1986-03-11ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
MARCH 11TH, 1986 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal #865, at the request of Dr. Linda Kleinhenz, seeking a Special Use Permit
of §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an optometrist office in
her residence on property located on 153 All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel
#6258-04-691374, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #869, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of §422, column -
frontyard "d" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 45 feet from building
to pavement when 75 feet is required on a County Road on property located on New
Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #870, at the request of Joseph Zahn, seeking a variance of §422 of the
Town of Wappinger 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 #6259-03-482346, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #872, at the request of John Hartman, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.51 & §416.515 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for more than
one sign affixed to the building, and to allow for a sign three feet, five inches
(3'5") where three feet is the maximum width permitted on property located on Route 9,
and being Parcel #6157-02-607850, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #848, Frank Vitiritti, request for a re -hearing.
2. Appeal #851, 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
#6156-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #860, at the request of Trudy Minotti, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a free standing sign
15 feet in height while 10 foot maximum in permitted on property located on Myers
Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-02-759569, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #863, 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 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.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #868, at the request of Winifred McCombs & Lena Allee, seeking an
interpretation of Article IV, §445, to permit an accessory apartment, of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
2. Appeal #871, at the request of Contrail Associates of Wappinger, seeking a
Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, paragraph 5, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance to allow a medical clinic on property located on All Angels Hill Road,
and being Parcel #6257-02-870864, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. 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.
Page -2-
March 11th, 1986
4. Appeal 4874, at the request of Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator, seeking
an interpretation of §413.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
CORRESPONDENCE:
1. Letter dated 1/13/86 from Bill Bathrick to Linda Berberich, RE: Bre-Del Ent..
2. Letter dated 1/14/86 from Gary Peterson to James Mills, RE: William A. Kelley & Co..
3. Letter dated 1/20/86 from Bernard Kessler to Angel Caballero, RE: Gina Petroleum
-vs- Town of Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
�- TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590
TEL. 297-6257
Memo To: Zoning Board of Appeals
From: Linda Berberich, Secretary
Date: March 3rd, 1986
Subject: Addition to the March 11th Agenda
Please add the following:
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 &
automotive repair service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel
#6158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger.
lb
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 11TH, 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 Tueday, March 11th,
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 7:03 P.M..
Mr. Caballero stated, at this time I would like to welcome George Urciuoli back to
the Board, George was with us two years ago, and now he back with us. Welcome George.
I would like to have a motion to send a letter to Carol Waddle thanking her for her
past services to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Cortellino made the motion.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to accept the Minutes from the December 10th meeting.
*L Mr. Landolfi made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero asked for a motion to accept the Minutes of the January 14th meeting.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to accept the Minutes.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
All Ayes.
Mr. Caballero stated, at this time I would like to tell our audience that we are
going to hear each appeal individually, anybody that wants to speak for it or against
is welcome to come forward, give their name and address to our secretary and they
will be allowed ample time to give us their reason why they are for or against the
appeal. We will start with the first appeal....
Mr. Caballero asked for a roll call.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich if the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
Office.
Page -2-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero read the first appeal:
Appeal #865, at the request of Dr. Linda Kleinhenz, seekin
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an
residence on property lcoated on 153 All Angels Hill Road,
691374, in the Town of Wappinger.
a Special Use Permit of
optometrist office in her
and being Parcel #6258 -04 -
Mr. Caballero stated, I have a letter here from our Zoning Administrator, Hans Gunderud,
inreference to this appeal and I would like to make it part of the record:
The regulations under §421 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to offices, studios,
or home occupations does not required that a Special Use Permit approval be obtained.
Mr. Caballero stated, therefore Hans granted her a permit to put in her office.
Mr Gunderud stated, there is no permit required, the use is allowed, she will be getting
a building permit.
Mr. Caballero asked, she has to go to the Planning Board for approval?
Mr. Gunderud answered, she has to go to the Planning Board for review of her parking
and access and she will get a building permit from the Building Inspector for any changes
to the structure of the house.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were any comments from the Board.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I find it difficult to believe that it does not appear before this
Board for one reason or another, whether it is a Special Use Permit or an examination.
Without Mrs. Kleinhenz being here, I cannot determine whether that office is a principle
16Luse or the incidental accessory use. If she is not gainfully employed at another
institution that her main salary derives from working for somewhere else then her income
is based on the office. If her income is based on the office then the residence becomes
the incidental use because she could not have the building unless if she had the office.
If Mr. Railing sets up an office in his house and that is his only income is it a
residentail place or an office building with incidental living? I spend more time at
my work than I do at my house. So, I question, how do we determine wether it is an
accessory use or the main use if she does not appear before us?
Mr. Hirkala stated, the way the Zoning Ordinance reads I have to agree to some extent
with Hans but, I have a problem with the fact of the intensity of the accessory use
which would make it then one of the principle uses, now we would have in a residential
area 2 principle uses, residential and home occupation -and I think that creates a
problem with the ordinance because we are not allowing 2 principle uses on a piece of
property so the only way, I don't know of any way we would be able to police the intensity
of the accessory use, and this to me looks to me like a big problem that we might be
running us against.
Mr. Gunderud stated, Mrs. Kleinhenz did submit a letter to me today which you might
want to read into the record which deals with the intensity of the use for understanding
of he obligations.
Mr. Caballero read the letter into the record:
I hereby confirm my intention to convert part of my residence at 153 All Angels
Hill Road in Wappingers into a private optometric office. I will be the sole practitioner
there.
Page -3-
March 11th, 1986
This project will entail remodeling the basement of our home and adding a new,
A non-attached garage for our personal use. I understand that I must provide adequate
` parking facilities on the premises to support the increased use of the property. I
also understand that this is an approved use of the land.
Thank you so much for your help in expediting this procedure.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I kind of challenge Mr. Gunderud's interpretation here and I feel
very strongly that we should make use of our legal counsel since there is, we are lacking
information, since the appellant is not here this evening and since we are challenging
Mr. Gunderud's interpretation I feel that I cannot make a decision without some further
clarifications, so therefore, I would like to recommend that we get with our legal
counsel either at a workshop or prior to our next meeting on this appeal.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think part of this may hinge of the interpretation of what is
incidental. I will give an example, if someone is a dentist and he has an office
somewhere we he does his main profession and someone complains on Sunday afternoon they
have a toothache and he says come over to my house, that is incidental, in other words,
as a convenience or something, but when you have to put in additional parking spaces I
find that hard to conceive it as an incidental use when I am changing not the character
of the neighborhood but I am certainly changing it from what a normal resident would
appeal. I think it hinges on the word of what is incidental, is it an occasional visit
by someone or is it many people everday? If it is many people everyday, incidental means
once in awhile.
Mr. Caballero asked if there were anyone in the audience that would like to make a
statement.
Joe Incoronato, Town of Wappinger.
I think the combination of the expansion of the parking facilities combined with
expansion of the premises kind of should lead this Board to be cinical about this
application and about the fact that Mr. Cortellino alludes to, that it is "an incidental
use I think it is more of an incidental use implied in what is going on in this
application and I think there is, and I know there is only one principle use and I think
you are demeaning and lowering the intent, mongrelizing the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance if you allow more and more business proliferation in a residentail zones
and I have seen more and more of these applications come through. I serve on the
Citizens Advisory Committee and I think certainly the spirit of that committee is to
eliminate being allowed these accessory uses that are being exploited by people so
called, in the business community, by so called professionals. Again, homeowners move
into and put their major investment in their residential zone and they should be able
to ....some amount of seclusion and privacy and through some quirk in the law we may
be allowing this whole thing to degenerating as far as our community is concerned.
So, I would ask the Board to be very, very careful, cautious in its allowance of this
kind of deviation from the Zoning Ordinance.
John Railing, was the Engineer who prepared the plans for Dr. Kleinhenz.
I can't speak for her tonight, obviously, but I can speak for the ordinance and my plans.
When we drew this up it was based on the §421 of the Ordinance which lists permitted
uses and accessory uses. Now, I understand you are referring to incidental use of the
residential property but also the heading on that indicates that what is permitted is
office, studio, or home occupation, it doesn't specifically cite that that has to be
a secondary site for that home occupation.and I think the Ordinance speaks specifically
to this and therefore there is no circumvention of the Ordinance attempted here, I think
it is permitted.
Page -4- March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Landolfi, would you like to make yours in a form of a motion to
have a workshop session with our Attorney, legal counsel, Hans.
�t Mr. Landolfi made that motion.
Mr. Hirkala seconded that motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich to set up the meeting.
Mr. Caballero stated, at this time we will close the hearing of Appeal 4865.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #869, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking a variance of §422, column - frontyard
"d" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 45 feet from the building to
pavement when 75 feet is required on a County Road on property located on New Hackensack
Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-574315, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Railing, Engineer and Herb Redl, applicant were present.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Redl, do you have in your posession the referral from the
County of Dutchess Planning?
Mr. Redl answered, no.
Mr. Redl and Mr. Railing looked over the letter.
Mr. Redl stated, in fact what I should do is give you revised plans because the
Planning Board has also requested us to cut down on our parking.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have two letters from the County of Dutchess that I would like
put into the record: (Letter dated 3/3/86 from Can Tekben, Dept. of Public Works
to Linda Berberich, Secretary, Town of Wappinger Zoning Board)
This Department has reviewed the plans recently submitted: "AAMCO Transmissions",
Town of Wappinger (no date on plan) as prepared by Barger, Campbell, Gray & Railing
and "Proposed AAMCO Shop Herbert H. Redl - New Hackensack Road, Wappinger Falls, NY"
dated January 6, 1986 and last revised January 22, 1986 as prepared by Mauri Associates,
Architects.
The above-mentioned plans, as submitted, do not satisfy this Department's standards
and therefore must be revised. The plans' engineers must meet with Timothy A. Grimont
of this office to discuss, and make changes in, the area of the County road in such
categories as proposed storm drainage, access channelization, curbing and paving,
set -back of this proposed structure off the County right of way and landscaping along
the County road.
se Mr. Caballero read the other letter: (Letter dated 2/24/86 to Zoning Board of Appeals
from Roger P. Akeley, Commissioner, Dut. Co. Dept. of Planning)
Page -5-
March 11th, 1986
The Department regards New Hackensack Road (County Route 104) as a main collector road
for NYS Route 9. If it is to function effectively in the future, it may require
improvements including widening along the approach to Route 9 which would effect the
subject property. The proposed arrangement of the site with the requested variance
is not flexible enough to allow its continued use (as proposed), if such improvements
were undertaken. It is apparent that the proposed use may not be appropriate for the
site given the limited dimensions of the lot. Futhermore, because the subject property
and the property to the west (where the stormwater is discharged) are both owned
by the applicant, it may be appropriate to consider a more appropriate lot -line
configuration. In the intrest of protecting the future function of the road, the
Department recommends that the Board deny the variance.
Mr. Caballero then asked Mr. Redl to present his presentation.
Mr. Redl stated, I am here today asking for a variance for a frontlot setback. One
of the main reasons for doing so, AAMCO Tansmissions throughout the United States the
doors are located in the front of the building and the Planning Board is requesting
that we put the doors to the rear of the building and also, as much parking in the
rear as possible, eliminate as much in the front as possible, so we are caught, so
what I am trying to do to accomodate that. Instead of putting the building way back
near the line to accomodate the 75 feet that we could probably do, in order to put the
doors in the back, the Planning Board is requesting, not requesting, requiring, to put
as much parking in the back, this is why these plans are this way. This will be one of
the very first AAMCO Transmissions and probably one of the first garages built in
the Town of Wappinger where the doors are in the rear, it would probably set a
precedence. We have got AAMCO'S permission to do this, they are a franchise, they are
a national organization, it is a well kept.type of business, it is a very limited type
11use on this property. It is zoned commercial, it isn't like a store or anything else
where you have a million and one people coming in and out all day. It is probably
0 unlikely that you have more than 8 or 10 cars going in and out of that driveway within
a day. I would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Railing stated, only to describe the site. As you know, it is a small site and
it is not of great dimension which doesn't leave us the expanse to move the building
around. In fact, I believe that you will find if you use the 75 a rear line may be
required.
Mr. Hirkala asked, how big is the lot?
Mr. Railing answered, the lot is 19,694.
Mr. Hirkala stated, a little less than half an acre. Are you hooked up in anyway with
Lawrence Farms Mr. Redl?
Mr. Redl answered, my daughter and son in law, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but you have nothing to do with it?
Mr. Redl answered, yes I do.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I mentioned to you the fact of the sign being on Lawrence Farms.
Did you do anything about that the other day Hans?
Mr. Gunderud answered, it may be a different issue.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason that I am bringing it up is because there is a law on
the books in the Town that we can't even consider application if there is another
violations and that is what I am trying to determine right now. I mentioned that to you....
Page -6- March 11th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, on the same property.
Mr. Hirkala stated, on Lawrence Farms property.
Mr. Gunderud stated, this application is on a different property.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it is only on the same property.
Mr. Redl stated, we only have on sign.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I am trying to bring up is the fact that that sign is
blatantly illegal that Lawrence Farms has had and that is why I asked if you had
any connections with Lawrence Farms. Lawrence Farms has been one of the biggest
problems along Route 9 as far as signs are concerned. They have constantly
ignored the sign regulations in the Town of Wappinger.and unfortunately enforcement
in the Town is a problem and if that is any indication, not withstanding the fact that
you also own the storage units on both North and South. The south storage unit has been
a problem in that what has been stored there outside it shouldn't have been stored there
and has been told on a couple of occasions.to remove outside storage that was not allowed
there. I am still questioned as to whether or not those trees on the storage site on
Route 9 behind this property were ever replaced when they were have supposed to be
replaced back when Pam was the Zoning Administrator and there were letters to the effect
that those trees were put in too small and you couldn't replant them because the
season was wrong and the next season you were going to replant them but with one foot
taller trees and this was never done.
Mr. Redl stated, excuse me for interrupting but the trees were planted and the Town
IVdid come and inspect it. They were changed and the Town Engineer came in and they
actually took measurements of it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, they did measure the trees and they came out alright?
Mr. Redl answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, because they seem awful small to me right now, but I guess what
I am trying to say is that you are requesting a variance from us on this particular
site and I don't think the history of what you do in this Town in the past has been one
that I wouldn't be proud of to be honest with you, I am not trying to be rache or
anything like that but this is what I see. There have been alot of violations and
alot of ignoring of what the Town is requesting.
Mr. Redl stated, I know of no violations. I was informed of the sign at a Planning
Board meeting, in fact I went to the Building Inspector and asked him to check the
site and bring to my attention with anything that was a problem. The day after the
Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Urciuoli stated, I have a comment, that Mike's comments are of Mike's feelings and
not of the opinion of the whole Board.as far as signage problems at Lawrence Farms or
any other violations that there may be.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think the problem here is more that the Plannning Board
requesting the doors to be in the back. We have less than an acre lot and I realize
we have an ordinance which says how much coverage you can put on a lot but in this
case you have, for whatever reason, the design of the building that you want all 6 bays
side by side instead of three and three and thats compounding a problem. We don't give
out,as far as I am concerned, we don't give out variances, a strict interpretation
as to what I can give out a variance for and it is easy for you putting a wrong use on
Page -7- March 11th, 1986
the lot or you are designing, not you Jack, this comes from the franchise, or someone
has designed the wrong building for the lot. Why a variance, it isn't so much the
parking where the doors are its the layout of the building for that lot that is creating
the problem. It is not the land, there isn't a stream or a rock.
Mr. Caballero asked, if you were to place this building 75 feet back where it is supposed
to be according to our Zoning Ordinance, would you have any problems in doing this?
Mr. Railing answered, well certainly I doubt if we could get the doors in the rear of
the building.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is a planning concept they want to see the doors in the back
of the building. We are concerned here with the ordinance, whether the doors are in the
front or the back.
Mr. Cortellino stated, forget about where the doors are is his question. What would be
the impact of going back 75 feet?
Mr. Railing answered, I believe you may have a rear setback problem.
Mr. Caballero stated, do you realize that we would a need a majority plus one vote to
override the County Planning?
Mr. Railing answered, we understand that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I am concerned about the hardship factor. Can you explain what the
hardship would be if you did not get the variance.
It Mr. Railing stated, I think rather than deal with the hardship I would rather deal with
the uniqueness of the site. It is unique in its configuration and in its size.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I hear you but the uniqueness of the size of the property just lends
itself to the use. Perhaps a different use is called for on the property than what
you are trying to use it for. I guess what I am trying to say is that you are going to
have to prove to me the reasons why you have to have the variance.
Mr. Railing stated, the only thing that you could put on there is a very narrow building
which I really can't think of any use that could be done for a 100' x 15 to 20' building
is going to have.
Mr. Caballero stated, maybe you can't build there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you can build there. I am sure there are other purposes the property
could be put to other than what they are requesting.
Mr. Caballero stated, at this time I would like to entertain questions or comments from
the floor.
Estelle Zak - Dorothy Heights.
First of all I would like to question the legality of this hearing when an abutting
property owner was not notified.
Mr. Caballero stated, according to our records all the abutting property owners were
notified.
Page -8-
March 11th, 1986
Mrs. Zak stated, I checked with one abutting property owner today and she was not
notified.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich to check the records of the notifications that went
out.
Mrs. Zak stated, Rachel Rosa.
Ms. Berberich stated, it is not on the list.
Mr. Caballero stated, the list came from our Town Assessor's office and she is not on
the list.
Mrs. Zak stated, she is an abutting property owner.
Mr. Hirkala asked, does she abut this site or does she abut another site.
Mrs. Zak answered, she abuts the right of way I believe.and she is in back of Mr. Redl's
property. I would consider her an abutting property owner since Mr. Redl just bought
the house next door to her.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have no argument against that, Hans is going to check the tax
maps but you are here....... you may be perfectly right but if you have a problem with
this variance would you kindly tell us what you feel.
Mrs. Zak stated, I feel that Mr. Redl has definitley altered the character of the
residential area. A year ago a property that just moved out of the house that he
11bought wanted to buy the property to protect the land and it was zoned residential
0 at that time, I don't know how it got its business use all of a sudden and if this is
going to be permitted I think it is certainly going to take away from the residentail
character of the area. I think it should be definitely denied. We have a very bad
time coming out to New Hackensack. We have a cut outs every few feet there and it is
a very dangerous intersection and I don't think that type of business should be allowed.
Joe Incoronato.
I think if the gentlemen will read the article and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance
specifically §105 under the statement of purposes, and I quote very briefly, "one
of the key purposes to promote the most beneficial relationship between the use of
the land and buildings and the circulation of traffic throughout the Town having
particular regard to the avoidance of congestion of streets and provisions of safe
and convenient vehicular and pedestrian traffic movements appropriate to the various
uses of land and buildings throughout the Town'% Now, if any of you traverse New
Hackensack Road, I think we all do regularily, you know that it is quite a mess to
get through that intersection. Its is congested as it is right now with McDonalds,
Imperial Plaza having been expanded, the theatre, a number of beauty parlors, hardware,
stores, eating places, it is just as mess as is right now and it funnels alot of traffic
from Myers Corners Road and Red Oaks Mill right through that intersection onto 9.
So, you have got a bad situation to begin with and now we are being asked to compound
the problem by creating another road blockage, bottleneck in that particular area, so
I think this is counter productive and conflicts with the intent and purpose of the
ordinance.
Mr. Caballero stated, do you realize that if he wasn't asking for a setback for a variance
for a setback he could do what he wanted to do there. He is asking for a setback, he
is allowed to put in that station. He is asking for a setback and the ordinance allows
it.
Page -9-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Incoronato stated, well I don't think to put in the station in the first place.
Mr. Caballero answered, fine, but he is asking for a variance for a setback and that
is the decision that this Board is going to make tonight whether it is alot of traffic
or where it is badly situated he is allowed by our Zoning Ordinance to put that AAMCO
station there. Only, he wants to bring the building forward, that is what we are talking
about here. We read that ordinance quite well, you may finish.
Mr. Incoronato stated, Mr. Gunderud is apparently is misleading this Board concerning
the violation situation. I was on the Board that passed that ordinance and I was the
author of the ordinance so I think I know where of I speak. The ordinance basically
says if you own property in any part of the Town, whether it be the property in
question or someother property, or if you are an officer of the property or business
that relates or does not relate to the application no permit may be granted so long
as a violation exists on any of the properties that you are affiliated with whether
you own them outline or whether you are an officer in the corporation and I will get
you that law, do your homework Mr. Gunerud. The law is on the books, it was passed
last year, so, there is a point of order here, you can't even entertain this application.
Now, I don't care whether it is a setback, setforth, you just don't have the power
to hear this thing, and Mr. Urciuoli said that you certainly have the power,that
Mr. Hirkala was wrong, Mr. Gunderud says that it doesn't apply, I am afraid that they
are wrong, check your law if you have a problem, I will be glad to get the ordinance
for you, I have it at home. Check with Linda Berberich, but it is on the books. If
you proceed with this beyond this point, I think you are open to an Article 78.
1%Mr. Gunderud stated, I would like to advise the Board that I have read that ordinance
that was adopted. Mr. Incoronato was stating, mis-stating the words of the ordinance,
0v I have a copy of it upstairs if you would like me to get it. Very simply it says
that no agency shall entertain any applications if there is a violation on the premises,
that is the key word, the premises that is under question. It would be pretty much
unconstitutional in the State of New York to hold somebody up for a violation in some
other Town or some other part of the Town on something that he is doing in another part
of Town.
Mr. Caballero stated, we have been advised by you Joe, and we have been advised by
Hans. We hear what you said.
Mr. Incoronato stated, please check the law.
Mrs. Zak stated, I just feel to entertain this appeal or request is really illegal if
you know that a property owner did not get notified of it.
Mr. Caballero stated, coming back to the abutting property owner, Hans checked the
records.
Mr. Gunderud stated, there are copies of the tax map upstairs which are.......
Mrs. Zak stated, I don't need that, I want the copy of the letter that was sent to
Mrs. DaRosa, she is an abutting property owner.
Mr. Gunderud went on, I checked the tax maps upstairs, they are the County tax maps and
Mrs. DaRosa's property is two properties removed from the Redl property. There are
two intervening properties between.
Mrs. Zak stated, that is not true.
Page -10-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see a copy, I would like to have Hans to get a
copy of that law.
Mr. Gunderud presented the Board with the official copy of the adoption of the ordinance.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the key words are "these premises".
The Board agreed with Mr. Gunderud.
Mr. Incoronato stated, check the legal notice.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is what we have on the books.
Mr. Incoronato stated, okay, I believe that you have it on the books, I also believe
what I submitted.
Mr. Caballero stated, I am going to close this hearing to the public and we are going to
have discussion between the Board only.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to go along with what Charlie was saying with the
history of the site I respectfully submit that the problems that this site is now
incurring are probably self conflicting. Point two, I see a note over here that I
didn't see before. It says that this property is in 2 zones, a GB & HB -2A, where is the
zoning line on this property? Because, we have an ordinance here that states that
each section will adhere to whatever section it happens to be in so if a part of the
building is in HB -2A that part of the building has to adhere to the HB -2A requirements.
Mr. Caballero stated, at this point I will entertain a motion from you to deny this
on the grounds that you just stated and also that we don't have to over -ride the
County.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to make a motion to deny the variance based on
the recommendations of the County and the fact that the property is in 2 zones and
there is nothing on the map to show which, where the zoning line is. And, in my opinion,
the variance request is based on a self-inflicted hardship.
Mr. Caballero stated, the property is in 2 zones, a self-inflicted hardship and the
County recommended not to approve the variance.
Mr. Redl stated, this might not be 2 zones, we looked at one map another indicating,
but this map does not indicate that.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the property is in the HB -2A zone..
Mr. Hirkala stated, this map right here shows it going through 2 zones. The official
map that we bought from the County. These are the maps that we bought from the County
and spent I don't know how many hundreds of dollars to buy these maps from the County
and the line goes right through the middle of the property.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the line is wrong. The original map which was adopted with the
ordinance, the red map......
` Mr. Hirkala stated, that map is the proposed ordinance, that is not the legal one
Page -11-
March 11th, 1986
that is not the legal map. That map that you have right there is the legal map on
file at the County, it was made from the County master.
Mr. Gunderid stated, this map was made with the .......Pam Farnsworth, that was adopted
with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the official map, that is.
Mr. Gunderud stated, you mean to tell me that for the first four years of the Zoning
Ordinance we never had a map.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you pull the map that the newspaper printed and show me where it
matches that. That map right there are the maps that we bought from the County, that
is from the County master on file.
Mr. Caballero stated, on the application it says GB, general business.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think that was a error.
Mr. Redl stated, may I make a suggestion then, suppose we table this and research and
come back and determine.....
Mr. Caballero stated, no, on this Board we are going to make a decsions, and if I
have a motion on the floor, I either get a second for that motion or the motion does
not carry.
Mr. Hirkala stated, a point of order, I have a motion on the floor, is there a second.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - abstain
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero stated to Ms. Berberich, I would like to make a request that we have
a workshop with the Planning Board in reference to the doors in the back as long as
they meet the setbacks in our zoning ordinance.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #870, at the request of Joseph Zahn seeking a variance of §422 of the Town
of Wappinger 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 46259-03-482346, in the Town of Wappinger.
Joseph Zahn, Applicant and Daryl Riley, represents Mr. Zahn.
Mr. Caballero stated to Mr. Riley, would you state why you would like to have this
request granted to you.
Mr. Riley stated, first I ask if this was referred to the County Planning Board and
if there are recommendations.
Mr. Caballero answered, it was referred to the County Planning Board and their
recommendation was to protect the integrity of the Ordinance and recommend the denial.
Page -12-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Riley stated, the letter I have here dated February 24th indicates that the
Planning Board does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities
of the facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Riley to read the total letter that he had in his hand.
Mr. Riley stated, the second paragraph says that the Department has no objection to
the requested proposal if the purpose is to facilitate subdivision of the property as
indicated on the site plan. However, we do not encourage additional expansion that
would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Although we regard the specifics of
area regulations as matters of local prerogative, we support municipal efferts to
establish and maintain density limits. Therefore, if the applicant seeks a variance
from the density restriction in order to expand, then we consider this a threat to the
integrity of the ordinance and recommen denial. (Letter dated Feb. 24th, 1986 to
Zoning Board of Appeals from Roger P. Akeley, Dut. Co. Dept. of Planning).
He does not ask this variance to expand, it is strictly for the purpose of subdividing
what is there in existence now.
Mr. Caballero stated, I have another letter here that I would like to read into the
record from the Building Inspector, Dan Kriegsman (dated January 29th, 1986):
I reviewed the site plan and found the following:
1. Inground pool area as shown on drawing incorrect.
A. Pool has been built.
B. Pump house erected and not shown.
2. Wells:
A. Proposed well must be approved by Dut. Co. Health Dept.
B. Existing well, if discontinued, must have permit and be approved by the DCHD.
3. Zoning Administrator must approve all signs for Lot #1 & 2.
4. No refuse container shown on Lot #1.
Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Berberich to put this in as part of the record.
Mr. Riley stated, this is Mr. Railing who is the Engineer for the project.
Mr. Railing stated, the map that you have is the proposed subdivision. And, obviously,
we do have to show, if we go through the subdivision and possibly site plan, these
various things that he is asking for. They will be shown. Right now we are just
dealing with the use variance.
Mr. Riley stated, what we are requesting is an area variance witht he reduction of
the amount of space needed for the hotel units that are presently existing on the
property. Mr. Zahn, as you know, has been for many years the owner of the Woronock
House restaurant and in 1983 applied for site plan approval for the construction of
the motel which was granted. Subsequent to that time, and during the course of
construction he had some physical problems. Ultimately, the........ there are going
to be some requirements that have to be met in order to do this but before we go to the
Planning Board we needed a variance that has been requested here otherwise the Planning
Board will not even listen to the application.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if my math is correct here you need 1,195 square feet. How much can
we pick up from over on this end.
Mr. Railing stated, the problem is, the area that is required is in the area of the
motel. On the overall site there is sufficient area. Once you subdivide the property
off that is when the problem develops.
Mr. Riley stated, there has been site plan approval for the construction of the motel.
There is enough land on the total area, the problem lies that physically, to separate
the motel area we need the variance on the amount required.
Page -13-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have to pick up some footage somewhere.
Mr.
Railing stated,
parking isn't
a problem.
We have sufficient parking.
Mr.
Landolfi stated,
the overall
footage is
though.
Mr. Railing stated, all that I am saying is that there is not a parking problem.
Sufficient spaces exist according to the ordinance on both sites. The problem is that
section of the ordinance that makes that requirement.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't think there is adequate parking, it may follow the ordinance.
Mr. Railing stated, like I said there is sufficient parking for the motel on the motels
area, there was sufficient parking area for parking for the Woronock House. That we will
deal with as we go through the process, but we can't go through the process to determine
those facts until we get through this.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a question. The Building Inspector cited a number of
things, am I correct, when you were reading the letter?
Mr. Caballero answered, yes.
Mr. Cortellino asked, are they violations?
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't know if the Building Inspector has issued a violation
on it. To me they look like violations.
Mr. Railing stated, I think he is saying there is an inconsistency on the map, they
certainly are not violations because he has a CO.
Mr. Caballero asked, he has a CO for the pool.
Mr. Riley stated, he has a Certificate of Occupancy for use of that parcel.
Mr. Caballero asked, what about a Certificate of Occupancy for the pool that is on the
property?
Mr. Riley answered, as far as I know it was all part of the same, there was not a
separate CO or Builidng Permit issued for the pool as far as I know.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Kriegsman if they have any violations on this property at this
time.
Mr. Kriegsman answered, they just got a CO.
Mr. Caballero asked, including the pool?
Mr. Kriegsman answered, yes. The Health Dept. approved everything in this operation,
the fences are up, there are no violations there.
Mr. Caballero stated, there are no violations on the property gentlemen. Is there
anybody from the audience who would like to make a comment for or against this appeal?
There was no one.
Mr. Hirkala stated, two of my concerns. The question that I asked the previous applicant,
this hardship that is created because of the, apparently there is a hardship created
Page -14-
March 11th, 1986
or something that is why you wanted to get rid of it, or is it just a case of you
got a good buy and you want to get rid of it. If you are requesting us to give you
a variance because you have a chance to sell it off I think that, my personal opinion
is that it is unreasonable. And, secondly, what I would like also to know is what,
if it is split off, the variance granted, and that property is subdivided out and sold
to someone and you have an interested buyer what is it going to be used for.
Mr. Riley answered, first of all we have to distinguish between the nature of the
variance requested. This is not a use variance request which would change the type of
use of the property or indicate and additional building. This is an area variance
requested which is simply for the purpose of subdividing and conveying off what is
already there. Now, I think the case law holds that if it is a area variance request
that you don't have to show unnecessary hardship, it is matter of showing practical
difficulties which is somewhat of an illusive definition under the authorities but
it usually boils down to touch stone is whether it is strict adherence to the zoning
regulations would produce a public good that outways the hardship, or not the difficulties
imposed upon the property owners. Here I would say that that is not true. Its simply
a division of what is already there, we are not asking for any change. So, I don't
think we have to show a hardship as such.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the practical difficulty is still self inflicted. So, the second
question I would like an answer to.
Mr. Riley stated, self inflicted difficulties is not an objection, it is a consideration
in the granting of an area variance, it is not an objection as such.
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is why I am asking you so the Board can consider the question
whether or not this is a self inflicted situation whereby someone is trying to get out
of it now. This is why I am asking you the question.
Mr. Riley stated, it is self inflicted to the extent that he went to the, he got a
site plan approval from the Town, he built it, yes, to that extent it is self inflicted.
Mr. Hirkala stated, well obviously he would not have been allowed to subdivide and
then build. This particular motel sitting on that piece of property is part and parcel
of the restaurant and the other hotel on the other side. When it came before the
Planning Board for site plan review and approval it was one complete parcel. If, there
was a subdivision parcel sold and then the request went in it would not have been
allowed without a variance and I doubt the variance would have been granted. So what is
happening here is this is coming in the back door so to speak, and what I am trying to
establish for the record is that that is the case.
Mr. Riley answered, obviously, that is the case.
Mr. Hirkala stated, secondly, the question that I asked before, what use is that
building going to be put to after it is sold?
Mr. Riley answered, it is going to be used as a motel.
Mr. Hirkala asked, it is going to be used as a hotel for the general public or used
for a motel as a single room occupancy motel for various types of clients or what.
Is this going to be strictly a...........
Mr. Riley answered, well I can't forcast the future but as of the moment there is a
franchise of Quality Corp. motels that, and agreement there, how long that will last
I can't control that.
Page -15-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero asked, he has a client that wants to buy the hotel?
Mr. Riley answered, yes.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you do not know what that client is going to do with the
hotel?
Mr. Riley answered, as far as I know it is going to be used for a motel. It is
restricted, he can't put a resident in there. That was part of the agreement.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am not sure I agree with Mr. Riley with regard to the area
variance.
Mr. Caballero stated, when you disagree with an appellant I think you make a decision
and you make a motion.
Mr. Riley asked, may I read it from the case?
The basic question being asked when reviewing an application for an area variance is
and I quote, "whether strict application of the ordinance in a given case will serve
a valid public purpose which outways the injury to the property owner" and that is
cited from the matter of Decina vs Zoning Board of Appeals, 45 New York, 105.
Mr. Cortellino stated, but that is not my question, we are getting very close. The
thing that you haven't brought out that was that case brought up when the area variance
wasn't granted before a building went up or whether it was an area variance request
after a building went up. There is a difference that way because again, in spite of
some people objecting we learned alot in New York.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Railing, you said there wouldn't be a restaurant in that motel?
Mr. Zahn answered, that is correct.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is something going to be written in there.
Mr. Zahn answered, in the contract.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion.
Mr. Hirkala stated, one of my primary concerns is the, if we grant the variance and
then the subdivision goes through we loose control of that piece of property. Right
now we have got a site that is an active, plyable, usable with a restaurant, hotel,
parking, the whole bit within the ordinance requirements. As soon as we grant this
variance, it becomes subdivided, we loose control of that left section of the property
and that is one of my prime concerns. If there was some was that, on the face of
it I have no real quarrel with the request other than I have a problem with loosing
control of that piece of property. I wish there was some way we could, if we could
table thins thing in consideration of restrictions of the variance or.........
Mr. Cortellino stated, right now, lets say this is the rough line dividing the 2
piece of property if the variance is granted. Will there be a fence between the
2 properties?
Mr. Riley answered, I think to some extent that will depend on what the Planning
Board wants.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the reason that I bring that up is one only other or both
has inadequate parking and if you are getting an area variance........
Page -16-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Riley answered, I don't think that is true from what Mr. Railing tells me, there
is adequate parking.
Mr. Railing stated, there is adequate parking for the motel and there is area for......
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud if he had any comments on this.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the only thing that I would like to point out to the Board is
when the motel was approved and it went through the Planning Board process the whole
site was looked at by all the agencies and the adequacy of the parking and the square
footage requirements was considered and the site did comply and as Mr. Railing
indicated the Planning Board has the power to waive parking spaces up to 50%. If there
is land in reserve to develop those parking spaces until at some future time it is
determine to be needed I think that would be done under the review that they would have
to go through to get the property subdivided. I think the only problem is that the
word of the Zoning Ordinance says 2,500 square foot per room for said motel and
unfortunately they used that, we use that basis when we look at the whole site, we knew
what was going on at the Woronock House, the restaurant and that use, we knew that there
was another motel there and the land was there to do it but that now that he has the
requirement to try to subdivide it to sell that is where you are getting into the
problems with that one condition of 2,500 square foot and that is kind of an arbitrary
figure and I think that the Zoning Board should consider what that might mean, 2,500,
will it mean any difference if it is 1,305 as he is asking for, will that be an impact.
The motel is operating at this point and there doesn't seem to be that many cars parked
at the motel, that there is a parking problem at the motel so it seemed that perhaps
the 2,500 square foot is not a valid number.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you are talking about 2,500 for the whole lot per unit, per
sleeping quarter. 2,500 is for a room, it is a 50x50 space, now what would you say a
room is ordinarily?
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, why did the Planning Board didn't want to look at
this?
Mr. Railing answered, if I may, one of the review comments was from one of the Town
professionals, the Town Engineer indicated this section of the ordinance that we were
in complete compliance with it and they suggested that we come here.
Mr. Caballero stated, how about if we make a motion to send this to the Planning Board
to review and comment, an advisory comment.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a question, I don'tmind doing that, I raised a
question earlier about a fence, there can't be a fence because you need an easement
to get thorugh the motel.
Mr. Caballero stated,if we send it to the Planning Board for their review and comment
maybe they could give us some insite and how to handle it. I will entertain a motion.
Mr. Hirkala made the motion to send this to the Planning Board for their recommendations.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolf i - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Page -17-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero closed the public hearing on Appeal #870.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would take a ten mintes break. The break was called
at 8:10 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 P.M..
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4872, at the request of John Hartman, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.51 &
§416.515 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for more than one sign
affixed to the building, and to allow for a sign three feet, five inches(3'5") where
three feet is the maximum width permitted on property located on Route 9, and being
Parcel 446157-02-607850, in the Town of Wappinger.
Paul Eckeman, Attorney and Brian O'Connor represents sign company.
Mr. Eckleman stated, I am sure you gentlemen are familiar with Poughkeepsie Datsun,
the premises the building and the land. The land is somewhat unique in that it is a
long narrow strip which abuts Route 9. There should be a set of plans. Not only
is it a long, narrow strip but you can see that Route 9 runs across at an angle. The
uniqueness of the property dictates in essence 2 things. One is the type of building
that can be placed on, long, narrow building. In addition, the property as it relates
to Route 9 is such in conformance with the building that if you are heading northbound
presently one sign is permitted. There is one here, there is a permit for this one as
indicated, thus if you are heading northbound you do not visually see that sign. He
does not have access to potential customers from traffic until you are even with it as
opposed to being south of it. The alternative is, I guess you could put a sign here and
say that is the permitted sign and then ask for the variance here you would have the same
problem only from the opposite direction. Simply stated, the purpose here, by reason
of uniqueness of the property is to permit him to have access, the purpose of signs
to hit the traffic as it travels back and forth along Route 9. I should also point out
to the Board that it has been indicated to me that the present, some of the existing
free standing signs will be removed, the signs as proposed will be within the confines
of the existing building, in other words not to be higher or lower or apart from the
building, and I certainly do not pretend, or begin to assume that this is going to
change the character of the neighborhood, for those reasons I ask that the variance
be granted.
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak either
for or against.
There was no one.
Mr. Landolf i asked, I believe that I do know the answer but I assume the fact that you
are asking for the 3'5" because it is a standard sign.
Mr. O'Connor answered, this is part of a national sign program, they are switching from
Datsun to Nissan and this is part of the national sign program. There is one sign
manufacturer, we are the sign installer for this area. They only have certain stock
sizes to work with and that is the reason why we are not going with any free standing
signs because according to the Zoning Ordinance they don't have on that is even close
to fitting in with the ordinance. That is why they are going with just building signs.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we had similar with Shell, Mobil, Texaco, and you know ironically
they came up with a sign that met with our Zoning Ordinance.
Page -18- March 11th, 1986
Mr. O'Connor stated, I have no doubt that that would be the case but what happens
tWthough is that Poughkeepsie Nissan is not paying for this type of sign because these
are being funded by Nissan as part of the name change over, that is why they only have
a certain stock items. They are not paying for any custom signage at all. It is not
part of the program.
Mr. Cortellino asked, where would the other sign and the size of the other sign be?
Mr. Eckelmen asked, the sign for which he has a permit?
Mr. Cortellino stated, no, it says to allow for more than one sign affixed to the
building.
Mr. Eckelmen answered, the other sign will be 21'9".
Mr. O'Connor stated, that would be on the actual front of the building which you would see
as you are heading south on Route 9. They are individual letters to be mounted on the
front of the building.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gunderud, they are allowed one sign on the building and one
free standing sign?
Mr. Gunderud stated, he has 2 streets so he can have 2 free standing signs.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what about the one on the side which is 17'2", that is the one you
are asking for.
Mr. O'Connor answered, that is a different type configuration. What they do is
they identify the name of the location, Poughkeepsie Nissan in indivdual letters. The
dust Nissan with the Nissan logo is put into a box format.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gunderud, the footage of the signs on the buildings here, how
do they conform with the square footage, what is really the delta there on those,
what are they allowed is what I am asking versus what they are asking for.
Mr. Gunderud answered, a sign permit was issued to my coming back to the Town for the
other one so I am not familiar with the length......
Mr. Kriegsman stated, the building width is 70 feet, 80% would be 56, he only asks
for 22. He is way under the requirement.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with a precidence that might possibly be set by
giving him a sign because that happens to be the sign that Nissan says that they are
going to have. If that is the case then Carvel, McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut,
they all should get whatever happens to be the factory norm rather conform to what our
Zoning Ordinance says. I firmly believe that our Zoning Ordinance is fair and Nissan
has lived with that sign going that direction for quite some time as Datsun. I don't
see any reason why they would have to, if they want to build the sign out from the
wall to make it parrallel to Route 9 they could do that. All the other businesses along
Route 9 are allowed the one sign across the front of the building, I don't see why
we should deviate right now. I haven't seen anything other than a convenience for the
factory. I make a motion to deny the variance based on the fact that they haven't
proven any necessity for it.
Mr. Eckelmen stated, the point I tried to make is that this property is unique in its
configuration with the lot size and the dimension of the lot itself as well as its
relation to Route 9, so, if you are worried about Burger King or other people coming in
Page -19- March 11th, 1986
each lot is considered on its own and unless they can demonstrate that their lot......
Mr. Caballero stated, that is fine but if you make one to conform to our size you
don't have the problem. It is because they have a standard sign that they are going to
issue you that you have a problem.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the point that I want to bring up here is the fact that that sign,
the purpose for the 2 signs they request, putting the sign on the side of the building
is because the configuation of the building to Route 9. Now, there are alternatives
to that problem. Our Zoning Ordinance specifically states there will be a sign on the
face of the building facing the road. Now, if the building is angled to the road
because of the configuration of the property to the road then you could always change
the angle of the sign that is on the building by reinforcing it and building it out
from the building and making it parrallel to the road which makes it as if the building
was parrallel to the road so there is no difference there, he wouldn't need a.... sign
if that was the case. They are saying you don't have access to that sign from south
to north that is one way to have it without the necessity for a second sign on the
building which, in my view, sets a precedent which allows the same right to everybody
else who has that same problem. I have a motion to deny based on that fact.
Mr. Caballero 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 48484, Frank Vitiritti, request for a re -hearing.
Mr. Alfred Cappelli, Architect and Mr. Vitiritti was present.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Vitiritti why he requests a re -hearing.
Mr. Vitiritti answered, basically because for the reasons that it was turned down
have been rectified, some of the reasons.
Mr. Caballero asked, why did we turn you down.
Mr. Cappelli stated, there were a number of concerns that the Board, if I may, might
say the reason why it was originally turned down, one of them was the concern about
the traffic onto Old Hopewell, the concern about the existing tenant that was renting
there, the junk and the cars that were there. The question was brought up about
signage, would we have one sign, two signs, three signs, and the question was brought
up about the multiple uses, and I guess a combination of all of this.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we grant him a re -hearing based in fact what
you are saying, you cleared up those....
Mr. Cappelli stated, well, yes, and we would like to discuss some of those concerns
with you this evening.
Mr. Caballero stated, all that I can grant you is a re -hearing but I would have to
put it in the paper again so that we have a public hearing and so the public would be
allowed to address your re -hearing.
Page -20- March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero went on, we would deny you a re -hearing or grant you a re -hearing. If
we grant you a re -hearing at that time you would present the new evidence that you may
have to change our minds of our previous decision.
Mr. Landolfi stated, relating to that, can we insist from the County a reading on that
corner again for exit and egress and so on.
Mr. Caballero stated, this requires a unanimous vote of the total Board in agreement
to re -hear this hearing according to State......
Mr. Landolfi stated, just for your information on November 8th the County did send us
a, relative to the multiple use on that property and also the signage and so on. We
know there is a problem on that corner and I think what we are going to do is ask
the County to give us an updated reading on that corner. Nothing to do with your
..... here in any way, it is just a bad corner, hopefully whatever comes out of it will
benefit all of us.
Mr. Caballero stated, the question in front of the Board is do we allow this gentlemen
to come back for a re -hearing?
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem with the re -hearing as long as the client fully
understands that what was said in the past was to access ingress and egress, that was
said in the past as to uses would probably hold true.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I have no problem with it. I can prove that what you were talking
about was as far as our left turn is not really valid.
Mr. Hirkala stated, there is nothing to talk about unless you can present some new
evidence to us we don't even have to give you a re -hearing.
Mr. Caballero asked for a second to Mr. Landolfi's motion to re -hear.
Mr. Cortellino second the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye. Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cappelli asked, so we will not have a re -hearing, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Caballero answered, no. I think he can make an application to come in again.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I think there was a decision by the Zoning Board passed, there
was a certain time limit that had to elapse.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 4848, 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 12x60 (plus addition)
mobile home with a 14x60 mobile home on 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. Robert Lusardi, Attorney and Mrs. Tibbetts was present.
Page -21-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, I have 2 memos to read into the minutes from our Building
Inspector: Subject: -7 Cooper Trailer Park - As known as Block & Lot Card File
46156-02-852766 - 1.5 Acres
- 13 Mobile Homes
46156-02-861783 - .83 acres
46156-02-837794 - 200x200 -
1 unit
Other names used for permit
applications
85-102 Maple Lane Trailer
Park
Denied
84-283 Frederick Tibbetts
Denied
85-22 Maple Lane
No Certificate of Occupancy
84-345 Maple Lane Homes
Denied
As per inspection made on February 10th, 1985, approximately 4 P.M. the following
violations were found to exist:
Zoning Ordinance, Town of Wappinger, NY of 3/10/80
1. §400-401 conformity required.
§404.3, 404.31, 404.32 non -conforming use of structures.
A. No permit or Certificate of Occupance on record for additionsmade to existing
mobile home on Lot Vs 1,2,3,5,12,14; Block 46156-02-852766. These violations may be
heretofore erected.
B. Permit 485-22 no CO for mobile home on Lot 413.
No permit issude for mobile home on Lot #10.
C. Permit request 485-345, Lot 4114 has new, occupied mobile home on site. Permit
denied because of §443.13 - 443.441 - 443.12.
D. Additional requirements of §443.13 & 443.142 & 443.141 ( note plot plan, building
project past lot line onto town road ROW. Buildings on Lot Vs 9 & 10 are less than
required distance from lot line). See plot plan attached, page 1.
2. See letter dated 5/15/84, Lot 4837794. 416 trailer has no CO on record. Pages
attached. Violation - §400 - 401 - conforming use.
3. Permit app. 484-283 & 85-102 are for lot #4 which is vacant. No construction permit
granted because of zoning non-compliance.
4. Plot plan color coded to deliniate mobile homes, add on rooms, decks, storage
buildings, enclosed entranceways, & screened enclosure rooms.
5. All add on's touch main structure. Some skirts are made of plywood, unfinished.
No data is available for safety in structure, windload, dry rot or fire hazard
conditions. Without stake out and/or plot 44 lone lines on drawing there is no way
to confirm property location of each building or any other violations.
RE: Add on's or starage units.
6. No permits or CO granted for wood burning stove (solid fuel) for Lot #2 on record.
7. No permit issude or CO for heating system for addition on Lot #1 on record.
8. No permit requests made or on record for starage buildings placed on lots.
Detaches or attached to mobile homes. All such units must be approved for sideyard
clearance and/or fire safety.
Lot #1 - straddles property line
Lot #2 - Closeness to building & lot line.
Lot #5 - " it
Lot 449 - it it
Lot 4417 - straddles lot line (837794).
(Memo to Zoning Board of Appeals from Dan Kriegsman, Building Inspector dated 3/5/86)
Mr. Caballero stated, in our Town Ordinance we cannot hear this when there are so
many violations involved on the property. I have another one to read:
RE: Use of Property - Cooper Road Trailer Park:
Page -22- March 11th, 1986
1. I have placed all correspondence in my file in chronological order. Latest date
first.
2. I have attaches color coded map of latest mobile home unit location together with
lot #, colors of buildings, and accessory buildings added. That to the best of data
in files show work performed without permits.
3. Attached in D.C.D.H. approved plan of septic tanks and field, you will note that
this survey is different from the most recent one.
4. To sum up the situation as it exists:
There are numerous violations of the zoning code, RE: Placement of structure of all
types on property without regard to their location and distance from each other and
for property lines.
Various structures have been placed on property without permits, without inspections
to see if the structure is properly erected, installed or an approved type.
The above mentioned structure doed not have a recorded CO.
5. A statement must be obtained from the D.C.H.D. stating the maximum number of
bedrooms the sewage system can support before new multi bedroom units are installed
and all structures must be placed to comply with Health Dept. rules. RE: Placement
distance from fields and pipes.
6. A corrected plot plan must be provided showing:
A. Dimensions of existing units.
B. A proper lot numbering system.
C. Lot dimensions.
D. Numberof bedrooms in each unit.
E. Space between each unit.
Illegally placed unti should not be shown on this drawing.
7. Accessory building must be properly located.
8. Permits must be obtained for all structures and violations removed where our records
show that these structures were erected after original mobile home was installed.
(Memo to Zoning Board of Appeals from Dan Kriegsman, Building Inspector dated 3/6/86)
Mr. Lusardi stated, we indicate that we have not received a copy of the document that
you have just read into the record and we have obviously cannot at this particular time
respond to that letter. We would ask that we have an opportunity to do so and we also
ask.......
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, .....he takes the tenants on the rounds but I as the owner am
not allowed to be there.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't think he has to as the Inspector call you to go out
an inspect the property.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, he said he would.
Mr. Lusardi stated, we also understand that this was requested over two months ago
from the Building Inspector and here, just a few days before this hearing, we are
presented with it and we have no had an opportunity....
Mr. Caballero stated, do you realize how much work and how many violations are on that
property?
Mr. Lusardi stated, well you are assuming that the Building Inspector is correct in
his letter.
Mr. Caballero stated, that is what we pay him for.
Page -23-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Lusardi stated, well, okay, we dispute those. But as I say, we have no way of
even at this time responding to it because I haven't even seen the letter and I....
Mr. Caballero stated, we will submit to you all the paperwork that the Inspector
has given us, including the map of where the violations are including a trailer that
is on the right of way of Cooper Road. We cannot act on this appeal with all of these
violations that are involved on the property, it is against our Town ordinance to do so.
Mr. Lusardi stated, if thats the decision of the Board, I would just ask that that be
put on the record that you will not consider the hearing at this time because of the
alleged violations and we will proceed -from there.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we adjourn for, how much time do you feel
you need? One month, two months?
Mr. Lusardi answered, I don't know what we are looking at. We would be happy to have
an adjournment to look into this. I don't know how much time we are going to need
quite frankly.
Mr. Cortellino asked, you haven't seen the thing so you don't know how much time, are
you referring to time for you to understand what is in the document of whether the
allegations are correct or not or are you referring to time necessary to correct....
Mr. Lusardi answered, both.
Mr. Cortellino stated, how much time do you need just to respond to the allegations.
Mr. Lusardi stated, let me just say this, if your decision is just not to hear the
appeal it would leave it open to us, I would assume, to come back at a later time as
such time that we feel that we are in a position to come back. So, without adjourning
it, as long as we can re -apply we would be happy to do that.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I was originally going to adjourn to accomodate the appellants
but like one month, two months....
Mr. Hirkala stated, can I make a suggestion, Table until such time as there is a
meeting of the minds between the applicant, Zoning Administrator, and Building Inspector
and then have it put back on the agenda.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, this is almost a year now. I have on the request of the Building
Inspector a year ago have these plans made. Mrs. Young accepted them. Now, he comes
along with some new sets of plans.
Mr. Landolfi stated, excuse me, she really didn't accept them.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, she did.
Mr. Landolfi stated, well, she took them from you.
Mrs. Tibbets stated, she wouldn't give me a hearing date unless she had those plans and
that to me is proof that she accepted them.
Mr. Lusardi stated, Mrs. Tibbetts is right, I have been party to this. We have been
getting peace meal treatment for a good year now. First it is one thing then it is
another thing but, I understand what the situation is and we will just deal with it
Mr. Caballero stated, our hands are tied with the violations that are on the property.
Page -24-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Landolfi stated, I move that this be tabled until such time as the appellants
satisfy our Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector.
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. Landolfi stated, I would like to commend our Building Inspector for a very thorough
report that he submitted. He obviously put a considerable amount of time.
Mr. Caballero stated, I think the board agrees that he took the time to check things
properly.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, he should have done this a year ago, this is my opinion.
Mr. Landolfi stated, he wasn't asked.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I asked him. I asked him personally, a year ago.
Mr. Landolfi stated, he works for the Town. He doesn't work for you.
Mr. Hirkala stated, he doesn't work for you. It is up to you to get a copy of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I was accused of having violations, last month, two months ago
at the hearing we were accused of violations. We never we even told. Why don't I have
the right to know.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are going to submit everything to your attorney.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I have the right to know this right away.
Mr. Caballero stated that Appeal 4851 is closed.
Mr. Lusardi stated, Mr. Chairman, we have a second appeal on. I assume that the
decision of the Board is going to be in the same on the second appeal.
Mr. Caballero stated, basically, and i hope I don't have to read that all over again.
Mr. Lusardi stated, we would consent that being deemed read into the record for the
subsequent appeal.and ask for a decision on that.
Mr. Caballero stated, Appeal #863, we have the same.....
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion that we table that appeal until such time as the
appeallant satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Administrator and the Building Inspector.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Page -25-
March 11th, 1986
The motion was carried.
Mrs. Tibbetts stated, you are talking about the Health Dept., they wouldn't issue
a permit to us every year. This is just issued in January if we had violations as
far as the Health Dept. is concerned. I think this document should be enough.
Mr. Caballero stated, your attorney will present it to the Building Inspector.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #860, at the request of Trudy Minotti, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.52
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a free standing sign 15 feet in height
while 10 foot maximum is permitted on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being
Parcel 46258-02-759569, in the Town of Wappinger.
Joe Minotti was present.
Mr. Minotti stated, we just had a sign put up about a month and a half or so ago.
It complies with all regulations right now, but, its 10 feet from the pavement of
the parking area to the top of the sign, at the very least it detracts from the sign
and at the very worst it is a hazard because somebody can, if anybody has seen it
it is a beautiful sign but the height of the sign really takes away from it and it
is a hazard where it is now at that height.
Mr. Caballero asked, why is it a hazard?
Mr. Minotti answered, it is a 4 x 6 sign so the bottom of the sign is about 6 feet
Itoff the ground. If you get anybody justgoing by it, a kid or something,......
Mr. Hirkala asked, is it still out in the middle of the parking lot?
Mr. Minotti answered, it is 25 feet off the pavement and it is going to be boxed in so
it is not in the parking area.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it jutted out into the parking area last time I looked at it.
Mr. Minotti answered, there was a choice, either it had to be, it had to be 25 feet
from the pavement so we had no choice, we had to put it into the blacktop.but we are
going to take it out of the parking area by isolating it. The reason we haven't done
that yet is because of the winter weather.
Mr. Landolfi stated, asthetically it doesn't really lend itself, it is a nice sign
I have to agree. I don't know if you are all familiar with it but the terrain is such
that it is partially hidden when you come over the one, if you are coming west on
Myers. The way it is situated it definitely steals from the......
Mr. Caballero asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against.
There was no one.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Landolf i made a motion to grant the variance because it would enhance the area
by allowing it in this particular case because of the terrain of the land on Myers
Corners Road.
Page -26-
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
March 11th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #868, at the request of Winifred McCombs & Lena Allee, seeking an interpretation
of Article IV, §445, to permit an accessory apartment, of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance.
Winifred McCombs, Applicant and Otto Klassen, Builder were present.
Mrs. McCombs stated, we would like to put an apartment downstairs for my mother, on
the lower lever, its a raised ranch house.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we have a mother/daughter ordinance.
Mr. Gunderud stated that the Board might want to go into executive session on this.
because of possible legal action.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to go into executive session because of possible
litigation.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we do not have to go in if it is only interpretation.
Mr. Gunderud stated, I don't understand, I don't have a copy of what the interpretation
is, I thought the application was for approval for an accessory apartment.
There was a discussion as to whether this application was for an interpretation or for
an accessory apartment.
Mr. Caballero stated, we do have an amendment to our Zoning Ordinance that will allow
the mother and daughter type of situation. I think if that is what ...... they may not
have to come to us for.......
Mr. Cortellino stated, yes they do, there is a residency requirement for 5 years.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you have a 5 year resident requirement, have you been here
for 5 years?
Mrs. McCombs answered, no.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the CO has to have been issued on the dwelling 5 years ago at least.
It is a brand new house.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I made a motion to go into executive session based on the possibility
of litigation to honor the request of the Zoning Administrator to give us some advice.
j Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Page -27- March 11th, 1986
The motion was carried.
The Board went into executive session at 9:00 P.M..
The Board came out of executive session at 9:04 P.M..
Mr. Caballero stated, I think what we are going to do is recommend that you put in a
new application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the accessory use of the apartment.
It has to be legally notified and then come to the hearing. After the hearing the
Board will make a decision.
Mr. Landolfi asked for a little more information on the application.
Mr. Caballero suggested to Mrs. McCombs to see Mr. Gunderud on regular office hours
to get the proper application and fill it out properly.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
110LMr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #871, at the request of Contrail Associates of Wappinger, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §421, paragraph 5, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
allow a medical clinic on property located on All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel
X66257-02-870964, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Railing, Engineer and Frank Buyakowski, President of Contrail Associates.
Mr. Railing stated, we are requesting permission, and I believe you have a sketch
plan of the proposed building, to add a medical clinic on a site located on All Angels
Road as deliniated on that particular map.near the Pye Lane intersection, it is on
the South side of All Angels Hill Road, approximately 6,000 square feet, 2 floors each
3,000 square feet in an R-40 zone. I have an updated map with more current survey.
It basically shows similar to what you have.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion to refer this to the Planning Board putting the
applicant on notice that I am going to look very hard and recommend to the Planning
Board to look very hard at ingress and egress on this site due to the intersection
of Pye Lane and All Angels Hill Road problem.
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.
Page -28-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Railing stated, just as a comment, we have tried to keep the road as far from
that intersection as possible.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal #873, at the request of Herb Redl, seeking an Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a motor vehicle repair and
service on proerty located on New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel #6158-04-574315,
in the Town of Wappinger.
John Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated, we had a previous appeal before this Board which the request for
a variance was denied. There will be some adjustment to this particular site plan as
a result of that and possibly a revision to that request for a variance. We do not
know how that is going to effect a referral of the Special Use Permit to the Planning
Board which is what we are here for tonight.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a recommendation perhaps that we table this until such time
as we get a full application for a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Railing asked, are we missing something?
Mr. Hirkala answered, we do not have a legal site plan.
Mr. Railing asked, because of...?
Mr. Hirkala answered, because the variance was turned down.
Mr. Landolfi seconded that motion.
Mr. Caballero stated, for the purpose of having you say what you may have on your mind,
I will recognize you ma'am.
Estelle Zak stated, I was just wondered if this was advertised. I thought anything that
went before the Zoning Board of Appeals had to be, a legal notice had to served itno
the paper.
Mr. Hirkala answered, there are certain applications, variance applications. Special
Use Permit .......after the fact.
Mr. Landolfi stated, after, it going to the Planning Board then when it comes back
you will see it.
Mrs. Zak stated, hopefully the abutting property owners will be notified.
Mr. Landolfi stated, they will go by the current tax map.
Mrs. Zak stated, well the current tax maps were just changed. Mr. Redl just bought
the house next door ...
Mr. Hirkala stated, but you see that is not the abutting property to the property in
question. That is the problem that you are not considering. The abutting property
owner is actually Herb Redl.
Mrs. Zak stated, there is another abutting property owner on the back lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated, but they are not abutting this property.
Page -29-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Cortellino stated, abutting the property in question.
Mr. Caballero stated, ma'am, I know you are on the Citizen Advisory Committee, thats
where to put it in.
Mrs. Zak stated, no, that is not what prompted me here. We've formed a group in the
New Hackensack area several years ago to watch this property very carefully and I don't
know how it got re -zoned without.....
Mr. Caballero stated, it is going to be in the paper and abutting property owners will
be notified. If you mean one property over because he owns the other property they will
not be notified unless our Zoning Ordinance changes to give certain footage of properties
that are in the area.
Mrs. Zak stated, the women who owns the house next to him abuts his property in the
back where all of this is being built.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is not the same lot. Look at the map. Look where the lines are
It is not the same lot.
Mrs. Zak asked, is this in the proper zone area?
Mr. Hirkala answered, yes. It is listed here as GB & HB2A.
Mrs. Zak stated, that is still questionable, but I will wait for the public hearing.
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 4874, at the request of Hans Gunderud, Zoning Administrator. seeking an
interpretation of §413.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Gunderud stated, the basic problem is when the Planning Board adopted its final
resolution on the Fieldstone Farms Conservation Subdivision one of the conditions of
theirs set the maximum height for fences at 3 feet and they also allowed inground
swimming pools but did not allow above ground swimming pools. So, it specifially did
say that you can have and inground swimming pool. Our Zoning Ordinance and the
Building Code requires that if you put in an inground swimming pool you have to have
a fence of at least 4 foot high around that pool. I am in a catch 22 situation.
Someone wants to put in a inground pool and the resolution of the Planning Board passed
says that all these conditions shall be enforced by the Zoning Administrator and of
course if I do inforce the Zoning Ordinance also so I have 2 conflicting standards which
I have to enforce. I think that if the Zoning Board of Appeals would make an interpretation
on this I could then proceed to enforce it.
Mr. Cortellino stated, my interpretation is there is no power deemed the Planning Board,
I wll give as an example, the power of cutting back on the parking spaces at their
descretion. They were not given the power to cut back on the height of the fences at
their descretion so therefore, we will follow what the Town Board requested which
is a 4 foot fence around the an inground pool, that is the law, and the Planning Board
does not have the power to waive it.
Page -30-
March 11th, 1986
Mr. Caballero stated, the official interpretation is that Town Law will prevail.
Mr. Caballero read the next appeal:
Appeal 46818, at the request of Hugh Greer, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive sales & automotive repair service
on property locatedon Route9, and being Parcel 466158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated, we are here really to request a referral to the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I make a motion this be referred to the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Mr. Hirkala asked, what is going to be referred to the Planning Board.
Mr. Railing stated, we have provided you with an application several months ago, say 4
I will guess, with plans, etc. for automotive sales on the parcel in question which
is the parcel opposite the corner of Old Route 9 and US Route 9. It is an SC district
at the tail end of it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, but we tabled that.
Mr. Railing answered, that is correct pending an interpretation by somebody or another
relative to the Town Law which was discussed earlier tonight because he had a "alleged
violation by DEC" on another parcel and as we now know it really doesn't relate to
this particular parcel.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
There was a discussion on the correspondence.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn
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.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
(-k
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
lb