1986-05-13ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 13TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal #818, at the request of Hugh Greer, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive sales, service & repair on
property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #871, at the request of Contrail Associates, seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §421, 1f5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a medical
clinic on property located on All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6157-02-870864,
in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal.#873, at the request of Herbert H. Redl, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit AAMCO Transmissions
on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-574315, in the Town
of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #886, at the request of Hubie Greer, seeking a Variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 20 foot sideyard & rearyard setbacks
when 50 foot maximum is required on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-
623038, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal #889, at the request of Matthew C. Thiemann, 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 deck where the rearyard will be 17 feet where
25 feet and 20 feet respectively are required on property located on 43 Fieldstone Blvd.,
and being Parcel #6257-10-336742, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal #890, 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 & Mina Drive, and being Parcel #6157-02-962785, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal #891, at the reqeust of John A. 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 feet is required on a
County Road on property located on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel #6156-01-439566, in
the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal #892, at the request of Donald Subrize, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition to be built on
a house which is legally non -conforming on a private road in the Town of Wappinger on
property located on Easter Road, and being Parcel #6056-01-238747, in the Town of Wappinger.
9. Appeal #893, 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 #6258-02-754506, in the Town of Wappinger.
10. Appeal #894, at the request of Allan J. Finn, seeking a variance of Article IV, §425
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a driveway onto a private road on
a lot which has legal road frontage on a Town Road on property located on Pine Ridge Drive,
Lot #3 Stear Subdivision, and being Parcel #6256-02-800965, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -2-
May 13th, 1986
11. Appeal #895, at the request of the Wappingers Elks, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow (1) sign 17' x 3' affiexed to
the building where only a 2 foot sign is permitted in a residential zone on property
located on Route 376, and being Parcel 46358-01-180843, in the Town of Wappinger.
12. 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 46157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 44851, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 12 x 60 (plus
addition) mobile home with a 14 x 60 mobile home on non -conforming property located on
Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel 4615-02-852766,
in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #863, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappigner Zoning Ordinance to replace a 10 x 50 (plus
addition) mobile home with a 14 x 52 or 24 x 44 mobile home on non -conforming property
located on Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel
IL 46156-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 4879, at the request of Everitt Way, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the replacement of a 10 x 50 &
10 x 35 with 28 x 48 mobile home on Lot 421, Sunset Farm, located on Osborne Hill Road,
and being Parcel 446156-02-560945, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 44883, at the request of Klaus Wimmer, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit on a
lot with no legal road frontage on property located on a private road off Myers Corners
Road, and being Parcel 46158-02-898620, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal 44885, at the request of Albert J. Marma, reuqest for a re -hearing.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 44887, at the request of the Wappinger Falls Trailer Park, Inc., seeking an
interpretation of Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, tenant
has vacated Lot 441; appellant wishes to replace vacated mobile home with a new mobile
home 14' x 48' owned by new tenant (previous mobile home was 10' x 55').
2. Appeal 4888, at the request of the Wappinger Falls Trailer Park, Inc., seeking an
interpretation of Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, tenant
has vacated Lot 4445, appeallant wishes to replace vacated mobile home with a new mobile
home 14' x 48' owned by new tenant (previous mobile home was 10' x 55').
k✓ CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Memo dated 3/10/86 to Irene Paino from Hans Gunderud, RE: St. Cabrini Home.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
MAY 13TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
MINUTES WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, May 13th, 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 accept the Minutes of the April meeting.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the Minutes.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent at time of vote
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if all the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had been, according to the records available in the
Assessor's office.
Mr. Caballero stated, we will hear each appeal individually, anybody from the audience
that would like to make a statement for or against the appeal is welcome to come forward.
We will give you ample time for you to give us your views on the appeal, we will give
the appellant ample time to make his presentation, uninterrupted by the audience or by
the Board. When they are through with their presentation I will ask the Board individually
for questions of the appeallant and I will allow people from the audience to speak. If
the audience has a question I would prefer that they will be addressed to the Chairman
so that I can recognize them.properly and we won't get any cross talk.
Mr. Caballero read the first appeal:
Appeal #818, at the request of Hugh Greer, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive sales & service & repairs on
property located on Route 9, and being Parcel X66158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger.
John E. Railing, Engineer for Mr. Greer was present.
Mr. Railing stated, the first appeal #818, there is another on here also related to this
particular property, but this particular appeal relates to a.request for a Special Use
Permit to place a automobile repair shop and showroom on this particular property. The
property is located, it is probably best described opposite the new Pizza Hut, directly
across the street. It is in an SC zone, it is approximately 1.769 acres, the piece lies
on the east side of the road. We have been before the Planning Board, and I believe you
have the letter from them indicating their recommendations. We have discussed this
Page -2-
May 13th, 1986
obviously at other meetings before. Primarily he is going to develop in two stages,
the first stage being the automotive repair and the second state being the showroom.
on the site plan.
Mr. Caballero stated, I do have a letter from the Planning Board and I would like to read
it into the record: (Memo dated 3/31/86)
At the March 24th, 1986 meetinf of the Planning Board the above mentioned application
for a Special Use Permit was discussed.
Mr. Parsons made a motion that the Planning Board has no problem with the Special use
Permit only. The plans are not complete enough to do a site plan review so there may
be changes.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if there was any other correspondence.
Letter from the DOT dated March 31st, 1985.
Mr. Railing stated, I think basically what that letter states is that that access can be
obtained on this particular site.
Mr. Caballero asked if any member of the Board had any questions.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the concern I have is that I would like to see the finalization of
the plans rather than just arbitrarily go either for or against. From what I see here,
Mr. Railing, I don't believe the plans are complete yet, is that correct?
Mr. Railing answered, for site plan purposes, no. The plan basically shows the entrance
where the parking is, where the building is going to be. The applicant did not want to
proceed with a great deal of money towards the engineering relating to the detailed of
signage, details of drainage, details of refuse enclosure, lighting, landscaping, etc.,
until he knew that in fact he could obtain a Special Use Permit. Obviously that is very
critical to the development of this site plan. When we looked at it with the Planning
Board we looked at it in the sense of the location of the property, what the proposal
for the uses on the property and whether or not it was in keeping with the ordinance, and
I think the recommendation indicates that they have no objection to it on that basis. We
also discussed, yes, there is more detail that is required on here such as landscaping,
lighting, etc..
Mr. Landolfi stated, actually, he is covering some of my concerns. For instance, signage,
things of that nature. We obviously, that would be factors to consider.
Mr. Railing stated, the way that we addressed it at the Planning Board stage is that
was the Planning Board's purview and that the SUP related tot he use only lies with the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Caballero stated, but we would have to see something to help us along with our
decision.
Mr. Railing stated, I can only restate what I just said. Certain responsibilities are
the Zoning Board's and certain are the, if you would like information relative to the
concept of the drainage, the drainage will come to the front of the property where it
will cross the road and its a state drainage system which come across the road there,
it ends at the southerly boundry of the Pizza Hut property then travels through a low
land area, it is not a designated wetland, but it certainly is swampy, and then out
from there it travels down into Walbaums and eventually goes into the Hunter's Creek
so we have an outfall for the drainage. Landscaping, lighting, I can meet whatever the
requirements are of the ordinance during the site plan stage.. We have the layout of the
Page -3-
parking and the buildings on here.
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino asked, while it is true, lets say that the Planning Board may do site
approval, how many trees, what the landscaping should be, different approaches and what
not, we are not just a rubber stamp for the Special Permit, we have things that we wish
to look at. For instance, while the Enviornmental Council may concern themselves about
if there is any oil mix in the water, it is also within our purview to ask the same thing
so what Mr. Landolfi says, without a set of plans we do not have a picture of what the
situation is.
Mr. Railing stated, even on the site plan it wouldn't represent how they are dealing
with the oil waste. I can tell you how we will be dealing with it.and that is that it
will be maintained in a self-contained unit and the waste oil will be hauled away by a
ceritifed hauler to an approved site for proper disposal.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the other problem that I have is that I have no idea how many bays
are going to be there,.......
Mr. Landolfi finished, or the doors, are the doors going to be in line with what we are
trying to plan throughout the Town?
Mr. Railing answered, the doors are on the front of the Stage 1 building, which would be
the southern end of the building. Generally perpendicular to Route 9. It is not exactly
perpendicular because the site doesn't lend itself to that. They will not be on the
sides facing the front.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am concerned about the same thing Charlie and Joe are concerned
about. Another thing that I am concerned about that I get this letter today from the
state that 1985 they reviewed it, fine, and we have a letter over here, 1985, send
the plans. We haven't seen any ingress and egress approved or even any recommendations
from you people that the state would approve and that would be a hairy problem over
there, I am concerned about safety on the site. I am concerned about whether or not
there might have been some move made by the applicant to possible approach Walbaums
and get an access from that property. Has anything been done along those lines?
Mr. Railing stated, going back to the history of the project, if you recall whats happened
on this particular piece is that there was an interpretation that was made at one point
relative to some problems at another site. Now it has since been vacated after probably
a year and something of time. The original DOT submission was made indicating the
location of the driveway, the configuration of the entrance and on the basis of that
plan which was submitted to them they accepted that and asked for a construction detail.
Again, without having a SUP it becomes rather expensive and costly for an applicant to
do a complete design on something he doesn't even know whether he is going to obtain.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling first and formost, the chances are pretty good that you
are not going to get turned down on a SUP. What you are going to get are some conditions
and I would suspect that possibly the applicant doesn't want to live with those
conditions, that is the choice that he has to second guess us on. How do we set conditions
if we don't know what is going to happen. That is what we are here for to set conditions
on pertaining to the use of the property -that might be special. What are we going to
use to make that determination?
Mr. Railing answered, we have a plan that shows a certain degree of landscaping on it.
It shows the outline of the parking area.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that the plan that you submitted to the Planning Board?
Mr. Railing answered, yes.
Page -4- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, on this plan you will note that we have located some landscaping,
located the parking areas, we have located lighting poles, the details of which are shown
on the plan. We indicate what the parking surface is going to be. We indicate how the
curbs are going to be constructed. Now, there are some other construction details that
are not on here and I think that is all that is lacking.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to address this
issue?
Mr. Kassow - one of the owners of the property in the rear of this property.
We object any rear sideline variances being granted.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is not the discussion. We are going to discuss that on the
second appeal that they have. Right now we are discussing the Special Use Permit only.
Do you have any problems with the SUP?
Mr. Kassow answered, no. I want the use to be granted. I have other problems.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else front he audience that would like to speak for
or against this appeal?
Mr. Cortellino asked, the repair service, there is a showroom, for only that make car or
any car can be repaired? In other words, I want to see if that is an accessory to the
sales or whether.......
Mr. Railing answered, the main purpose of the repairs are going to be ultimately to
that particular showroom. In stage 1 it will be available, yes. It will be an
automotive repair shop. So, Stage 1 will the be, the principal use will be automotive
repair shop.
Mr. Cortellino asked, and in stage 2 you said may, but not necessarily exclusive.
Mr. Railing answered, well, with the automobile showroom it become directly related,
it becomes a service dept. to the showroom, but anybody can drive into Pough. Ford or
anyplace else and obviously use it and I ma not trying to put it any other way.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we are trying to, for asthetics purposes, try to restrict like the
number of cars that are going to be out in the yard, etc., I can't believe the Planning
Board perhaps go in a little deeper. That is in a very strategic area of the Town and
I just think asthetics plays a roll here. I would hate to drive back and forth and see
all kinds of cars waiting to be repaired and so on. I don't believe from what I see in
the buffer here that there is any, I would think fencing perhaps would be more appropriate
at the time.
Mr. Railing asked, would you like to reserve the right to also approve the landscaping
aspect during the site plan stage?
Mr. Hirkala asked, what timing is between stage 1 &-2, estimated?
Mr. Railing answered, I would say, based on my discussion with Mr. Greer that you are
talking no greater time period than a couple of years.
kw Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason I am asking that is we have before us an application for
state 1 & 2, just the fact that the only refuse facility is already on stage 2 but not
on stage 1 lends me to believe that we don't have enough to really look at to make a
determination whether there are any special conditions. Number one, if it is an
automotive repair service and stage 2 never gets built it is going to remain and automotive
Page -5- May 13th, 1986
repair service and what is going to happen is there is going to be an awful lot of
cars stocked up, piled up, cars that are waiting for parts put aside, I don't see any
provisions for this stuff to be taken care of in an asthetic matter, old engines, where
are they going to go.
Mr. Railing stated, the ordinance requires that they be contained inside.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I now darn well if a car is waiting for parts for 3 months it is not
going to be waiting inside.
Mr. Railing stated, I thought you meant parts.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is the refuse bin going to be inside the building?
Mr.Railing answered, no, the refuse will be outside. Right now we have it designated on
stage 2.
Mr. Hirkala asked, where is it going to be for stage 1?
Mr. Railing answered, stage 1 generally doesn't generate a great deal of waste products
and the products can be taken from that building to the one designated area for refuse.
If, during the site plan stage the Planning Board wants to have a secondary area for
refuse enclosure, I have no problem with that.
Joseph Incoronato, Town of Wappinger.
If memory serves me correctly, about a year ago the Greer Toyota Company was found to
be in violation of DEC statute. I think there was some chemical discharge, I believe it
was cosmoline, perhaps, used as a solvent for cleaning off parts. I am not sure that
that was ever taken care of. But, more importantly, I am concerned with how Hugh Greer
Corp. intends to take care of their chemical discharge of solvents and all the hazardous
pollutants that can come out of a garage, if you will, are they going to be properly
disposed of because at least we have one case in point where it did not happen properly.
So, I would like to know number one what happened last year with the DEC situation and
number 2, what safeguards are going to be exercised in this new site, if it is ever approved,'
to insure that this does not repeat itself and that the ground water and the enviornment
is properly and adequately protected.
Mr. Caballero asked if there is anyone else from the audience who would like to make a
statement on this appeal?
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't like the idea of 2 stages. I remember years ago, I don't
know if anybody on the Board remembers where Walbaums is they wanted to come in with
a gasoline station there and we had no idea or when anything else was going to be built
it was either the Planning Board or the Town Board who turned it down. If stage one
goes in what assurance do we have that stage 2 will ever go in? You said 2 or 3 years.
Mr. Railing answered, I said a maximum of 2. I would think upon approval you are
probably going to see both stages go in and if that what it takes to get this SUP I am
sure that Mr. Greer will agree with that. We cannot proceed much further......
One reason, stage 2 is depending on the dealership, until he has that dealership, whatever
that dealership may be he cannot proceed with stage 2. I don't think he is going to have
a problem with that dealership and I really don't want to get into that end of it.
Page -6-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, again, as I say, if that is what is contingent upon the SUP so be
it we will do stage 1 & 2 at the same time.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I will make a motion for the Special Permit but with a hope the
Planning Board really reviews the thing and I think our concern about stage 1 & stage 2
and the enviornmental things will have to be addressed. The only reason that I am making
the motion is so that they can proceed, I want to see the safeguards that will appear at
the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I second provided those conditions are carried out.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to hear the conditions set in the motion.
Mr. Cortellino stated, #1 & 2 will proceed in a timely fashion, no one year lag between
them. I am not saying both buildings should go up simutaniously, one can be finished and
then you start the construction of the second one. The enviornmental concerns, there
are hazardous chemicals associated should be addressed and pursued. The signage, we are
not going to give any variance normally for signage.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Apepal #871, at the request of Contrail Associates, seeking a Special use Permit of
Article IV, §421, 115 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a medical
slinic on property located on All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel 46157-02-870864,
in the Town of Wappinger.
John Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated, you have a 1.3 acre parcel that is located on the West side of
All Angels Hill Road, just north of the Pye Lane and All Angels intersection. The
proposal is to put a 6,000 s/f medical clinic on this parcel, 3,000 s/f downstairs and
3,000 s/f upstairs. The application is for a SUP to prepare a site plan for this
particular medical clinic subject to Article IV, §421, 115.
Mr. Caballero read into the record the memo from the Planning Board (3/31/86):
At the March 24th, 1986 meeting of the Planning Board the above mentioned application
for a SUP was discussed.
Mr. Hawksley made a mtoion that the Planning Board has no problem with the special use
and the Board would review the aspects of the site plan when it goes through the process
for site plan approval.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion.
All Ayes.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I tkae exception with the Planning Board with that statement. They
obviously shouldn't have because it is the purview of this Board. That is quite
misleading. What type of medical clinic is this going to be?
Mr. Railing answered, primarily for the individual.
Page -7-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, are you going to be using chemicals in any way. Is there going to
be any equipment.
Mr. Railing stated, you are looking at the family practitioner, dental or GP, in that
area. I can get into the denistry end, anything that will be placed in that is totally
contained system and the most modern dentist offices are. There is no hazardous waste
or toxic waste are"admitted into the septic system or elsewhere. Everything is self-
contained. Chiropractors and doctors of this nature.
Mr. Caballero asked, so what you are saying Jack is you are going to develop this property
to rent to doctors of any nature, dentist or.......
Mr. Railing answered, correct. The latest scheme I believe was 4 suites.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you have no idea what those practices are going to be at this time?
Mr. Railing answered, at this time, no idea.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am unfamiliar with, lets call it, the mechanics behind the scene.
For instance, you said self-contained, they are always taking X -Rays and therefore there
there is at least two chemicals, there is a developer and a fixer. The fixer contains
an oxidizer, where does that go?
Mr. Railing answered, all of the waste generated by that particular process, because as
you are doing the rinsing adn the developing you are inner -mingling the chemicals. That
is contained in vessels and then there are people who come there and they draw it out
and re-claim it.
Mr. Cortellino asked, now with the GP with the X -Rays, what happens?
Mr. Railing answered, the same thing.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am not talking about the film there, I am talking about interference
with residential areas for emissions.
Mr. Railing answered, the building code has certain requirements relating to the installation
of any X -Ray room and adjacent rooms. It is also monitored periodically by the local
County Health Dept.. So we have to meet the building code so that there is no emission
of excess radiation and it is periodically inspected.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I see several problems Mr. Chairman. Like for instance, if there is
going to be a mix, I can see already a doctor coming in and needing signage for instance,
and rightfully so, so number one, again, since it has not been identified like, the types
or whatever, there is going to be a signage problem— Number 2, I have a concern that if
the space is not rented these doctors are going to be coming in looking for a variance
perhaps to even live in like we have encountered. Because the concern, this is in a
residential area and I wouldn't want to see you back claiming a hardship because you
couldn't rent it out to doctors.
Mr. Railing stated, the intention of the applicant, Contrail Associates, is to maintain
the building and it will not be ..... we do not intend to, at this point, to sell the
building to a resident doctor, it is going to be a medical clinic. It will be more than
one physician, doctor available.
Mr. Cortellino asked, who is providing your services, water sewage?
Page -8-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Railing answered, there will be a individual well on the site and an individual
sewage disposal system.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against.
Steve Savoka - adjoining property owner.
One of my neighbors could not make it tonight so they wanted me to read their opposition.
Appeal #871 - Please be advised, and include in the minutes of the public hearing held
today, that regarding the request of Contrail Associates of Wappinger for a Special Use
permit to permit a Medical Clinic on property located on All Angels Hill Road, Parcel
46157-02-870864, Wappinger Falls, we the undersigned, being adjoining property owners
strongly OPPOSE the issuance of such a permit.
We are concerned about the appearance of a Medical Clinic in our residential area as well
as the impact such a facility would have on water, sewer, waste, water drainage, and
traffic.
Sincerely, Michael Horan and Margaret Horan,- 9 Rich Drive, Wappinger Falls, NY.
Dated May 13th, 1986.
We have other concerns about why we have a need for another medical center one block
away from another one that has already been approved between Alpert and Brown Road.
Why do we have a need for 2.just one block away. The other questions that we have
are what about the disposal of medical supplies, we have an area that is largely populated
with young kids. They run around. I understand that they are going to have recepticals
out there, we are still exposed to that sort of a problem in a residential area with so
many kids. We are concerned about the operational schedule, what kind of hours, days
per week. Are you going to have ambulances coming in all kinds of hours at night in a
residential area. We also have another medical center that is located down near
Walbaums, why so many. We have a dentist right on the corner. There are chirporactors
right down the hill. We have medical businesses right down the hill. Why so many
consolidated in such a small area? We have some concerns.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak for or against this appeal.
Roger Di Aquino - adjoining property.
He speaks for myself as well. We are concerned with the traffic as well. That corner of
Torr and All Angels is bad enough as it is right now.and now you are multipling the
traffic. We just had several new medical buildings, residential in appearance, right
near by. 2 chiropractors and some others and then the new medical center a block away.
I doesn't seem right.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak on this appeal.
There was no one else.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion from the Board.
Mr. Hirkala made -a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The motion was carried.
There was some discussion among the Board.
Page -9-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to re -open the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote: All Ayes.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, a Special Use Permit is a given right that an appellant has.
We can impose conditions on them but we really cannot completely turn them down. Our
cases have been brought to court where we have made denial of a SUP and our decisions
have been overturned. What we can do in a case like this is impose certain conditions
on the appellant to make sure we safeguard the area where this project is being put in.
At this time I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will entertain a motion provided -that certain conditions are met.
#1 obviously is the signage adheres to our requirements of the Town. I also recommend
that there wll be no mixers of professions, meaning, he is applying for a medical clinic,
it shoud be restricted to only that medical clinic. I would like to see something done
with the refuse there. The way that it appears now, it appears it is quite open. I
want some type of provisions made that from a medical clinic, it is not the type of
refuse that, from other businesses so, gome way I would like to see that contained.
It should be secured.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
. Mr. Caballero -aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #873, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit AAMCO Transmissions on property
located on New Hackensack Road, and being parcel 46158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Caballero stated, the appellant called and asked that the Appeal be tabled until
the June Meeting. Is there anybody in the audience who was here for this appeal? If
you are, I believe what we are going to do, if the Board wishes, is to hear and put into
the record your concerns and I will give you about 2 minutes a piece to lets us know your
concerns. This appeal will be heard in June again and I suggest that you be here at that
time also. We have no control over the appeallant on him asking to switch it over
to next month. However is interested in this appeal, would you kindly come forward and
identify yourself and give us your concerns about the appeal to put into the record.
Mr. Incoronato stated, there are several appeals being made, which one is this?
Mr. Caballero stated, this is a request of Herb Redl seeking a Special Use Permit for
the Transmission place on New Hackensack Road.
Mr. Incoronato asked, I share the same kind of concern as .one of the prior gentlemen..
expressed here this evening, the one of consolidation and concentration of the same sort
of business in a very tight area. We have three automatic transmission stores along
Route 9 right now, we have Lee Myles which is building bigger and better right now, we
have the one by Urey's there on 9 near the Imperial Plaza, and then on the west side of
Page -10- May 13th, 1986
Route 9 you have another transmission place a little farther north. So, know we have
3 and now you are seeking., or at least the client is to..incorporate a fourth automatic
transmission business, so there is a concern of, you know we are starting to have more
and more fast foods stores along Route 9, we are going to have 4 more transmission places
and sale, auto garage sales, you are already at one of the most dangerous intersections
in the County, New Hackensack and 9 and again, this would tend to compound the problem.
You are on a curve which in a sense makes it blind. You have the Imperial Plaza which
recently expanded to put in another dozen or so stores, so that is also intensifing the
severity of the problem. So, we have alot of considerations, primarily, gravitating
around the percussion of traffic patterns in that immediate area and really when you start
looking at an area that is exploding and mushrooming the way Wappinger is, you have to
ask when you deviate from the norm it gives special flexibility to a business or a private
individual for that matter, of what benefit does this change contribute to the overall
community? Is it in the best interest of the community, and this is what you gentlemen
should start addressing.and I know that is a responsibility shared by yourselves and the
Planning Board but it is critical because Route 9, I repeat this over and over again, and
maybe somebody would pay heed to it someday, Route 9 is the sole of the community of
Dutchess County. Its the main drag. You come through the Town of Wappinger and what
is your impression? What you see on Route 9, and I tell you my impression of the Town
of Wappinger is going downhill faster and faster all the time and I live in the Town and
I know some of the positive aspects of the Town so I can imagine what the stranger coming
through Route 9 and through the Village and the Town precincts must be thinking when he
sees this place. So, I think we need controlled development. I don't see it gentlemen.
I don't see it. You also have responsibility to feel the Ordinance is deficient, now,
this question of the clinic, if you could recommend to the Town Board that they change
it so that a clinic is only in a shopping center, an industrial center, at least not in a
residential zone. Another, this is a permitted use, but because it has been historic
doesn't mean it has to be future. You should be making some recommendations, we did this
on CZAC, that went down the toilet because of the present administration, I hate to
bring in politics, but that is the way it worked, but again, it is within your perview,
not simply to weep and mash your teeth and complain what a terrible world it is, it is
your responsibility to try to change the world and you can do, at least attempt to do it
by consulting with the Town Board and tell them these are the holes in the fabric or the
Zoning Ordinance, do something about it. This thing dates back to the early 70's, that
was the master plan. The wording is from the late 70's so it is already 10 years old.
Nothing is perfect. So lets recognize the imperfections, lets convey them to the people
in control and tell them to change it but don't simply, I come here every once and a
while and only the names and faces change but the circumstances are the same. There are
deficiencies in the Zoning Ordinance. You people site in office, you have to deal with
it. Convey this information to the Town Board members and tell them to change it. One
of them is here right now.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I forget how to answer all your topics that you brought up
because you have been running along, but for your benefit, and Joe will back me up.
In the previous administration, and I am not being political, ever since I have been
on this Board, ever since Joe has been on thie Board regardless of what administration
this Zoning Board has written to the Town Board pointing out what we consider deficiencies
or problems or concerns within the ZOning Ordinance...
Mr. Caballero added, and your Board did nothing about it.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have forgotten how many letters, how many different Town Board's
did not act on our recommendation. Now your other concern, we are looking at a Special
Permit, we are not looking at his variance. As Mr. Caballero brought out earlier, we
do not deny a Special Permit except under very dire circumstaces. Your brought up a
thing that there is 3 transmission places. I am not a business man, it may be poor
Page -11- May 13th, 1986
business. If they wanted to have a transmission place on every open lot on Route 9,
we cannot stop them unless the Town Board says we want only one transmission place every
mile. We cannot stop the issuance of Special Permits and say howmany places do we need?
Now you pick the intersection of New Hackensack and Route 9, which I agree with you, it
is very hazardous because I go home that way. You have people making a right turn,
coming out, that is mostly a village corner. They don't enforce that that is an entrance
so as you are trying to come around they are coming out at you, fine, how can you say to
McDonald's, you can have a drive-in, which is the Village not the Town, you can have that
and you can tell the other man you can't have it because he is there. Everybody is equal
under law. If they can create a hazard, so can Mr. Redl create a hazard if you want to do
it that way. We can't say you can't do it but he can do it. What you are doing is
proposing a philosophy not a solution. We are aware of these problems.
Mr. Caballero stated, Joseph, the reason I asked you to speak was on the appeal was
thether you agree with it or disagree with it. We are getting a disagreement and we
are also getting a lecture. Under a Special Use Permit it is an allowable use, the only
thing that this Board can do under our present law is to put on conditions. We have
addressed that concern to previous administrations even before your administration and
nothing was done about it. You made your statement, it is on record and I would like to
hear from other people that are concerned with this appeal. Thank you. Would the next
speaker come forward.
Mr. Fredenburgh - Dorothy Heights.
Lived there about 40 years. I go by this place maybe 5 or 6 times a day. Now, I don't
know what you gentlemen up there are for but it doesn't sound like anything you are going
to do is going to stop him from building. You can't do it you said, right?
Mr. Caballero answered, a Special Use Permit, under our Ordinance, is an allowable use
under certain conditions.
Mr. Fredenburgh asked, you can't deny it, right?
Mr. Caballero answered, if there is a special condition, we could deny it and it might be
upheld in court. Now, do you want to make a statement why you don't want that permit to
be issued?
Mr. Fredenburgh answered, the main reason is, I don't know who gave him permission to
build what he has there now, that masterpiece he has, but, if you ride by and if you
lived there for 40 years, try to make your property look good, and you ride by that,
whatever you call it there, that storage outfit, and all the landscaping he was supposed
to do and what he has done, what will happen with the transmission place?
Estelle Zak - resident of Dorothy Heights.
What zone is he planning to build this transmission place?
Mr. Gunderud answered, Highway Business - 2 Acre.
Mrs. Zak stated, it seems he was here before your gentlemen 2 months ago and he was
proposing something in different zones, is this ......
Mr. Caballero answered, that was cleared up, it was 2 different maps. We have an official
map now which.....
Mrs. Zak asked, where does he plan to place the building?
Mr. Caballero answered, on that property which is Highway Business.
Mrs. Zak asked, with another cut into New Hackensack Road.
Page -12- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, he is allowed to do that.
Mrs. Zak stated, I don't understand this gentlemen. Why call people out for a public
hearing if you can't.......
Mr. Caballero stated, because you might have some information that may give us the leeway
to giving them a denial. So far you are against the man, you don't give us anything that
we can use, legally, to deny that use permit.
Mrs. Zak stated, well, I can give you many things. When Mr. Redl came up before the Board
for his first approval there you gentlemen issued him a Special Use Permit on the warehouse
property which now adjoins New Hackensack Road. There was a meeting, you gentlemen met
to, on an interpretation on the Special Use to allow him to put 3 or 4 uses by issuing
him a Special Use Permit. You are talking about taking people to court, I could have
done the same thing. I could have taken the Town Board to court for an illegal decision.
You did not have a quorum when you ruled that night, I have all of the facts at home. I
have the file with me.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is your privilege..
Mr. Landolfi stated, we are addressing, you are talking history now. Right now we are
looking at Appeal #873, and 873 only. Anything that you say about anything else it
is not going to help the case. Please help us to help you. We want to help you but
you are talking now just from the heart, give us something to use.
Mrs. Zak stated, I will give you that later. If you grant him the Special Use Permit he
is going to put something else up there definfitely. The reson why we are opposed to it
is because of the traffic hazard for one. The waste he is going to have. We have ground
wells, I don't feel that he should be contaminating our well water. It is a blind corner
coming out from Dorothy Heights you can't see what is coming from that end. I think the
safety of the residents comes first. I think somebody has been residing there for 40 years
should have preference or something that is going to take away from the residential
character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak.
There was no one else.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have some comments to make. I would like the Board to take some
action on a few items involving this appeal. Based on the fact of the Planning Board's
letter to us stating the Planning Board's concern with the use of the property the would
recommend that a long Enviornmental Assessment Form be submitted. Also the Board would
like you to suggest who you would like the lead agency to be.: I would like to recommend
that we request the applicant to submit a long form to this Board and at this time we
make a determination as to whether we are going to be the lead agency to review the
assessment or the Planning Board will be the lead agency.based on that recommendation.
Also, that we have before us the information in good time, prior to the next meeting
on the road profiles, what the County's assessment would be on this request, just as the
Planning Board had recommended.
Mr. Caballero asked, would you like to make that in a form of a motion.
Mr. Hirkala answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, I second the motion.
Page -13-
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, this is all entered in the record and this appeal is tabled until
our June meeting.
Mr. Hirkala asked, who is going to be the lead agency? Are we going to take it upon
ourselves to the lead agency?
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, since the ultimate
decision would be made by our Board for us..
Mr. Caballero stated, I would like a motion on that we will be the lead agency.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I will make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4886, at the request of Hubie Greer, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 20 foot sideyard & rearyard setbacks when
50 feet is required on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 46158-04-623038,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Jack Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated, this particular appeal is a request for a variance from the side &
rearyard for this particular property. We are requesting that that be waived 30 feet
down to a 20 foot setback. Firstly, because this particular lot is in an SC zone and
in that respect is non -conforming with respect to the size of the parcel, the unique
size of this lot precludes a reasonable placement of a building on this lot based on
the allowable four area ratio and on maximum square footage ratios. The adjacent property
is in the SC district have sufficient area for development. Adjacent properties not in
the SC district are zoned other than SC with less restrictive setbacks. The adjacent
areas to this particular parcel also commercial in use, this is at the end of the SC zone
and as I said those setbacks are certainly less restrictive than the 50 foot sideyards.
The adjacent properties are similar in use in being that they are commercial, the car
wash there and the shopping center, across the street is Pizza Hut, nearby is the diner,
across the street you will find Midas and a gas station to the site. Why this particular
piece was included in the SC zone, I do not know. But certainly with the 50 foot setbacks
that are normally required in the SC severly restrict this particular parcel in that
respect its unique and therefore we are requesting the variance to the 20 foot.
Mr. Caballero asked, is there anybody here to speak against this appeal?
Page -14- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Kassow.stated, I, Jean Parlon and the Marshall family own the property along side.
If you look at the map you will see our name up in the corner. Now, before the site plan
was filed we entered into a contract with Hubie Greer on March 18th, 1985 to sell them
a parcel that is in the Town. That is 2.2 acres. It is a strip of approximately 1,000 x
100 -along side. Half of the property is directly behind this parcel and the other half
is behind Walbaums. Between Walbaums and Ken Russ's parcel.. Now, the car wash is in the
Village. Ken Russ's property is in the Village, but this 2 acres is in the Town. We
entered into a contract of sale to sell it to him on March 18th to sell the entire 2.2
acres which would have given him, instead of 1.7 acre parcel it would have given him
just a smidgen under 4 acres and giving him plenty of room to comply with all setback
requirements. But, when he filed the site plan he only filed it for the original piece
that belonged to the Sucich family, never included our parcel in the site plan. So, that
is his decision. Then after the site plan receives preliminary approval he sends us
notice that he doesn't want it. Comes up with an excuse which we don't accept and we
threaten litigation to go through with the contract. In solution to the problem, his
lawyer approaches me, would we cut the parcel in half and sell him 1 acre so that now
he has 2.7 acres.
Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. Kassow, with all respect you are tellin us about a contractual
agreement between you and the appellant but you are not telling us any reason why we not
grant this.....
Mr. Kassow answered, this is a matter of descretion. You don't have to grant him a
variance and if he can do something about it then you shouldn't grant him a variance
because our property would be adversly effected if he comes close to out boundry line.
I don't want him within 50 feet of our boundry line unless you are going to change the
zone. Because I have to live with the same setback requirement, I am in the same zone
and I only have a piece 100 x 1,000 I am going to have a problem if I wanted to develop
it. The man comes into the Zoning Board of Appeals and asks for a variance and he can't do
anything about it but he can do something about it. Now, I agreed to modify our contract
cut the parcel in half because Ken Russ wanted the other half and he would add it to his
parcel in the Village, so, all I am saying to you is that he doesn't need the variance.
He can do something about it and he can enlarge his parcel and have all the land he needs
but he doesn't want to buy it and he is not entitled to a variance, that is a matter of
descretion. He would adversly effect my parcel and effect my ability to develop the
parcel. It is true that I am landlocked but I have the ability to develop it, I have
access. I have 2 ROW because I originally owned the parcel that was sold to Ken Russ
and I reserved a ROW to get to Route 9 or Myers Corners Road, so, I can develop it. It
is an odd parcel, I have to come before this Board someday, and say that I want to know
put up a building on a parcel that is now 100 x 1,000, it is about 98,000 s/f, it is
over 2 acres so that is why I suggest to you that he really shouldn't be granted any
variance for the sideline or rearline setback. He can comply if he wants to. By the way,
if you want for the record, I am prepared to have a copy of the original contract
available, if you want it. I realize the matter of a contract is a private matter, it can't
be enforced by this Board, and I am not looking for you to enforce our contract. I am
simply pointing out that he can enlarge the size of his parcel.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the record we would like a copy of the contract.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am really against granting variances unless I can find another
way, lets start. What is so magic about the numbers of this building here. For instance,
Page -15-
65 x 130.
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Railing answered, I will answer it in 2 ways. One, it is based on the need prescribed
based on the automotive dealership, #1. Number 2, is because the 20 foot is required
because that is compatible with other areas in the adjacent district. It relates to the
uniqueness of the lot. Obviously if you wanted a 5 foot wide by 180 foot building you
cannot use it for automotive repair you have a certain depth to the bay. We have tried
to hold the setback on the southerly end adjacent to the shopping center but in order to
do that to get a building in of proper width for proper bay we then had to get a variance
for the 50 foot on the northerly end down to 20 feet. You had to push it one way or the
other. I could make it 35 and 35 but then you have some problems with the movement of
the traffic.
Mr. Caballero asked, if the parcel was bigger would you be able to put in the dealership?
Mr. Railing answered, it owuld not help me on the sideline.
Mr. Caballero stated, well maybe that parcel is not useable for a car dealership if you
need the sideline variance.
Mr. Railing stated, what I am saying is the point where what is a really practical useable
...If you take 50 foot across the back of this parcel on both sides you really severly
limited this particular piece. That is why I tried to indicate the uniqueness of this
piece relating to the SC zone. It is unique because it is not of the proper size, why it
was zoned this I don't know.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have created your own hardship.
Mr. Railing stated, well I think the hardship is indigenous to the lot.is what I am
trying to say.
Mr. Cortellino stated, first off, your first remark, auto dealership, you mean the
potential manufacturing of the automobiles which you wish to handle are putting restrictions
on you which you wish to put on us, is that what you meant. What was your opening
statement?
Mr. Railing answered, when you have an automobile dealership you obviously have a related
size of a repair area.
Mr. Cortellino asked, why can't the buildings be moved. What is so .....of 6 spaces
between the showroom and the repair service?
Mr. Railing answered, okay. To a certain degree we could move it, there is a bit more
fill that would have to be put in and there is some hardship in the cost of that.
Mr. Cortellino asked, so then you would not need a variance?
Mr. Railing answered, we would need the sideline variance. As I said, we are restricted
to the North.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how far are you setback from that landscaping?
Mr.Railing answered, I would guess it is 50 -from what would be the southeasterly corner
to the southerly line.
Mr. Hirkala stated, #1, the front setback is listed here as 75 foot and in the SC zone it
should be 100 feet. I have to say that the possibility exists that you have to much
Page -16-
building.
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, the only problem that I have with the setback in the front is when
we went to the Planning Board they indicated to try to keep that building further up
front.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the other comment that I wanted to make is that I remember discussion
on this particular site plan when it was before the Planning Board and there was discussion
as to whether or not that property in the back could be gotten and added to this property.
And, I think it was Bill Parsons who made the recommendation that this be looked into.
And apparently, the evidence that we heard to night that it was looked into and it was
pursued and for whatever reasons it was dropped, I don't know but I do believe that there
is a safety valve here that probably would eliminate the need for a variance.
Mr. Railing stated, it appears that we can, as Mike Hirkala indicated, move to the 30
foot by pulling the building further to Route 9, my problem is again, strictly to the
North I have very little flexibility. I have tried to maintain the 50 foot from the
shopping center.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak either for or against this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the variance be denied. A hardship is self-created.
There are avenues to avoid giving the variance. If the argument of the SC is first off
is really a business in the SC and perhaps the lot isn't suitable but there are avenues
to provide relief other than granting a variance.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated that the Board would take a 10 minute break.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:20 P.M..
Appeal 4889, at the request of Matthew Thiemann seeking a variance of Article IV, §411.92
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
Matthew Thiemann was present.
Mr. Thiemann stated, I am planning to build a 12 x 24 deck. The reason for the variance
is that my land only goes back 29 feet from the rear of my house. I am planning to build
a 12 foot deck which brings me 17 foot clearance as opposed to 25 required, however,
behind my house I have an excess of 70 feet of conservation land between my rearline
rr+ and the neighbor behind me rearline. I have a letter from him and other neighbors:
Page -17-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Paul Kung - 53 Fieldstone Blvd.
I did receive the legal notice of the request of Matthe Thiemann, seeking a
variance for the building permit of his deck.. As his neighbor, I, Paul J. Kung,
would like t+se this letter to say that I have no objection of him putting up
a deck on the property he owned on 43 Fieldstone Blvd..
Ronald Pucherelli - 51 Fieldstone Blvd.
I have recieved Mr. Thiemann's plans for a deck at 43 Fieldstone Blvd., and I have
no objections what so ever.
Betsy Mallealo - 47 Fieldstone Blvd.
I have received Mr. Thiemann's plans for a deck at 43 Fieldstone Blvd., and I have
no objections what so ever.
Mr. Thiemann stated, so, basically I am 8 feet short on one side, however, I have 72 feet
behind that and 3 feet short on the side, its 17 as opposed to 20 however I have in excess
of over 100 feet to the next neighbor there. The land slopes so I took some pictures
that didn't get developed in time but you can hardly see the deck because of the sloping
of the land from the road.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal.
Rose Marie Kranowitz:
Its.his backyard, let him enjoy his property.
Mrs. McClusky:: lives across on Fieldstone Blvd.
What Matthew has stated is true. If you come up over the hill you really don't see.
It is in the center island with alot of conservation land and it doesn't look like it would
be a problem.
Mr. Gunderud stated, he wanted a rearyard and sideyard of 17 feet where 25 rearyard and
20 foot respectively are required.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a comment, and it will indicate my pleasure. This is a
conservation piece of property. As I pointed out in the past when we discussed PUD
conservation you have certain restrictions going on. If you give out variances on account
of not popularity, a porr choice of words, because of feeling for the appellant, that is
the wrong reason to give it. We are restricted as to what we can give a variance for.
There is no statements made as to conditions for which we legally can give a variance.
The purpose of the Conservation property or the PUD property is to maintain a certain
enviornment. I am opposed, I am not making a motion, I am opposed to granting the variance.
Mr. Thiemann stated, the way the house is constructed there is no rear steps or whatever
from the sliding glass door off the dining room to the outside, there is no rear entrance.
There is about a 3 foot drop and so it requires some construciton there. That is the
hardship that I do have.
Mr. Cortellino stated, very good point except for some reason the Town of Wappinger, they
have been giving CO's and building permits with those sliding glass doors with no decks
being built. I also happen to be opposed to that type of construction, but that is a
problem which will be addressed I presume in the future, but for now, I see no reason
to give the variance for the reasons that I have stated.
Mr. Landolfi stated, maybe we could cut down on one variance to start out. Couldn't you
cut a few feet then you wouldn't need the, then you would only be asking for one variance.
Page -18- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala asked, could you live with a smaller deck?
Mr. Thiemann answered, I understand the question, I made all the plans, I checked out
the size as far as the things I would like to put on the deck.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you wouldn't need a variance on that one side. As Mr. Cortellino
tried to point out you haven't really proven any hardship, a legal hardship.
Mr. Thiemann stated, in my defense I do plan to use it for a place for my children to play,
I have a 2 year old daughter and I can't put up a fence around the whole property so that
is where they plan to play. They can't jump off a 3 foot so that is why I do need
something there and with the picnic table, things like that, that is why I requested a
24 foot. You can't really see it from the street and the neighbors have all reviewed the
plans and they have no problem. There is so much land over there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, Charlie has a motion on the floor to deny, it hasn't been seconded yet.
I would have to agree with him as it stands. I would be amenable to a smaller deck.
The size of that smaller deck, I am not going to tell the man what size it should be.
But, Joe brought up an interesting point, the fact that you can eliminate one variance
and maybe lessen the other one some. So, I asked the question what can he live with and
apparantly he has ignored that question.
Mr. Thiemann stated, I was hoping that you would see my point on the area that I request.
Mr. Caballero stated, if Charlie's motion to deny gets a second and it will go up for a
vote and the majority would rule, again he might get a second but he might not get a
majority. What mike is trying to tell you that maybe Charlie's motion wouldn't get a second
if the deck was a little smaller.
Mr. Thiemann answered, I would agree to reduce the deck to fit the side setback.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor to deny this area variance, do I have
a second?
There was no second.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is no second on the floor, do I have a motion to grant this
variance?
Mr. Thiemann stated, 12 x 21 as opposed to 12 x 24.
Mr. Caballero stated, let the records show that the deck will be changed to 21 instead of
24.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion to grant with the changes.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The mtoion was carried.
Page -19- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero 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 & Mina Drive, and being Parcel 46157-02-962785, in the Town of Wappinger.
Emily Elks, representing her parents.
Mr. Caballero asked, she requires a 7 foot variance. I see something there about an
optional deck.
Mrs. Elks answered, that is the ,deck we want to put in but if we went by the footage it
is 5'x4' and it is all shale there. It is a ranch house, it is not a raised ranch so
they are just putting a deck with the round. It would only give us a walkway if went
within your footage not a full size deck.
Mr. Landolfi stated, this particular development, we have been assured by the developer/
builder at the time that when we granted the last variance roughly 6 or 7 months ago that
that was the last one that he would in fact review all the plans and assured us that we
would not see more of his people come in before us.
Mrs. Elks stated, the land developer is not the one who is building, this lot was privately
owned and the builder Cady Lane Homes, Mr. Minotti.
Mr. Caballero asked, are the sliding doors at the point?
Mrs. Elks answered, yes. There is also one other problem with that lot, it is the highest
lot and its all shale so you really can't grow grass that is why we wanted to put a deck.
The house is a ranch. It would be level and instead of grass we would have a deck. It
is totally shale.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what do you mean by deck? In other words, why put a patio, it is
equivalent, it is going to be on ground level.
Mr. Elks answered, it would be wood not concrete and it would have to come up like 2 and
a half feet or three feet -that is how high the sliding glass door is.
Mr. Cortellino stated, but suppose it was made of wood and you had 2 steps down to it?
Suppose you stepped out of the room, came through the sliding glass doors and went down
2 or 3 steps and you were on your "deck", would that be a problem?
Mrs. Elks answered, no.
Mr. Cortellino stated, then there is no problem. There is no variance to be granted if
you were willing to live with that. That is a patio which you enclose, thats all.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, if she came in for a permit for a patio which was not
elevated, would you grant a permit for that?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Page -20-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Urciuoli asked, what would happen if you made the deck longer -instead of so deep?
Then you are not going so deep to the backyard.setback, add 5 feet on either side of
your deck. It doesn't present a hardship.
Mrs. Elks answered, in a sense it does. It is so shaley back there, you would have to
fill it in and level out to make a patio like you are saying would cost more money.
because of the way it slopes down in the back it is total shale and rock. It would cost
them more to have it filled in and pour concrete.
Mr. Caballero stated, you have the ability to put a 13 foot deck there without getting a
variance.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, you only need a 20 foot setback not 25 feet.
Mr. Caballero stated, she only has 24 feet.
Mr. Gunderud stated, she has 24 foot and the zone requires 20 foot so, technically, to
avoid the varianceshe could only put a 4 foot deck on the back of the house.
Mr. Caballero asked, did you say you had shale there and it is difficult to build there?
Mrs. ELks answered, it is very difficult, I would have to fill in and that would be a
hardship.
Mr. Caballero asked, is there anyway that you could show this Board the condition of
that shale behind the house or why it would be so difficult to put in a patio there?
Mr. Caballero read the 3 way test for variances.
Mr. Caballero stated, maybe we should go out and look at the yard and see how difficult
it is.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am going to make a motion that an on site inspection be conducted
by all the members of the Board prior to the next meeting.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like a letter to go to the Town Board with a copy to the
Building Inspector questioning handing out CO's and/or building permits to houses that
have sliding glass doors with no decks.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I would like to make a comment to that motion. I think that in the
Town were we work under the uniform building codes, the State of New York Building Code,
which has to do with structural integrity of a house. Somebody could come in tomorrow
and present a house to the Town which was totally sliding glass doors and it could be
elevated off the ground on all sides except, perhaps the entrance, the State Codes take
care of those ......if has to be some kind of structural to hold the roof up but the code
does not preclude glass at all. It has to meet certain energy requirements and safety
requirements and safety in the process of doing permits inspectiAns, when a builder builds
a house, usually the homeowner can't afford all the _little extras and niceties. So, many
times the builder will work into his agreement that he will sell the house to the buyer
Page -21- May 13th, 1986
and not finish the basement and not build the deck. So, the building inspector at that
point would say to the builder, before the CO is issued in order to protect the people
in the house and your children that the glass doors must be secured by railing usually at
a 3 foot level and another one half way between that and the door and that is what is done
traditionally in all towns in the state of NY. I think that letter would be a hardship
on the people who are trying to buy houses.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to comment on the fact if the Building Inspector or the
Zoning Administrator, in the process of the issuance of a CO, the requiring of protecting
for the Board or something like that. Under the general provision of protecting the
health, safety and welfare of the community, the Town can within its own perview set up
a procedure where by the restrictions would be certified to whereby the buyer would have
to initial off in some form or matter that he knows what the restrictions area prior to the
issuance of a CO.whereby he wouldn't be able to put a deck on that even though he has a
sliding glass door he is only going to be allowed a narrow walkway there, he might then not
buy the house and if that being the case then maybe the builders would look toward what the
laws are in the Town rather than going ahead like they are going.
June Visconti.
In view of your conversation there, is there any possibility that if a person, a buyer is
not going to have a deck put on it then we would not allow sliding glass doors to nowhere?
I would say in a safety factor if they are not going, I can understand what you are saying
as far as someone who wants to build a house and they like the house but they are not
going to, just the safety purposes, if they are not going to have a deck built at that
time I would not allow them to, if legally possible, not to have sliding glass doors but
put in a window.and if they want a deck at some other point let them go and put the
sliding glass doors in and the deck at the time.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, do you have an opinion of which way that can be
accomplished so that a builder cannot do that if the property is going to need a variance
to put a deck behind the house?
Mr. Gunderud answered, most of the time we don't know who the buyers are.
Mr. Caballero stated, the builder has a plan of the house. If he doesn't have a setback
that plan should say that a patio door is not allowed.
Mr. Gunderud stated, for instance, this one that was right here, she could put a 4 foot
little deck back there with stairs going down it. There is a perfect solution that
would meet the code requirements. We as building inspectors cannot demand that a builder
build a deck, if he puts a door there we don't know whether he is going to build a stairway .
Some people build a small 4 foot deck and wrap it around the house which then opens up to
a larger deck so we don't get into the process of designing their houses, or second
guessing what a homeowner wants to do. The homeowner is paying for this and they get limited
funds to buy the house and they can't afford a deck like that might cost 2 or 3,000. It
might mean the difference of whether they are going to be able to purchase the house in
the first place.
Mrs. Visconti stated, I would make a suggestion that possibly you could refer this over to
the Town Attorney and ask here if there is a possibility that if there are sliding glass
doors there must be a deck. If there is not going to be a deck then they must have
a picture window. I would make a suggestion that you refer it to the Town Attorney and
see if that is enforceable.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I make that motion.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Page -22-
Vote:
v Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landofli - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 46891, 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 feet is required on a
Countv Road on Property located on Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 466156-01-439566,
in the Town of Wappinger.
John Sokol was present.
Mr. Sokol stated, you have some paperwork. One is a letter from the County Highway Dept.
stating that they have no objections to that reduction, to a 35 foot setback.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if she had that letter in the file.
Ms. Berberich replied no.
Mr. Gunderud had a copy of it.
Letter dated April 10, 1986 to Hans Gunderud from Timothy Grimont, Dept of Public Works:
This letter addresses the request to construct a dwelling at a location 35 feet from the
Vounty right-of-way line. Said request is being made by Mr. John Sokol, P.0 Box 510,
Hughsonville, NY 12537.
The Department of Public Works has no objection to the above proposal; however, a County
Work Permit must be obtained by the property owner to perform the necessary improvements to
a driveway, now in existence, to serve the parcel. The plot plan shall note the driveway
with an internal vehicular turn -around adjacent to the propeosed garage.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I believe Mr. Sokol went to the County to seek their opinion as to
the setback whether that would be a detriment since our Zoning Ordinance says 75 feet,
whether the County felt that they would need that 75 feet.
Mr. Caballero asked, did we send a request to the County to review this? I would like to
get an official answer from the County to us, we could make that letter part of the record
also, but we still like to get the official answer from the County to us. I don't see
here any drawings in reference to where this proposed home would site on that property.
Mr. Hirkala asked, are you building this home for someone or for yourself, is there anything
existing there on this lot?
Mr. Sokol answered, there is nothing existing there.
Mr. Hirkaka asked, and you are contracted to build a home for someone?
Mr. Sokol answered, I am going to build a house for myself.
�We Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason that I am asking is because it says here lands of ........
This thing presented here doesn't have your name on it.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you buying this property build?
Page -23- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Sokol answered, I am in contract to buy it now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you are in contract to buy it and you want to put up a house for
yourself 2
Mr. Sokol answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the purpose for the expansion, later, of the septic fields?
Mr. Sokol answered, it is required by the Dutchess County Board of Health. There should
be a letter that was written by Hans referring to the conversation we had with Mr. Napoli.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I went a letter back to Mr. Sokol. I talked to Mr. Napoli at the
County Board of Health in regard to depth because the discussion that I had with Mr. Sokol
was why don't you just simply move the whole septic field back on the lot and move the
house back and then you won't need a frontyard setback and he said for two reasons really.
First of all the County, as you saw from his letter did not object to being within that
75 foot setback that we have in the Zoning Ordinance, they have no problem with that.
Mr. Caballero stated, but that request was made by him, we don't have our official answer
from the County.
Mr. Gunderud stated, after I had denied his, aprt of his building permit process. He was
submitting his plot plan for my approval and after I denied his plot plan he then went
out on his own to find out whether the County, what the Dept. of Public Works had to say
about the frontyard setback and also talk to Jim Napoli of the Health Dept.. Napoli
called me on the phone and as a result of the phone call I wrote a letter back to
Mr. Sokol. I was trying to understand why he couldn't change the septic fields and
Mr. Napoli's remark was that this original plan was done back in 1969 by and Engineer
that certified that the County and it was approved by the Board of Health just recently
for Mr. Sokols permit and the County said that that is the way it is designed and that
is the way it has to stay.with that expansion area and i am not sure that I know the
exact reason for the expansion whether it is that that ground is poor down there and
that they want to leave that additional area in case there is any failure of the intitial
system over the years or whether if he decided to hook another bedroom on his house 5 or 10
years after he built the original house then he would need that expansion area to meet
the County code requirements.
Mr. Cortellino statedI would like a clearer explanation, not from Hans but from the
Health Dept.. By saying that some engineer in 1969 designed it this was and you can't
change it, I don't see the reasons, it could be that that is the only possible plan for
the septic but let them state that this is the only possible way that that would create
some sort of atmosphere for me to make a judgement on it. But, it is also possible that
alternatives can be made. Why are they saying that we go by the 1969 plan so I would
like something from the Health Dept. not from implication of this remark.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem, in agreement with Charlie, with the County because
the County has never been in any way, shape or form shy about telling us what they want
and all of a sudden here they are telling us in 1969 it was designed by some engineer and
we can't change that.
Mr. Caballero stated, number one that letter was directed, not to this Board, not an answer
to our request, we are going to wait for that answer from our request on this particular
property. The letter here that Hans is giving me I would like to put into the record.
Letter to Mr. Sokol from Hans Gunderud dated April 18th, 1986:
Page -24- May 13th, 1986
I have been in contact with Jim Napoli of the Dutchess County Board of Health regarding
your lot off Osborne Hill Road. The plot plan shows an extensive sewage disposal system
with a "Future expansion" area. Mr. Napoli indicated to me that the total system may
be required in the future since that area of the Town does not have good percolation
characteristics. Apparently the lot is marginal, at best at building lot without
changing the location of the house. If the variance is not granted to the 35 foot
setback, you may have a problem in the future with the septic system.
Mr. Caballero asked if there are any more questions from the Board.
There was a discussion on where the property was located.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that we table this until we get the information
back from the County Health Dept. and the Dept. of Public Works.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this appeal.
Tom Hetherington - lives on the adjacent property.
From his property line to my well is probably 143 feet. The property was approved in
1969 to the best of my knowledge. We bought our property from .......in 1981. At that
time that was approved in 1969 we were told that construction will stop because it
couldn't meet the requirements of the septic. Now, that was heresay, by my concern is
if I am 143 feet from his property line how do I insure that this is at 200 feet and how
do I control any expansion later on for the family as far as family members for bedrooms
to make sure that that septic is proper. So, I do have concerns as far as the variance,
as far as why is he going to 35 feet, also, my property, as far as the 200 feet required
to satisfy my well.
Mr. Caballero stated, do you realize that if he went back the proper setback and put in
another septic system in that he doesn't need a variance from us?
Mr. Hetherington answered, to my understanding if he comes back 75 feet to your requirment
his well is already in, which I am assuming would be behind the house, if he has a
distance requirement from that well to his septic system I don't see how he can contain....
Mr. Caballero stated, the Board of Health will stop him not us at that point.
Mr. Hetherington asked, are we saying that what was standing in 1969 as far as......
Mr. Caballero stated, you are misunderstading me. If he didn't ask for a variance of
35 feet and he wanted to build the house back he could if he passes the Health requirements,
Board of Health requirements.
Mr. Hetherington asked, for what family population?
Mr. Caballero answered, I have no idea because I don't know what the Board of Health
requirements are and I don't know what the condition of that soil is. The only thing that
we are addressing here is whether we are going to grant him a variance for a 35 foot
setback where 75 foot is required.
Mr. Hetherington asked, the question I have is if you address the 35 feet, not knowing
the family size, how much septic is reuqired according to Board of Healths definition.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that has nothing to do with the variance sir.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any objections to that house being 35 feet from the road?
Any reasons why you would object to it?
Page -25-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Hetherington answered, nothing other than the septics, no I have no objections.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak for or agianst this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor to table this matter until we get
communications from the County.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mrs. Hetherington asked, does it matter if Mr. Sokol is going to live in this house?
Mr. Caballero answered, I don't see where that would have any...I don't think it matters.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #892, at the request of Donald Subrize, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.32
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for an addition to be built on a house
which is legally non -conforming on a private road in the Town of Wappinger on Troperty
located on Easter Road, and being Parcel #6056-01-23 747, in the Town of Wappinger.
Richard Subrize was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, is this a house that is on a road, a private road.
Mr. Subrize answered, yes it is a private road.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you the applicant for this?
Mr. Subrize answered, I am speaking for my brother who is here.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you understand that there is no services what so ever provided
on a private road by the Town?
Mr. Subrize answered, we are aware of it. The house is already built there.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, it is only because it is on a private road, there is
no variances other than the private road variance?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no sideyards or anything like that.
Mr. Landolfi asked, why the addition?
Mr. Subrize answered, he would like to build a garage so he can put his truck in there
and a little bit of storage above it, that is all.
Mr. Caballero asked, what kind of truck?.
Mr. Subrize answered, Ford Bronco.
Page -26-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Urciuoli made a motion to grant the variance.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Mr. Hirkala asked if it is a one family house.
Mr. Subrize answered yes.
Vote;
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - abstain Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #893, 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 #6258-04-754506, in the Town of Wappinger.
Nancy Forest, Sign Language was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, was this appeal before us earlier and was denied?
Mr. Cortellino answered, yes.
Ms. Forest stated, no, I checked that, it was requested back when it was told not to be
brought up at that point because there was a question as to the Zoning of his business
being Neighborhood Business. I checked that out because if they were denied there would
be no reason for coming here.
Mr. Landolfi stated, That is partially correct. The other part is that it was here before.
Ms. Forest stated, I heard that they were not going to decide anything on it until all
the business was taken care of properly.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, has this business been corrected on this property, the
violations or whatever?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, I think the CO has been issued.
Mr. Caballero asked, the CO has been issued on the property?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, by who?
Mr. Gunderud answered, Dan Kriegsman, the Building Inspector issues CO's.
Mr. Hirkala asked, by what authority?
Page -27-
May 13th, 1986.
Mr. Gunderud answered, by his authority as the Building Inspector.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in an illegal zone?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it is not an illegal zone.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it says here NB and it says here GB for the use.
Ms. Forest stated, I checked that out with them and asked them what happened and obviously
somehow permits were issued from what they say, for them to put up the building but someone
made the mistake on GB or NB as to what his business actually was, but the building already
had been put up.
Mr. Caballero stated, it is not relative because it has received a CO.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I stood right here and explained to Mr. Schnorr the fact that his
gripe was with the Town Board not this Board and the Town Board had to, it doesn't make
any difference who in this Town issues what, if it is illegal it is still illegal and
its in an illegal zone.,and I don't care if he has a CO or if he doesn't have a CO
somebody has to show me where we can legally look at this thing when soembody says its
NB and its not. The line says its GB, so how can we look at it.
Mr. Caballero stated, according to Hans the property has a Certificate of Occupancy. It
was issued a CO.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't care. It is legal or it isn't.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is legal, Mike, because a CO was issued, and it was issued several
months ago.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want an opinion from the Attorney.
Mr. Gunderud satted, that Attorney was engaged by the applicant prior to the time she was
the Town Attorney, representing the applicant.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then we are going to have to find our own attorney aren't we?
Mr. Gunderud stated, the CO was legally issued by the Building Inspector several months ago.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it specifically states here that storage and sale of building materials,
plumbing, electrical, and similar contractors establishments as provided by any outdoor
storage is suitably screened to provide any outdoor storage from streets and adjoining
properties in accordance to plan approved by the Planning Board. That is GB zone. That
is not NB zone, thats GB zone, General Business that is not in the General Business Zone
and it also has an asterik which says that it is supposed to have a Special Use Permit.
We never received it. This Board has never issued a Special Use Permit on that piece of
property.. Now, how can we entertain before us a variance on a piece of property that
is being illegally occupied. I don't care if a CO has been issued or not. It is up to
the Town Board or at least the Attorney to tell me that we can do something with it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, as Zoning Administrator,I would say that property is not being
occupied or the use is not illegal.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that we refer this to the Attorney for question of
legality.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Page -28-
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, my next motion is, in the possibility that the Attorney declines, the
Attorney to the Town declines to review this because of a possible conflict of interest
that we set a special meeting to determine who the attorney will be, who it will be
referred to.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4894, at the request of Allan J Finn, seeking a variance of Article IV, §425
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a driveway onto a private road on
a lot which has legal road frontage on a Town Road on property located on Pine Ridge Drive
Lot #3, Stear Subdivision, and being Parcel 46256-02-800965, in the Town of Wappinger.
Allan Finn was present.
Mr. Finn stated, I am requesting these properties that belong to Mr. Stear, I am in the
process of negotiations, I would like to run the drives out on Maurer Terrace because
I believe that the drives going down onto Pine Ridge Drive prove to be a practical
difficulty for several reasons. First of all the asthetics of the, I don't know if you
are familiar with this area, its is quite a nice area, these are beautiful lots, and I
think by running the drives down over the hill it is very steep, I think it would really
take away from the settings of the houses, number 1, and I think it would be dangerous
especially in the winter time because it is very steep and when you hit Pine Ridge Drive
there is also another drop on the other side and I also think there would be a problem
with erosion and water runoff. I think if I can run the driveways out to Maurer Terrace
I wouldn't have to disturb any of the land on the crest of the hill that goes down towards
Pine Ridge Drive therefore I don't think it would bother, would change the direction of
the water at all.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he had any problems with this.
Mr. Gunderud answered, I don't say that I have any problems with it, the problem is that
it doesn't meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The subdivision was approved
within the last couple of years with the driveways shown onto the legal road which is
Pine Ridge.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what you are saying is a variance is not necessary because the
approval was based on drawings that showed everything conforming.
Mr. Gunderud answered, right.
Page -29-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, that presents another problem because the Planning Board passed
on that and obviously they are taking a different slant at it than we are.
Mr. Finn stated, I have a copy of the deed. I got it from Mr. Stear's Attorney and it
shows a ROW the ingressand egress of the Maurer Terrace area.
The deed is part of the record.
Mr. Finn stated, it shows that that property does have the right to use it as a legal
ROW.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone present to speak either for or against this appeal.
Mr. Hugh J. Maurer.
I would like to address it.for information only. Who is responsible for the, if there is
a lawsuit or something on that property? Legally, insurance wise, and I am a property
owner also, but there are some other property owners, if he is going to go right onto
that wouldn't it be easier just to make that road and let them accept that road, make it
a Town Road. I don't want the responsibility of insurance.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is your legal agreement between the people on that road.
Mr. Maurer stated, I think that that should be a condition. I have no gripes in them
going there but I don't want the responsibility of accepting that if the Town doesn't
accept it.
Mr. Caballero stated, we can't accept the road unless it conforms to our Town specification.
That is not up to us, that would be up to the Town Board to accept that road.
Mr. Maurer asked, what is our protection for the legal side of it. That is an easement
that every property owner in that development owns to the center of the road.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the legal matters, the liability has nothing to do with our
consideration on whether we give the variance. His contract agreement which, whoever is
given the easement, takes care of that. We have no liability. All we are saying that
he can build in a landlocked area.
Mr. Caballero stated, it is not landlocked.
Mr. Maurer stated, I can understand what he is doing and he is probably right but the only
question that we have is who is liable in case there is an accident on the road?
Mr. Caballero stated, that would be your liability of who owns the road.
Mr. Maurer stated, we all own it.
Mr. Caballero answered, then you are all liable.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would hesitate to say that they are all liable because I would
assume, not being an Attorney, but having watched some of the things that have been going
on, I would not catagorically say that the Town would not have some liability in this
case if we grant them the right to go on that road.when they had access to another Town
Road.
Page -30-
Michael Branewitcz.
May 13th, 1986
I have an objection to that. You say another Town Road. There is only one Town Road with
a steep grade and that is Pine Ridge Drive and I am talking about an incline like this so
if they put the houses on top and make the driveways coming down the hill I am not directly
involved, I am indirectly, I live at the bottom of the valley of this hill. When you clear
this land, you are going to add more water and erodes more land on the downhill. There
are other houses that sit just below Pine Ridge Drive. These driveways when they come down
in the winter time will wind up in the other peoples houses.
Mr. Hirkala stated, not if they maintain the driveways.
Mr. Caballero asked, what you are saying sir is that you would rather have them build a
private road, on a private road?
Mr. Branewitcz stated, there is a ROW up there. What I am suggesting is that they fix
the ROW or the builder fix it and use that as an access point, flatly, instead of
coming down a grade, putting a house, and then coming down the back end of your house onto
Pine Ridge Drive.
Mr. Caballero asked, so you are for his.variance?
Mr. Branewitcz answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, what you are saying basically is that you are for his variance that
you would like to see the private road being developed rather than the access that we
have now?
Mr. Branewitcz answered, yes. It is accepted to put these driveways coming down the
mountain to reach Pine Ridge Drive, blacktopped road, like I said, you will increase
the water damage and all this water has to come down to my land which in turn is the
wetlands and enviornmental and an endanger species zone and right now I have enough
water being handled by the construction up there. Now, I also have culverts down there.
I would like to know if you are going to accept it, who is going to maintain it. This is
a rpivate road, a dirt road. Do I have to accept this responsibility? Why should I
accept it when there is a flat road to be maintained?
Mr. Hirkala stated, this is an approved subdivision map approved by the Town of Wappinger
Planning Board. Apparently what they are asking for is a site plan review. They are
asking for a review of the site plan, what I am trying to tell you is that this man is
talking water coming down and all this stuff. There are drainage plans that go along with
it. This is just one map of a stack of maps. There are drainage plans for this subdivision
and if we grant them the right to put driveways up here, this man comes along and says,
I don't have to worry about all the drainage down here as in the site plan because now
we don't have to put driveways down there. We are opening up a can of worms.
Bonnie Christman - owns Lot #4.
I am on Lot #4 and we built a house there last year. There is no drainage beyond me
halfway of the front of the property from Forestview. There is no drainage downhill.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am trying to tell you, by a matter of law, these lots just
can't be created out of the air. They are created on paper after review by the Planning
Board, the Engineer to the Town, they are bucked out to Hans, to everybody in the Town.
Now, the subdivision engineer who happens to be Kihlmire, who is a L.L.S., has to have had
approval from the Engineer to the Town on drainage. If the drainage is going to be effected
by the driveways that has to be taken care of, but that is another problem, that is not
for us to determine.
Page -31- May 13th, 1986
Mrs. Christann stated, the building on the top doesn't effect the drainage downhill at all.
We didn't disturb the property on the back half.
Mr. Hirkala asked, why can't these houses be built with the driveways as proposed?
It seems to me that the Planning Board would have to look at this.
Mr. Branewitcz stated, actually the objection is not having the houses built, it is the
way situation you want the driveways is what we are complaining about.
Mr. Landolfi stated, this particular subdivision, many different agencies. I don't think
that we are in any position to want to change that in any way, shape, or form unless there
is some form of hardship presented to us. I have not really heard or seen any evidence
of any hardships per say. I would like to go, if it comes to a motion I will go with the
integrity of the Planning Board who has put extensive work into that along with the other
agencies within the Town.
Mr. Caballero stated, So, basically what, those drives will go onto Pine Ridge, and I think
what the people who live in that area there are saying that they would like to see it on
that private road rather than on Pine Ridge. What I would like to do is let them get on
the record and then we can pass it to the Planning Board or deny it and let it go where
ever it may go.
June Visconti.
My observations are, I was with Mrs. Christman, the land up there on the road that they
would like the houses to egress to is flat, is in front of them. You tend to make the
road, the houses go the other way on Pine Ridge, he does have pictures that show the
driveways are going to impact the area in the following ways:
1. The grade of those driveways is going to be absolutely herendous. I don't know
whether it would be even legal or not but to have them come down would be over 20%. It
would come down onto Pine Ridge. That is a Town Road, a rather squirrely road, I was there,
they come around that corner at a rather fast clip and to have those 4 driveways coming
down at that grade they could just slide right into traffic and it would be a safety
feature.
2. The water problem, with the grade being so steep on that, if that is a blacktop
driveway, the way it runs is the water would come down onto Pine Ridge. In winter time
looking at it again a safety factor, the water comes down like a river, hits Pine Ridge,
goes right across to the next tier of these peoples homes and continues down, it is on
a slant so his concern is that all the water that would now coming down is being deverted
properly with whatever natural restrictions there are. If there is paved driveways it
is going to accelerate the amount of water coming down, it will cause a disturbance to
the wetland and to the enviornmental and endangered species. They are proposing, and I
don't know again if any of this is legal, that the best way to do this would be to go
out on a flat road, again, I don't know about the drainage, that might have to be altered
from the original plan, but it would appear that if her house was already built that way
and there are no drainage problems because the way it is coming out onto the road that
that is the best way to do it, they all seem to be in agreement. I did walk the property
and I do recommend that the grade is not condusive to have the driveways come out on
Pine Ridge.
Mr. Caballero stated, would the people who live there state your name and address and tell
us whether you agree basically with what June just presented, that you would rather see
the driveways to this, 4 homes to the private road or you would rather see the driveways
to Pine Ridge.
Carmen Poholcuk - Pine Ridge Drive.
I would be opposite whether that downgrade comes. This past winter, if you check with
the Highway Dept. we had to call them many times. The water coming across the road was
Page -32-
ice this thick.
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, so, would I put words in your mouth by saying that you would like
to have them build a private road rather than to Pine Ridge?
Mrs. Poholcuk answered, yes.
Rosemary Branewitcz
I am also here representing my father, Matthew Redenti who lives opposite Mrs. Christman
down on Pine Ridge. He would prefer the top. I live below my father, we get all the
water. I prefer they come out on Maurer Terrace.
Bonnie Christman - Forest View Road.
Wappinger needs more exclusive neighborhoods and this area is potential exclusive neighbor-
hood, a very pretty area, 250 to $300,000.00 houses and to turn half of the road backwards
doesn't make any sense in the long run.
Mrs. Poholcuk stated, I would also say there are only 3 houses involved now because she
is in the first house.
Edward Croon - Lives across the street from Lot X63.
I would rather see it come out on top.
Hugh J. Maurer,
I am in favor of coming out on top but, I am also concerned about the legal side of it.
Who is responsible, I would like to direct to your board, it is a different situation
than you normally got involved in, there are very few lots owned to the center of the road.
Mr. Caballero stated, the Board understands your concern and I don't think this Board
can tell you one way or the other because we are not legal experts.
Mr. Coughlin.
As I recall when I bought that from Mike Meirs, many, many years back, we deeded, I think
it is 25 feet to the center of the road, in one case at the bottom of my property I had
to deed 50 feet because he didn't own the other side. The question now in my mind is
we deed the right and I presume he turned it over to the Town and in those days they had,
he had sold the property at rather low prices and the Town was in the process of converting
over to hard surface roads but they made a plea for him and they let him get through
with gravel and culverts and then they accepted it. So, it is sort of in limbo right now
as far as I can see. If the roads, Coughlin Terrace and Maurer Terrace are, call them
private property, and we have deeded them to somebody whether we deeded them to the Town
or not, so who is responsibility, legal responsibility is it, second question I have, on
the advice of my attorney is this, if I wish to sell, if we granted the man a right to
go off Maurer Terrace or Coughlin Terrace for that matter, and it is still a private
road, not a Town Road, I later want to sell, I have to sell with that restriction in
effect, so it is really causing me an economic disadvantage. The obvious solution to
this thing is, have the gentlemen bring Maurer Terrace up to Town specifications, and
I suspect that the Town will be pleased to take it over.
May Tierney - Pine Ridge Drive.
We were wondering which way he was planning to go out.
Mr. Caballero aswered, what he would like to do is through Maurer Terrace.
Mr. Finn answered, right now there is 3 lots there and I am interested in the first lot
of the 3 which is closest to Forestview, so, even if I get chipped away and get one, a
variance for one to come out there that would just a matter of making a longer driveway.
Page -33-
May 13th, 1986
It is only about 100 feet from the blacktopped Town Road now to the property line.
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Gunderud, I would like discussion between you and the Board
in reference to we recommend this to go to the Planning Board and for these people to
address the Planning Board in reference to their concerns of how this should be about
and then make a recommendation to us.
Mr. Gunderud answered, you can do that but what you are almost saying is that you want
them to have an amended subdivision. Now, who is going to pay for all the engineering
for this.
Mr. Caballero asked, so then it should be his job to go in for an amended subdivision?
Mr. Gunderud answered, if this gentlemen would like to pick up the financial obligation
of amending the subdivision, refiling the map, doing the engineering required, because as
one of the residents already said, last year there already was water running over the road
to the corner where the ice was this thick. If that is the case, I would assume that,
that was reviewed by the Town when they did the subdivision and I suspect by putting these
driveways in there they also probably picked up some benefit to the Town by regrading
and putting in culverts that would pick up that water problem and hoefully solved that.
We don't know that yet.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Finn, would you be willing to have a subdivision review on this.
Mr. Finn answered, yes I would.
Mr. Caballero stated, amybe that would be the avenue for you to go rather than try to get
a variance. We can see both sides of the concerns here,but I think that would be the
direction. I would think that this Board would tend to deny your request for a variance
but I see there are concerns, there is a right way to handle it and actually by us
giving you a variance would not be the right way.
Nicholas Poholcuk - across from Lot #2.
Two things. I want to make sure that it goes to the Planning Board that we were all there
to. Are we allowed to or is it just a closed session. #2 is, my wife stipulated about
the water, for years we have lived there and never had that kind of water running across
the road, compact the ice and you go to your mailbox and you take a ride on your rear end.
This all occured since the time they dug up for the possible leach fields and did their
testing where the equipment just went up the grade, that is where the water followed.
Right up this past winter and that is just on where they were testing.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is why I feel this Board, it would be good sense of this
Board not to get involved in granting a variance until some of this is cleared up.
Mr. Gunderud stated, if would be the intention of this applicant to go to the Planning
Board to redesign the subdivision and show the driveways up to Maurer Terrace he still
would need a variance from the Zoning Board because our Town Law our Zoning Law reads that
the Building Department and I cannot approve a building permit on a private road.
Mr. Caballero asked, can we refer this to the Planning Board for their recommendations
and make sure they get all the testimony from this hearing and that they are thoroughly,
read it thoroughly so that they can come back with a recommendation to this Board so we
can make a proper decision.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the otoion.
Vote: All Ayes.
Page -34- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, one of the points that we are not looking at here is the fact that
r+ the Town Planning Board and the Engineer to the Town reviewed the whole thing. Now, if
there is something wrong with the site plan initially, it is not our problem, it is not
out purview rather to look at that and say there is something wrong with the site plan.
That is one of the problems I have with this application.
n
01
Mr. Caballero stated, this is why we want to review it back to the Planning Board so that
they can give comments and if they say we did it right the first time around we deny it.
If they say that something that must be looked at.....
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would also like to find out what the Town's legal problems would
be if the Town granted the right, a variance to put a driveway on a private road.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I am going to move that the variance be denied since the appellant
has not demonstrated or shown any hardship and I would also like to, in the same motion,
let this go on to the Planning Board for their recommendations.since this has already been
passed by them.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked for a recess at 9:50 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 10:00 P.M..
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4895, at the request of the
_c ..i.,. rr,...,,, ..f Tdnnninoar RnninQ Ord
Elks, see
-
11 --- / 1 N
a variance of Article IV, §416.31
17' x 3' affixed to the
tinl 7nne on nronerty located
building where on.i a /- iw,L. o1 LL ---
on Route 376, and being Parcel 46358-01-180843, in the Town of Wappinger.
George Bulson was present.
Mr. Bulson stated, I don't know if you know what the Elks are all about but, basically
we are a paternal orgainization, non-profit, we do alot of things in the community like
we have a scholarship fund, we have a hoop shoot for the kids, we do alot of work with
the veterans at Castle Point. So, we are a community organization. We just recently put
a building on Route 376 and we just had it dedicated the Sunday before last and we are
very proud of our building and we would like to put a sign up. Actually what this sign
amounts to is its not really a sign its letters, one foot high letters affixed to the
outside of the building and the reason that it is 17 feet long is because Wappingers
Lodge is like 14 letters and those 14 letters are going to go 17 feet. It will be affixed
to the building, the building is about, I am not sure exactly, about 100 feet up off the
road. The reason that we want this sign on the outside of the building is not for
advertising purposes or anything like that, the reason we want the sign is, as I said,
we are proud of the building and second of all I think it is a real asset to the community
and as people go by it they should know what it is so we are planning on having weddings,
etc.. It will aid the people coming looking for the building driving along 376.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this.
Page -35-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Minard.
It is 17 feet, you can't even see the building from the road now. If you drive by the
building you can't even see it from the road.
Mr. Bulson stated, there is no plan to put any lighting up on the lettering. There is
some lighting over the canopy.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to grant the variance.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion on the basis of the fact that there is no free standing
sign. This is the only sign they are going to have.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think whether it is the Wappingers Lodge or any organization
that we should go ahead and expand on our Zoning Ordinance. It should be good for
everybody. The identification of this building could be just as well within the limitation
of our Zoning Ordinance. I don't see any reason what so ever to grant any variance for a
larger sign on that piece of property. There is no need, especially in a residential
neighborhood. There is a motion on the floor that has been seconded.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
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 46157-02-610920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Ed Loedy was present.
Mr. Loedy stated, we have been retained by Norstar to design the modified site plan and
an addition to their building which also includes some signage and the signage that the
bank proposes to put there and in quite a few instances as you have just read doesn't
comply with the ordinance and we are here to seek some variances. The first one, and I
am not 1007 sure we would need the variance because it is a corner lot and the way that
I read that ordinance is, I am not 1007 sure whether we can have a sign on each side or
not, so we are being conservative and requesting it. If you are willing to look at the
ordinance youselves, it says that a corner lot can have a sign so that it can be viewed
from more than one direction. What we would like to have is a sign on the side that
faces Route 9 and then we would like to have a sign where you drive into the main entry
that faces Middlebush.
Mr. Cortellino stated, from what you read my interpretation is the side may not be the
one that you want, would identify the area regardless of which road would do it. It could
a sign like the famous McDonalds, it would be one side but it readily identify that
intersection. It does not mean two signs so that you can still see one side from one
direction and one side from the other direction.
Page -36- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Loedy stated, it is possible, as a matter of fact the previous bank, Chemical Bank
had a sign on that corner but it turned out that it was not in compliance with the
ordinance because it is to close to the property line. If you were to move that sign in
somewhat like you are suggesting, the site exists, we did not design this site, we are
redesigning it. For us to move that sign back far enough to the property line so that
you could see it from both sides it would be smack in the middle of the driveway so, no
matter how we look at it there is a hardship of some kind involved there. Either they
can't identify their building from one side or the other and they are in business and when
you can't identify yourself as somebody in business, I would say that that is a hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, Chemical was there for a very long time.
Mr. Loedy stated, and they had signs on both sides.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I believe that you are going to find that most of the customers at
your bank are going to be repeat customers. I guarantee you that even if you had no sign
they are going to find your bank. It is a very reputable bank and I think as such, the
type of business you are in I think the people will have no trouble at all finding you.
Mr. Loedy answered, I agree with you to a point sir that when you are a regular customer
you will find the bank but as all of us in business you are always looking for new
customers and there is always that reinforcement of image so that when you see the logo
over and over and it looks exactly the same and that is why you buy Coca Cola because
you have seen the sign so much. Why don't we go on to the next one. The sign taht we
are proposing on the east side of the building would look like that. That represents
the Norstar corporate logo. Of course we discussed all these matters with Mr. Gunderud
and he advised us that this was not in compliance. The sign, as it is designed, for
Norstar consists of these little romboids and then it says Norstar and Bank underneath
it.and the overall area of that sign falls within the ordinance, the way that it is
configured does not. I wrote a letter to you Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you have it
with you but basically what the letter says is that the total area of this sign is actually
not oversized but the ordinance says that we can't have it any higher than 3 feet and the
way Mr. Gunderud explained it to me is that we can't count each letter as only 2 foot
high we have to count all of it together. In comparison we have to show you that the very
same letters put in this fashion is permitted and if anything it appears to be a larger
sign to me but that is not the point. The point is as I pointed it out to you, this is
the way Norstar has all their braches identified and I would be glad to show you that and
this is their corporate logo.
Mr. Caballero asked, can you do that corporate logo within our sign ordinance?
Mr. Loedy answered, the only way we could do that is shrink the whole thing down to 3 feet
and then it would be so small that you couldn't see it at all.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think that is the intent of our sign ordinance is not to have those
signs overwhelm you out there.
Mr. Loedy stated, I agree with you that there comes a point where a sign maybe starts to
detract, but the fact that we are all here enjoying the american business gives us all
our good lifestyles.
Mr. Caballero stated, obviously before you.there were a couple of banks before Norstar
+` that adhered to our Zoning Ordinance and they were turned down for signage smaller than
r that. It is not fair for this Board to have turned other people down on signage and then
turn around and make an exception later on.
Page -37-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, there is also another problem that appellant after appellant
4 comes in and says this is the corporate logo. It is not our concern what is the
�Ir+ corporate logo, our concern is just on size.
Mr. Cortellino stated, on the next one I have a question before you even start. I presume
there is a logo on the time -temperature sign right?
Mr. Loedy answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, would you be willing to put up that sign oversized if the logo wasn't
there?
Mr. Loedy answered, we would be willing to make it smaller.
Mr. Cortellino stated, no, that is not my question. Lets say that we allow a 25 foot
square foot sign in the Town and I would say that I am willing to give you 50 but no
logo, just the time and temperature, would you go along with that?
Mr. Loedy answered, I can't speak for the bank.
Mr. Cortellino stated, then all you want is an extra sign. You don't care about people
seeing the time and temperature. My point is that you want a large sign there with the
excuse of time and temperature but it is really to show the logo. Take the logo off and
I will vote to give you the sign.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone who wished to speak for or against this appeal.
Peggy Stateswitcz.
Where that new bank is going to be, that is tough road. You have to come up to that light
and you have people pulling in and going this way and you are going to be caught, you
are going to have people looking like this and they are not going to watch this and this
and this going on so the smaller, like you are saying, the smaller signs are better for us.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak.
Bill Krauling with Norstar.
So far as being able to read a sign, it does happened to be a fairly congested intersection
and you have a hill that you are coming down to from Middlebush Road. The purpose of
making a sign is not to make a sign to big but also not to make it to small. The sign has
got to be read easily but not over powering. The fact that you have a congested intersection
you should not have a sign that is going to pull your attention away from the intersection.
If the sign is to small and you are not familiar with the area that you are going to have to
take your attention away from the intersection and try and make out the letters. I am not
for the largest sign possible, I am for a resonable size sign that is easy to read because
the worst thing to do is to visually ........ which is not overally large but large enough
to be read easily by person with average eyesight. Now, particularily the way that the
property is set up the sign where we propose to place it is approximately70 feet off of
the pavement and approximately 150 feet away from the intersection. Now, if we keep in
the spirit of the zoning code and place the sign according to the zoning code the largest
letter possible would be a 9 inch letter. Now, you tell me how you are going to keep your
eye on the road, read and digest the sign at a busy intersection, if you are squinting to
read a 9 inch letter. The purpose of a sign is to glance at it quick and be able to digest
it, not continually keep glancing at it. You want to keep your eye on the road but
you still want to be able to digest the copy on the sign and that is really what we are
looking for. Unfortunately the way that the corporate logo is set up with Norstar we
are not getting the maximum use of the area of the sign because if you notice there is
a big blank area to the right of the logo and a big blank area to the bottom which takes
Page -38- May 13th, 1986
up a good percentage of the sign area which is not useable. Now, granted if we eliminated
the logo and just used Norstar Bank and ran that copy right to the very margins, sure we
could fit within the zoning codes but with a 9 inch high letter and a sign that would
asthetically unpleasing to the eye. So, I think to follow the spirit of the zoning code
100% would not be fair. I think we have to look at it from a common sense point of view
which is which fits fairly within the zoning code and yet is asthetically pleasing to the
eye. We are not out to get the biggest sign possible, we are out to get the sign which
is asthetically pleasing to the property in relation to the building which is easy to read
and which is not going to create a traffic hazard. There is a reason why New York State
Dept. of Transportation set up letter heights, readability. Every letter for every inch
in letter height there is 30 feetof readability for a person with a 20/20 vision. So,
If you have a 10 inch high letter you can read it from 300 feet stading still not traveling
at 55 MPH on a four lane highway and not approaching a busy intersection which is only
going to be busier. The idea is to make it a safe intersection where people can enter
and exit the bank and the only way that you can do that is to identify if not an overally
large letter but something that is legible to a person with average eyesight and not
everyone has 20/20 vision.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, it seems that what you want us to do id correct a problem that you
have with your own corporate identity. If your identity was designed improperly not to
give you sufficient exposure that is not our problem that is your problem.
Mr. Krauling answered, well, it is not that it was designed properly, the problem is
that it doesn't fit within your zoning code. We have worked with other municipalities and
they have afforded us the opportunity to use our logo as it is seen int he other locations.
Unfortunately there is a blank area which is unuseable to the right and to the bottom.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished to make a statement.
Mr. Loedy stated, there is one more item before you. There are directionaly signs within
the site, very small, there are only two. One is, as you come in it says all traffic
this way and then the other one says drive-in teller parking this way. These signs were
both presented by us to the Planning Board and at the same time the Planning Board felt
very strong that we should have them. As a matter of fact, jointly we came up with a
location and what the signs would say. The Planning Board felt that these were important
signs within the site to help direct traffic.
Mr. Caballero asked how big the signs were.
Mr. Loedy answered, those signs are 4 foot square. 4 foot high and 4 foot wide. The
Planning Board couldn't approve these signs because currently you ordinance either
didn't address them or maybe you don't want these kinds of signs in Wappinger but according
to the Building Inspector we have to come here for a variance for those signs also.
Mr. Krauling stated, I would like to bring up the point that these signs here are specif-
ically for traffic flow within the facility itself. They cannot be viewed from Middlebush
Road, this is to keep the flow of traffic follwoing a counter clockwise direction
because in this area right here you have a potential of a car pulling in and a car pulling
out at the same time. These have no advertising on them, they are simply for directional
signs.
Mr. Landolfi stated, your logo is there, it doesn't have to say Norstar.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the comment that I wanted to make was last might at the Planning Board
meeting the Planning Board reviewed some amendements that they are going to propose to the
Town Board. Among one of the changes in the sign ordinance that theya are going to propose
would be to allow these type of signs as a change.
Page -39-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Krauling asked, is there any particular section of the code that spells out traffic
J directional signs as being restrictive on the property itself not visible from a public
highway.
Mr. Gunderud answered, it doesn't say that they are prohibited, it just simply says that
the only thing that is prohibited as far as free standing signs is that one free standing
sign per road frontage.
Mr. Krauling asked, would you have the same ruling on that if they were New York State
Dept. of Transportation traffic regulatory signs. Unfortunately the way this sign
ordinance was amended last year, the previous amendement did allow provisions for traffic
and vehicular signs that were required or ordered by any municipality or jurisdiciton
like that. When they re -did this ordinance they left that out completely so, even if
the state said that you have to have that one-way sign, I would still have to say the people
would have to come to the Board for a variance. That is why the Planning Board is now
proposing an amendment change to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for that type of sign.
Mr. Cortellino stated, a directional sign, as far as I am concerned, is an arrow, I
don't have to have the logo or a gigantic rectangle. There are many plazas, there are
some plazas, some buildings here where they have what looks like a NY street arrow, enter,
exit, I don't need the logo, I don't need the gigantic rectangle, what is impressing me,
you are not concerned about the traffic flow, you are concerned about showing you sign,
a sign as far as the Town of Wappinger, and I speaking for myself I think for the Town of
Wappinger is for identification purposes not for advertising. We use radio, TV, and
newspapers for advertising. A sign that just points this way saying all cars, like when
you are coming off the turnpike it says all cars is sufficient. I don't need the logo,
I don't need a gigantic sign. I am accustomed to seeing an arrow this large and I wear
glasses.
Mr. Loedy stated, the building isn't even in construction yet so we have some time to
resolve these matters and I want to assure you that even though my first, obviously, my
first purpose is to serve my client and we have no intention what so ever to do anything
that is not proper and we don't expect that if we try we get away with it. But, this
Zoning Board of Appeals is here for the exact purpose that we are here for and that is
in those instances where we are requesting something that is not permitted in the
ordinance and we present it to you gentlemen. Now, my question is would you make some
suggestions to when we come back that we have something to go by and some of these
cases I think that there are problems. We can take this very sign that is illegal
across the top and for that we don't need your permission. I am saying frankly thats...
Mr. Caballero stated,t he only suggestion that I have for you, and I am not speaking
for the Board, is that you try to individualize these variances that you are requesting
for in individual items. Separate them and try to keep it with intent to 15% of what
our Zoning Ordinance is if you want to get some relief. I don't think you are going
to get that kind of relief from this Board because we basically have held the line
on signage.
Mr. Loedy answered, I realize that you have restrictions placed on you as a Board, but
as an example, when you take the very same letters and you put them this way as opposed
to this way.....
Mr. Caballero stated, we understand fully but you must agree with me that what Hyde Park
did with Mc Donalds was for the better of the community and the better of that roadway
in the long run for the community, maybe not for Mc Donalds and we are trying to do the
same thing here. In the long run we are trying to get the signage within reason. Like
I suggested, if you come back to this Board come back with something that is no more than
15% of what we would normally allow under our Zoning Ordinance and individualize these
M
Page -40-
May 13th, 1986
variances one at a time. Do I have a motion on the floor from the Board? This was
written as a package, you have to work on it as a package.
Mr. Loedy asked, can you defer action on it in that case?
Robert Leary - with Norstar Bank.
I just want to make sure the players are identified properly. We have in charge our
Architect, Mr. Loedy to come up with this based on our input. Mr. Furling is not an
employee of our bank but he has been employed to implement the signage of Norstar Bank.
I want to make that clear because I think you might have got the impression he was an
employee of the bank. He has been in charge to implement the signage program for the
bank and has so on other locations for us. We are undergoing a renovation program
which has nothing to do obviously with what we are asking tonight but I can guarantee
you that obviously we don't want to, we are asking for exceptions but obviously we can't
get tremendous exceptions based on what I hear tonight but, I can guarantee you that
whatever we do put in or whatever is allowed will be very attractive. I think if you
look at our other locations you know that we are not coming in with gaudy type signs
with lights and so forth. That is really all I have to say and I appreciate whatever
you can do for us on the variances that we are asking for.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I believe, while we are trying to welcome businesses into the
community we certainly want to welcome Norstar, I would like to make a proposal that we
table this allowing them adequate time to go back to the drawing boards and I think you
get the feeling, I think you are familiar with our Zoning Board, if not maybe Hans
would be more than willing to work with you to try to get your signs more in line, these
are really way out. We had Texaco change their signs for us, we had Shell change
their signs, and so.on. That is my proposal, that we grant them adequate time to go
back and prepare to come back again.
Mr. Furling asked, based upon what you said, can I ask a question. Would you consider
the time/temperature part of the sign, physically part of the sign. If we can get the
sign down so that the reading portion, meaning Norstar Bank, falls within the code or
within 15% of the code, excluding the time/temp unit, -you want to include the time/temp
unit?
Mr. Landolfi answered, that is a sign.
There was a discussion on the time deadlines.
Mr. Caballero stated,t he motion is to table for the appellant to come back and present
different proposals on the different signs.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #851, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts
404 31 f h T f W in er Zonin Ordinance to re
§ o t e own o app g g r____ _ __ __ ,r _us additi___,
mobile home with a 14 x 60 mobile home on non -conforming property located on Cooper Road,
known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel #6156-02-852766, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Page -41-
May 13th, 1986
Robert Lusardi, Attorney for Mrs. Tibbetts and Mrs. Tibbetts was present.
Mr. Lusardi stated, this is a continuation of the previous hearings on this matter.
I would just ask, if I may at this time, present a letter from Maple Lane Modular Home
Sales, Inc., dated May 12th, 1986, which relates to the unavailability of the 10 foot
wide mobil homes:
Dear Mrs. Tibbetts:
Please be advised that 10 foot wide mobile homes are no longer available from any
manufacturer due to F.H.A. requirements.
If I could be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call.
Ron Prince, President.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the letter doesn't clarify to much for me. As I read it it says
please be advised that 10 foot wide mobile homes are no longer available from any
manufacturer due to F.H.A requirements. That is if you wish to get an FH mortgage.
Mr. Lusardi answered, no sir. The federal government now has regulations regarding
construction of mobile homes -because of the mobility of them and the fact that they can
be transported ..... the federal government has become involved in the regulations on
mobile homes. It is a seal, and F.H.A seal that goes on each mobile home no matter where
it is amnufactured int he United States and that particular mobile home must meet federal
requirements and that is what is referred to in that particular letter.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what I don't understand, and you are familiar with the law and I
am not, is, I understand what you said about they have to move up public roads because
so what does the size have to, it would seem to me that a smaller size would be more
suitable instead of seeing this big wide load that can't get out on 9..
Mr. Gunderud stated, the NYS Building Code requires that any mobile home placed in the
state of New York now has to have an FHA seal on it. I think the Fha not only looks at
what can travel over the roads but also what is a minimum size for a dwelling unit and
I think they felt that 10 foot was to narrow so therefore, they do not approve them.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think the question of the size of the mobile home, which
is approved by the FHA is the question here. The question is how many mobile homes can
be placed on that site -and if it means that by moving to this mobile home two sides
would have to be removed to conform with our Zoning Ordinance, instead of having 14 mobile
homes, this site might only be able to have 11 mobile homes of such sizes, that is what
the question is here. So whether it is FHA or whatever the reason is, I don't think that
is the issue. The issue is whether you are going to have to reduce that mobile home in
amount of trailers that you have on it to meet our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lusardi stated, it is our position that this particular mobile home park is a pre-
existing non -conforming use.and as such, it is our postion that we have a continuing right
to maintain 14 trailers on that site. Now, we have established that right in that there
were at least 14 mobile homes on the site itself since prior to the enactment of the
Zoning Law in the early 1960's and that those mobile homes have been on the property or
have subsequently been replaced periodically but that the number has never been less than
14 on the site. We have submitted to the Board affidavits and letters from previous
owners and tenants at the mobile home park and I assume that they are in the record at this
time, if not, I would like to present addition copies to the Board.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think the Board would agree that there were 14 homes there and that
you have the right to put 14 homes, but you also understand that you are looking to change
that now by adding a bigger mobile home and within our Zoning Ordinance today you don't
have snough space in that area to add bigger mobile homes in that total area. How many
square feet of area do we need per mobile home according to our Zoning Ordiance today?
Page -42-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud answered, 6,500 square foot per lot.and for a single wide and 10,000 square
foot for a double wide.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that considered a single wide or a double wide?
Mr. Gunderud stated, but the fact is that they are previous legal non -conforming entity
so they do not fall under the provisions of the standards for mobile home parks. Those
lots and all the mobile home sites in the Town of Wappinger are not bound by that minimum
lot size just like the site we had earlier here with Hugh Greer which is in a 30 acre
zone which is only 1 acre, he has a right to put a building on that. It is written in our
Zoning Ordinance that any undersized lot that existed prior to zoning has a right to
build a building within certain other......
Mr. Cortellino stated, let us say that you have a sign, a legally non -conforming sign
that has been standing there since 1950, way before Zoning Ordinances and it burns down
what can you do?
Mr. Lusardi answered, you can replace the sign.
Mr. Cortellino asked, with what?
Mr. Lusardi answered, with a similar sign.
Mr. Cortellino stated, exact same size. If anything happens it is replaced with the
exact thing. So what you are saying is 10 x 24 and you want to go to say 14 x 60, it
makes no difference that it is not available. That is the size that you put in.
Mr. Gunderud stated, as you might have read, I don't know if you had the time to read the
letter that I put together, the discussion with the Town Attorney, and I agree with her.
She sent a letter to the Town Board back in February, which I believe you should have
had a chance to read. I agreed wtih her conclusion that a) the individual mobile home
itself is not non -conforming, but the non -conforming entity is the mobile home park, so
Ms. Van Tuyl states in her letter that to change an individual mobile home with even
one which is slightly larger than the one that sat there is in itself not a change to a
more intensive non -conforming use. You would only change it if you encompass the whole.....
Mr. Cortellino stated, let me remark this, and I am not getting annoyed, it looks like I
am getting angry. She is not a judge and I am not a lawyer, She is not going to tell me
law because I don't trust her law because I can argue to the extreme. If I take the
whole site and make it one gigantic trailer am I legally conforming?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no.
Mr. Cortellino stated, why do you say no. She just said, and you agreed, that you can
put any size there as long as you put one trailer, just make a gigantic trailer.
Mr. Gunderud stated, most of us operate with reason.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think what I am trying to get is what Hans has stated and also
what you are stating Charlie so that the rest of us can hear and try to make an intelligent
position from there.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I somewhat agree partially with some of the law that Jennifer stated
in this sense. I have no problem with just a few feet larger on Appeal 4851, if I
understand the first request. If in fact it is going to upgrade and enhance the park
per say. That I have no problem with,on that particular one. I agree with her, in other
words, and we being protected, legally, if we in fact did so grant it we wouldn't be
subjected to any lawsuits, we would be within our legal rights bwcause the bottom line is
Page -43- May 13th, 1986
they would be in fact enhancing that park.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Lusardi, do you mind if I ask the audience if there is anybody
here to speak for against this appeal?
Peggy Stateswitcz.
I would like to speak for it, we came here in 1984 and went to a Town Board meeting.
We had alot of problems, we didn't get any help, but, surprisingly enough, we got a note
from our landlord. We have spent the last few years building up this park, I mean
building from the bottom. We have taken on old lots, we have gotten white pebbles in,
we make sure the grass has been cut, we all chipped in to make sure that the grass is
cut. We have helped out the senior citizens in our park, we have no come to you since.
This lot that has been empty that she is trying to get this variance for is like she
said, there is no smaller ones that could be brought back in so what we have is a hole
with dirt in between two nicely placed houses and we have taken down additions and painted.
We fixed, we have done nice, but we still have this hole, so I don't know what the problem
is if she is going to bring in, you say a few feet, but it is the new thing, we can't put
an old thing in a new hole, she is trying to put a new piece in and old hole. You are
saying she can't because they don't make that small a piece anymore.
Mr. Caballero stated, we haven't said anything yet.
Ms. Statewitcz stated, okay you are saying these few feet are going to make a difference
but what this few feet is doing is modifying and making it, upgrading it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, this is quite a complicated case and I don't think you are familiar
with the whole background for you to make the statement that you are. There is a little
more involved than just replacing trailer A with trailer B otherwise we would have done
it a long time ago.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else who wished'to speak for.or against.
There was no one else.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated,can I also mention to the Board that there will be no additions
added to any of the homes that are being replaced, we just won't have it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to comment on some of the statements that were made
by various people -in what the Town can and can't do as far as mobile home ordinance is
concerned. The fact of the matter is that this property is legally non -conforming and
I don't think that anybody ever questioned that. What was in question was in view of the
Town was the deterioration of the property. I think what Hans is saying is, with his
letter is that some of that detioration has been fixed. Now, it specifically states
in the Zoning Ordinance that we have under non -conforming uses that says non -conforming
of structure, the non -conforming use of a building or structure, and I would assume that
this is going to be a building or structure otherwise somebody shouldn't live in it.
I think if we went to court on this thing I think you would be hard pressed to tell a
judge that this particular paragraph here in our ordinance doesn't pertain to a mobile
home.and I am talking about the fact that, non -conforming building or structure shall not
be structurally altered or reconstructed except for such alterations, maintenance and
repair work as is required to keep set building or structure in safe condition. That means
you don't add on to these things without permits. She just said you are not going to do
it anymore but in the past it was done as anybody was pleased. The fact that one of them
even had a woodstove in it and that to me was a abomination. There has to be some form
of policing and it seems to me that the policing is up to the people who run the park.
It is their responsibility to see to it that that park adheres to safety codes for the
Town of Wappinger, adheres to the fact that the people of the Town of Wappinger would
Page -44- May 13th, 1986
like to see nice things in the Town of Wappinger, this is the case, in my view, and
I think that just upgrading the trailer doesn't mean anything you had a big mess in there
because I went by the place and it was a big mess and if it has been cleared up, fine,
but the fact of the matter is that we had to go through this excercise to get it to that
point.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I came before the Board in order to get it cleared up and cleaned
up, that is why we are here.because we were in the process of cleaning it up.
Mr. Caballero stated, this has gone on for a long time, there has been alot of discussion.
We are all aware of what all the statements have been. I think this Board should be
prepared to make a decision at this time. I am going to ask for a motion from the floor.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, lets say we granted Appeal 4851, what would that do to
any kind of setbacks or whatever from the other trailers? Would that additional footage
impact in any way?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, because what we are using is the State Building Code setbacks
and only requires a 10 foot.
Mr. Cortellino asked, in Appeal 44851 you wish to replace a 12 x 60 which is 720 s/f with
one that is 14 x 60 which is 840. Now, in appeal 4863 you have a 10 x 50 which you are
willing to replace by one thats 14 x 52 which is 720, now, apparantly you can replace
the 12 x 60 by 14 x 52 which is FHA available and without changing the s/f. Why is it
that you wish to have 840 in Appeal 44851 instead of the 14 x 52 which would not change the
overall footage of the trailer, it is just a question?
pr Mr. Lusardi answered, the previous trailer was a 12 x 60, it had an addition on it also.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the addition is illegal so I am not counting that as floor space.
Mr. Lusardi stated, you are assuming that it was , lets not dispute that alright, our
position is that it wasn't but, can a smaller trailer than the 14 x 60 be obtained, yes.
The 60 foot is obviously a narrower trailer than the 14 x 50 and you are adding in
length one way and you are adding, I am not disputing your numbers.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Caballero, on 851 I would like to propose that the variance be
granted on that one on the 14 x 60 with no additions, meaning they can replace the 12 x 60
plus addition with a 14 x 60 with no additions.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that will be a new trailer?
Mrs. Tibbetts answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mrs. Tibbetts, can we place in the minutes that it will be a new one
in my proposal?
Mrs. Tibbetts answered, absolutely.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to interject that word new.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't have a problem with that particular motion but what I do have
a problem with is prior to going with that motion is the fact that Hans statement here on
item 446, compliance of §443 as Mr. Kriegsman makes it an issue in his letter to the ZBA
dated March 5th, 1986 as "violations" concerning several lots, mobile homes, and/or
additions is not applicable to a legally non -conforming mobile home park. That section is
only applied to establish new mobile home parks. I have a problem with that and what
Page -45- May 13th, 1986
brought it up is the fact that you were talking about using the state codes with
10 foot separation.and our code says 40 foot separation. Okay, fine, I am not an expert
how far apart they should be but we have a code here that you are saying we can't use
unless somebody starts a new one and we have a legally non -conforming section in the
ordinance that specifically brings to us the problem of bringing into conformance non-
conforming uses. Now, are you telling me that this is not a non -conforming mobile home
park? No it isn't.
Mr. Gunderud answered, it is a non -conforming mobile home park.
Mr. Hirkala stated, then how come it doesn't fall under our section of mobile home parks?
It is non -conforming but it is still covered by that section.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is not covered by the seciton. According to the discussion I had
with the Town Attorney that maybe an issue that has to be ..... specifically with the Town
Attorney.
Mr. Caballero stated, the Town Attorney is an opinion, Hans.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the Zoning Board of Appeals had asked for her opinion so that is why
I keep bringing it up.
Mr. Caballero stated, and we take that into consideration but then it cannot be made the
bible because it is an opinion.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I am just saying what her opinion was, I am not saying that you have
to buy it.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I heard an opinion from her that says that this thing doesn't pertain.
.t seems to me that we have a section of the ordinance that deals with non -conforming
uses, buildings and land and that specifically states every effort will be made to bring
things more in compliance with the ordinance..as time goes on. Now, I can understand
these people having rights as far as their non -conforming use is concerned, but what I
can't understand is how if they don't have separations of 40 foot now and I can understand
why they wouldn't but if you are going to come in with a 10 foot wide or to replace a
10 foot wide with a 12 foot wide and you had 12 foot between them and you are going to
put a 12 foot there now you are going to have 9 foot between them or 10 foot between them
you follow me? You are making it more non -conforming, that is illegal, we can't do that
according to our ordinance. It seems to me that separation might enter into this thing
to. I don't have a problem with replacing that particular item as Joe brought up, what
I do have a problem with is us creating a situation where we are making that park more
non -conforming in a legal sense.and is this ordinance here for existing mobile home
parks in the Town or isn't it?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it is in the ordinance yes, but it is not applicable to the
existing mobile home parks. If you look at all the different mobile home parks in the
Town, there are very few of them if even if you took 2 mobile homes and sites that they
are on would have enough room for 40 foot between each building.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but that doesn't make the whole ordinance non -applicable, it just
makes one particular item of the ordinance non -conforming. In view of this womens rights
with this particular trailer replacement, I can even second Joe's motion, but I cannot
go along with the fact that this mobile home park ordinance does not pertain to the
mobile home parks in this Town even thought they are non -conforming.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Caballero, can I amend that to say that there has to be a building
permit shall be required.
Page -46- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second the motion with an amendement that all non-conformance
be minimized. It means that if they are going to have to get closer to the other trailers
if there is any other way for them not to do it then they do it otherwise they just have
to get closer to the other trailer. But, the fact of the matter is I would like to see
them at least make an effort.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the building permit will cover that.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I can see what Mike is saying, if there are 2 units and this one is
right next to this one then the new one should be placed somewhere in the middle.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4863, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 10 x 50 (plus addition)
mobile home with a 14 x 52 or 24 x 44 mobile home on a non -conforming property located on
Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel 46156-02-852766,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Lusardi and Mrs. Tibbetts were present.
Mr. Lusardi stated, that is presently the lot 4414, I believe, which has the 10 x 50
unit on it and that is one that they cannot,replace that particular type of unit. You
cannot buy units that size anymore which was the purpose of my letter that I handed up
to the Board and we would ask for a variance for a larger mobile home simply because we
need a larger home to put anything on that spot. You can't replace it with anything but
a larger mobile home.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone from the audience who would like to speak for or
against this appeal?
There was no one.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't understand this or. This or is throwing me. I can understand
if you said to replace it with a 14 x 52.
Mr. Lusardi answered, if you don't like on the other one would be .... we would take which
ever one you would be willing to give us.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, have you looked at this size, would there be a big
difference in between the trailers if we had a 14 x 52 compared by a 24 x 44.
Mr. Gunderud answered, definitly..
Mr. Caballero asked, what would you suggest would be the best one for us as far as trying
to get this more conforming than the situation there now, 14 x 52?
Mr. Gunderud stated, I go by the State Builiding Code which would be only requiring
a 10 foot sideyard. So, I don't really have an opinion to give on which one should be.
Page -47-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, both of them would meet the 10 foot sideyard?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have one other concern. As I recall Hans, wasn't that trailer
composed of 2 lots if not 3.
Mr. Gunderud answered, 3.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think before voting on this next one, what I would like to see
is the 3 lots combined in going with what Mike said, in other words, if we give them 2
trailers of larger size, perhaps we should have a site review and see where they are
located so that that space, with what Angel said, make it more conforming rather than
more non -conforming. If the land is there why shouldn't one lot be separated from the
other, it is all one park.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think from my knowledge of the park, that probably the unit that
you just approved on Lot #4 would be better to put on the....
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is what I am saying. It would be better if we had 14 trailers
and you play like you do when you are designing your living room.
Mr. Caballero asked Mrs. Tibbetts, do you have any problems with what is being proposed?
Mrs. Tibbetts answered, actually I suggested it at one time.
Mr. Lusardi stated, the only thing that I will mention is that we do have a septic system,.
with the understanding that we have to connect in. But we have no problem with what
you are suggesting.
Ms. Stateswitcz asked, I have a question. We are replacing Lot X614 with a bigger unit
why we can't, what is going to happen to Lot 14's trailer? Why can't you put the 14 x 60
little unit back on that lot where the hole is that you can't get a variance for to put
the bigger one on.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how many old trailers are undersized?
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion to grant the variance to allow a 14 x 52, new
trailer, with no additons, and that a building permit is required.
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.
Ms. Stateswitcz stated, there has to be more, we have been sitting here all night with
these letters. The letters that we received from Mr. Kriegsman of the Town Building.
We were told by Mr. Gunderud that we could come here and present these and ask what
we are supposed to do about them.
Mr. Caballero stated, I asked for comments before, I looked around 2 or 3 times and
nobody raised their hand except this young lady.
Page -48- May 13th, 1986
Ms. Stateswitcz stated, that has nothing to do with those variances. This has to do
r with the trailers that are there. We got letters from Mr. Kriegsman that there are
additions that are standing, sheds that are standing, wood piles that are standing,
that have to be removed and these additions that are on these trailers that you are
saying are non -conforming and everything, my .....was built in 1963 so what am I
supposed to do about it now.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if those trailers were in violation.
Mr. Gunderud answered, the letter that I wrote points out a number of points concerning
those sheds and trailers, or sheds and additions and porches and so on.
One of the residents of the park stated, the shed is on my particular area and I came
especially for that because I just purchased this trailer. I purchased this trailer, and
my wife, contemplating retirement and we have invested a life savings in this trailer
last year.
Mr. Caballero stated, if there is a violation on that trailer it has to be removed.
The gentlemen stated, this is an addition that has been there since 1970.
Mr. Caballero stated, if the Building Inspector says there is a violation on that
trailer it has to be removed.
The gentlemen stated, the Building Inspector, at that time, said a building permit was
not necessary.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't know and we are not going to get involved as the agent to
police the violations. We are strictly a Zoning Board of Appeals, we heard this case
and we made our decision. If you have problems with a violation there see the Building
Inspector.
Mr. Hirkala stated, they can appeal to the Board.
Mr. Caballero stated, if they want to appeal to the Board they go see the Secretary
and make an appeal. You go to the Building Inspector if you have a problem with the
property there, you are in violation. If you want to make an appeal you see the
Secretary.
Ms. Stateswitcz stated, I came down here with these letters for these people and I
spoke to you in your office, I sat there and you explained here that this guy sent
these letters out and she had to give them to us and you said come to this meeting
tonight. I got everybody out of work, Mr. Somers, to come here because you said that
I should sit in on this meeting and address the Board with these letters.
Mr. Caballero stated, and we asked for you to speak to the Board and nobody said
anything. Whatever you have there is between your landlord or with the Building
Inspector of this Town. If you want to appeal what the Building Inspector's decision
is then you have to make an appeal with the Zoning Board Secretary.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #879, at the request of Everitt Way, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the replacement of a 10 x 50 &
10 x 35 with 28 x 48 mobile home on Lot #21, Sunset Farm, located on Osborne Hill Road.
ana ne
This item was tabled.
Page -49- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4883, at the request of Klaus Wimmer, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
on a lot with no legal road frontage on property located on a private road off of Myers
Corners Road, and being Parcel #6158-02-898620, in the Town of Wappinger.
Klaus Wimmer was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you aware that there are no services provided by the Town on
a private road, fire, no services what so ever, you can't come to us.
Mr—Wimmer answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, we do have a letter here stating that he knows that. We do have
an opinion from our Attorney on the particular issue. Are you planning to subdivide
this property?
Mr. Wimmer answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how many lots do you expect to subdivide?
Mr. Wimmer answered, possibly two. It is in the air, I might just build one house on
the 3 acre lot.
There was a discussion among the Board about the response from the Attorney to the Town.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anything drawn up yet of the property.
Mr. Wimmer answered, no. I submitted the map that I had to you.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have a title report showing any existing easement rights?
Mr. Wimmer answered, I don't have a title report.
Mr. Caballero asked, including right of parcels by persons other than the owner of these
3 lots and any comments which would bar the proposed layout?
Mr. Wimmer answered, no, whatever I had, we had a title search which I got from the
previous owner which we submitted to, I gave it to Linda and I believe she forwarded
it to Jennifer, this is all I had and it hasn't changed since.
Mr. Landolfi stated, our Attorney is kind of recommending us for further clarification
that maybe we should hold off at arriving at any kind of decision, it is up to the Board.
Mr. Wimmer asked, what else do I have to clarify?
Mr. Cortellino stated, number one, I am surprised you went by the previous owners title
search.
Mr. Wimmer stated, the situation is this. The owner, I am in contract to buy this.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see a map and a layout.
Mr. Wimmer stated that he submitted all that.
Page -50-
May 13th, 1986
Mr. Gunderud stated, this one application is only on the existing lot.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Wimmer if he was aware of that.
Mr. Wimmer answered, yes.
There was some discussion among the Board.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I got a question on the date, the time started running when this
was submitted. We have a time table that we have to adhere to. He submitted this on
March 18th. Now, we owe him either to deny him or to approve. I don't think we can
table him any further.
There was a discussion on the time table.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to grant the variance as one lot.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #885, at the request of Albert Marma, request for a re -hearing.
This item was cancelled by the appellant.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #887, at the request of Wappinger Falls Trailer Park, seeking an interpretation
of Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, tenant has vacated
Lot #41, appellant wished to replace vacated mobile home with a new mobile home
14' x 48' owned by new tenant (previous mobile home was 10 x 55).
This item was tabled by the appellant.
Mr. Caballero read the next item:
Appeal 4888, at the request of Wappinger Falls Trailer Park, seeking an interpretation
of Article IV, §404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, tenant has vacated
Lot #45, appellant wishes to replace vacated mobile home with a new mobile 14 x 48
owned by new tenant (previous mobile home was 10 x 55).
This item was tabled by the appellant.
Mr. Caballero read the last item under Correspondence:
1. Memo dated 3/10/86 to Irene Paino from Hans Gunderud, RE: St. Cabrini Home.
Mr. Caballero stated, I still say that there should be a letter sent to the Town Board
in reference to changing the Zoning Ordinance to get that type of situation into the
jurisdicition of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Should we send a letter to the Town Board
requesting that they look immediately into the situation of getting that type of
situation with the Cabrini Home into the Zoning Ordinance where the Zoning Board of
Appeals would be able to control it.
Page -51- May 13th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
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.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
L da Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
lb