1986-04-08ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal 46839, at the request of Kevin Salaun, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §422, paragraph 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit
automotive service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 466157-04-680140,
in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 46840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article
IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a Goodyear Service Building
and attached mall on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 466157-02-600971,
in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 46875, at the request of Benjamin Builders Inc., seeking a variance of
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 47 foot (plus or minus)
frontyard setback while 50 feet is required on property located on Lot 468, Riverdale
Subdivision, and being Parcel 466056-02-621985, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 46876, at the request of F. Douglas Welch, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§477.21 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a
building permit where the driveway would exceed 15% grade on property located on
Cedar Hill Road, and being Parcel 466156-01-206762, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal 46879, at the request of Everitt Way, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for replacement of
10 x 50 & 10 x 35 with 28 x 48 mobile home on Lot 4621, Sunset Farm, located on
Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 466156-02-560945, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal 46880, at the request of Paul J. Sanzo, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building
permit for a proposed house on a private road on property located on Wheeler Hill Road,
and being Parcel 466057-04-661261, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal 46883, 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 466158-02-898620, in the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal 46885, at the request of Albert J. Marma, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§445.8 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for application for an
accessory apartment under Town Zoning Law where such apartment will be a detached
accessory structure to be built on the same lot on property located on 224 Cedar Hill
Road, and being Parcel 466156-01-395943, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 46884, at the request from the Planning Board, seeking an interpretation
of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to seek an interpretation
of the number of uses in the HB zones on any one lot.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 8TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of appeals was held on April 8th, 1986,
at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M..
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M..
Members Present:
Mr. Caballero, Chairman Mr. Landolfi
Mr. Hirkala Mr. Cortellino
Others present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Mr. Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to accept the Minutes of the March 11th, 1986 meeting.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if all the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office.
Mr. Caballero stated, I 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 ample time for you to give us you views on the appeal. I will give the
appellant ample to make his presentation, uninterrupted by the audience or by the Board.
When they are through with their presentation we will ask the Board individually for
questions and they will allow people from the audience to speak. If the audience has
any questions I would prefer that they would be addressed to the Chairman so that I can
recognize you.
Mr. Caballero read the first appeal:
Appeal #839, at the request of Kevin Salaun, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422, 1f6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive service on property
located on Route 9, and being Parcel 46157-04-680140, in the Town of Wappinger.
Kevin Salaun, 1842 White Plains Road, Bronx, NY 10462.
Mr. Salaun stated, we are proposing to put up a quick oil change operation. 10 minute
oil and lube.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if this property conform with what they show.
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes. The property is in the HB -2 Zone so it is a permitted use
with a Special Use Permit.
Page -2- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I would like to read a couple of letters into the record.
Letter from the Planning Board to Zoning Board dated February 27th, 1986.
The Planning Board recommends the following:
1. Address the oil storage.
2. Would like to see the entrance moved to the South side of the property.
Mr. Caballero also read the letter from the NYS Dept. of Transportation to Zoning Board
of Appeals dated February 28th, 1986:
This is in response to your January 3, 1986 transmittal letter requesting our review of
the above reference property, located on the east side of US Route 9, 150+ feet south
of Osborne Hill Road. We offer the following comments:
Due to limited Route US 9 frontage, we recommend that a single 24+ foor two-way driveway
be provided, as shown in red on the attached site -plan. The proposed one-way driveway
system is not acceptable since the Department's minimum 5+ foot property line offset
requirement would necessitate that the two driveways be shifted towards the center of the
property which would then reduce the offset between the entrance and exit driveways to an
acceptable dimension. With the proposed use we do not agree with the angular parking
in the front of the building and therefore recommend a standard two-way driveway design.
Mr. Caballero asked, have you changed this plan to accomodate the NY State?
Mr. Salaun answered, yew we have.
Mr. Caballero stated, they also recommend that:
Poured -in-place concrete curb will be required along the entire property frontage, both at
the edge of a 10+ foor paved shoulder and along the right-of-way line and/or west edge
of the parking lot. Radii of 15+ feet are recommended for the curb returns with internal
curb extensions of 10+ feet, perpendicular with the centerline of U.S. Route 9.
It should also be noted that the location of the two-way driveway can be shifted to reflect
the developer's needs, bearing in mind the minimum 5+ foor property line offset requirement
previously discussed.
The applicant should also be advised to consult with our local Residency Office to
discuss all drainage considerations. He should contact Mr. Dale, Resident Engineer, NYS
Dept of Transportation, 334 Violet Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY, 454-3390.
Mr. Caballero stated, we also have a letter from our County.Which in essence basically
says the same thing in reference to driveway.
Mr. Railing stated, the only thing I would like to say is I think the Planning Board
has made a statement -where they have really no objection.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Railing if he had any problem making the changes according to the
State recommendations?
Mr. Railing answered, we have no problem what so ever. In fact, I met with John Dale
last week and spoke to him about the changes that had to be made. I see you have a marked
up copy in red. The only comment that the Planning Board had was they wanted us, possibly,
to move it as close to this line as possible and that is what I met with John on and
John did not have any problem with that. They want to keep it to the South, the Planning
Board did.
tw Mr. Caballero stated, they didn't explain why they wanted it.
type Mr. Railing stated, they really basically wanted to preclude any yp of turning movements
from the North, I really don't know how that would happen because you can't really get
across that way.
Page -3-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he had any problems with this particular parcel.
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, not at all.
Mr. Cortellino asked, we have a map amended here with red marks. I would think that before
we grant a Special Permit since once it goes out of our hands we do not see the next print,
it goes straight to the Planning Board. I have no objection to the Special Permit, I would
like the equivalent of a map that we can keep on record that was presented to us for the
Special Permit otherwise what insurance do we have, even though I trust Jack, but 10 years
we go back somone says you marked up the map, that wasn't the original map.
Mr. Salaun presented the Board with the updated map.
Mr. Railing stated, this is the map that I sat down with John Dale on which with the
exception of the 5 feet further shift to the South is exactly what was accepted. Accept
that it will be shifted 5 feet further to the South.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in leu of the recommendation made of a feeder road that I brought
up the last time, what kind of feedback did you get back from the Planning Board or the
Engineer to the Town.
Mr. Railing stated, I didn't talk to the State on that. As far as I know the Planning
Board said it was fine but we have already got the guy next door developed. It was just
kind of dropped to be honest with you.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem with the Special Use Permit, I think that the fact
that the building is back far enough is fine but I still say that just because somebody
next door is developed doesn't mean that we should just turn around and write the whole
section off. I have a problem with the State as far as their curb cut every 100 foot
in that section is going to kill somebody one of these days and the State is going to say
that it is not our business, it is you business, it is your Town and yet they come down
with curb cuts without any recommendations as to long term effects, to me it is a public
safety problem. I would like to see a part of the SUP in some way, shape, or form come
with an agreement by the applicant that there would be changes made to make that area
safer after the County completes its study in conjunction with the Town and determines
that there might be something that can be done. I would like to see that become part of
the SUP. If we allow something like this to happen there that means one more and now
we have just solidifies the fact that, gee we can't do anything there it is already
developed, which means the next one down the line gets a curb cut, the next one down the
line gets a curb cut and we have 8 or 9 or 7 pieces of property over there with 100 foot
frontages, so what are we going to have, 8 or 9 curb cuts and driveways on Route 9 with
a 55 MPH speed limit.
Mr. Railing stated, the State looks at it from the point of access for safety. That is
why the State now has a policy where you can't get anymore than 2 accesses on any piece
of property whether it is 100 feet lone or 10,000 feet.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think you are arguing with me on the point, and if you are I
can't see why because you as an engineer would now that this is a problem and it can be
a problem and I personally would like to see, as a part of the SUP, some words put into
the resolution that would allow the applicant to be able to cut off his access when at
such time as when the County determines and the Town Engineer determines that there is or
is not a feaseability, it is not a feasable situation that can occur on that side of the
road as far as one ingressand one egressfor the whole section of property there.
Mr. Caballero stated, what Mike is looking for is anar-cess road to all those properties
in the front.
Page -4- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, you are stopped right on the next property. There is no ROW there
or anything.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what you are saying right now is that the Town cannot plan that?
Mr. Railing answered, I think the State would have to do that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am not going to take your word for it and that is the reason that
I made that recommendation to begin with, to have that looked at and I would like that
to be a part of the SUP and if we can't do it because of the next door property, so be it,
but until that time it doesn't mean that we are going to have to say the heck with
everybody on that side of the road.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak either for
or against this appeal.
There was no one to speak.
Mr. Caballerostated that at this time he would entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Cortellino if he would amend the motion to include the recommendation'':
of the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino answered, yes, to include the recommendations of the Planning Board, and
the NYS Dept. of Transportation.
Mr. Hirkala asked, can I ask that the motion be amended to include the possibility of the
future of putting a ROW in there for a service road to Route 9?
Mr. Cortellino answered, no, because that would come under condemnation proceedings, it
would not come from this Board.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - nay
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero stated, I am going to initial this map that they gave us with the date.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a Goodyear Service Building and
attnrhPA mall on nronerty located on Route 9, and being Parcel 446157-02-600971, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Jack Davis was present.
Mr. Davis stated, I would like to build a Goodyear Service Center which we signed the
Le lease with, and maybe another attached building, may renting to one store, maybe
renting to 2 stores, maybe 3 small stores but the building would not exceed 9,000 s/f.
Mr. Caballero asked, you are looking for how many feet for total building?
Page -5- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Davis answered, 9,000 square feet. Less than 9,000.
Mr. Caballero asked, how many square footage are you looking for the building?
Mr. Davis answered, 8,030.
Mr. Caballero asked, how much of that is proposed for Goodyear?
Mr. Davis answered, that is separate. Goodyear has 4,920.
Mr. Caballero stated, it looks to me like on building with one section for Goodyear with
an additional, approximately 3 more stores there.
Mr. Davis answered, that is just a drawing, we don't have the other, one person might
come along and want the whole 8,000 feet. It is going to be designed in such in way there
that it can be rented to one person, 2 people, 3 people, no more than 3.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, under this business, is this Highway Business?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes, Highway Business IA. The Planning Board recommended also,
based on the comments I made there, that there is only one use principal use permitted.
Mr. Cortellino stated, there are 2 businesses, we can get rid of all zoning because there
is only 2 types of businesses, wholsale or retail. If you want to say it is one business
because it is retail you can scrap the whole zoning ordinance because it is either
wholesale or retail. So, using the argument that it is all retail business has no meaning
because then we have in the Zoning Ordinance, Shopping Center, why do we have a different
, style. There is only 2 types of businesses, wholesale and retail. Business in our sense
is how many different uses, in other words Goodyear is one use, now I can't put up a
jewelry store on the same piece of property, that is 2 differnt businesses even though
they are both retail.
Mr. Davis stated, that is my interpretation. My interpretation is we are HB-1A.and
since any use permitted in GB district is permitted therein. Well, if you go up to GB
and take any use permitted in the SC district as permitted therein and if you go up
to the next one where it says shopping center it says any non-residential use permitted
in the NB district, any non-residential use permitted in R-10 district, hospitals and
clinics, we certainly don't want to do that, places of amusement such as theatres,
billiard parlors, discotheques, we don't want to do that, but it seems like my interpreta-
tion is that you can have more than one business as long as they are in the same type of
business rather than say one would be offices, retail, and we are not talking about that
we are all going to be in the retail business, and again it may end up being just 2, this
is my interpretation, that you could have Goodyear that are going to sell tires and would
be similar in the type of work they do as Midas which is right next door, it might be
a furniture store, it might be a bedding shop, it might be 2 stores, they would all be in
the retail business.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I disagree. I am interpreting the Zoning Ordinance.and what I
say again is that is permitted one retail business. My argument is that it permits 1
retail business because if you take the converse what Mr. Davis proposes that you can
take all that that proceeds, what I think it means from proceeds any one item out of
there otherwise, let us disregard all of the classifications because, as I pointed out,
there are only 3 types of things. There is only 2 types of things that effect zoning.
Residential and business. I can even argue Office Research is a business, the airport
is a business, so we can dispense with Airport Industry, what is a shopping center, is
it a business, retail, then lets have only 2 categories, residential and business, that is
all, you don't need all the other categories. What is meant in here, and that is what
Page -6-
April 8th, 1986
I am doing is interpreting, that you can select one of the other businesses from the
above categories but not a multitude of businesses.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, when you read that Zoning Ordinance isn't there an
asteric that puts down on the bottom of that ordinance something in reference to only
one permitted use?
Mr. Gunderud answered, there are several points in the ordinance that point out the fact
that only one business is permitted on that lot. One is, that under the definition
section of the ordinance under the word lot, it describes what is permitted on the lot
and it says that there shall be only one use on any one lot. And, in the section that
Mr. Davis is looking at, §422, when it lists that you can have the above uses in the
next higher zone, that is very true, you can have any one of those uses and in
multiple attached and detached uses was an amendment that was added in the Neighborhood
Business and the General Business only zones and also another amendement went in there
to allow multiple uses in the Shopping Center zone. So, what Charlie is saying is true
that since it does not say that you can have multiple business uses in the Highway
Business zone, but it does say that you can have them in the Shopping Center, Neighbor-
hood Business and General Business then under zoning law that precludes multiple
businesses in all those other zones. Furthermore, it specifically says that in the
Highway Business only there shall be two permitted uses and such second use permitted is
a residentail use when that use is by the owner or the person who runs the business on
the property so, the zoning seems to be quite clear, it narrows down the uses on various
zones and further narrows it down in the HighwayBusiness zone by saying specifically
that you can only have 2 uses when those uses are specified residential and any one use.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I refer to footnote "f" which is what he just referred to.
Mr. Davis stated, we have a difference in opinion at to the word uses. When I say uses,
he has narrowed it down to one business use, I have narrowed it down to one classification
of business which all retail.
Mr. Caballero stated, you are the appellant and we are the Zoning Board of Appeals and
we make that interpretation.
Mr. Davis stated, what we had in mind was a to put up a small retail group of stores on
there and get maybe one, it maybe two, and we have signed the lease with Goodyear. I
don't want to put just one Goodyear on there because I think it is just a waste of some
valuable land which is what we did with Midas and that was a mistake. That is the most
precious commodity you have got down here is land use. Goodyear only wants 4,00 feet,
4,200 feet and to put 4,200 feet on a 52,000, 55,000 foot lot just seems to me like a
waste of, they don't need 150 car parking, they don't need all that space. You are just
wasting alot of valuable land -to put one building. To put a building of 4,000 feet on
this size lot is just wasting. We are not trying to hurt the land or rape the land,
we are trying to put up something nice there.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think the question comes in that you have a Special Use Permit
application before the Board, but, I didn't have the opportunity to review this before
it was placed before the Board because I wasn't there. If I had reviewed it I would
have made that clear to you that you are asking for uses that are not permitted and then
the proper procedure would have been to come before the Board for a variance or an
interpretation. There was an interpretation, and I have a copy of it because later on
in the agenda the Board does have to interpret that very issue that the Planning Board
is asking but in 1980 I asked for an interpretation in my opinion it was unclear as to
the number of permitted uses in the residential and non-residential district and we
went through a lengthy series of meetings with the Zoning Board, Town Attorney at the
time, and the Town Board and as a result of that meeting thats when the Zoning Ordinance
itself was changed by adding multiple uses in the Shopping Center distric only and adding
Page -7-
April 8th, 1986
to the definition of the word lot, only one use shall be permitted on any one lot. So,
that is the standing interpretation under the 1980 Zoning Ordinance. Tonight, if the
Board wants to reconsider those under the Planning Board's request and redefine it but
right now thats the way it stands.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think what is being missed here is the intent totally of what that
section says. It specifically doesn't say uses it says use, singular not plural. To
pick a use from any one of the above district and apply it to an HB zone. I think that
multiple use district specifically states a shopping center, not saying Highway Business.
Highway Business was not ever intended to be a multiple use district. It was meant to
be a district that utilized businesses that would normally, one business that would
normally be a highway type business which would be your Goodyear Store, or Midas, or
something like that but not necessarily having them all on one lot and that is why I
would have to agree wtih the fact that I don't think the intent of the ordinance was
originally to have multiple type shopping center in HB zones. I think you have that in
the NB & GB zones right now and the SC zone also which would make it redundant.
There was a discussion about shopping centers.
Mr. Hirkala stated, in my opinion, the ordinance that we have in the Town of Wappinger
utilizes that same type of application of business under a GB zone. The property you
have is not zoned GB it is zoned HB that is the difference. Now if you want to use
that property for GB you ask the Town Board, in my opinion for a rezoning that parcel.
Mr. Davis stated, as I interpret it says that everything thatyou can do in HB you can
do in GB.
Mr. Hirkala answered, not multiple uses.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak either
for or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero aske Mr. Gunderud how he felt that maybe what he should do is come in for
a variance first or approach the Town Board on rezoning that parcel.
Mr. Landolfi stated, your next move would probably be, if the Board rejects it, to either
come in for a variance or go to the Town Board for rezoning from HB to GB district.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is that to ask that Board for a variance in that particular
thing would be essentially to rezone the property and I would be against a variance on
that property because I think it would be over stepping the bounds of the authority of
this Board. I think the Town Board has the right to rezone the property we don't. If
we grant relief from the HB ordinance then we are rezoning the property.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion on this appeal.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that the Special Permit be denied because it is not a
matter of business before us, it is not within our perview due to the fact that the
Zoning Ordinance under §422 of regulations for residential district, footnote "f"
clearly states that there can be 2 uses permitted in the HB zone when one of the businesses
be operated by an owner/resident. This case the owner resident would not be on the
property therfore it would be 2 uses which is not legal in an HB zone, therefore, it is
not the proper matter to appear before us.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Page -8-
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, the Special Use Permit application has been denied on the basis
that that is more than one use for the property.
Mr. Caballero close appeal 46840.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 46875, at the request of Benjamin Builders, Inc.
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 47 foor
when 50 feet is required on property located on Lot 46E
Parcel 466056-02-621985, in the Town of Wappinger.
seeking a variance of §421 of the
lus or minus) frontyard setback
Riverdale Subdivision, and being
Howard Benjamin, 132 Main Street, Fishkill was present.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Benjamin, would you like to correct that request to a 47 foot or
48 foot, you have a plus or minus on there?
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is 46.8 feet.
Mr. Caballero stated, let the records stand that it has been corrected to 46.8 feet where
50 foot is required.
Mr. Benjamin stated, I was contracted to build a house for a couple. The house was
completed, on the plot plan showed that I errored, I was supposed to have a 50 foot
setback and I errored actually not quite 3 foot. I was unaware there is an overhang
on the house, I was unaware that the overhang was part of the setback ordinance. The
overhang is 18 inches that is why there is a plotted line here and the house is about
a foot and a half more than the requirement should have been.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he had looked at this property.
Mr. Gunderud answered, no I haven't. I just reviewed the certified plot plan.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that showed that it was put in the wrong place?
Mr. Gunderud answered yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, have you built any other houses in the Town of Wappinger?
Mr. Benjamin answered, I built the other ones on River Road right next to there and I
didn't run into a problem. I frankly just admit that, the mason and the site people, I
think what they did was they dug my footings on the wrong side of the line that we put
down and I don't now what the reason to say that I errored.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against.
There was no one present.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion that the 46.8 foot variance be granted.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion and added, his honesty is what helped me in my decision,
I appreciate that, thank you.
Page -9-
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #876, at the request of F. Douglas Welch, seeking a variance of Article IV, §477.21
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
where the driveway would exceed 15% grade on property located on Cedar Hill Road, and
being Parcel #6156-01-206762, in the Town of Wappinger.
F. Douglas Welch, RD #7 Shendoah Road, Hopewell Jct., was present.
Mr. Caballero asked, you have a problem with the grade on this driveway?
Mr. Welch answered, I believe that it at some points that the driveway may exceed 15%
and I just wanted to cover all bases.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Gunderud, is your rule 10%?
Mr. Gunderud answered, no, 12% is normal but the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 15%
without any variance so he is over 15%.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how much over?
Mr. Welch answered, maybe up to about 16%, but everwhere else is fine. It is just that
one steep section. I am asking for between 16 & 17% at the most at that one point.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it says on the attached page, the original variance of 1967 was
passed, that was a long time ago, you wrote this?
Mr. Welch answered yes.
Mr. Cortellino went on, the building site established taxes were increased. That doesn't
make sense to me and then it says, extreme cost of the building the road, what is meant
by paragraph one?
Mr. Welch answered, what I did, I took subdivision Lot #3 and it had the same problem at
one point, it needed to exceed 157 and what I did was I used the same reasons for mine,
my lot because they are in the same category as was Lot #3 and I added a couple which
are 2 & 3. #2 says there is no reason because of the 25 foot between the properties and
the side of flag mountain, what that is actually saying is that there is plenty of room
between the side of the driveway and any adjoining properties, so I am just trying
to establish the fact that it is in proper area.
Mr. Caballero asked, there are no other private driveways next to this particular property
either?
Mr. Welch answered, no there isn't.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the proposed driveway is this whole line that you are talking about?
Mr. Welch answered, the proposed driveway, actually what I would like to use is the
existing wood road, and I don't know if you have the same map as Hans does, but, I would
like to use the existing wood road, it is in there already, I have no problem getting up
and down the road and it would be very expensive to use that proposed road to put that in
Page -10-
April 8th, 1986
there due to the fact that it is all granite, it is a rock mountain.
Mr. Caballero asked, are you the builder of this property or you are going to own this
property and live there?
Mr. Welch answered, I will own it and live in it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what are your plans as far future subdivision?
Mr. Welch answered, I don't plan subdividing, it is not zoned for subdivision.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there is no such thing as zoned for subdivision.
Mr. Gunderud stated, per each 2 acre, he only has a 25 foot frontage, I believe, so in
other words, he just has that narrow strip, there is no other access to the lot so he
really couldn't subdivide it into any other lots.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, do you forsee any problems with that incline there that
we might have to call the engineer to look at it?
Mr. Gunderud answered, I don't think the, it is only 16 or 17% in that one area. I don't
think there would be a problem, and I think that the proposed road that snakes back in the
forest involves an, like an alpine trail, if you look at it it requires alot of fill and
alot of cutting into the mountain that would be kind of a hardship, the slope that he has
is not that great to cause a problem getting up the hill.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what you are saying is the 15% that you are looking for, in excess of
I � 15% is up at the top of the mountain, is that what you are telling me?
�ry Mr. Gunderud answered, up near the last bend, the second hairpin down where all the
contour lines are very close together. That is the steepest part of the driveway and
that is the area where it exceeds 15%.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so the rest of the driveway is okay?
Mr. Gunderud answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this appeal.
Robert Imrie, RD X62 Box 227, Cedar Hill Road, Fishkill.
Mr. Imrie stated, before I take a position either for or against I need to ask some
questions which probably answer if I had seen the map. The first question would be,
will this be a paved driveway?
Mr. Welch answered, no it will not.
Mr. Imrie stated, because my wife voiced right away objection to the dust being raised
by this long driveway going across the back of the property.
Mr. Welch stated, the driveway is already existing.
Mr. Imrie stated, but there has been no traffic. Have you given any thought to eventually
paving?
Mr. Welch answered, not really. I didn't see any kind of problem with the dust. You do
see how far away.
Page -11-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, is that a tree line road to the property?
Mr. Welch answered, on both sides.
Mr. Imrie asked, doyou show here where your septic system would be?
Mr. Welch showed Mr. Imrie on the plan where it was.
Mr. Imrie stated, we are aware of some water problems in the neighborhood now.
Mr. Caballero stated, he is requesting a variance on the grade of the driveway we have
no control over.... I would like to re -word that variance request to 5 feet from the
normal 12 so in other words, he is going from 17%.
Mr. Imrie stated, I can't raise any objection to the request that he has made. I am just
trying to see ahead to what else he is going to do on the property.
Mr. Gunderud stated to Mr. Imrie, when the applicant comes in for a building permit we
do require a certified plot plan submitted for the building permit application and that
is reviewed by the Town Engineer, Highway Department, myself, and would probably definitely
need a grading permit for this lot which is a separate ordinance. The grading permit is
certified plan, again, which just simply concentrates on the drainage and the grading and
soil erosion on that lot and because of the steepness of the slope and so on there will
undoubtedly be swales, and berms and hay bales and netting and screening and things like
that that would probably be required and his engineer will present that to the Town for
approval, so I think that the drainage problems you may forsee will hopefully be all
addresses at the time he comes in for a building permit application. He came in for an
application for a building permit but because of the driveway grade exceeded our zoning
standards I had to deny the application and send him to the Board to see whether the
Board would grant him an appeal for that one section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Imrie stated that he had no objections.
Phil Sterdt, Box 228, Cedar Hill Road.
Mr. Sterdt stated, the road is going to be somewhere in the 10 feet of property line, I
live right next door to Mr. Imrie. I had a similar concern because it is my water that
is in question, it just so happens I just a water test in the process of refinancing and
I find out that I am getting a high bacterial count and chloroform in my water. My
concern, I just went out there tonight is that this road passes within some 10 yards of
where my well is and I am not sure what, if any, the enviornmental impact of the road,
I understand that we are dealing with the issue of the grade, can have on the well system
already. Right now I am in the process of trting to isolate precisly what the problem
is.
Mr. Caballero asked, you have the problem without his road being there?
Mr. Sterdt answered, I don't know. Right now there is a lumber trail and it is being used
periodically, I am just afraid of this possibly adding to my problems.considering of
how close the road is, the property line, and where the well is located.
Mr. Caballero asked, are those the only concerns you care to state?
Mr. Sterdt answered yes.
Mr. Caballero stated, okay, it is on the record.
Page -12- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like to raise one thought, I am not doing this in form
of a motion, just bringing it out as a thought. The Town has put in a, not a guideline,
only that there should be 127 grade. Unfortunately the also put in a leway of 257 which
brought it up to 15 feet. Now, what we are doing when we are discussing going up to
17 feet we are adding to that leway. If we go back to the 12 feet we are almost
changing the zoning a good 40%, close to 507. We are going from 12 feet to 17 feet, if it
was going to 18 feet is would be a full 50 7. Now, that part of the driveway thing is
mainly intended for individual residences so it also applied to Montclair Apartments and
I would not accept that piece, but it was really intended for the individual homeowner.
So, I think we would be going counter to the writers of the Zoning and the Town Board
if we were to grant a 177 grade.
Mr. Caballero stated, I agree with something that you are saying but not with all of it.
I don't think if we grant relief we are going to chnage the zoning of the Town where
somebody shows us that they have a uniqueness and he is not changing the character of
the land. So, that is a difference of opinion of what you are saying.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have to agree with Charlie to a certain extent but the fact of
the matter is that this particular plan, the relief that is requested is not where I
think the impact of a high grade would be which would be next to the road. I think that
the restriction on the grade would have an impact with the Town if the higher grade would
be on the house that was close to a Town Road whereby the people could not use the driveway
and would park on the Town Road creating problems. This 157 or this excess of 157 is way
up inside the property and I would consider that as long as the 157, the relief from the
Zoning Ordinance was referring only to that better than 157 is way up on the property, but
anywhere in closer, no.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were anybody else in the audience who wished to speak either
for or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to grant the variance. I see a hardship and I think the
appellant has demonstrated to us, I agree with Mr. Hirkala. If it was on the, toward
the road further I would have a problem.
Mr. Hirkaka stated, I will second it based on the exceeding the zoning requirement be up
way inside that property. In other words, they cannot exceed 127 in any other section of
the driveway other than that section.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, how can we word this that is not a tremendous amount
of footage.
Mr. Gunderud stated, as we said it is 177 was the maximum, so we just simply say granted
subject to not to exceed 177 at the section within 300 feet of the house.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich, would you make sure that the language is placed in there
that within 300 feet of the property and that it does not exceed 17%.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - abstain Mr. Hirkala - aye
r The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would take a 5 minute break.
The break was called at 8:00 P.M..
Page -13- April 8th, 1986
The meeting was called back to order at 8:10 P.M..
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 all for replacement of 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 46156-02-560945, in the Town of WappinRer.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I have been in contact with the Attorney for Mrs. Way and they
have asked for an adjournment until next month because the Town Attorney has not had
time to respond to their legal questions on the matter. So, I recommend that it be
tabled for one month.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to table this appeal..
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor to table this appeal. Before we vote
on that motion is there anybody in the audience who was going to attempt to speak against
or for this appeal 44879.
There was no one.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4880, at the request of Paul J. Sanzo, seeking a variance of Article IV, §412
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for the issuance of a building permit
for a proposed house on a private road on property located on Wheeler Hill Road, and
being Parcel 46057-04-661261, in the Town of Wappinger.
Paul J. Sanzo, 497 Wolcott Ave., Beacon was present.
Mr. Sanzo stated, I wish to, I own the property I wish to build a home there and reside
there with my family. I would like to bring the fact that the lot has existed before
the prior zoning and the residential uses are permitted other residential uses are
permitted in the zone.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, you denied this permit because it not being on an
improved road?
Mr. Gunderud answered, §412 of our Zoning Ordinance requires that before a building permit
can be issued, every lot has to have legal road frontage of at least 25 feet on a Town
Road for an improved road in a subdivision and as the gentlemen stated, the lot existed
prior to zoning so it is a legally non -conforming lot.
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Sanzo, do you understand that the Town cannot offer any
services there, school buses, or emergency service on that road?
Mr. Sanzo stated, only on Wheeler Hill. That is a bus route. They do not enter into
the private road, I understand that.
Page -14- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to add to that. There could be some other services
that you should be aware of that, when you go in on a private road like that you could
be gambling for instance, you may not get oil deliveries, etc., I don't know whether
they are going to get the fire truck in and out of there. That is one of the reasons
that you have to come before our Board on a matter like this. I think we are obligated
to let you know these things so that a year from now you don't come into the Town saying
that you haven't seen a snowplow.
Mr. Sanzo stated that he was very well aware of that.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this appeal.
There was no one present.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that this variance be granted.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
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 Myers Corners
(WI Road, and being Parcel 46158-02-898620, in the Town of Wappinger.
Klaus Wimmer, 3 Pye Lane, Wappinger Falls, NY was present.
Mr. Wimmer stated, I am here for the reason that I would like to build a single residence
on this particular lot which has no frontage on a Town road.
Mr. Caballero stated, similar to the case before we have to make you aware that there
is no, it is not a Town accepted road and there are no services provided on that road.
Emergency services, school bus service. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Wimmer answered that he was aware of that.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal.
Lloyd Creary, 257 Myers Corners Road, Wappinger Falls.,was present.
Mr. Creary stated, I have an easement that is on the same road where the appellant
wishes to build. I am wondering whether he has made any thought about the maintenance
of that road.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have just told him that there is no services on that road.
Mr. Creary stated, the people who have that easement, though, must maintain it and I
want to be sure that he has given some consideration to this before he enters into it
because again, based on the statement made earlier, its not maintained by the Town and
It has to be maintained by the people who go back and forth there.
Page -15-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Wimmer stated, well, I have the common agreement to maintain the subject road.
Because, apparently it is maintained now and it would be one more person to maintain
it and I don't know what you do now but, whether you fund it together. It would be
the similar.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any objections to this.
Mr. Creary answered, no objections otherwise.
Mr. Caballero stated, okay. That is something that is enforceable between the parties
involved on that road, it has nothing to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Gunderud stated, we get alot of requests for building permits to be issued on these
private roads and I think the Town does have an obligation to make sure there is a legal
deed restriction or some kind of agreement with the people on those roads to make sure
that emergency equipment will go down those roads. It is going to be a brand new house
and before we issue a building permit on that lot I think we should ascertain that there
is something in writing between the people who own the adjacent properties or the joint
properties or share that right-of-way that guarantees that there is going to be maintenance
on that road and that somebody is going to plow it. I know before we have done variances
on Dugan Road and places like that we asked the people to come in that said that they
would plow the roads for ever after and.....
Mr. Cortellino added, and then the Town had to take it over,a portion of it anyway.
Mr. Gunderud stated, we can't enforce it but I think that it should be shown that there
is some legal agreement somewhere.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't think we can come to a decision tonight, so later on
I will move to table it until the next month because our Attorney recommends, mentions
in the letter that there is no legal bar to the layout but assuming that the title
situation allows it and there is no covenants and other private restrictions we have
seen no paperwork to support that this house can go in.if we grant the variance. So,
perhaps.......
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Cortellino to read the letter from the Attorney to the Town into
the record.
Memo to the Planning Board from Jennifer VanTuyl Dated March 7th, 1986 RE: Klaus Wimmer.
As I understand it, Mr. Wimmer is in contract to purchase three existing lots. One
large lot contains a lond "flag pole" path to a 55 foot frontage on Myers Corners Road.
The other two lots ( one of which contains a house) are landlocked, but, we are told,
have access by virtue of a easement over the portion of the 3rd lot that froms a gravel
drive to frontage on Myers Corners Road.
At present, it would seem that the lot which includes the roadbed of the driveway would
now be eligible for a building permit because it has no frontage. The vacant landlocked
parcel, however, does notmeet the frontage requirements of Town Law 280- a and would
require a variance by teh Zoning Board of Appeals to derive access from an easement.
the existing house encroaches on the 3rd lot.
The further issue is whether Mr. Wimmer could subdivide the 3rd lot (which includes the
driveway)into two lots. The one closest to Myers Corners Road would have its own 25 foot
flag pole driveway not shared by any other lot. the other lot would continue to have a
flag pole driveway and that driveway would be further subject to easements of the rear
two lots and at least on other rear lot (of the property) for access.
Page -16- April 8th, 1986
There is nothing to legally bar this layout, assuming that the title situation allows it
and there are no covenants or other private restrictions against it. However, it would
continue to be the case that the parcel that does not have frontage but derives access by
easement would need a variance from the Zoning Board.
This opinion deals only with legal constraints imposed under the Town law. It does not
address any planning issues relating to the layout, or any issues of private real estate
or financing law relating to chain of title, existing easements, who would maintain
driveway, whether mortgage would be granted on the land without frontage, etc..
I suggest that the Board not make any determination until we all review the applicant's
title report showing any and all exsting easement rights, including rights processed
by persons other than the owners of these three lots, and any covenants which could
bat the proposed layout.
Mr. Wimmer stated, this is apparantly the letter that was sent to the Planning Board.
What happen was I proposed this payout to the Planning Board for discussion whether
this would be able to build on this 4 acres. On that, as you see on the map there there
are all kinds of lines drawn up and apparantly and existing ROW for these houses that
are back in there, upon that they felt that they could not make a decision whether
anything could be done there. They would have to ask their Town Attorney.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would also like to read into the record a letter sent to
Linda Berberich, our Secretary, from Can Tekben, Acting Director of Engineering for
the County of Dutchess dated March 25th, 1986:
Please find enclosed a copy of the March 3, 1986 letter sent to Mr. Wimmer.
The Department, as you will note, is requiring that Mr. Wimmer place and maintain two
traffic control sign assemblies as per the New York State Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
1. A stop sign applying to the driveway traffic approaching Dutchess County Route No. 93
(Myers Corners Road).
2. An intersection sign with a "DRIVEWAY" panel for West -bound County Route No. 93 traffic
approaching the driveway intersection.
A County Work permit must be obtained from this Department for installation and
maintenance of these signs within the County road right -of way.
Mr. Caballero stated, the letter he refers to is a letter sent to Mr. Wimmer, dated
March 3rd, 1986:
This Department has conducted a review of the plan: "Survey of property prepared for
Donald & Joan Galletti - Town of Wappingers," dated December 14th, 1984 as prepared by
John Marano, L.S.
The common driveway existing this date currently serves three residential homes. The
proposal offers for consideration the construction of two or three more homes on parcels
which would also utilize the existing driveway connection to C.R. 93 as access.
The Type of use of the driveway has had and will continue to have multi -residential
status; however because of substandard sight distance east of the driveway, caused
by the vertical curve in the County road, this Department requires that you place and
maintain a stop sign for the driveway (at its intersection with County Route No. 93)
plus an intersection sign with a "Driveway"panel (for westbound C.R.93 traffic approaching
the driveway intersection) as per the New York State Maual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
%W1
Please contact this office to apply for the necessary County Work Permit to place and
maintain the above mentioned signs.
Page -17-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked if there were anyone else to speak for or against this appeal.
Joe Greagor, 8 Lor -Mar Court.
Mr. Greagor stated, I have a concern, my lot would be toward the back, behind us is
very swampy, very wet and if you are going to build a house right here, whenever it rains
that water flows down into Lor Mar Court into the pond and into the street. If this
home goes up here it is going to change the natural flow of water and I am wondering
if this is going to sit here a creep up inot my leach fields or what. I have a concern
for that. It is very wet and swampy back there.
Mr. Caballero asked, so you are asking us to deny the variance on the basis of your
concerns?
Mr. Greagor answered yes.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone else to speak.
There was no one.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with the fact that we don't see an area map. Granted
the property is probably legally non -conforming as you say, which woulf preclude anybody
saying you can't build on it because it has a right to build on but, I can understand
the concerns of the Attorney on the easement. I would like to see an area map.because
what I am concerned about is that this lane might eventually end up to be sitting there,
they come before the Town Board saying that they have a problem and I would like to see
if any other lands in this area, that might possibly be tied into this easement, whereby
we would end up with a.....
Mr. Creary supplied Mr. Hirkala with an area map.
Mr. Cortellino stated, when I look at this map there are 3 lots and the letter refers
to that there is a house on one of the lots already. The only thing I see on here
other than the boundry line is the proposed house.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to table this appeal to get with legal counsel and also
the Town Engineer.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to table this until we get a little more information
from our Attorney and our Highway Superintendent and the Town Engineer.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see an area map similar to what the gentlemen
showed me.
Page -18- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4885, at the requestof Albert J. Marma, seeking a variance of Article IV, §445.8
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for application for an accessory
apartment under Town Zoning law where such apartment will be a detached accessory structure
to be built on the same lot on property located on 224 Cedar Hill Road, and being Parcel
46156-01-395943, in the Town of Wappinger.
Albert J. Marma was present.
Mr. Marma stated, I guess I need a variance of some kind to build a, what I call a
2 car garage with an apartment, that is how I originally put in the .... as far as the
request, then I guess the words accessory apartment somehow put into the minutes. I guess
I am not to familiar with what the accessory apartment is but my.... is to just put in a
2 car garage with an apartment above.
Mr. Caballero asked, for the purpose of what is the apartment that you are putting above?
Mr. Marma answered, for immediate family use. My mother is by herself and she will
be coming up to move with us, she is down in Long Island so I put in the category immediate
family use. The 2 car garage, I don't have anyplace to park the cars indoors. I have
the plans here. I am looking for someplace to park the cars at the same time as,I will
say this, as long as I am putting up the structure as the 2 car garage, which is at least
150 feet off Cedar Hill Road, it is back there.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I asked Mr. Marma to bring in a layout of the existing house so
that the Board would know what configuration of this existing house is. The ordinance
-� section states the accessory apartment can only be part of the pincipal.... but in
Mr. Marma's case he wants to show the board that it would be a hardship for him to
create the apartment in his house and therfore he wants approval to create the apartment
in an accessory building.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the plot plan that I have in front of me doesn't tell me very
much because the sideyard setbacks aren't shown on the existing house, so I don't know
why an attached garage with an apartment can't be part of the main house.
Mr. Gundered stated, the problem comes in in that the Zoning Ordinance, that section for
accessory apartments does not allow any additional perimeter of the main structure. So
in a sense it doesn't really matter whether he was planning to add it to the existing
house or detach it for that matter -because he would still then need a variance to increase
the perimeter of his existing house.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Marma how many are in his family right now.
Mr. Marma answered, I have 4 sons and my wife and myself, so 6.
Mr. Landolfi asked, how long have you lived at the residence?
Mr. Marma answered, at this point almost 7 years.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to refer to this letter now because it specifically
states in item 442 that there are more than one structure on the property.
Mr. Caballero stated, you don't show an additional structure on here, is there an
additional structure?
Mr. Marma answered, there is a tool shed in the back. The tool shed has been there for
about 30 years.
Page -19- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked how big the tool shed was.
Mr. Marma answered, 10 x 12'.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or
against this appeal..
Mrs. Turk, Pine Ridge Drive.
Mrs. Turk stated, I just read this legal notice about the variance and as the legal notice
it showed, to my opinion, that he was going to build another structure right on his
property for rental purposes, that is the interpretation I get from the newspaper and
I am concerned about Cedar Hill because we have quite a few problems up there with the
power lines and I didn't want to have a rental apartment on an acre of land where you
are supposed to have only house. I wanted to find out myself if this was going to be
for rental purposes, would it be, would there be an additional structure on one acre
of land and I want to find out the details here.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have any objections though?
Mrs. Turk answered, if it is going to be a rental I think that I will have objections to
it.
Mr. Caballero asked, if it was built to accomodate a parent or a relative?
Mrs. Turk answered, that I don't have objections to to accomodate family then I would
also have to figure out what in the future will happen if this structure is on the
same one acre as the other property, how would that house be sold, how would it
effect our zoning laws, would other people be doing this, thinking the future that they
can sell house and that is what I am concerned about.
Mr. Caballero stated, your concerns have been noted.
Mr. Caballero stated, I also would like to read a letter into the Minutes from
Betty and Dave Redfield dated March 31st, 1986:
Pursuant to your notice (3/18/86) of the referenced appeal, the undersigned property
owners on Cedar Hill Road respectfully request the appeal be denied, for at least the
below listed reasons:
1. The R-40 zoning in this area is well established, having been in place for over
twenty years. In addition the southern end of Cedar Hill Road and the area on the
west are both zoned R-80. All of the provisions of R-40 should be adhered to in this
established neighborhood or you will be indulging in "spot zoning".
2. There are already two separate buildings on this property. Additional structures
would detract from the single family dwelling concepts that are implicit in the R-40
zoning.
3. Traffic on Cedar Hill Road has been at extremely heavy levels for several years.
Higher population density levels will further aggravate this problem on a ROW of only
33 feet.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Board or
from the public.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that the variance be denied. I don't feel the
appellant has demonstrated any particular hardships. I also feel that something should
be done within the confines of the existing house or adjacent as opposed to an
accessory type apartment.
Page -20- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #884, at the request of the Planning Board, seeking an interpretation of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to seek an interpretation of the number of
uses in the HB zones on any one lot.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would like Hans to read for the record the previous interpretation
that the Zoning Board of Appeals had a few years ago.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the interpretation was sought from the Board, but the Board did not,
the Board referred the matter to the Town Board. They felt that the Town Board should
address the Zoning Ordinance. And, as a result of that there was a change in the zoning
which allowed multiple uses only in the Shopping Center District and changed the
definition of a lot to say that only one use is permitted on any one lot. But, there was
no interpretation at that time from the Zoning Board.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to agree with the interpretation that there is only one use
in any one lot in an HB zone.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Hirkala stated, on the same application, at the bottom, there is an interpretation
that the Planning Board would like to clarify the word use, permitted principal uses and
number of uses permitted on a lot in the HB zone. Now, I would like to know what they
mean by principal use.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think the question came in the Planning Board that the word uses
was a problem, as Mr. Davis brought up and several others, Mr. Le Roy I believe also that
their applications, they felt that under any paragraph in the Zoning Ordinance there
were a number of uses that were listed, it might be under section would be retail stores,
shops for the conduct of retail business. What the Board wanted clarification on, from
my interpretation was, if it says , as 93 that stores or shops, for the conduct of
retail business are permitted. Is the use that whole sentence or is the use a single
store or a single shop, that is what they wanted clarification on the word "use".
Mr. Cortellino stated, the word use, my interpretation, that the use means any single
activity that is permitted in the preceeding zone. For instance, in HB -1 it refers to
GB. That means any one of those items permits a drive-in theatre, it doesn't mean
everything within that box, it means any one thingm otherwise, you just keep the domino
effect, because HB -1 refers to Gb which says that you can do anything in an SC and then
if you do anything in NB. So now what it is is you can put a less restricted use, I mean
a more restrictive use within an HB. Still it is only one use. Any one of the uses that
proceed it.
Page -21- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, footnote "f", the principal use is a business and in that case an
accessory use is that if it is an owner/resident he can also live there. But the converse
wouldn't be true in a residential zone.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it has to be stated into the record, on the shopping center,
in the shopping center district only multiple attached or detached uses shall be permitted.
i think that is pertinent to what we are trying to say, that the interpretation has to
take into consideration the whole zoning ordinance not just that one section and under
shopping centers it simply states that multiple attached or detached uses shall be permitted
which would then show that the converse is true in other districts, that multiple uses
are not allowed.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have already made the motion that we agreed that it is only one
use.
Mr. Cortellino stated, if there is only one use you won't have to worry really about whats
the principal use or whats the accessory use, the one use is the principal and only use.
Except if it is an owner/resident.
Mr. Railing stated, I don't think that anybody is saying that they have any problem with
having more than one use. I don't think that anybody says we can have 2 different uses.
The question comes up ...... in trying to say was if I have a parcel of land which in a
HB -2A zone has 4 acres, can I not put 2 particular individuals in there, each having the
same "use" which now gets into you definition of what a use is. As long as they have the
same use. In other words, a shoe store, mens shoe store and a ladies shoe store. In my
mind, and I think in the minds of alot of planners in the area that is the same type of
use. Because one sells mens shoes and one sells female shoes it is still the same use
being retail. I think that really there is only 3 or 4 basic uses that actually exist.
What is that definition of use and is a use one corporate entity or is it a use retail,
commercial, office? In other words, is each individual that occupies four walls a use or
is a use residentail and another use commercial and another use office, I think that is
what the question is.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I myself in trying to enforce it and advise people what kind of uses
they can have when they call up and ask for all kinds of a variety of uses on any one
property I would like to have a better clarification. I think the previous interpretation
back in 1980 the Board asked for input from the County Planning Department who has
expertise in that area as Jack Railing says, dealing with many other Towns and many other
ordinances and also the Town Attorney who certainly has espertise in zoning matters. I
think that it might be advisable for the Board to send out for advise on that specific
question, what is the definition of the word use under our Zoning Ordinance and see what
kind of a legal response we get back to the Town Attorney and to the Dutchess County
Planning Department and then with their input make a decision. It may just be that an
interpretation can be made by the Board once the see, for instance I have wording here
in 1980 the previous Zoning Board ruled that interpretation of permitted uses in the
business and industry district:
1. Each property owner or leasee shall choose and one of the paragraphs listed within
the applicable zoning district. Any use or uses within the paragrahp shall be permitted.
Now that is different from what we have been enforcing because if you take any one
paragraph, as I pointed out there before, $3 says, stores or shops for the conduct of retail
business. What Mr. Davis is proposing is stores or shops so if we, now this was not an
interpretaition under the 1980 Zoning Ordinance. This was an interpretation in 1963
Zoning Ordinance but I just wanted to bring out the wording that comes into play with
the definition of the word use and permitted uses. Further, the County Planning Board
responded, but they responded in a different way. They said the number of separate
buildings permitted in the HB -2 zone appears to be limited by paragraph 411
Page -22- April 8th, 1986
in the regulations. 11411 states that every building shall be located on a separate
lot except as specifically permitted elsewhere in the ordinance. The regulations
for HB -2 zone do not contradict the language of §411, SC on the other hand provides
for detached principal uses. Therefore, in view of the light that such allowance in
the HB -2 zone only one principal building would be allowed on the lot. So, they are
talking about a building, we are talking about a lot. It is not exactly the same thing
but I thinkI need clarification, the Planning Board needs clarification of the legal
terminology of our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero stated, our interpretation right now was passed as one use per lot at this
point. That is our interpretation. On the suggestion of Hans I am going to request that
we refer this to Dut. Co. Planning and to our Attorney so that we can have discussion on
it so maybe we can present proper wording for the Town Board to amend our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the Town Board last night made the determination that they were going
full blown into a full master plan and a new Zoning Ordinance and the comment was made
by the Supervisor that in the interum if there was anything that they felt or that
anyone felt that was important enough to deal with immediately it should be referred to
them. It seems to me that the primary question with this particular thing is what is
the intent. Is the intent within the ordinance to limit to one use or is the intent
within the ordinance to limit to one group of uses. How we interpret it, because of
what it says and how it was intended might be two different things.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to refer this to the Dutchess County Planning Dept. and
the Town Attorney and ask for the meaning or definition of the word "uses".
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - 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 allow motor vehicle repair and service
on property located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-574315, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Herb Redl and Jack Railing were present.
Mr. Redl stated, I am here requesting a variance to allow an AAMCO Transmission service
repair. We are zoned HB -2A as you people know, the Board knows much better than I do
there are alot of permitted uses in that area. The request I'm making is an extremely
clean type of business, the use is very low on trash compared to other uses in the area.
I did make some copies, on the second page I just made a partial list of permitted uses.
Fast food restaurants, regular restaurants, storage and sale of building materials, storage
and sales of plumbing, electrical, contractors, outdoor storage as long as it is suitably
screened, motel or tourist home, fast food restaurant, manufacturing and fabricating,
finishing and assembling products for retail. So, there are many many uses in the HB -2
and my main and, the request for the variance, I am hoping that the Board will see fit
because it is a very, very low use type for this land. We did set the building back
75 feet from the road after our discussion last time we were in here. It is no longer
45 feet.
Page -23-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi asked, how is this zoned. I have a descrepency. On the appeal it is
listed as GB and over here I have got GB and HB -2A.
Mr. Redl stated, I went to the Town Hall.
Mr. Gunderud stated, it is HB -2A.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have another document that kind of even is different than, it says
on the actual site plan, site is within one zone HB -2A but it is based on zone GB
requirements.
Mr. Redl stated, that is a mistake on my part.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't know how it came about to be determined to be 2 zones. There
is some confusion about the map, the zoning map that is being distributed currently. The
zoning map was redone by a previous Zoning Administrator with the assistance of the
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning. I reviewed that map this weekend with all the amendments
that we changed to the Zoning Ordinance and most of those amendments were changed with
parcel number and actual name of persons so there is no question. In comparing that
map to the map that I use, which was given to me at the time the 1980 Zoning Ordinance
went into effect, that parcel clearly is shown completely within the HB -2 zone. Now,
I don't have the map with me, but, I checked with Elaine Snowden who has in her file the
legal notice that was printed in the newspaper in 1980 when the Zoning Ordinance was
published in the newspaper and the map was part of that package. And, she also has a
map which is slightly different from the map that I have been using the fact that all
these dates are wiped out of there, it still says proposed zoning and it says March 1979,
that is the exact map that was used to reproduce in the newpapers and that she has in her
files as the official map. She wrote on it years ago, the official map, that is, in my
mind, the official map, and on that map, as on my map, that small parcel is clearly shown
on New Hackesack Road, that is that little tiny rectangle, but it is totally within the
HB -2 zone. So, I don't know how it came about whether the previous Zoning Administrator
or not put down that that was in a multy.zone.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Redl, would you agree of us changing the appeal to a HB zone?
Mr. Railing stated, we have no problem with that.
Ms. Berberich changed he appeal form and Mr. Redl initialed it.
Mr. Gunderud stated, as a matter of, that map that I spent quite a considerable amount
of time researching all the ordinances, the original map has now been updated, and that
map will be reviewed by the Dut. Co. Dept. of Planning and probably the Town Engineer and
then that will become.....
Mr. Caballero stated, for the matter of record I am going to make a motion that we accept
Hans interpretation of our Zoning map to have this property in, as he stated, in HB zone
completely as best of his recollection of the map that is official map of the Town.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a question. I have a problem with that, but what I would like
to specifically state here is the fact that this Town does not have an official zoning
JL map right now and I will go along with the fact that probably what Hans pulled up is
probabaly the right one but the one that we are working with and the one we have been
working with, if it is the wrong map it has been on unofficial map and we don't even have
an official zoning map. So, if what we are looking at is utilizing the map that is in
the book which is supposibly official zoning map which we can't even read because the lines
are to thick and we have to utilize what he says, I will go along with it. But, I want
M
Page -24-
April 8th, 1986
that expidited from my viewpoint, as quickly as possible so that we have something
to work from that is real and something we can work from.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a motion on the floor.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Hirkala, do you want to make another motion that we get an
official map or have the powers to be, put together an official map.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to get from the Attorney the offical interpretation as
to what wehter or not that would considered the official map. If it is we could always
utilize that and refer back to it even though we don't have it in front of us until such
time as we get one, but I would like to get an opinion from the Attorney.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I move that we point out to the Town Board what Hans has mentioned,
that there is a disagreement between the so called official map and the map that is on
file with the Town Clerk and that be resolved. And expidite getting copies.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Redl stated, we feel that this is one of the most smallest type of use that you
could put on this property as far as uses and traffic is very small, the hours of
conducting this type of repair business are very limited compared to retail stores
or fast food chain. The number of people on the site at one time is very small compared
to most of the other permitted uses. There is no outside storage compared to some of
the other uses. This is a franchise type of operation where the company, they have to
live up to company policies and company standards.
Mr. Railing stated, I think that Mr. Redl has pretty much touched on the type of facility
that they want to put there and think that one of the things you have to address is the
Special Use Permit. I believe that it is permitted by the Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he sees any problems in our Ordinance in reference
to the use of that property.
Mr. Gunderud answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this Special Use Permit has to be referred to the Planning Board.
Mr. Railing stated, it has been you should have a letter saying that they really don't
have any objection to it.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter from the County. Was this letter sent to the
County in reference to the SUP.
Mr. Hirkala stated, this has not been referred to the Planning Board as a SUP.
Page -25-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter in front of me reference CR104 AAMCO. Was this
letter referred from the previous variance or is this letter for the Special Use Permit.
Ms. Berberich replied, it was for the variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, to read for the record the concern on the variance was:
The above mention plans, as submitted, do not satisfy this Department's standards
and therefore mys be revised. The plans' engineers must meet with Timothy Grimont of
this office....
Mr. Caballero asked if they were aware of this letter?
Mr. Railing answered, that is the entrance application that we made.
Mr. Caballero asked, and that is for the variance?
Mr. Railing answered, that relates to whatever we do with this site.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Railing, what were the suggestions of the Planning Board?
Mr. Redl answered, the main suggestion was to have the entrance of the garage doors in
the rear.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you are going to adhere to that?
Mr. Redl answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, last meeting they came through with a Special Use Permit application
and a variance application. The variance was denied therefore the SUP application was
not valid because the maps that were being used were the maps that were pre -supposed
that the variance would be granted. They came back this time with the proper application.
Now it has to be referred to the Planning Board as a SUP.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if she agreed.
Ms. Berberich looked through the notes of the last meeting and replied, tabled until
get full application and new map.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to make a motion that the SUP application, Appeal #873,
be referred to the Planning Board for their comments as per standard procedures.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich to put this on for a public hearing for the May meeting.
Mr. Caballero read the next item:
Appeal #870, at the request of Joseph Zahn, seeking a variance of §422 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow 1,305 square feet when 2,500 square feet is required for each guest
sleeping room on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel 46159-03-482346, in
the Town fo Wappinger.
Mr. Riley, Attorney and Mr. Zahn were present.
Page -26- April 8th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, this was tabled and sent to the Planning Board for their recommen-
dation, I believe we have a letter from the Planning Board in reference to it.
Memo dated 3/31/86:
At the March 24th, 1986 meeting
a variance was discussed.
Mr. Hawksley made a motion that
of the site plan works.
Mr. Keller seconded the motion.
All ayes.
of the Planning Board the above mentioned application for
the Planning Board finds no problems. The functioning
Mr. Caballero stated, they found no problems with what was shown to them. I don't think
we understand the ramifications, or I don't anyway, of making this change from the
thirteen hundred feet versus the twenty five hundred feet.
Mr. Riley stated, it is for the purpose of being able to subdivide the parcel with the
motel on it from the main parcel. When we got site plan approval to build it the
entire parcel was taken into consideration how physically to severe the motel part of
it as far as the variance in the area....
Mr. Railing stated, that is perfectly correct. Practically speaking, it really doesn't
change the site. The Planning Board will be going through the review process for the
subdivision to make sure that they meet all the requirements with the exception of this
area variance. It is the only variance that we will need. The Planning Board has already
expressed an interest in looking at the parking.
Mr. Cortellino stated,for the Woronock House there are 2 entrances. But the motel is
sharing the South most one. Now, if you get this variance there is an easement, if it
is subdivided for the purpose of selling the motel, how will that work.
Mr. Railing stated, we are going to use the same entrance as it exists. There will be
an easement back and forth between the two for this southern most entrance. What we are
trying to say is the division of this property really doesn't change or impact the
community. We are really just drawing a line through it. We are maintaining proper
parking. We are maintaining proper access and whatever maybe required in addition when
we go through the planning stage that will be provided also. We just have to have this
stop before we can go to the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero stated, Hans, I am going to ask you, do you see any problems that might
cause problems along the line with doing this? You are talking about an almost 50%
change in what the ordinance thought was necessary. That worries me a little bit.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I personally don't see any problem with it -because I was trying to
think of why the Zoning was written in such a way, why did it require 2,500 s/f for
each room in the first place. For the life of me I can not imagine why.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have one more thing to help me make my decision. At this time
are you anticipating selling off that piece of property, because I don't wish to grant
out a variance that is not used, in other words, then it will be there forever and....
Mr. Riley stated, it is contemplated.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that the variance be granted. In fact, even in
fairness, the previous Zoning Administrator had a problem with the equation used to
arrive at it. Granted, it maybe still, we are trying to adhere to the Zoning Ordinance.
I don't think it is a realistic number and I can't use it to deny it, so, therefore,
since I can't use that to deny it I feel that everything else, the Planning Board approves
there is no other problem with the property.
IM
Page -27-
April 8th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like to amend it before I second it. My amendment
would be that the duration of the variance be for a year or a year and a half. If
no action is taken then it reverts back to the way it was.
Mr. Riley asked, you are talking about if it is not sold.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if it is not sold within a year. I have no problem with that.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to arbitrary take a 2 year number.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem with that and I would like a part of the variance
to be no more curb cuts other than what is there now. And this variance refers to Lot #1
on the map because no where in the application does it state that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, fine, I have no problem with that.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated, we need a delegates name for the Planning_Federatiou._
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to make Mike Hirkala the delegate.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 P.M.
lb
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals