, I would like to amend that motion that by adding a roof to a screen structure is adding onto the basic main structure of the building which would be considered Page -8- July 8th, 1986 an addition to the building and therefore that is why Charlie is denying the motion. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Ms. Morphew asked, how does someone go about putting a screen on something if you don't have a roof on it. I have my mother requires fresh air. There is no way for her to go out on this porch, or this deck. Do I come back with doctors..... Mr. Cabellero stated, you can re -appeal and bring that information, I don't think that the decision of this Board is going to change. Mr. Morphew stated, there are decks, screened in decks..... Mr. Cabellero stated, if they are illegal decks we will have the Zoning Officer check on them and see if they were done legally or not. We granted you a variance because this Board felt that you had a special case, they had to give you some lee way, but the lee way that you are asking for now for the screened porch is just going to far because you need a deck and it becomes part of the structure, in our opinion. You have recourse, through an attorney to try to reverse our decision. Dr. Hannigan asked, are you saying in fact that screened in porchs are illegal in the Town of Wappinger? Mr. Cabellero answered, no. Mr. Hirkala stated, this lady is not understanding, I don't think. You have the right to put a screened in porch on your house as long as you stay within the setback requirement for that zone. Ms. Morphew stated, that is all I have. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a problem that you created when you bought the house. We can't, by law, look at that as a problem, you created that by buying the house. Ms. Morhpew answered, I did not create it, I was not told. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a personal problem. We have to deal with the law and the law specifically states that the problem that you created, which is buying the house, is something that we can't look at it. Ms. Morphew, that is why we come here for a variance. Mr. Cabellero stated, and we listened to your appeal, and your appeal was denied. Ms. Oakley stated, I really don't understand.... None of the people in our neighborhood object to it. The builder led us to believe that these things were not going to be any problem. We had to wait for the land to settle. I called up to check if they were allowed. I know that there are things that are not allowed in the subdivision. If I had known the screened porch was not even allowed I would not have bought it. The builder told me they were, the Town told me that they were allowed in Wappinger. Page -9- July 8th, 1986 Now, I would like to know what recourse we have, we happen to have woods behind us. She has a water problem, we have a terrible mosquito problem, I am allergic to them and we come to this Board to say we need a variance for a good reason, no one else objects. I don't understand what the objection is or what our recourse is. Some of us put everything we had into these houses, what are we supposed to do now, move. Mr. Cabellero stated, you asked about 10 differnt questions, including what are you supposed to do, move. Basically your question is, you came to the Board to ask for a variance and it was denied even though there was nobody in the public that objected to it. Mr. Cortellino stated, Number one, the Zoning Board of Appeals is limited as to what the can give a variance for. That is very specific in law. For instance, we do not change Zoning. What you are asking for falls outside of our scope for what we can grant a variance for. For instance, if you had a gigantic stone that you couldn't use your yard, then we could grant you a variance. But, if you bought in an area that there is a certain setback and there is no reason other than the zone laws requirement we cannot give a variance for that by law, by law we cannot. The Town Board changes zoning. We cannot give variances which make it effectively changes the zoning. You asked, you said that you didn't know the law, when you went to your closing did you have a lawyer? What is his function, to know the law? You went to the wrong lawyer, because my lawyer pointed out easements all over the place, do you really want this there. He did his homework, others just sign the paper and agree with the banks lawyer. Ms. Oakley asked, doesn't the Zoning Board look over these subdivisions before...... Mr. Cabellero answered, no, that Planning Board does that. We stated earlier that we are asking the Attorney, Town Attorney and Town Board to try to find a way of making those sliders illegal on those properties. Ms. Oakley stated, we are a little to late for that change. Mr. Cabellero stated, you have asked for a variance and it was denied. Your recourse now is with the courts. I think we gave you ample time to let us know your feeling. A decision has been made and we have to stand by it. Dr. Hannigan, was you question answered. Porches are not illegal in the Town of Wappinger. Dr. Hannigan stated, it really hasn't been answered. I don't think that you can answer it. Mr. Cabellero stated, porches are not illegal in the Town of Wappinger as long as they have the setbacks, within the setbacks. If you have the setback you can build a porch. You go to the Building Inpsector and he will grant you a permit. If you don't have enough room behind the house to build the porch he has to deny the permit then you have to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Dr. Hannigan stated, you answered my question. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: kpl)eal 4907, at the request of Walter S. Roeper, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a porch addition with --,a 25 foot setback where 35 feet is required on property located on 2 Bungalow Lane, and being Parcel X66157-01-441986, in the Town of Wappinger.-.,-, Page -10- July 8th, 1986 There was no one present. Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that we set this aside. Mr. Landolf i seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal X6908, at the request of Edmond G. 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. There was no one present. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to set this item aside. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: All Aye. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal #909, at the request of Robert Schilling, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition with a 16 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required and also to allow for a deck with a 12 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet is required on property located on 80 Brothers Road, and being Parcel X66358-03-010289, in the Town of Wappinger. Robert Schilling was present. Mr. Schilling stated, I would like to put in an 18 foot addition at the end of my house for my mother. She is currently in the house, living in the house now but she is confined to a hospital bed and wheelchair and we want to get her into a bigger room with a bathroom which could accomodate the wheelchair. We want to go on that end of the house because it will be a bedroom and thats the bedroom end of the house. And also, the back, there is a septic system and a buried oil tank and at the other end of the house it would block any plans for a garage, the driveway is on the other end of the house. My mother is living in the house now so it would not be any additional cars in the driveway, no more kids in school. The reason we want the deck is so that she will have access in the wheelchair to outside, to be able to get outside. Mr. Cabellero asked for drawings of what he planned to do. Mr. Schilling presented the Board with a set of plans. Mr. Cabellero asked, and the reason why you don't want to go in the back of the house is? Mr. Schilling answered, if we go in the back of the house, then this end, the floor plan does not lend itself to go in that direction. Plus, I would also need a variance if I _ came out the back. The other side has a septic system and a buried oil tank. Mr. Cabellero asked, you have presently 3 bedrooms, is that correct? Mr. Schilling answered, right, 3 bedrooms on the right side of the drawings. Page -11- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero stated, I can see here that behind the gravel driveway you have a tremendous amount of room to be able to put an addition to the house without asking for a variance of any nature. According to your survey map in front of me it shows the existing house and an addition. On the other side of the house it shows a gravel driveway. Behind that there is ample room to make any addition that you want without infringing on the sideyard setbacks that you would want to get a variance for. Is there any problem why you can't build back there? Mr. Schilling answered, well, there are alot of trees there which we would have to take down. Mr. Cortellino stated, if you ever wanted to put a garage wouldn't you take down the trees then? Mr. Schilling answered, no, if we extended the driveway straight forward. The trees are on the right side. Mr. Cabellero asked, so basically you want to do the addition on that side for the reasons that you stated on the record before? Mr. Schilling answered, right, and like I say, its the bedroom side and it would be with the bedrooms. Mr. Cabellero asked, is that all that you have at this time? Mr. Schilling answered, yes. Mr. Landolfi stated, I have several questions of Mr. Schilling. Can I ask, how long have you been in the house? Mr. Schilling answered, about 3 and a half years. Mr. Landolfi asked, can I ask you how many members in you family? Mr. Schilling answered, myself, my wife and 2 sons. Mr. Landolfi asked, how old is your mother? Mr. Schilling answered, 66 or 67. Mr. Landolfi asked, what would happen, if perhaps, the Board elected not to grant this variance? Mr. Schilling answered, whe would have to stay in that room, that small 9x12 room, or we would have to find another house. Mr. Landolfi asked, how long has your mother lived with you? Mr. Schilling answered, a few months. My father passed away last October and my sister was staying with her at my parents house but now thats not working out and so we took my mother over to our house. My mother needs care, she is confined to a hospital bed so she does need somebody to be there to care for her. Mr. Landolfi stated, the problem that I have, Mr. Chairman, you stated it, if my math is correct you are looking for a 9 foot variance and a 13 foot variance. You are looking for a total of like 22 feet, total. However, you do have adequate room in the rest of Page -12- July 8th, 1986 your property. Now, I can see, obviously, why you would like to put that addition on that portion of the house. It still would preserve your yard, per say. However, the Zoning Laws do not work that way. You have got to give a little and you have to demonstrate that there is a hardship. While I appreciate the fact that you mother is ill and so on, but I don't think, again, I have not seen or heard why again, other than the fact that you might have to cut some trees down, couldn't go back further in that yard, you have plenty of footage. Now, asthetically, it may not look quite as well but never the less it woudln't make your lot a non -conforming lot. Right now you have what we consider to be a conforming lot. If we grant this variance now you are in a non -conforming stage. Each time we did something to that you would have to keep coming back into us and that is not how zoning works. I really haven't seen or heard of any real hardship. Mr. Hirkala stated, my question is, basically, can you give us any other reason for this particular request, other than the fact that you are going to save some money by not going in any other direction? Because, quite candidly, that is not a reason unless you can't afford that money then you have to prove that to us. Mr. Schilling answered, it is not the matter or money. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am sure if you hire an architect he can go front or back and re -design that whole house and come up with what you are looking for, but it is going to cost you more money to do that. Legally, we can't give you a variance, it would be questioned in court and we would be the loser. We are looking at a lot that is 279 feet long on that side. There is alot of property there. Mr. Cabellero asked is there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or against this appeal. Ralph Holt - 78 Brothers Road. Adjacent property to the one that is in question. Mr. Cabellero asked, is that the side that the addition where this addition is going to be built? Mr. Holt answered, yes it is. I have lived there for 21 years. When we put that house there, when we built the one on the right and on the left were already there. They built that house to allow the most, obviously, a space to provide for all 3 of us and we would like to keep it obviously. We are also concerned not that this is my biggest investment, me and my wife, and if anything now coming closer to us could damage that and we would be, obviously, opposed to this variance. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone else. Eugene Tanking - 76 Brothers Road. I feel that as long as there is an alternative to this.... Mr. Cortellino stated, I move the variance be denied. There are other alternatives which would not require a variance to be granted. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Page -13- July 8th, 1986 The motion was carried. Mr. Gunderud stated that Mr. Roeper had arrived. Mr. Cabellero stated, we will go back to: Appeal 4907, at the request of Walter Roeper, seking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a porch addition with a 25 foot setback where 35 feet is required on property located on 2 46157-01-441986, in the Town of Wappinger. Walter Roeper was present. Lane, and being Parcel Mr. Roeper stated, I just plan to build a porch on the front of the house. It doesn't extend any further out than the existing part of the house on the one corner. Mr. Cabellero asked, you have 25 foot setback and you have an existing porch there that is 8 foot out and you want to add the 8 foot in the additional 16 feet that has no porch on it? Mr. Roeper answered, correct. Mr. Cabellero asked Mr. Gunderud, is this non -conforming? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, pre-exisiting zoning. Mr. Cabellero stated, pre-exising zoning and that porch was there. Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Mr. Cabellero asked, this addition that you want to build there is that built already or you are going to put it in if you get a variance? You have an existing 8 x 8 foot porch there but you want to add another 16 feet that has not been built yet? Mr. Roeper answered, that is correct. Mr. Cabellero asked, any reasons why you want to add that additional 16 feet? Mr. Roeper answered, well my wife and I would like to have it there for the summer time so that we can sit out and get some of the summer breezes off of the lake. The other part of the addition out there that is enclosed, that is not an open porch. Mr. Hirkala asked, that 8 foot existing is not a porch? Mr. Roeper answered, correct. Mr. Hirkala asked, it is part of the house. Mr. Roeper answered, yes. Mr. Landolfi stated, tell me again now what you call a porch so that I understand. Last night you led me to believe if you were going to come out and meet this, the existing 8 feet here that would be, the way you described it to me, would be an addition, not just a porch or as we call them today, decks. Mr. Cortellino asked, are we talking just a floor or will there be uprights? Page -14- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Roeper answered, there will not be a roof on it, it will just be a porch with a deck on it and with a railing on it, finished off the same as the rest of the house, aluminum siding. Mr. Hirkala asked, how high of a railing? Mr. Roeper answered, the standard height of a railing. 2J, 3 foot. Mr. Cabellero asked, no roof over this deck? Mr. Roeper answered, no. Mr. Hirkala asked, the outside of the railing will be finished off like the rest of the house is? Mr. Roeper answered, yes. It will be finished off in aluminum siding like the rest of the house is. Mr. Landolfi asked, will the porch or deck be similar in design as you have around the other side of your house? Mr. Roeper answered, no, it will not. Mr. Landolfi stated, okay, now, tell me what the difference is, what would be the difference. What do you call that structure on the other side of your house? kW Mr. Roeper answered, its a deck. Mr. Landolfi stated, what is this going to be? Mr. Roeper answered, I call it a porch. Mr. Gunderud stated, a porch has a roof on it. Mr. Roeper stated, then this is going to be a deck of a different type than I have on the rest of the house. Mr. Cabellero asked, you have an enclosed deck with a roof over it? Mr. Roeper answered, no. Mr. Cabellero stated, for the record. The house with that 8 foot in front of the house was existing pre zoning? Mr. Landolfi stated, I believe so, it has been there quite a while. Mr. Cabellero asked, so he is not going to enfringe on the 25 foot setback any further than he presently is because he is already out there that 8 feet? Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience who whished to speak either kw for or aginst this variance. Page -15- July 8th, 1986 There was no one in the audience who wished to speak for or against this appeal. Mr. Cabellero stated, at this time I will entertain a motion from the Board or further discussion. Mr. Cortellino stated, if I move that we grant the variance based on my understanding that this will be whatever you want to call is essentially a floor where perhaps a 3 foot, instead of railing, wall up which can be sided with aluminum and doesn't go beyond a normal edge of a deck. I will grant that. Mr. Landolfi stated, I will second it if you will restrict it to that. Mr. Cabellero stated, there is not going to be a roof on it and there is not going to be screening on it. It is strictly a deck, an open deck. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close the hearing. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All aye. Mr. Cabellero stated that they would take a 5 minute break. The break was called at 8:00 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 8:06 P.M.. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 4910, at the request of Peter F. Murphy, seeking 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. Steven Galderese, Vice President of Murmac Ent. was present. Mr. Galderese stated, just to infor the Board, we have only been in this new location since last Thursday, so, we have been previously on Route 9 & New Hackensack Road and since moved. We feel that this is not a typical site condition on Route 9 for the simply reason that a retail location is approximately 400 feet off the main road, your usual retail locations on Route 9 are very, very close to the road. The present sign that exists on the building are totally inadequate because of the rate of speed of traffic. I took some pictures. The top row of pictures were directly across the street from the building looking south. The bottom row, directly across the building looking North. You can judge for yourself the visibility of our building. We feel that there are 2 reasons for a business wanting to locate on Route 9 in the Town of Wappinger. As you all know the high cost of land and rent for a business to be in such high visibility spot which is the first reason that we wanted to located again, on Route 9, the second would be the convienence of our customer for mainly the Southern Dutchess area. The last site we were at was very, very high in visibility, therefore, Page -16- July 8th, 1986 we would get alot of impulse buyers. Anyone who is in the retail business knows that they can certainly make or break a business. But, I just feel that without the sign that we request we will suffer an economic heardship due to the lack of visibility because the cars are passing are current building at a rate of 55 to 60 MPH they have to totally turn their head to see that it is there. Even at that point the sign on the building is not visible. the only other thing that I can mention is I have numerous rumors over the past two weeks that the Town is opposed to signs. I don't know how to take that, but it is things that I have heard from a number of different people. The only thing that I can say is that I don't know how anyone would expect a retail operation setback so far from the road to operate without a sign. When we moved into our last building which was a garage, we decorated in such as way that we won an enviornmental award for creating a pleasant enviornment out of such a nasty enviornment. We don't intend to make our site look like that of a carnival appearance. We just want to visibility. Mr. Cabellero asked, are you aware that that particular property was given a variance to put in those additional stores and there is only one sign allowed there? Mr. Galderese answered, that we were not aware of. My only question to that would be, and that is why we are here for a variance..... Mr. Cabellero stated, you are claiming a hardship. A self imposed hardship is not a hardship. Mr. Galderese stated, I don't know how anybody could allow 2 or 3 different businesses to operate on one site with only one sign. I am sure, we were not involved at the time and I am sure that there was some sort of oversight. But, the fact of the matter is that we are involved now. We wanted to be located on Route 9, we moved from the Village to where I could have put any kind of sign I wanted in the Town and we knew that and we also thought that due to our obvious hardship that there would be some compassion. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this appeal. Michael Leonard - Pine Ridge Drive, Wappinger Falls. I would like to speak for it also I am located on Route 9 and can understand his problem of building setbacks. Nobody wants anything close to the road and when you do go to the Planning Board, if you are to close to the road they want you to move the building back yet the sign ordianance is 25 s/f. It is pretty hard to say what you want to say on that small of sign when your building is setback so far. I don't know if there is anyway to change that law. Is there something that can be done about it? I came before the Board, I think it was 3 years ago and wanted to ask for a variance to, I had to remove alot of trees, which I didn't want to remove so people would see the sign. The sign was very, very high. It is a shame to take down those trees. Mr. Cabellero stated, you did an excellent job there just like the other gentlemen did an excellent job in the old place that they had. Your sign is highly visible and everyone knows where you are at. Mr. Leonard stated, but I had to take down nice trees to do it. Mr. Cabellero stated, we kept the conformity of the signs in the Town. Nobody is kw getting any bigger. You get the 25 s/f so all signs are about the same size. The minute you let one go that is bigger than the rest then you created a disadvantage for everybody else. That is my own personal opinion. Page -17- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Leonard asked, have you thought about changing that sign ordinance? Mr. Cabellero stated, to change the sign ordinance would be to go before the Town Board. Mr. Galderese asked, is that 25 s/f is that for a parcel of land, is it for retail site or is it for building because obviously somebody with a very small garage on Route 9 with a very small parcel of property is allowed the same sign, square footage that I would have with 3 retail spaces, a very, very large parcel of property setback a greater distance from the highway. I just think there should be some variance. Mr. Cortellino stated, the Town Board was asked specifically, would you be willing to go for the 36 s/f and the answer came back very definite, no. We cannot change the zoning, therefore, the Town Board who gave the direction, we do definitely do not want it greater than 25 s/f. Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact of the self infliction of this. They have only been in the place a couple of weeks and they knew when they moved that there were no ..... they moved in there at least fully knowing that it was set way back from the road. Aside from that, the Town Board last night granted a rezoning for 22 Associates for Lloyd Lumber to come into the corner of Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road with the proviso that a traffic light be installed at that intersection, so that slows the 55 or 60 mph past there. Prior to the issuance of a CO or any business being done on the Lloyds building there will be a traffic light,to state specs, fully operable at that intersection so I don't see at this point where that particular argument..... Mr. Galderese stated, I don't know if I am out of line by asking you this question but, it seems to be that the non for profit organization in a residential area had less of t a hard time in getting a sign than a retail business. Somebody stated earlier that a sign isn't very necessary. Well maybe if you are IBM or a large corporation people can see the building or they know about where they are heading and the public doesn't have to.... IBM doesn't need a large sign because people who go there know where they are going. But, unfortunately to operate a retail business you rely on high visibility, that is why you move on a main road and dividing it between profit and not for profit may not be the question. There is another sign that I mentioned earlier. Non for profit organization that was allowed a sign, and I will mention it, and maybe you could explain, the new Elks Lodge on Route 376 in a residential area was allowed a sign, quite a large sign, how come? Mr. Hirkala answered, they were allowed a one footer in such a place to answer that question. You came in here with 30 inches by 16 feet, if you come in with an alternative you might get what you are looking for but your attitude is that I want this or the Board is wrong and I am right. That doesn't hold water either. Mr. Cabellero stated, you may have a problem on that property, I think D'Agostino is allowed to put in a free standing sign and that will probably have to cover every store that is in there. Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact that they are allowed a sign on the building also and that sign is limited by the building size. Mr. Galderses stated, the signs on the building, right, we had to go to the Zoning Administrator to get a permit to put the signs. Mr. Cabellero stated, and if it conforms, you get a permit and you don't have to come before us. Page -18- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Landolfi stated, I have several points, one, just a clarification. Mr. Galderese made a statement that we were against signs and I think he was.... we are not against signs. We are for signs that conform to our Zoning Law. We have tried to get the Town Board to reconsider the size of the sign. They have not done that so therefore. We have trying in recoginizing some of your points well taken. Point number 2, the reputation of Murmac is not at stake here. You have a good reputation and I am sure that you are going to maintain it. I think the thing that you or your president is missing, there is a little history behind that piece of property down there, it is quite notorious. We did what we did to help out Mr. D'Agostino who came before us with a problem and this was our way of helping him to try to allow other businesses to go in like they did. You might want to either talk to your boss or his attorney and find out how much digging he really did relative to easements and what have you. The other question I have got, did we get anything from the County on this? I would like to see something on that. We are trying to invite businesses in the Town, what alternatives can you offer us, perhaps, to that sign. Mr. Galderese stated, the only alternative would be obviously a smaller sign which, like you mentioned earlier this evening about you have to show a hardship and you have to give a little, so, if we are totally denied a larger sign then we will have to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with something that the Zoning Board would agree with. Mr. Cabellero stated, I have a bigger problem than that. Hans, they are allowed one free standing sign on that property. D'Agostino already has a free standing sign on that property, you may not be allowed a sign at all. Mr. Gunderud stated, the 80 s/f would be the total square footage of the exisitng D'Agostino sign and the Murmac sign. Mr. Cabellero asked, they have already how many square feet on that? Mr. Gunderud answered, as far as we know 25. Mr. Cabellero stated, you are asking to double it that means that according to our Zoning Ordinance within that 25 feet you have to get D'Agostino and youself on that sign. You have a big problem there and that property was not zoned for 3 or 4 different businesses. We gave hime a variance because he showed a practical hardship which you are not showing tonight. I think you should speak to Mr. D'Agostino and your attorney and go back on this whole matter before you come back to this Board to ask for a sign of that nature and that size. Mr. Galderese asked, so what you are saying is that between the two of us... Mr. Cabellero finished, you would have to share the 25 feet of that free standing sign according to our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Galderese asked, and the only way to change that is through the Town Board? Mr. Cabellero answered, through the Town Board process. Mr. Hirkala stated, my problem is that what is presented is gigantic really. It is irrational. Page -19- July 8th, 1986 Vote: All ayes. Mr. Hirkala stated, number two, you are asking for the variance to show an irrational amount of signage, square footage near the road when your setback requirement, and you have a standard size sign on the building, and you haven't asked for a request to increase the size of that sign even though you are further away from the road and can't see it. It seems to me that there hasn't been any thought given to this. Mr. Galderese answered, there has, I will disagree with you there but I think you would need such a large sign to be seen that it is totally rediculous, I would not even ask you for the sign have of that of the original building. Mr. Cabellero stated, you should have researched this before you signed a lease and went into that property. What we the limitations of that property. Mr. Galderese stated, we were fully aware that, when we did this, that D'Agostino was already consuming the total.... feet. Mr. Cabellero stated, you can't claim a practical hardship. Mr. Galderese stated, by the same token that the hardship being that it is so unusually far from the main road. Mr. Landolfi asked, how long have you been in business? Mr. Galderese answered, 15 years. Mr. Landolfi asked, can I ask where you customers come from? Mr. Galderese answered, a good portion of them word of mouth. Mr. Landolfi asked, from where, Orange County, Dutchess, Southern Dutchess? Mr. Galderese answered, Southern Dutchess, Putnam County, normally Westchester County. Mr. Landolfi asked, are they not also repeat customers? Mr. Galderese answered, usually not. The initial, when somebody lives so far away and they buy a swimming pool then they go local to buy a less expensive item. They will come up to buy a larger item but, it is like buying a car, if you get a better deal in the Bronx, you may get gas local. Mr. Landolfi stated people are going to find you whether you had a one foot sign or an 80 foot sign. Mr. Galderese stated, I agree wtih you 1007, for people to find us they would have to look for us. A sign would give somebody driving down, says there is a pool place, lets pull in, that is the purpose for a sign. Mr. Cabellero asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Page -20- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero stated, I think it is generally obvious that the request for 80 square feet is tremendous amount of footage for a sign and I don't think that a financial hardship has been shown. Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to make a motion that we table the request for a variance to allow the appellant to go back and meet with Mr. D'Agostino and prepare to come back in at our next meeting, which is the second Tuesday of the month with a more reasonable request of us. Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second the motion in interest of fairness. The new request might be denied also. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino stated, what I would like to refresh my memory, to go out with next months agenda is the Minutes and also a copy of the variance that D'Agostino had. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 4903, at the request of Edmond Loedy, seeking a variance of §416.51 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to place one wall sign facing each road and to install two internal traffic signs on the site on property located on Route 9 & Middlebush Road, and being Parcel 46157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger. There was no one present. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to set this back on the agenda. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 4906, at the request of Patrick & Ruth Clark, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert an existing house, which contains over 3,000 s/f of useable floor area and was built prior to 1962, to a 2 unit dwelling on property located on Route 9D, and being Parcel 446157-01-180640, in the Town of Wappinger. Patrick Clark was present. Mr. Clark stated, I have a situation, an illegal situation, an existing situation that I want to make legal. I just purchased this property from other members of my family and this apartment has been present in the building for approximately 6 years. When I moved back in, with my wife, we rented out the apartment, not knowing that it was never, it didn't conform. We wish to make it conform. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this appeal. There was no one present. Page -21- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a comment, didn't we have one of these at the last meeting to. Mr. Cabellero stated, we saw something for 6 apartments. It is not the same property. This gentlemen bought a house that had 2 apartments on it and he wants to legalize it. He is candid, he is coming before the Board and stating so that it is an illegal apartment. Mr. Landolfi made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal #911, at the request of Immanuel Christian Reformed Church, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, 114, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to amend the site plan for an addition on the existing church on property located on 253 Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46258-02-845570, in the Town of Wappinger. Rick Vanderslice - Hopewell Junction and Larry Mahoney- Wappinger Falls. Mr. Vanderslice stated, we currently have a facility that maintains around 50 families. We have memberships right now of..... We are pressed for space. In our sanctuary, which is slightly overflowing, are critical needs are ....... so we are seeking to add 4,600 square feet to the existing building, a new sanctuary, and providing outgoing.... space and classrooms. Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak. There was no one present. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, on this 4,600 s/f, what percentage of an increase is that to the overall.... Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't really know. It doesn't fall into Zoning Ordinance. It is not a non -conforming use. Mr. Cabellero stated, we would like to entertain a motion to send this to the Planning Board. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Page -22- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal: Appeal 4873, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, 1422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow motor vehicle repair and service on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 446158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Redl was present. Mr. Redl stated, I came before the Board and this was sent to the Planning Board. I did appear before the Planning Board and I had scheduled a public hearing. At the Planning Board they asked about my ...lot, so I went to my neighbor. He had a small pie shaped in the back and I was trying to purchase it and about a month of discussions he decided not do but I do, I have enlarged the lot to accomodate a majority of the parking, a great deal of it in the back, I am taking more land off of my existing. Mr. Cabellero asked, didn't we refer this to the Planning Board for them to give us their comments and send back to us. The Planning Board has seen this I imagine but we have not received any correspondence yet. Mr. Cabellero asked Ms. Berberich if she had any correspondence. There was a memo from the Planning Board to the Zoning Board dated May lst, 1986. At the April 28th, 1986 meeting of the Planning Board the above mentioned application for a SUP was discussed. The Planning Board would not like to make a recommendation one way or another at this time. They would like more complete information on the road profiles and what the County Assessment is. The PLanning Board has a concern with the use of the property and they would recommend that a long EAF be submitted. Also, the Board would like you to suggest who you would like the lead agency to be. Mr. Landolfi stated, under the circumstances they have obviously been working quite closely with Mr. Redl on it and they are probably more aware of the enviornmental impact of which we just received tonight. So, in fairness to the appellant, I would like to recommend that the Planning Board be the lead agency. Mr. Cabellero stated, I agree with you that the Planning Board should go through this whole project and make a recommendation to us but we would return the SUP whether we approve it or deny it or what other conditions we want to add to it after they have made a complete assessment of what this project entails. Mr. Redl stated, I am going to have to go in with a lot line adjustment. Mr. Landolfi stated, under the circumstances, since we have got this now I am saying with no doubt that I would believe that the Planning Board be the lead agency. Mr. Hirkala stated, amending that I would also like to see that the Zoning Board of Appeals remain as an interested party. Mr. Landolfi stated, that is understood I would hope. Mr. Landolfi stated, I make that in the form of a motion. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: All ayes. Page -23- July 8th, 1986 The motion was carried. Mr. Cabellero stated that they would go back to Appeal 4902 - Tanya Mortenson. There was no one present. Mr. Landolfi, I will make a formal motion that since that we are here, the interested parties are here, lets take it to a vote. Mr. Hirkala stated, the applicant was here. Her Architect, she approached the bench in the beginning of the meeting but her Architect wasn't here. Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we table this until the next month, however, any expenses incurred I would hope the appellant would have to incur those expenses. Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second the motion with an amendment that there will be a necessary re -notification and the expenses be charged to the applicant. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cabellero stated, we had 2 other appeals that didn't come in, Edmond Loedy on unfinished business and he also had Appeal 4908, seeking a variance. On appeal #908 what is your pleasure? Mr. Cortellino stated, rather than deny it we will table that and that there be a re -notification and it will be at the applicants expense. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cabellero stated, under Appeal #903, which is under unfinished business? Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Dr. Hannigan stated, we will not be here for the next meeting. Would you accept a letter from us? Mr. Cabellero answered, yes. Page -24- July 8th, 1986 Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, '4- , ( , LX-,- k C1, Linda Berberich, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board lb