1986-06-10ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
JUNE 10TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
I. Appeal 4898, at the request of Patricia Morphew, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deck in the Conservation
Subdivision with a 17 foot rearyard setback when 25 feet is required on property located
on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel 46157-06-332759, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #899, at the request of Gary & Helena Snyder, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a detached garage with a
seven (7) foot sideyard setback where ten (10) feet is required on property located on
266 Ketchamtown Road, and being Parcel 46156-01-485900, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 4901, at the request of Siegfried Steinle, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a Building Permit to be issued
on a proposed single family residence where access to the dwelling will not be over the
actual Town Road frontage on the lot on property on Maloney Road, and being Parcel
446259-01-235737, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 4903, at the request of Edmond Loedy, 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 directional signs on the site on property located on
Middlebush Road & Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4890, at the request of Michael Caltagirone, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a deck
with a 13 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on property located on the
corner of Bell Air Lane & Mina Drive, and being Parcel 46157-02-962785, in the Town of
Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4891, at the request of John Sokol, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421,
footnote "e" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a
building permit where the frontyard setback is 35 feet when 75 is required on a County
Road on property located on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 46156-01-439566, in the
Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 4893, at the request of Michael Schnorr, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 foot setback from the
property line to install a sign when 25 feet is required on property located on Myers
Corners Road, and being Parcel 46258-02-754506, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 4896, at the request of Edmond Loedy, seeking a variance of §416.51 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow (2) wall mounted signs when no more than (1)
sign is permitted; §416.515 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a wall
mounted sign 9 foot in width when only 3 foot is permitted; §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance to allow a 116 square foot free standing time -temperature sign when
25 square foot maximum is permitted for the face of the sign and to allow 20 foot in
height when 10 foot maximum is permitted for a free standing sign on property located on
Middlebush Road & Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -2-
June 10th, 1986
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4900, at the request of John & Brenda Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 1118 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 7 unit apartment building on property located on
Route 9D, and being Parcel 46157-02-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4902, at the request of Tanya Mortenson, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 1f4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to establish a day care/
nursery school on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 446158-04-980125,
in the Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 10TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 10th, 1986,
at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Mr. Caballero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala
Mr. Urciuoli
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M..
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to approve the minutes of the May 12th, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if all the abutting property owners were notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office.
Mr. Caballero explained how the meeting would be conducted.
Mr. Caballero then read the first appeal:
Appeal #898, at the request of Patricia Morphew, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a deck in the Conservation
Subdivision with a 17 foot rearyard setback when 25 feet is required on property
located on 49 Fieldstone Loop, and being Parcel #6157-06-332759, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Patricia Morphew was present.
Ms. Morphew stated, I propose to put a deck on the back of my house, and enclosed deck
12 x 16.
Mr. Hirkala asked about the enclosed deck.
Ms. Morphew answered, not enclosed, just screened.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have sliding glass doors built on to that?
Ms* Morphew answered, I have sliding glass doors that lead to nowhere.
Mr. Caballero asked, how high is that?
Ms. Morphew answered, about 3 feet off the ground. A little less than 3 foot off the
ground but I am in an area where there is up to 7 feet just...... sliding glass to the
ground. I also, in back of the house, my property goes up on a slant, goes up a hill,
there is an awful lot of water that comes down that hill and accumulates on the back
of the property and there is nothing I can do about that. I even thought of putting in
Page -2-
June 10th, 1986
fir►; a patio which would be no use to me and it just accumulates and just sits back there,
it doesn't go anywhere. I brought it to the builders attention and he has not done
anything to correct it.
Mr. Caballero asked, so to conform with the ordinance you can only build a 2 foot deck
on this house?
Ms. Morphew answered, I have 27 feet from the rear of my house.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were any questions from the Board.
Mr. Landolfi asked Ms. Morphew if she had brought in the pictures and then stated,
I went out and looked at it, the site in question, and there is an obvious problem in
the way the land behind her is all sloped, in fact the water is just lying there. From
the stand point of hardship, unless somebody does something out there, the young lady
does have a hardship and apparantly, if I understood your conversation last week you
were in touch and apparantly the builder isn't going to do anymore to a point where you
have even gotten a lawyer.
Ms. Morphew answered, that is right. These pictures were taken for my lawyer. I took
them Sunday.
Mr. Caballero stated, I suggest that this Board make a motion to send a letter to the
Town Board that there has got to be a law put into effect that these builders cannot
put sliding glass doors onto houses unless they meet they meet the proper sideyard
requirements for future decks.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make the motion in the belief that we follow the State Building
Code. My motion is that we supplement the State Building Code with provisions of our
own, one of which is, there will be no sliding glass doors, patio doors, or whatever
word you want to use for these type of doors which open into nothing. Number one, it is
a safety hazard because people can remove any bars which are required before a CO can
be presented. After the CO is granted it can be removed and now we have a safety hazard
in addition to a situation where we don't know if a variance would have to be granted
because in some of the developments everyone that has a sliding glass door requires a
variance to put on a deck.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Mr. Gunderud asked for a discussion, in my experience out in the field, I think it is
a larger issue also, the lot itself is to small.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I was going to make that as my next one.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
kme Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion that regardless of how the Planning Board approves
a subdivision, that the lot layout, that the Building Inspector determine the suitability
of the building lot. Just because you can come up a larger acerage into smaller squares
does not mean that it is suitable for building, in particular I will refer to this case,
Page -3-
June 10th, 1986
kW there is a sharp slope which creates a water problem, perhaps it could be a building lot
and we have provision for a building lot in wetlands but, for what is dry lands should
be required, there should be some criteria before these type of building lots could
be built on.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I know when they built that subdivision there was a tremendous
amount of water that came out of the hills but nobody knew it was there, I mean as soon
as they cut into the slope water came out. There are many areas in the Town where
there are hills that don't weep the way these hills do. The water actually ran right
out of the hill once they cut it. As far as the drainage aspects of these lots, I think
the Town Planning Board and the Town Engineer, to the various laws and codes they have,
have adequate protection for that type of thing. I don't know how here particular lot
got to be a water problem, many times homeowners will reshape the lot after if is approved
by the builder. Many times the engineer how certifies the final plot plan to the Town
actually doesn't go on site and give us the correct survey.
Mr. Hirkala stated, on these lots being not buildable, I know we ran across a few of
those in the past and in every case it has been the responsibility of the developer to
make the determination whether a lot is buildable or not and once he makes the determination'
that it is buildable if he came into the Town and the Town said you can build on it he
went on and built on it there were problems that we had later. Now, it seems to me that
that lies with the Planning Board and the Engineer, whereby, and I think it is already in
place, whereby they would make the determination that you can't build on that lot because
of one reason or another, there is a rock outcropping or it is wet or whatever and thats
a case of just good homework on the part of the Planning Board and the Engineer in that
normal process.
Mr. Gunderud stated, since that subdivision was approved many years ago there has been the
soil erosion ordinance put into effect, a new SEQRA requirement being enforced now, so
I think now, back then you probably didn't get ample information about all the water and
the types of slopes when that subdivision was approved, but now, I think now we are that
much further ahead. I though what Mr. Cortellino was going to talk about was the problem
of the size of the lot itself. Everybody knows the house is going to be about 26 or 28
feet, this particular lot, when I look at the plot plan, they probably just made the
frontyard setback for 35 feet and they just made the rearyards with a setback of 25 feet.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would withdraw his second motion.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for or
against this appeal..
There was no one present.
Mr. Hirkala asked, you said something about screened in porch, are you going to have a
roof on it?
Ms. Morphew answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not talking about a deck now, we are talking about an addition.
Ms. Morphew answered, no, its a deck with a roof overhang, screened in.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I thought it was a deck, I don't have the rest of the permit here,
but, when I looked at the plot plan I thought it was a deck. Did you have plans, drawings
of the whole structure with the roof on it and everything?
Page -4-
June 10th, 1986
Ms. Morphew answered no.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't believe we can vote on anything other than the deck the
way it has been submitted. I was led to believe also that it was a deck, realizing
your hardship I could probably go as far as making a proposal to grant you the deck but,
now we have a new demension which is another ball game. The legal notice and the
paperwork submitted implies that it is just that, a deck.
Ms. Morphew stated, that is exactly what it is except it is going to have an overhang.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is an addition to the house. Once you put a roof on it it
become an addition.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you could seal that off and all of a sudden it is a bedroom and
nobody knows it.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you want to leave this as a request for an appeal for a deck
without a enclosure over the top or do you want to proceed as the deck with a roof on
it?
Ms. Morphew answered, I would like to proceed with deck with a roof on it. It is
only one half. There are other houses with the same thing in the area.
Mr. Lapore - Fieldstone Blvd.
I have a deck approved a year and a half ago and it is enclosed they way she would like
to make it. Now, if you can't approve the enclosure, should she come back next month
for approval?
Mr. Caballero answered, we would have to do a public hearing for the enclosure.
When you meet the setback, you come in and he gives you a permit and you don't need a
variance but if you do not meet the sideyard setbacks as required by our Zoning Ordinance
then he can no longer give you the permit and he has to come before the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the way the legal notice was it was strictly for a deck. If you
want to have a roof over it then it requires another publication.
Ms. Morphew asked, can I continue on with the deck, have the deck built and then come
back.
Mr. Caballero answered, if we hear this as it was written and publicized in the
newspaper, it is up to the Board what they are going to decide on this particular case.
I don't have a motion on the floor yet.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the distance from the house to the rise in the hill, how far is it
approximately?
Ms. Morphew answered, about 17 or 18 feet and then it starts going up.
Mr.Hirkala asked, in other words you want to bring this deck out right to the hill?
Ms. Morphew answered, no, not right out to the hill. I only want to go out 12 feet.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can you live with less than 12?
Page -5-
June 10th, 1986
Ms. Morphew answered, what do I do with the rest of the property. No.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what you are saying is the 12 foot, you orginally wanted the deck
because why, because you have the wetland there?
Ms. Morphew answered, I have a wetland.
Mr. Hirkala asked, and you want to cover the wetland with a deck?
Ms. Morphew answered, it is not going to completely cover it, but yes, as far as possible.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how high off the ground would it be?
Ms. Morphew answered, 2} feet.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, what you have to understand is if the deck is approved and you come
back in next month to have that deck enclosed that doesn't mean that it is going to be
approved next month. You could end up with a deck that is 12 x 27 just open.
Ms. Morphew answered, I understand.
Mr. Cortellino stated to Mr. Gunderud, there is a discrepancy between the public notice
and the plot plan that was submitted. The plot plan shows a 15 foot setback and the
public notice says 17 foot.
Mr. Gunderud answered, you are right. I see the error. Apparantly when I wrote up this
provision of the Ordinance appeal, which I think is what Linda uses for the basis of the
legal notice I put down 17 foot rearyard where actually on the plot plan it was 15.
Mr. Landolfi asked, so what is the correct number?
Mr. Gunderud stated, the rearyard apparantly is 27 feet and she is going to build a
12 foot deck so that would be 15 foot.instead of 17.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think this Board has enough information for this Board to make
a decision. Does anybody want to make a motion?
Mr. Landolfi stated, as I said previously, I would be willing to go with the deck.
Mr. Caballero stated, the motion was would be strictly to allow her to build a deck,
not an enclosure.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will make that motion for a deck only since I feel there is
hardship that she has inherited if you will, with that land.
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.
Page -6-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to close this appeal.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4899, at the request of Gary & Helena Snyder, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a detached garage with a
seven (7) foot sideyard setback where ten (10) feet is required on property located on
266 Ketchamtown Road, and being Parcel 46156-01-485900, in the Town of Wappinger.
Gary & Helena Snyder were present.
Mr. Snyder stated, what I would like to do is put a 24 x 24 detached garage on the west
side of my existing house and what I am applying for in the variance is for a 7 foot
setback instead of 10.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, why do you need 6 feet between the house and the garage?
Mr. Snyder answered, if I detach it, we feel as though we want to go with the detached
garage because of insurance purposes and it also allows if I have to get back to the
back of my house I can walk out of my house and through that opening and get to anything
I have to get to like my oil tanks are in back of the house so that when the oil man
delivers oil he can back right up to the garage.
Mr. Caballero stated, then we suggest if you have that garage next to the house you can
come in from the front and have a door to get to the backyard.
Mr. Snyder stated, he is not going to have a key to that garage when I am not home.
So it at least gets that and my septic tank has had to be pumped out twice since I lived
in the house in 9 years. If I did attach my garage in this area, I guess it is a 20 foot
setback so, if I want to keep the same dimensions which I am fixed, it has been designed
around the vehicles which I have, I would be 13 feet instead of 20 feet.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, if you had a 3 foot space between the house and the garage which is
more than the size of a doorway which you walk through all the time it still allow hoses
or a oil truck hose or a septic tank to get thorugh there and then you wouldn't need a
setback or a variance.
Mr. Snyder answered, 3 feet is kind of tight, I am not comfortable with it myself.
I have pictures to show the house. Where the edge of the building would be would be
just set in from the edge of the driveway, where the van is sitting there now it is
roughly comes out to be 1 foot.
Mr. Landolfi asked, the insurance reason is really not a legitimate reason, we would all
like a break on our insurance. Number 2, you other is more a want, per say, the
footage. We can save the Town alot of aggravation if we very clearly cut that by 3 feet
and then you don't need a variance. It would be clean. The idea is to make the lots
more non -conforming not less non -conforming. There is no reason, based on what you
told us here, number one, insurance is not a hardship and number two, the ease of
getting in your yard or whatever, I mean, everyone has that problem. I haven't heard
the words I want to hear yet.
Page -7-
June 10th, 1986
Mrs. Snyder asked, what if we need work done with the backhoe or something and it is
3 feet from the house, there is no way that we can get in?
Mr. Caballero answered, you have 10 feet on the side, that is why we have the setbacks,
so people can get behind the house.
Mrs. Snyder stated, that is on a bank.
Mr. Cortellino stated, there was a garage originally with that house, it is 24 x 42,
what happened to that garage.
Mr. Snyder stated, the garage in the house, number one, my family is expanding and I feel
that in the near future I am going to be using that downstairs as additional..........
Mr. Cortellino asked, it is a 3 bedroom house right now.
Mr. Snyder answered, right now it is 3 bedrooms.
Mr. Cortellino asked, and it has a finished playroom downstairs?
Mr. Snyder answered, one section of it yes, it is a family room.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
John Gale, live next door.
The thing that I have to say is that if they put the garage up which way would the
water be coming off that garage because I have the property right next to them and the
property slopes?
Mr. Caballero answered, it would be pitched towards your side of the house sir.
Mr. Gale stated, that is my problem because I have a pool in the back and the property
goes down and over the years it is going to cause erosion.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you concerned with the water coming off of that garage and
coming onto your property and possibly creating some damage?
Mr. Gale stated, if I can make a suggestion, if you gutter that towards the opposite
direction instead of towards my house.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't think there is any drainage down the road there, no catch
basins, then run the water into the Town storm sewer system.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he can't legally increase the runoff on anybody elses property.
Mr. Gale asked, what if it runs down my driveway, the gutters are arranged such that
the runoff runs down my driveway to the road,to the catch basin which is on that side
of the road?
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak.
Mr. Incoronato - Town of Wappinger.
I am not for or against. I got this notice in the mail a few weeks ago and I didn't
realize that I was this close to their property. I live in Fleetwood Manor Development.
I am just curious to know how this property is to abut mine, I assume our properties
abut or I wouldn't have received this notice.
Page -8-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Snyder if there was anything else that he would like to add to
this appeal.
Mr. Hirkala asked, I will tell you quite honestly, I am looking at a lot here that has
548.6 feet of depth and 103 feet of width and I think there are other alternatives here
other than a 7 foot setback on the sideline and I haven't heard any proof as to what
the hardship is if there is any.
Mr. Snyder stated, well I think that the 3 foot setback away from the house would be
to tight and I am the best judge of that for my house. That was the first thing I thought
about. I don't feel comfortable with the 3 feet.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how about utilization of the 548.6 feet of depth in the lot?
Mr. Snyder asked, what am I going to do, it is a long, narrow lot. The septic field
goes all the way back the length of my yard. If I set the garage back I have the
same amount of problems. Where it is is the best position for the garage.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to deny the variance. I don't think he has proven
a hardship.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4901, at the request of Siegfried Steinle, seeeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a building permit to be
issued on a proposed single family residence where access to the dwelling will not be
over the actual Town road frontage on the lot on property located on Maloney Road, and
being Parcel 46259-01-235737, in the Town of Wappinger.
William Moreau, P.E. and Mr. & Mrs. Steinle were present.
N
Page -9-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, this driveway now is being used by other houses?
Mr. Moreau answered, no, this is all apple orchard right now. There is really no
other residential use.
Mr. Caballero asked, so you would extend the driveway from that residence all the way
out?
Mr. Moreau answered, through the apple orchard using the existing road pretty much
through the orchard. So, really the problem is the fact that we are entering in the
Town of LaGrange, entering Maloney Road.
Mr. Caballero asked, and Maloney Road is on the Town of LaGrange? Are you aware that if
you build a house on that road which is a private road that there are no services provided
by the Town what so ever, fire trucks can't get in, the school bus. You are fully
aware of that situation?
Mrs.
Steinle answered,yes, we are.
Mr.
Moreau stated, we have obtained approval from the Board of Health on that site for
the
residential septic. We have obtained approval on the actual site. The house plans
are
in for review with the building inspector right now. Basically, this is our
stumbling block at this point.
Mr.
Hirkala asked, this is not a subdivision, this is one lot?
Mrs.
Steinle answered, yes.
Mr.
Moreau stated, he is going to maintain the orchard.
Mr.
Hirkala asked, it is one lot in two Towns and the lots access for this one lot is
off
Maloney Road in the Town of La Grange and the portion of the lot where you want to
put
the house happens to be in the Town of Wappinger?
Mrs.
Steinle answered, that is right.
Mr.
Moreau stated, more than half of it is in Wappinger. We have contacted LaGrange
about the driveway and they have reviewed the site and they have no objections.
Mr.
Caballero asked, do you have that in writing from La Grange?
Mr.
Moreau answered, I asked them for that and I didn't get it.
Mr.
Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, do you forsee any problems here whether we should
communicate with the Town of LaGrange before granting.
Mr.
Gunderud answered, no, I don't see any problem.
Mr.
Landolfi stated, what I would recommend to the Board to consider, if in fact we do
grant, it would be contingent upon, obviously, the approval of the Town of LaGrange.
Mr.
Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one present.
Page -10-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, is this driveway existing?
Mr. Moreau answered, basically yes, it is existing roads through the orchard and we
would be just upgrading them.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted contingent upon the
approval from the Town of LaGrange Board on this particular piece of property.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the only thought I had as far as a fire, I assume this is in the
New Hackensack District, would something have to be done by the applicant as far as
getting approval for.......
Mr. Caballero stated, we just warned the appellant that there are no services provided,
it is not guaranteed that you can get a fire truck in there and you are going to build
a house under those conditions.
Mr. Steinle stated, a fire truck should not have a problem, if a heavy truck, we are
talking about a 50 ton truck can get up there, for liming or furtilizing, why should
the fire truck....
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are talking about the fact that it might not want to go into a
different Town to get to your house.
Mr. Caballero stated, we just want to make you aware of the obstacles or the problems
that you may occur in the future by building a house on a private road that far away
from the road. I do have a motion from Joe to approve this subject to the Town of
LaGrange approval, do I have a second?
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I wonder if there shouldn't be something in the motion obsolving
the Town of Wappinger from any problems that might occur later because of fire access.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Landolfi if he would like to amend his motion.
Mr. Landolfi answered, go ahead, add it on, but as far as I am concerned I think that
Mr. Caballero more than covered it, we are obligated to let them know.....
Mr. Caballero stated, so the motion is to grant the variance subject to the Town of
LaGrange also granting the variance and that the appellants understand that the Town
of Wappinger is legally not responsible for any problems that you may occur on that
property in the future.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is wrong, the Town of Wappinger is not responsible for
them not being provided services such as, school buses, fire trucks, oil trucks that
there is no legal requirement for those type of services to enter on a private road.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich to use that wording.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
�' The motion was carried.
Page -11-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have another motion that the Town address the problem of
right of ways, private roads, and buildings thereof. There is no restriction right
now on how many acres I can, I won't use the word subdivide, how many houses I can.....
giving access to houses. There should be a lapsing like three years after a certain
date all the pre-existing things are cut off. What I am trying to accomplish is we
are getting more private roads then we have public roads. Why should one person have
to put in a road and the other guy says that he has a right of way, I will maintain
the road, eventually that will become a Town problem.
Mr. Gunderud stated, they are grandfathered, that is the problem. These lots existed
prior to zoning and the people who own these have a right to develop them.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't understand the wording of the motion, what you want to
accomplish.
Mr. Cortellino answered, the motion is to address the problem of right of ways, private
driveways, or private roads giving access to houses where there are lots now without
a Town road and send to the Town Board.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero 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 (1) wall sign facing each road and to
install two (2) internal traffic directional signs on the site on property located on
Middlebush Road & Route 9, and being Parcel 46157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Edmond Loedy was present.
Mr. Caballero stated, I believe I have alot of correspondence on this request.
Mr. Caballero read a letter from the Dutchess County Dept. of Planning to the
Zoning Board of Appeals dated May 16th, 1986 which is on file.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if I understand the appeal, there is no clock sign on the appeal.
Mr. Caballero stated, we heard this appeal last month and we requested you go back and
come up with something that would be closer to our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Loedy stated, the first item that we requested I would like to skip over the very
first one and cover the other ones. We requested that on the east side, that was the
second item that the bank be permitted to use its corporate logo, they are willing to
do it your way and just simply have the Norstar Bank sign over the top of the window
and that does not require a variance. So we are withdrawing that request all together.
Mr. Caballero stated, let the records show that the request for one sign on the east
side of the building is withdrawn.
Page -12-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, for the record Mr. Loedy, I would like to read a letter to our
Zoning Administrator from Jennifer Van Tuyl, Attorney to the Town. She called Mr. Coon
of the New York State Attorney's office in Albany, the essence of the letter is that
we could entertain a various requests under the same appeal so that covers that
question that I had. We can act on them indivdually, act on some, deny some.
Mr. Loedy stated, the time temperature sign, the bank also agreed to withdraw that.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't believe that one is in this particular appeal. That is
Appeal #896.
Mr. Hirkala stated, so what you are saying is that Appeal X6896 is withdrawn and you
are making a new appeal.
Mr. Loedy answered, correct. No, portions of the previous appeal are withdrawn and
portions are not.
Mr. Caballero stated, this particular one that we are listening to would be for 2
signs and the directional signs within the parking lot, you withdrew one sign.
Mr. Loedy stated, we withdrew everything else.
Mr. Hirkala stated, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we bring Appeal 66896
at the same time.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All ayes.
Mr. Caballero read that appeal:
Appeal X6896, at the request of Edmond Loedy, seeking a variance of §416.51 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 2 wall mounted signs when no more than 1 sign
is permitted; §416.515 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a wall mounted
sign 9 foot in width when only 3 foot is permitted; §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance to allow a 116 s/f free standing time/temperature sign when 25 s/f
maximum is permitted for the face of the sign and to allow 20 foot is height when 10 foot
maximum is permitted for a free-standing sign on property located on Middlebush Road &
Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero stated, now you have both appeals put together so you can go through them
individually. The time/temperature he is removing, he is also conforming with one of
the signs. You have one sign on the east side that conforms and that is going to stay
the way it is.
Mr. Loedy answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi stated, Mr. Loedy, I am surprised that you are even in here this evening
because as I rode through your bank and viewed it form many different directions I even
question your signs as they are right now. In other words, Mr. Gunderud, I question
the footage of the signage that they have right now, in other words, forget what he is
asking for now, he has the cake, I don't know why he needs the icing on it. Relate to
R where you are going to put these in addition to what you have there already, maybe
�,r that is where I am confused.
Page -13-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Loedy stated, the sign that we are proposing, I am not sure where to start because
I am no quite sure I understand the question but I would like to say this, you said that
you believe we have more signage that we are permitted now.
Mr. Cortellino stated, right now you have no permission for signs, right, but there are
signs all over the place.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have signs all over the place, and my question, I challenge
your footage right now. I am saying that you are over right now without you even
asking for more.
Mr. Loedy stated, well I would respectfully submit that you are incorrect on that sir.
Mr. Landolfi stated, okay, good, prove me wrong. How many feet of signage do you have
there now?
Mr. Loedy answered, I believe, and I don't have the exact dimension but there is only one
sign on that building that faces the east, Route 9, it is the large sign that says
Norstar Bank, it is, I believe, 2 foot 6 inches high and we are permitted to go 3 foot
high and it is the width of the building there which I think is 17 feet long and that
sign is below what is permitted by the Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero asked, your sign that you have there now is 2.6 x 17 feet. You have
44 s/f. We only allow 25 s/f sign.
Mr. Loedy stated, this is a wall mounted sign.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the wall mounted sign you can have one square foot sign for each
lineal feet of building facing the road.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how many feet is the building?
Mr. Loedy answered, about 80 feet.
Mr. Gunderud stated, and it can't be over 807 of the length.
Mr. Loedy stated, we have a sign sustantially smaller than what is permitted.
Mr.Caballero stated, for the record, Hans agreed that the sign that is on the wall now
is within our Zoning Ordinance, the one facing east.
Mr. Loedey stated, Mr. Chairman, that was a sign that was put there temporarily and
we went to see an official, I don't know which one, and we went seeking for permission
to put that sign up, we reasearched it and we complied. It was either Mr. Gunderud or
the Building Inspector.
Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. Loedy, for the benefit of conducting this hearing would you
tell us, without interruption from the Board, what exactly you are proposing to do
there now that will conform with our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Loedy stated, as you know there weratwo things. The building is on a corner, we have
a right to put a sign on one face of the building. We also have a right to put a
free-standing sign facing each street. We do not want to put any free standing signs
facing any street. We would like to put one sign on each side of the building. One
facing Route 9 and one facing Middlebush. So, we are only permitted by the Ordinance
to put one sign up on the building even though its a corner, so, we are requesting
that you permit us to put one on each side of the building and the size would conform
with the Ordinance, just the number doesn't.
Page -14-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero stated, so basically you are looking to not put in a free standing sign
and you want a sign on each side of the building?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes.
Mr. Cabellero asked, do you still want those signs to direct the traffic within?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes, that is the other item.
Mr. Cabellero asked, would they have any advertising what so ever other than directing
traffic throught he parking lot?
Mr. Loedy answered, these are the signs, and if you insist we can remove those little
flags.
Mr. Landolfi stated, they are there right now.
Mr. Cabellero asked, now, if we allow you to put those signs out without your logo you
will be perfectly happy with that?
Mr. Loedy answered, I think the bank would be happy ..........
Mr. Cabellero stated, so the request, as I understand it is to put in a sign on the
Middlebush side that would conform with our Zoning Ordinance except that only one sign
is allowed on a building but they will not request a free standing sign, which they are
allowed to have.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they can have a free standing sign without coming here.
Mr. Cabellero stated, but their request is that they would like to have one sign on
each side of the building and not have the free standing sign.
Mr. Cortellino stated, they are trading the two free standing signs for two facial signs.
Mr. Cabellero askd if there was anyone in the audience to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one to speak for or against.
Mr. Cabellero asked for some discussion between the Board.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am opposed to it and I will explain why. Conceptually it is not
bad, in ..... County how many intersections do we have on 9 and other major roads, I can
invision everybody saying, what do I need this teeny little 25 s/f sign, I will trade
it in to get a big sign. I know we don't set a precident but never the less somebody
will come along, how come Norstar has 2 signs on the side of the building and we one
the corner have to pick which side we have to put ours.
Mr. Cabellero stated, it does not set up a precident, and we have made an agreement
that there would be no free standing sign so I don't see where we would have a problem.
Mr. Cortellino stated, making that agreement we are sort of re -zoning in a way. I am
not talking about re -zoning lands, we are changing the Zoning Ordinance so that we can
trade what the law requires for, I don't think that would be our function to make that
kind of a trade.
Page -15- '
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to know first of all what the size of these signs
would be and the reason I say that is because I know it is in the works of expansion.
It is in the works or expansion of the building. Now, I want to know what the sizes
of these signs are going to be.
Mr. Loedy answered, as I say, they do comply with the ordinance.
Mr. Cabellero stated, we can dictate the size of those signs now whether they expand the
building or not. If the Board's intention was to grant them this sign variance we can
dictate the size of those 2 signs, now, whether they expand the building or not.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am kind of concerned. If I was going anywhere and I am obviously
not a lawyer, but if I was going anywhere to ask for a sign I would be able to tell the
people that I was requesting them the size of the sign, like that, I would be able to
tell them what is there right now, I am thoroughly confused, I am going to use the
word deception that is going on here. I don't think, Number one, it was very misleading
the way the whole case right from the start, but that is history, I am willing to
swallow that. However, I would have thought Mr. Loedy would have come in here, if I
was buying a car from you and I asked you certain things like how many cylinders, I
wouldn't think you would have to go into a book, I would think you would rattle it off.
I cannot vote on this with any clear conscious not knowing the facts. We are questimating
and we are figuring. I really feel you are quite unprepaired to discuss the signs
based on the questions. I am eliminating myself.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, the expansion of the building, which way is it being expanded?
Mr. Loedy answered, to the east sir.
40
Mr. Urciuoli asked, it is going to be closer to the road then?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes. This gray area on the site plan is the part that is being
expanded. It was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. It comes 10 feet closer
to Route 9.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, so that will give you the surface of the front of that building.....
Mr. Cabellero stated, what the Board is missing, in my opinion, is that they are
entitled to a sign on the building and a free standing sign. If we allow them to have
the 2 signs on the building we can dictate, today, the size of those signs to the size
of the old building regardless whether they are expanding that building or not. If
the Board is inclined to do that by a motion and a second and a majority plus one
we can have that dictated, the size of those signs. If the Board decides to turn it
down then the their alternative would have to use the size sign that is supposed to
be done for the building and take a free standing sign to cover the other side of
Middlebush Road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a question to ask of Hans. The free standing signs on
Route 9, how far from the pavement does that have to be setback?
Mr. Gunderud answered, its from the property line, it varies from the pavement. Let me
ask another quesiton since he showed 10 feet towards there. There is a State ROW, how
LOO -01 far in does that extend on their apparant property?
Mr. Gunderud answered, he had 41 foot from the property line.
Page -16-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino asked, the addition winds up 41 foot from the property line, right?
Mr. Gunderud answered, the addition ends up 31 feet from the property line.
Mr. Cortellino asked, from the property line or State ROW line?
Mr. Gunderud answered, their property line, same line.
Mr. Cortellino asked, and the free standing sign has to be setback?
Mr. Gunderud answered, 25 feet.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what about the setback? What is the setback on Route 9?
Mr. Landolfi asked, I thought the setback was 75 feet on a County Road and on a State
Road its what?
Mr. Hirkala answered, 75 feet.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, the building is going to be 31 feet back from the road once the new
addition is on?
Mr. Loedy answered, that is correct. That is in one part. In another part it is
29'9, there is a slight diagonal.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, isn't there a 75 foot setback?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I see where you are driving at. It appears that a variance should
have been granted. But the addition has already been approved. The application had
been before the Planning Board for, since last year.
Mr. Cortellino stated, but this is the first we heard of it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the end of last year, so apparently the Zoning Administrator at the
end of last year missed the setback requirement and that went through the total
Planning Board and it was now approved.
Mr. Cortellino stated, he appealed for the free standing sign on the east edge, okay,
how far from the building would it be?
Mr. Gunderud answered, he is only 31 feet and the setback is 25 foot....
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am not worried about the trade then.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not gaining anything in the trade because this free standing
sign that he is giving up would be in the middle of the parking lot anyway. So he can't
have one, period. He can't have a free standing sign without a variance.
Mr. Cabellero stated, it seems that you got a buildign approval there without a variance
from this Board and it is required. Somebody granted it but.....
Mr. Gunderud stated, apparently there was no variance because it was granted approval
without a variance.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, the building has not been constructed yet.
Page -17-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think it is a legal issue. 30 days have passed since the Planning
Board approved this. I think you might want to check with the Town Attorney as to the
legality of whether that would stand now with the decision that was given by granted
by the Board, or, whether because he hasn't started construction he would have to now.....
It was my understanding that once the Board gives approval and 30 days have past and
no one takes exception to the decision then you have missed your opportunity to challenge
the decision.
Mr. Hirkala stated, illegal is illegal. The matter of when you catch it is when a vested
right is there.
Mr. Gunderud stated, this is the first I noticed that myself because I was not involved
with the review of the addition at all but I think I do have to check with the Attorney
to the Town on that because obviously the building permit hasn't been issued yet.
Mr. Cabellero stated, it seems like we have a couple of problems here and something has
been let out of the bag with that addition to the building. It is illegal.
Nancy Forest - Sign Language.
I just wanted to point out with the trade off that he wants to make here aesthetically
with the property sloping up so high and if he was to put the sign up there going up
an additional 10 feet it would create more of a focal point then just letting him
have the one on the building and the one on the side. The parking lot issue, if they
have, you recommended this to me at one time when I ran into the problem of being
in between a rock and a hard place, I could't come back 25 feet without going into the
parking lot, but I couldn't get the variance for getting less than 25 feet, so you
suggested to me that if he was not restricted to the exact amount of parking places
in other words, if he was required to have 80 and he only had 80 that he couldn't
do it, but if he had 100 spaces and only needed 80 that you could box out that part
of the space and it would no longer be a parking lot.
Mr. Loedy stated, I would like to say a couple of things, I agree with the gentlemen
that I don't have all the facts here that I was being asked but I didn't realize I
was going to be asked about signs that are conforming. Now, these signs that you
asked me are conforming signs in size.
Mr. Cabellero stated, if you have 2 signs there they are not conforming.
Mr. Loedy stated, there are a number of which are not conforming but the size of the
sign is conforming.
Mr. Cabellero stated, if you have a 20 s/f sign that conforms and you have two of
them, now you have 40 foot of signage, it does not conform. They might be the right
size individually but they don't conform because there is two of them. Total square
footage, you have too much, whether they are 2 separate signs or together. Your
present signage does not conform, it is illegal.
Mr. Landolfi stated, in light of what we have been observing here we could go on all
night. I recommended last month for you to go back and do your thing and come back
in. I would almost like the same proposal only I want, when we see you again or
whom ever represents Norstar, we love facts. Somebody has to present to us some facts
so that we can render a decision. I don't think, all I hear tonight, I don't think
anyone here on this Board tonight can make an honest decision either for or against
this because I don't think the facts are present. This addition is another new ball
game. So, now we have another concern, in fact I think Mr. Gunderud even pointed out
that perhaps he has to get with our legal council relative to the decision for that, so,
Page -18-
June 10th, 1986
this a deeper thing that just the signage here. There are real some legal matters that
enter into it that have to be entertained before we can even go on.
Mr. Loedy stated, I am not confused. I asked for 2 things. One, interior directional
signs which the Planning Board requested us to put there and we are prepared to drop
this so that this is a very simple.........
Mr. Urciuoli stated, from an aesthetic point of view I don't have any problems with
putting signs on the building if the free standing sign is given up. I think it
would be better to come down Route 9, North or South, and not to see another pole
or whatever you want to call it sticking in the ground with a sign on it, whether you
are coming across Middlebush Road or Myers Corners Road providing we can regulate
the size of what we will call the secondary sign on the side street. The problem or
the issue that I am more concerned with now is the setback of the proposed addition,
I know that is not the issue with the variance right now but I think that before any
action can be taken on this variance I would like to see something be straightened out
with that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact of the free standing sign with the existing park, the fact
that it is an existing building and a free standing sign not being able to be 25 feet
away in the middle of a parking lot can be construed to be a hardship to a certain
extent. The fact of the signage, in my opinion, being a part of, signs are a part
of the site plan, so theoretically there is no site plan approval for signs are upon
the site plan and conforming to the ordinance. Now if you have signs on the site plan
conforming to the ordinance you can do what you want right now. If you don't have
them on there conforming to the ordinance you don't have a site plan until you have
sign approval, that is the way I look at it anyway, so it seems to me that the setback
question would be based on whether or not you have an approval and I don't think you
have the approval if you don't have the sign, that is my opinion. I would not be in a
position to be able to make a decision on this particular appeal until I knew exactly
what size signs you are requesting and what size signs would be allowed so that we can
make the determination as to whether or not we would like to see that.
Mr. Cabellero stated, I think I am going to suggest to this Board that maybe we should
table this matter until we refer to council in reference to the setback of the building
and I would like to give Mr. Loedy a last opportunity to explain exactly what he wants
there now as far as signage in reference to this appeal regardless of what the setback
problem is. So on the record we have what he is requesting, so far I have no heard
him, his request of what he wants to do there.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, according to the ordinance he is allowed one large
sign and also according to the ordinance under §416.55 in addition to that sign he is
allowed an identification sign on another wall affixed , parallel to the outer wall
of the structure facing upon street or parking lot not faced by the primary sign.
Mr. Cabellero stated, basically we are back to where I started from. Mr. Loedy, would
you present what you would like to have done in signage on that property and then I
will move to a motion from this Board.
Mr. Loedy stated, I would like to have one, permission to erect or use the ones that are
existing 2 directional signs within the property. And, in addition to that, I would
like to be able to put a sign on Middlebush Road side of the building the size of which
would either comply with the ordinance
p y or comply with any limits you would set on it,
That is all there really is to it.
Page -19-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero asked, so you basically, as I understand it, are asking for a sign on
Route 9 that conforms with our code in size.
Mr. Loedy answered, yes.
Mr. Cabellero asked, in addition to that you are asking for the 2 smaller signs to
direct traffic in the parking lot or leave the ones that are there presently?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes.
miaum
Mr. Cabellero asked, and your last request would be to have a sign of whatever size
the bank desires on the Middlebush side or whatever this Board would allow you to put
on the Middlebush side of the site. At this time I would entertain a motion from this
Board in reference to this hearing in connection with the setback of that building
also.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion we table this until such time as we get a determination
from the Attorhey as to the legality of the setback on the building and also to gain
more information from the applicant as to the size and the make up of the proposed signs.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cabellero stated, we would like to send a letter to our Attorney in reference to
this building being built without the proper setback or without coming to the Zoning
Board of Appeals for a variance so later on we can make a determination on the signage.
The Board called for a break at 8:30 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:40 P.M..
Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4890, at the request of Michael Caltagirone, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a deck
with a 13 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on property located on the
corner of Bell Air Lane & Mina Drive, and being Parcel 46157-02-962785, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Emily Nelson, representing her parents.
Mr. Cabellero stated, you were here last month and we decided to go and take a look at
the property and I believe that some of us were out on the property. Do you have any
further information that might help us make a decision on that deck.
Ms. Nelson stated, I talked to some of my neighbors and got some notes here stating
that they would not object to it at all and in a matter of fact, if anything, it would
help for a little privacy, especially for the house behind because if we put that deck
there it would have a railing and since that lot is a corner lot it is really close to
that other house back there.
Page -20-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero read letters from the neighbors into the record which are on file:
Elizabeth Simone - lives on the side.
Michael Mirski - directly behind the property - 25 Bell Air Lane
They had no problem with the deck.
Ms. Nelson stated, another thing that why we wanted a deck and not a patio is the fact
that my father was injured in the war and he has a problem with his hip and his left
leg and that was one of the reasons why they had a ranch built and they went through
all that expense of having a ranch and at the last meeting someone said that maybe
you could go down 2 or 3 steps onto a patio and we are trying to eliminate all the steps
for his benefit and I brought proof that he is a disabled vet.
Mr. Cabellero stated, make the records show that the owner of the property is a disabled
veteran and we have an Army of the United States Honorable Discharge with that fact on it.
For the benefit of the Board, I did go take a look at the property and the sliding doors
are so low, close to the ground that I would consider that to be almost a patio rather
tan a deck in the heighth that is required to get it off the ground.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I went out. I have no problem with it.
Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal:
There was no one present for or against this appeal.
Mr. Cabellero stated, at this time I would like to entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I make a motion that this variance be granted.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi made"a intoion to close that appeal.
Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4891, at the request of John Sokol, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
where the frontyard setback is 35 feet when 75 feet is required on a County Road on
property located on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 46156-01-439566, in the
Town of Wappinger.
John Sokol was present.
Mr. Cabellero stated, I believe we do have some correspondence from the County that
was sent officially to us which stated basically the same as the correspondence that
you requested from the County and it was sent to you.
Mr. Cabellero then read the following letters into the Minutes. These letters are
on file:
Page -21-
June 10th, 1986
Letter dated April 10th, 1986 to Hans Gunderud from the Dutchess County Dept. of
Public Works.
Letter dated -June 5th, 1986 to Zoning Board of Appeals from Dutchess County Dept.
of Planning.
Letter dated May 30th, 1986 to Linda Berberich from James Napoli, Supervising Public -
Health Engineer.
Mr. Cabellero asked the Board if they had any additional questions.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is there any way you can, you are really looking here for a variance
of like 40 feet. Is there anyway that you could come on that at all. Here is a concern
I have, we have been trying as best as possible to maintain the 75 feet as close as we
can to allow, obviously, for expansion, if expansion if it does take place and
Osborne Hill Road is a very heavily traveled road and I suspect that it is only going to
get heavier over the years and I am just wondering if you could give at all on your
request.
Mr. Sokol stated, I think to reinterate on the Board of Health's letter that is the
only way that that lot can be built on and after talking to the County Highway Dept.
they had no objection what so ever to reducing that because the feeling I got was
that most to the houses were very close to the road and if there was going to be
improvement there it would be a hardship on everybody. So, the County Highway Dept.
had no objection at all to reducing the frontyard requirement, and I understand that
that was put into the Town Zoning Ordinance to accomodate the Co. Highway Dept..
There were no more questions from the Board.
Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or aginast this
appeal.
There was no one to speak for or against this appeal.
Mr. Cabellero asked for a motion on this matter.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to grant the appeal based on the letter and
information we received from James Napoli, Supervising Public Health Engineer as to
the marginal aspects of the lot.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Page -22-
June 10th, 1986
Vote: All Ayes.
Ms. Forest stated, what we are looking for is a 5 foot setback from the property line
for a sign when 25 feet is required. That is what we are asking for.
Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this
appeal.
There was no one to speak for or agianst this item.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is it going to be illuminated?
Ms. Forest answered, yes, it will be electric from within.
Mr. Landolfi asked, can I ask you the hours of operation of that off hand?
Ms. Forest answered, I believe they are only daytime on, it is not like a retail type
business so to speak.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - 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 hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal:
4893, at the request of Michael Schnorr, seeking a
variance of Article IV,
_Appeal
§416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 foot setback from the
property line to install a sign when 25 foot is required
on property located on
Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46258-02-754506, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Nancy Forest, Sign Language was present.
Mr.Cabellero stated, I have some correspondence before we
hear from the appellant
from our Attorney. I would suggest that a member of the
Board make a motion to
close this public hearing to discuss the legal matter on
this hearing before we
continue.
to
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close the public hearing
for a legal discussion.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to re -open the hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Ms. Forest stated, what we are looking for is a 5 foot setback from the property line
for a sign when 25 feet is required. That is what we are asking for.
Mr. Cabellero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this
appeal.
There was no one to speak for or agianst this item.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is it going to be illuminated?
Ms. Forest answered, yes, it will be electric from within.
Mr. Landolfi asked, can I ask you the hours of operation of that off hand?
Ms. Forest answered, I believe they are only daytime on, it is not like a retail type
business so to speak.
Page -23-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think why I am asking the question is why light it up?
Ms. Forest answered, I don't think there is anything in the ordinance that.......
Mr. Landolfi stated, because, I am just thinking ahead a little bit. If its going
to be illuminated like you are saying and it looks like a very nice sign I can see
the people leaving it on like all hours of the night.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the ordinance does regulate the lighting, regulates the hours
of lighting. May be illuminated during the business hours only, provided that such
illumination not be twinkling and flashing intermitent. Illuminated during business
hours only.
Mr. Cortellino stated, we can't set the business hours.
Ms. Forest stated, I didn't realize that. Most every sign in Wappinger that I can
think of on Route 9 is lit all night long.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think alot has to do with the zoning. You are talking a straight
commercial zone. What is this property zoned off hand?
Mr. Gunderud answered, neighborhood business. There are many violations of that
section of the ordinance.
Mr. Urciuoli asked, is there any possibility to maybe help the glare from the illumination,
that the background not be white? Maybe the letters be white?
Ms. Forest answered, put a darker background?
Mr. Urciuoli stated, this way the words will come out but you won't get all this glare
from this.
Ms. Forest answered, it is definitely possible. This happened to be the colors that
he chose. The lettering and the tub pretty much take up a good majority of this
sign. What you would actually be doing is reversing, if I put the tub in a white and
put the lettering in a white and the rest in dark you would have really basically
the same amount of light and dark.
Mr. Cabellero stated, my main concern is that they are requesting more than 807 of a
variance on the sign from the setback. I hate to see any signs that close of a percentage.
If they were asking for a 5 foot variance from the 25 or even 10 foot from the 25,
I would tend to consider something like that. 20 feet is entirely, in my opinion, is
too much of a variance, especially with that particular piece of property is where
traffic is going very fast and it is not ina commercial area. A smaller sign for them
at the proper setback, in my opinion is what is called for in that area. Not something
right on the street, practically on the road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, originally, when Mr. Schnorr was in it was that customers do
not go to the house. He does not contain supplies. So now this not really not an
identification sign, it is an advertising sign. If customers are not coming to my
place, why do I need a 6 x 24 illuminated sign. I am getting in calls and I am
bringing supplies out. My insurance man for instance has a little shingle outside his
house. I don't go to his house, because he comes to my house to conduct business and
Mr. Schnorr testified that he leaves the place to conduct business. He is not looking
for customers off the street so, therefore, this is an advertising rather than an
identification sign.
Page -24-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero stated, I also believe that do to the background of this property we
are really not even supposed to be in that area for this type of business. We should
adhere to the sign ordinance regardless of which way they acquired the permission to
operate that business there. Are there any other comments from the Board?
Mr. Cabellero then asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make a motion that the sign be denied, the variance be denied.
Ms. Forest stated, I would just like to explain my reasons for requesting the variance.
I feel that the requirements for a hardship are covered here. I took some pictures
here. The biggest problem that we have is that the property frontage is less than
100 feet, that would be okay if the adjoing properties were clear. However, as you
can see by these pictures, the adjoing properties have trees directly right out into
the road, to the edge of the road. From the ROW we have about 25 feet from the edge
of the road to his property line, going back the additional 25 feet makes it so that
if you look at the one picture there you are on the curve of his driveway before you
would even see that sign and infact the day that I was taking the pictures there was
a truck going to pull in there and did not see it until they were on the driveway, and
I am being very honest, there was almost a pile up there.
Mr. Cabellero stated, that is why we don't want properties in those areas where they
don't belong.
Ms. Forest stated, that has nothing to do with me. We went through this last time and
that is not my concern and I don't.......
Mr. Gunderud asked, may I make a statement to that comment? The property is zoned
Neighborhood Business and I can't understand why the Board insists on saying that that
business does not belong on that property. It was zoned NB back in 1980, it was
zoned NB back to 1963.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is a plumbing contractor allowed in NB?
Mr. Gunderud answered, he is not a contractor.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is he then?
Mr. Gunderud answered, he is a plumber.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he is a contractor.
Mr. Gunderud answered, he does not sell contractor materials.
Mr. Cabellero stated, that is what this whole thing is about, to show where people can
come and buy this material.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the guy is a contractor. He goes out and he contracts with
somebody to do some plumbing work in their house.
Mr. Cabellero asked, why would h need identification if he didn't want you to walk into
the showroom? Have you been into that showroom?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Page -25-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero asked, it is not a showroom where you can buy a piece of equipment?
Ms. Forest answered, no, its not.
Mr. Gunderud answered, he doesn't sell equipment, he is a plumber.
Mr. Cabellero stated, okay, duly noted Hans statement that it is........
Mr. Gunderud stated, I take exception to the Board's insistance that that is a non-
conforming piece of business. I think when the permit was issued years ago it was
issued correctly and the when the CO's were finally issued they were issued correctly.
Mr. Cabellero stated, duly noted.
Ms. Forest stated, well if they are allowed a sign, I thought that was the whole purpose
of an area variance, if they did definitely had a hardship from being able to expose
where they are. I don't know anything about the past and the business and how it is
zoned, that has nothing to do with me. I only come for a variance, believe me, if I
really feel they have a need for it otherwise I would be at these meetings 3 nights a
week in every Town in the County. I do feel they have a hardship. If we put that sign
25 feet back it will not be seen. You allowed him to put, he is in that area and he can
have a business but he can't advertise it. The signs directly across the street in NB
are advertising signs besides location signs. I don't see a difference from one to
the other. They are both in NB, they are allowed to have their building sign and a
free standing sign and they are used for advertising as much as they are for location
which his would be also. If you are riding down the street, I am not saying that he is
using it in advertising in the sense that if you pass a sign a certain amount of times
a day to or from work or in location and that sign stands out in your mind and you
know there is a plumber there then if you have a need for him you will recall that
he was there. By not letting him have a sign where it can be visible gives him a
financial hardship as far as I am concerned. He is getting nothing from it. Other
people are having advertising signs out and he can't.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if I may address the business across the street, that is a plaza
and they are allowed the free standing sign as well as the ones on the .... you can't
compare the two, they are not....
Mr. Hirkala stated, on that same question. The fact of the matter is that this type of
business, people don't go to him, they call him. They look him up in the yellow pages
or they know him. They don't come knocking on his door saying I need a plumber tonight.
It is midnight and my tub is over flowing. That particular statement doesn't hold
water. But the fact of the matter is that the man specifically stated before this
Board that he had no retail business. People didn't come to him so he doesn't have to
advertise in that method. He can advertise with his trucks. He has got a mailbox,
a large mailbox out there with a sign on it, he is advertising in the yellow pages,
in the newspaper. That is the type of advertising to be. That sign is not an
advertising sign for him unless he did retail business in this place of business.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a feeling that he is entitled to a sign, but what is
discussion now is whether he should get it 5 feet off the road. If we don't give him
the 5 feet off the road, let him have the sign but not 5 feet off the road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling exactly.
Page -26-
June 10th, 1986
Ms. Forest stated, if you look at the map, its not 5 feet off the road. It is 5 feet
from his property line which come up 25 feet.
Mr. Cortellino stated, when he built that house there those trees were there. He knew
where that lot was, he knew where that road was. He knew what he would have to do if
he wanted a sign. So, the way I look at it is he is an adult. He should know what
the requirements , he is a business man.
Mr. Cabellero stated, a self created hardship.
Mr. Cortellino stated, he set up his own little problem and I am not here to rectify
his little problem.
Ms. Forest stated, no, I understand that but than in any variance if that were the case
of it being self-inflicted then it seems to me there would be no need for any area
variance to be requested for anything because anybody that takes or buys a building
inflicts it upon themselves.
Mr. Cabellero stated, you are coming and appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals and
this body is going to make a decision whether they should grant it or not.
Ms. Forest stated, I accept that, but while I am here I would like to get as much
information as possible, like I said, I don't want to have to keep coming back here for
denials if I know whether I am going to get it or not. I just won't come here. If I
know what, and that is why I am asking these questions.
Mr. Cortellino stated, then you have to come here everytime because that is how you find
out when it is self-inflicted and when it isn't. Yes, everything you have a parted it.
Self-inflicted is when I do something and cause a problem and then say help me.
Ms. Forest asked, if someone rents a store on Route 9 that is 50 feet setback from the
road, State property, and they can receive a variance less than 25, zero setback and
they self-inflicted that they rented that knowing...
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is an existing building.
Mr. Cortellino stated, say they put up the building there, that would be different.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this Board has the right to go to court to tell some people to
tear a building down if it is put up in the wrong place. It all depends on many
variables and you are asking for a black and white answered, where there are no
black and white answers. Every case is different. Every case is based on its own
individual merit.
Ms. Forest stated, and thats why I am asking. But the situation that I just brought up,
a man built a bulding and he inflicted the problems of the setback, he knew he was
x amount of feet off the road but that tenant comes in here and gets an approval for a
zero setback because they are so far back from the road. Well, he can turn around
and say, you shouldn't have rented there, you should have checked to see if you could
put a sign up first, but he got his approval. AL1 I am trying to do is make my job
easier when I deal with a customer. I understand that every case is different, and I
explain that to them but it is very hard if there isn't a difference when a customer
says to me, but so and so got a variance, my hardship is worse than theirs and I know
that is is, why can't I get one. How do I sell a job that way? I am just trying to
make my job easier and yours to.
Page -27-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cabellero stated, I have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the motion on the floor was to deny the variance. I don't
want to use the word self-inflicted but, there was knowledge of where the building
was to be, should have been aware of the Zoning Ordinance and what the requirements
are and therefore, he went into business, perhaps, thinking that we would grant him
the variance, there was no assurance that we would grant him the variance.
Mr. Cabellero stated, I would like to add to that that the sign would be to close to
the road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes, and would be distracting, especially since it is illuminated.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - abstain
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi abstained because he had personally done business with Schnorr Plumbing
and Heating.
The motion was carried.
Ms. Forest asked, as long as I conform to the ordinance in square footage and the
setback I could put up a sign.
Mr. Cabellero answered, of course. You have to get a permit from the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close this appeal.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4900, at the request of John & Brenda Durcan, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 1118 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to convert and
existing 3 family dwelling, which was built prior to 1963 and which contains over
3,000 s/f of useable floor area, to a 7 unit apartment building on property located
on Route 9D, and being Parcel 46157-02-136640, in the Town of Wappinger.
Paul Wattington - neighbor of John Durcan.
He has a family member in the hospital so, I am sort of standing in and I hope I can...
Mr. Cabellero asked, are you John Durcan?
Mr. Wattington answered, no I am not.
Mr. Cabellero asked, you did not sign this application for .....
✓ Mr. Wattington answered, no, I did not.
Mr. Cabellero stated, I don't think that we can legally hear this case. Do you have a
letter saying that you represent him?
Page -28-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Wattington answered, no, he just gaveme everything in 5 minutes and that was it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, this is only really going to the Planning Board anyway.
Mr. Wattington stated, I think he wanted me to take some of your concerns down, not
present his case really but just to hear what you had to say.
Mr. Cabellero asked Mr. Gunderud, he is asking for 7 apartments in 3,000 s/f. What
is the minimum size of an apartment?
Mr. Gunderud answered, 600 s/f I believe.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the application I have here says that it is in a R-20 zoning district.
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, and he has 3 apartments there which makes him legally non -conforming.
How does he ask for 7 in a non -conforming through a Special Use Permit process?
Mr. Cabellero stated, I think my quesiton to Hans would not even allow 7 due to the
square footage. He wants to get an idea of what to bring back.
Mr. Gunderud stated, under the Zoning Ordinance, under principal uses in residential
zones, 418, a SUP conversion of an existing dwelling built prior to 1962 and having
a useful floor area of not less than 3,000 s/f for a 2 family or a multi -family
residence or other use as permitted in the district provided that each dwelling unit
produced from such conversion shall have at least 6,000 s/f of useful floor area and
off street parking requirements as well as other requirements of the zone. It was put
in many Zoning Ordinances, particularily ours to take care of the old farm house type
of situation. A very large house in a residential zone and most Zoning Ordinances
contain such a clause that will allow those large houses to be converted into apartments
and this is a house which qualifies. It was definitely built prior to 1962 and it
defnitely.
Mr. Hirkala sated, prior to 1963 is what mine says.
Mr. Cabellero stated, presently there are 3 families in that house is non -conforming?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Cabellero asked, a permitted non -conforming use and he wants to expand on that?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. I believe that Mr. Durcan had come up with somewhere
around 4,000, some odd, square feet.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think for him to work out to make the division we would have
to know the exact amounts of square feet.
Mr. Cabellero stated, basically what we would probably want to look at is a little bit
more information in reference to the structure, the parking that is going to be made
available, useable, not gross.
Mr. Wattington stated, he shows 12 parking spaces to be added. A refuse enclosure and
a mercury vapor light.
Mr. Cabellero asked, how many spaces are there now?
Page -29-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Wattington answered, I have no idea.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it is going on to the Planning Board anyway.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we refer this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cabellero asked it there was anyone to speak in favor or against this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cabellero read the next appeal:
Appeal #902, at the request of Tanya Mortenson, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§421, 1f4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to establish a day care/nursery
school on nrouerty located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46158-04-980125,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Al Cappelli was present.
Mr. Cappelli stated, I have here a site plan for a conversion of an existing single
family residence located on Myers Corners Road, opposite Spook Hill. An existing all
masonary building and what Ms. Mortenson plans to do is to put on 2 wings for additional
space and operate a day care/nursery school out of that facility. You may be familiar
with the facility that they have presently on Old Hopewell Road in the Town of East
Fishkill which they have done alot of work down there.making it a very good facility.
Tots -n- Us. They are planning to do the same type of work here, restoring the old
building and put an addition on. We have already been to the Planning Board to present
this informally. One of the concerns, perhaps the only concern that they had was the
lcoation where we had the entry driveway which is where it presently existed. They were
concerned about site distance around the corner and we told them to take that up with
the County so, they really didn't have any problems with it and they just said to
come here because we need a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Cabellero stated, formally, we are going to refer this back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to refer this back to the Planning Board.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like the Planning Board to look at the plan and assess
whether they should submit the short or long form EAF.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Cabellero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Page -30-
June 10th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to close that appeal.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this was given to me, the possible revision to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Board made a request to the Town Board to make some possible revisions to
the Zoning Ordinance that they deem to be important enough to be looked at now rather
than wait until a new Zoning Ordinance come into effect and this might possibly be one
of the things that we should be looking at to make a recommendation to the Town Board
to look at immediately.
Mr. Hirkala read the section.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I agree with the concept but the words don't say what you are
trying to do.
There was some discussion among the Board.
Mr. Cabellero asked, how do we refer to them that we would like the concept but to make it
in stronger wording so that.....
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to request that the Town Board refer to its committee
for proper wording.
Mr. Cabellero stated, so, our motion to send to the Town Board would be to make the
wording strong enough that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be able to stand up in
court.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All aye.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
CI (��U-C, (.
U
Lierich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
lb