711
..
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED
TOWN OF \VAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
~
1
FEB.111984
Appeal No. 711
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN
Dated February 17" 1984
Appellant W. D. MacGeorge Address MacGeorge Garage
Route 82 Hopewell Junction" NY 12533
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 14" _ _ ,19 84 , Appeal No. 711
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, ex A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. 0 AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was
taken:
1. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance 0 would 0 would
not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question LJ would C would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under the
Ordinance, because:
b. The hardship created C is f= is not unique and L~ would C would not be shared by all properties alike in the
vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because:
c. The variance C::J would := would not change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance [] be granted CJ be denied and that the previous
decision of the Enforcement Officer ~ be confirmed 0 be reversed.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use PerrnitB-b~
~~ be denied, pursuant to article IV , section or subsection 432 ,paragraph 1 & 1 of the
Zonmg Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the Enforcement Officer-B u~ed-JX) be confirmed, because:
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT.
3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance as requested in your appeal:
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal:
-J-.Jv ~ ~ ·
, . r
Chmrman, Zonmg BoarCi of Appeals
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS : TOWN OF WAPPINGER
STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
~;.~
2 ~-------------------------------------------------x
A HEARING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 513 OF THE TOWN
3 OF WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE,
4 IN RE: APPEAL NO. 711, AT THE REQUEST OF
5
W. D. MAC GEORGE ( MAC GEORGE AUT<l-10TIVE ),
6
Petitioner,
7 SEEKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV,
SECTION 422, PARAGRAPH NB, NO. 6 OF THE TOWN OF
8 WAPPINGER ZONING ORDINANCE, TO PERMIT HIM TO
OPERATE AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR BUSINESS ON PROPERTY
9 LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF PARK HILL DRIVE AND ALL
ANGELS HILL ROAD, IN THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, BEING
10 PARCELS NO. 6357-03-190015 AND 185004.
--------------------------------------------------x
11
12
Held: Tuesday, July 31, 1984
7:00 p.m.
13
At: Town Hall
Mill Street
Wappingers Falls, N.Y.12590
14
15
Before: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
16
o
.
..
JOSEPH E. LANDOLFI, Chairman
.
DO
~
17
G. GEORGE UReIUOLI
N
o
~
o
18
ANGEL CABELLERO
~
i
19
CHARLES A. CORTELLINO
20
CAROL WADDLE
21
*
*
*
22
24
IRMA GsCHWINGER) DE ANGELE, eta 1
Court Reporting
R.D. 1, Box 33
Rhinebeck, N.Y.12572
Tel. No. (914)876-2608
23
\
25
20
27
22
23
24
5
79
(
78
77
77
72
73
74
75
76
9
70
8
3
4
5
6
7
2
llEAR ING It ~e:
Ii. D. MAc GEORGE
A P F EAR A N C E S: 2
LINDA BEIlBERICl!
It Secretary, Z
BEaNARo RESSLER E oning Board OE APPea s
' SQ., To.." Attolbey
PAMEl..4 H. FAaNSIiORT",
Q zoo too A.d t
JO 0 m nistrato~
'SEpl! INCOllATO l'
It o~ Councilmao
PAGONES, CROSS" \7Al11
A.ttorneyS ~ TUft
355 Main St:r Petitioner
Box 230 eet
Beacon tv y 1
(914)831-29002508-0230
By: JE:l/1{ I FE R \7 AlII Tlly
L, ESQ., OE Counsel
Ii. D. HAc GEORGE, Pet]." ti
oOer
~
,.
..
::
..
o
~
o
,
z
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GE ORGE
3
2
(At 7:20 p.m., the following ensued:)
3
MR. LANDOLFI: We call the meeting of the
4
Town of Wappinger's Zoning Board of Appeals to
5
order. Please, may I have a roll call?
6
MS. BERBERICH: Mr. Landolfi.
7
MR. LANDOLFI: Here.
8
MS. BERBERICH: Mr. Urciuoli.
9
MR. URCIUOLI: Here.
10
MS. BERBERICH: Mr. Cabellero.
11
MR. CABELLERO: Here.
12
MS. BERBERICH: Mr. Cortellino.
13
MR. CORTELLINO: Here.
14
MS. BERBERICH: Mrs. Waddle.
15
MS. WADDLE: Here.
16
MR. LANDOLFI: For the benefit of everyone
17
here this evening, we have been directed by the
18
court, they overturned our decision on the
19
MacGeorge case.
Now~ what I will do is I will entertain a
motion from our Board and then I will let our
Town Attorney discuss with you the legalities
concerning this case.
While we have gone through the public hear-
ing procedure, this is a special meeting. It's
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
q
14
15
16
0
;:
. 17
..
~
.. 18
0
:::
0
... 19
z
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING. RE: W.O. MAC GEORGE
4
kind of a courtesy meeting to you, the residents
of the Town of Wappingers, who are located in
that district. It was not a requirement on our
part to have this meeting. I want you to know
that. Again, it is, while we use the public
hearing method to get this message to you, it
is a special meeting that we have conducted
for your benefit so you can hear all facts at the
same time.
Do I hear a motion on that, please?
MR. CORTELLINO: As a result of a Supreme
Court of the State of New York decision, that
the MacGeorge matter is to be returned to the
Zoning Board of Appeals with a direction to issue
the special use permit, subject to any reasonable
conditions the Board of Appeals deems appropriate
I
I therefore make a motion that we grant a
special use permit, with the additional restric-
tions that the hours of operation be from 7:30
a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and
8:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays, no
operations on Sunday, in addition to any other
restrictions that the Planning Board may have.
MR. LANDOLFI: Do I hear a second on that,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
;::
" 17
..
0
..
~ 18
~
0
... 19
z
..;
z
z
~ 20
to
0
u 21
Q
..
"
~
.. 22
23
24
25
HEARING. RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
5
please?
MR. URCIUOLI: Second.
MR. LANDOLFI: All in favor?
MR. UReIUOLI: Aye.
MR. LANDOLFI: Aye.
MR. CORTELLINO: Aye.
MS. WADDLE: Aye.
MR. CABELLERO: Abstain.
MR. LANDOLFI: So moved.
Now, Mr. Kessler, would you explain the
proceedings from the time it came from us to till
the time it came from the Supreme Court? Mr.
Kessler?
MR. KESSLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. I'm sorry,
I was a little late. There was some construction
There was a tie-up along the highway, so I got a
little delayed.
I think the Chairman has succinctly set
forth that which has occurred in the past. There
were voluminous hearings that were held by the
Zoning Board of Appeals and by the Planning Board
concerning the application that had been made by
the MacGeorges. Based upon the evidence that the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
~
" 17
..
e
.. 18
0
~
0
., 19
z
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING t RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
6
Zoning Board of Appeals had submitted to them,
the Zoning Board of Appeals, in its wisdom, saw
fit to deny the application.
The Petitioners, MacGeorge, then engaged
a counsel, one of the counsel, Miss Van Tuyl,
is sitting here in the front row, and they
brought a suit against the Zoning Board of Appeals,
commencing sometime last March of 1984.
The original motion in this court -- the
court, rather, came on the calendar for April
the 19th, 1984, and it was adjourned several
times in order to have sufficient papers sUbmitte1
to the Court in order to oppose the petition that
had been made by the Applicants.
I have in my hand here the -- some of the
papers that were submitted to the Court in this
matter. The Zoning Board of Appeals, through
my office, opposed the application of the
Petitioners upon various statements as we sub-
mitted to the Court concerning the matter.
We claimed that Section 436 of the Zoning
Ordinance provides the method by which the
Zoning Board of Appeals can proceed and we
attached to the court papers a copy of the
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
;:
.. 17
ex
0
...
N 18
0
~
0
~ 19
z
...
z
z
e 20
<(
..
0
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
7
decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
We feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals had done
what they had to do.
And the Court took the matter under advise-
ment sometime I believe in May, in May of 1984,
the latter part of May, and the case went to the
Supreme Court, and on June the 22nd, nineteen-
hundred-and-eighty-four, Supreme Court Justice
Stolarik, who was sitting in Dutchess County --
he's a sitting Judge from Rockland County who was
assigned to Dutchess County -- read all the paper
and made a decision that in view of the fact that
this property is zoned in a "N.B.", neighborhood
business zone, where an automobile repair busines
is allowable, with additional special uses, also
allowable, the Court found that there was evidenc
to allow the Applicant to proceed with their
plans, based upon the conditions that have been
set forth by the Planning Board and mentioned by
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Court found that the application made
by the Applicant met the criteria under the
Zoning Law and stated that therefore the petition
is granted to the extent that the Zoning Board of
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~
:E 17
'"
;>
, 18
.,
.,
z 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING t RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
8
Appeals decision of February 14th, 1984 was
vacated and set aside, ard the matter was returne
to the Zoning Board of Appeals, with a direction
by the Supreme Court Judge directing the Zoning
Board of Appeals to issue the special use permit,
subject to any reasonable conditions that it
wished to impose.
Judgment, the Judge said, was to be entered,
and for this Board to expeditiously handle the
matter, in accordance with the court decision.
After that court decision was
I
en tered, I have had I
of the Board, with
discussions with the Chairman
the Town Board and with the Applicant's attorneys.
And in discussion with the Applicant's attorneys
we went, very frankly, we went perhaps beyond
what the court order even stated and were able to
obtain additional conditions, and I'd like to rea
them to this audience to put into the record.
I think copies of these conditions are set
forth in a letter which the Board has and wherein
the Applicant is stating that the Applicant's
shop will not perform body repair work, but will
only perform mechanical repair of automobiles.
Two: All lifts in the shop will be
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
;!
:E 17
IE
~
.. 18
0
~
0
~ 19
z
,.j
z
z
~ 20
..
.;
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING ~ RE: W. D. MAC GE ORGE
9
e lee tric a 1.
Three: Only one small compressor will be
used for air tools, only of modern, sound-
minimuzing design and it will be located inside
the building.
Four: Brake cleaning, when performed, will
take place indoors.
Five: An oil-water separator will be used
to assure that oil will be properly placed in
a holding tank and disposed of off site in an
appropriate manner.
Six: A refuse enclosure has been provided
with additional screening.
Seven: The building is residential in
character. It would be constructed of residentia
character in cedar siding. The overhead doors
to be used were made similar in size than the
usual in this type of use, to be consistent with
residential scale. Those doors are placed to
face only toward the 7-11 store to the east and
the vacant property across Park Hill Drive. Thos
doors will also be screened by plantings.
The elevation of the building facing north
towards All Angels Hill Road is, of course,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~
17
0
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
10
of totally residential proportions and appearance.
The elevation facing the residential lot to the
south would have no overhead doors and no ground
level fenestration, providing a totally residenti 1
appearance, coupled with landscape screenings.
The entire site plan design has been
developed, we're told, to assure good design and
compatibility with surrounding uses. There will
be a minimization of visual views of blacktop
and the paved area will be kept as small a porti01
of the site as possible, providing land areas
around the site. Paved areas are also to be
placed close to the building on three sides,
rather than a single, larger configuration. All
blacktopped areas were additionally provided with
heavy landscape screening and the site plan
proposes approximately 75 trees and shrubs on the
site, with a substantial cost to the Applicant
of some over thirty-six-thousand dollars.
Ten: In order to prevent any possible
impact on traffic within the residential sub-
division to the south, no access to Park Hill
Drive is provided in the site plan. The sole
access to the property is within the neighborhood
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
0
;:
a 17
IE
~
.. 18
0
~
0
-i 19
z
...
z
z
e 20
..
"
ci
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
11
business zone onto All Angels Hill Road.
Eleven: The location of the building on the
site was moved as far as possible away from the
residential lot to the south. This building is
to be located more than 120 feet away from the
lot line abutting that residential lot, even
though the applicable zoning, of course, would
permit a forty-foot set-back.
These are the additional conditions that th~
I
Applicant's attorney has advised me that they're I
I
willing to submit to this Board, in view of the i
I
situation that here exists. And that. in a I
I
nutshell is the legal situation. I
In the event that any aggrieved party who is
in the area who wishes to proceed further on this
illatter, they have the right to aggrieve the
decision of this Zoning Board of Appeals under
what's called an Article 78 proceeding.
The Town has done what it could do under
the circumstances and the Zoning Board, as
stated, has complied with the provisions of the
court order.
And that's about it, folks, in a nutshell.
If you have any questions, Mr. Landolfi, I'd be
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
, 18
,
.,
~ 19
.,
..;
z
z
" 20
~
.
a 21
'"
"
z
...
..
22
23
24
25
HEARING. RE: W. D. MAC GE ORGE
12
happy to answer them.
MS. WADDLE: I make a motion the Zoning
Board be adjourned.
MR. LANDOLFI: The public hearing was rea1l
conducted, Joe; this is primarily an informational
type meeting for the people. Is the question --
MR. INCORATO: Yes. It's relevant to what's
happening here tonight. As we know, the transitio
from an automotive station to a gasoline pumping
station is fairly subtle and somewhere down the
turnpike, five or ten years from now, when all
is forgotten here, somebody may own that shop,
purchase it and decide to install gas tanks,
unbeknownst to the original parties here this
,
even ing.
So I would like to see an additional conditi n.
and you're authorized to make reasonable condition
according to the court judgment. I'd like to see
a prohibition of any gasoline tank~that any
gasoline tanks be prohibited from being installed
on the premises, to prevent such an eventuality,
where someone might, down five or ten years from
now, decide to install gas tanks when this
hearing has all been over and done with, and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~
'" 17
..
~
N 18
0
;::
0
z 19
..;
z:
z:
~ 20
<(
..
0
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W.D. MAC GEORGE
13
memory btdng short, nobody would ever remember
what was to be the case. So I would like to see
that added as a reasonable condition of
authorization.
MS. WADDLE: I question whether we can do
that at this point, since we've already set
conditions and voted on them. Maybe our attorney
could answer that for us.
MR. KESSLER: Well, I think what would
happen, since you're only granting that which is
shown on the site plan, if there's going to be
any modification of the site plan, they'd have
to come in and file another application for the
site plan.
MS. VAN TUYL: Yes. We could see if there
was any desire to operate a gasoline station,
that is covered by other regulations and there
would have to be another application.
MR. CORTELLINO: That is true, except some
shops have a gas pump not for the public, but
for their own convenience, and I think what
Mr. Incorato is alluding to, but not just the
public, but if there is a private pump for their
use, then it comes within so many feet of another
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
..
~
= 17
~
. 18
~
~
.
..; 19
z
...
z
z
e 20
c
..
0
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
14
gas station, that there are two gas storage space.
So they should have no gas storage at all, whethe
public or private.
MS. VAN TDYL: It's not on the site plan.
There's a Mobile station ten feet down the road.
MS. WADDLE: Would they have to come in for
a permit to put in gas tanks?
MS. FARNSWORTH: I believe it would come in
under the amended site plan permit, and they'd
have to come in and make an application.
MR. LANDOLFI: That would be the safeguard
on it.
MS. VAN TUYL: May I speak for a moment?
As your attorney has read to you, this has been
fully discussed with my client and our architects.
and in the spirit of full cooperation with the
Town Planning Board. we have agreed to some
eighteen conditions on the operation. I think
those conditions are more than adequate to assure
maximum residential compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood.
However, the condition you first imposed on
the hours of operation causes an extreme hardship
to my client. If you'll recall, at the January 10th
. .
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 I
12
13
14
15
16
0
.
~
E 17
'"
~
.. 18
0
0
0
i 19
z
...
z
z
e 20
"
'"
0
u 21
22
23
24
25
HEARING, RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
15
meeting of this Board, the Board made a deter-
mination that it would limit the hours, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
It is our position legally that once you
start getting into hours of operation, you become
regulating the interior operating of a business,
rather than its effect on zoning. But I would
just emphasize to you that my client has the
right and he would like to have the opportunity
to work in his shop Saturday until 7:00 o'clock,
as well, or at least until 5:00. So that -- he's
a hard-working young man. He works six days a
week.
I
I
I
I
that'1
I
I
I
i
I
In the meantime, we have a 7-11 store
open 24 hours a day, and I would think that
especially in light of the concessions we have
made about conditions that really do relate to
the legitimate interest of zoning, that that
condition on the hours of operation be changed
from 7:00 to 7:00 -- I'm sorry -- 7:30 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, rather than
cutting it off that way.
(Several members of the audience hereby
said, "No, no, no.")
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
10 I
i
11 i
I
I
12 I
I
i
13 I
!
14
II
15 I
16
0
" 17
"
e
.. 18
0
:;
0
z 19
,~
z
z
0 20
..
..
0
u 21
22
23
24
25
, ..
HEARING t RE: W. D. MAC GEORGE
16
MR. LANDOLFI: Hold it. This is not a
pub lic hearing.
MS. WADDLE: I make a motion we adjourn.
MR. LANDOLFI: Any further discussion on
that?
(Pause.)
MS. WADDLE: I move to adjourn.
MR. CABE LLE RO: Second.
MR. LANDOLFI: There's a motion on the
floor to adj ourn . ?1ay I have a vote on it,
please?
MR. URC IUOLI : Aye.
MR. CABELLERO: Aye.
MR. CORTELLINO: Aye.
MS. WADDLE: Aye.
(Whereupon, at 7:39 p.m., the meeting was
adj curned.)
*
*
*
CERTIFICATE
It is hereby certified that the foregoing is a true
and correct transcript of the minutes as taken by me.
c'" ,
r '\ /-"'1
.. ' " ;~1./ I
-+. .,." 1 //
(~:.,... /,/>; /" --.....
/': ,~ ./
_ ;:;J~ / ,_ I :J.-'~ /L
--;> ;'
I_i " -~;
'-
Court Reporter
/'~ r ,}
\- ( '-:", /-<
Appeal #711
-2-
February 17, 1984
At the February 14th, 1984 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
a motion was made by Mr. Caballero, that the special use permit
for the automotive repair business be denied.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
The motion was carried.
I
~:1
I
~
';
"'~
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
NOTI.CE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. "7./ /
Date 9J~(~ l~
\
'" I ....-.
\,\
Home Mailing Ie---M
Address e ~ ~')Sl- Glrar-
.
ZJp Code; I ~ ~ 33 Tel. #: ftt; (, 716 I
.
Appellant -.W. M-ae. &-O'r~
~\-c~. W2.~ev~
TO 1lIEBOARD OF APPEALS: .
I. ~ I MQ.G.' ~~ e.., , appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector. dated
. .- tJ{ A - ,19 . ~d do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 0 A VARIANCE)C A
. SPECIAL USE PERMI'f, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at. \ .' .- e\" '. \
1.! t'Z .' .' \ ,. r . (street&:no.)
~'1'9' ,6'357-0'3 -\,\oO\~ !u6")Do~ tTownofWappinger.N..Y:
(zoaiqdist.) . (grid no.) ~ . _'.. _
,', r
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED
(article, section or subsection and paragraph)
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section). *
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
and in this district because:
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district
because:
...-,.,
b. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article ~. t section or subsection
_1Z'2- ,paragraph N '3 ..:tt b of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the
abovep~e~: L+~.tcMD~\\J<< ~e.f~\r
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
.~ ,
Si_~~~o-. -
'4r~~ ~
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
\.
."
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
"
TOWN OF WAPPINGER ZONING BOARD
I
IRECEIVED B~ fi2A ,_L.
FEE RECEIVED &I,L/,.), /."l/)
7//.
I
, "DATE ~4, ~
DATE :l~~3
---
APPLICATION #
____ ____J
.
"tITLE OF PROJECT:
O'lr1C cA Cv e()e
;~(.,( TV (1f<JTJ vi 1L
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: lA. 7:). ,"1(-'I<';"G~"o r<:)e...... : TTL
If.. 4 f,-lj /'j:J-.d
w. $jtjt -7/61
Phone #
of
I 'J.J.G fI'J tYl f,J'~ ) ~ ' Jq AI (.. ..
street .. .
Pc> t( ..
Town
1'1. ..;.
state
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER: 01. ()"}c.c~r.)(..-
~tl
.,
. " .$
~ - . - ..;.-
'~ 'to',n. c:;> P r
street
PoY.
. Town
)I'{
state
J..16;' -3 (;! ~:>
Phone #
Please specify use or uses of building and amount of floor area
devoted to each(V!tj/OO ~().r.;. 1}U""O""~f/I)t. !Zll/'J4,te
T
,.
,,'1":(
",,: ~SO 5,,0, OrFllt:- I lvl'1/Tlrlt. jZC?cJ.J"Il; f>~fZ.TS.t Go" TO.. I TO}'
... ,
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: A J} Alibi/- ~ ifJl-'- jU, -r r.n~~ 1-111-).. /)12.
ZONING DISTRICT:
~.f. B
.!i
ACREAGE ~
ANTICIPATED NOD OF EMPLOYEES:
,.,
fI'..
NO., OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:
;$/
!'..
SIGNED: Lv.'~. 11111'4 (..-~r (J--
Applicant
DATED:
r'~J- 3 .. ~-3
..
Note: Applicant is responsi~e for the. costs involved in publishing
.the required legal notice in the local newspaperr
"..'-.. - --'-'-'-"'-".:--~~"""-- .~-- -:---
'I
I
.
. .
~~'-'i:'-"~ -r
APPENDIX B
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSME!IT FOR"
I
INS'!'RUCTIONS:
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF is is assumed that the
preparer will use c~rrently available information concerning the project and the
likely impacts or the action. It is not expected that additional studies. research
. or other investigations will be undertaken.
(b) If any question has been answered Yes the project may be sign~icant and a
. completed Environmental Assessment Form is neces:,ary. '.' .'
" .... - (c) If all. questions have beel) answered No it is li.kely that this project .is
~ signiticant.
(d)Enviror.!ii~al Ass~me~
\
1.
Will project result in a large physical change
to the project site or physically alter more
than 10 acres or land? . . . . . . . D . . . 0
2.
Will there be a major change to any unique or
unusual land form found on th9 site? . . . .. f/>
).
Will project alter or have a large effect on
an existing body of water? . . . .~. . . . . .
4. Will project have a potentially large impacb on
groundwater quality? .. . . . . . . . . . .
5. Will project significantly effect: drainage nO'tf
on adjacent sites? . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Will project afrect any threatened or endangered
plant or ahimal species? . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Will project result in a reajor adverse effect on
air quali.ty? . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Will project have a major effect' on .visual cha%'-
acter of the community or scenic views or vistas
known to be important to the community? .. 0
9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct-
ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological
importance or any site designat~d as a critical
environmental area by a local agency? . D..
8.
10. Will project have a major effect on existing or
future recreational opport\mities1 " . "
.11. Will project result in major traffic problems or
cause a major effect to existing transportation
syste~s? . . . . . . . . . " " "
12. Will project regularly cause objectionable odors,
noise, glare, vib~at~on, or electrical disturb-
an~e as a result of the project's operation? .
~3. Will project have any impact On public health or
sa.fetj"? . . . . . . . . . . . .
14. Will project affect the existing cOI!'Jnunity by
directly causing a growth in permane!"~ pop'.lla-
tion of more than 5 percent ov~r a One-year
period ~ have a r.lajor. negative effect. on ..t.e
character of the ccrnmunit$ or neighborhood? "
J
1
Yes X' No
- -
y~ti-~~ .,!fo
-- .~
--...:. Tea.2L- No
Yes x. . .50
- -
I"
,.
-
Yes :x
-
!fo
....
Yes X No
-
Yes' b( lla
- -
-
Yes. X No
-
Tel} X l'Jg
~---- .
_ Ya~~Na
_ Yes .JL. lla
Yes ..L tlo
. Yes )tlio
- -
Yes .x lla
-
the project? Yes ~ 1:0
TITLE: App',C4..-v+ -.
...__. t?} 4 '7! J.-..
I
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACfION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. :#- 711
Dated 8/1/84
A llimt MacGeorge Automotive
R~, Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
Address Box 155 - Route 82
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 31st ,19 84 , Appeal No. 711
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIl; 0 AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was
taken:
1. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance 0 would 0 would
not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question 0 would 0 would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under the
Ordinance, because:
:-':: ..........
b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and 0 would 0 would not be shared by all properties alike in the
vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because:
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 be granted D be denied and that the previous
decision of the Enforcement Officer D be confirmed 0 be reversed.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use f~rmit ~ be
granted 0 be-derried; pursuant to article IV , section or subsection 422 , paragraph NB of the
Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the Enforcement Officer;g be-r~ ~ ll.. J IRkl1te~, because:
SEE ATTACHED SHEET ;.:;IC-
3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance as requested in your appeal:
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal:
J'~rJ
1
6' ,to
~~...' Lf"I, ".;
. ';;;; ~O>IS;;;Dor#i;ij!f
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Appeal #711
-2-
August 1st, 1984
~
At the July 31st, 1984 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, to grant the Special Use Permit
subject to the following conditions:
1. A refuse enclosure shall be provided with three sides and
a gate.
2. If there is a problem with noise, provisions shall be made
to enclose the compressor area.
3. A work permit shall be obtained from the Dutchess County
Department of Public Works on entrance/exit prior to the
issuance of a buil~ing permit.
4. An oil separator shall be required.
5. Erosion control plan and drainage plan shall be reviewed
by the Conservation Advisory Council and then shall be approved
by the Engineer to the Town prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
6. Approval of the Dutchess County Department of Health
shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. Permitted hours of operation shall be:
Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM thru 1:00 PM on
operations will be conducted on Sunday.
7:30 AM to 7:00 PM
Saturday. No
The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli.
Vo te :
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - abstained
The motion was carried.
By agreement, the applicant contracted to voluntarily approve
the following conditions:
1. The applicant's shop will not perform body repair work,
but will only perform mechanical repair of automobiles.
2. All lifts in the shop will be electrical.
3. Only one small compressor will be used, for air tools only,
of modern sound minimizing design, and it will be located inside
the building.
4. Brake cleaning, when preformed, will take place outdoors.
,
Appeal #711
-3-
August 1st, 1984
5. Any oil/water separator will be used to assure that oil
will be properly placed in a holding tank and disposed of
off-site in an appropriate manner.
6. A refuse enclosure has been provided with additional
screening.
7. The building is extremely residential in character. It would
be constructed of residential character cedar siding. The
overhead doors to be used were made smaller in size than the usual
in bhis type of use, to be consistent with a residential scale.
Those doors were SO placed to face only toward the 7-11 Store
to the east, and the vacant property across Park Hill Drive.
In addition, the view of those doors from either view will be
screened by extensive plantings.
8. The elevation of the building facing north, toward All Angels
Hill Road is of totally residential proportions and appearance.
The elevation facing the residential lot to the south has no
overhead doors and no ground level fenestration, providing a
totally residential appearance, coupled with extensive landscape
screening.
9. The entire site plan design has been developed to assure good
design and compatibility with surrounding uses. To minimize
visual views of blacktop, the paved area has been kept to as small
a portion of the site as possible providing lawned areas all
around the site. Paved areas were also placed close to the
building on three sides, rather than -in a single, larger config-
uration. All blacktopped areas were additionally provided with
heavy landscape screening. The site plan proposes more than
75 trees and shrubs on the site, with a total estimated landscaping
cost in access of $36,000.
10. Similarly, in order to prevent any possible impact on traffic
within the residential subdivision to the south, no access to
Park Hill Drive (the road leading into the Mocassin Hill Subdi-
vision) is provided in the site p~n. The sole access to the
property is within the "NB" zone, onto All Angelis Hill Road.
11. Additionally, the location of the building on the site was
moved-as far as possible away from the adjacent residential lot
to the south. The building is located more than 120 feet away
from the lot line abutting that residential lot, even though the
applicable zoning would permit only a 40 foot setback.
~c.~.
(Mr.) Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman
Ib
D \ d B u-~ lliS_S'
,.;._~ v
~'~
~
TO\YN Hli' "\Yp....PPi1\JGF..H
NOTICEDF J-\.PPEA.l..,
RECEIVED
AUG 1 .1984
Appeal No. . ry I L ,_ ._._.___,_..~
. ,
I
Dat~ ~~ { ~/;i_,.3
, -
~ppellant _W. ftt~Georcr
'~~ ttt. W ev'(
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN
Home Mailing ~
Address C t:I dGGc.or~ ~~
Zip Code: J,l ~33 Tel. If: ~(;6' 716'
TO TIlE BOARD OF APPEAlS:
It _ tA)., M<A(,- (;er:Vc... G- t appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, dated
- t-.J! f\ -- . 19_ t ~d do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 0 A VARIANCE.)iI' A
SPECIAL USE PERMI1: 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL .~ A1'A
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at A\ \ ~e..\\ t-h 1\ ~,
. _ \, " . (stro:t & no.)
~ .\;, .6'~5!- 0-3 - \qoO\l... ~ue')DoC\- . Town of Wappinger. N_Y .
(wr.mg dist.) (grid no.) . - -'.. _
,r
L PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED
(article. section or subsection and paTagraph)
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section)..
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property
and in this district because:
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Orc1inance and would not change the character of the c1istrict
because:
b. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article ~ , section or subsection
-1lZ . paragraph N G _:11 G of the Zoning Orc1inance to permit the following use on the
above premises: A-u..toMDf\\J~ ~e.fa\Y.
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Orc1inance is requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OrnER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature ~~ ~ ~
~V"~"t~ u
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
.~ ,
"'" '~ t~l .
~ WAPPINGER
'.
APPLICL\T!ON #
7/L
ZONING BOARD
RECEIVED B~ 4<..~~---
FEE RECEIVED o;"t/ r:L ' "" /)
'. "DATE '7~, ~~
DATE .1..6.~3-
FOR
SPECIAL US~~EJ
...-..-.--,-
14(.( ro ('Illn V 1l..
'TtTLE OF PROJECT:
()') ^ ( Cl Co et.... e
l~AME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: (.",V.l:). t'Y\G\c.cge.o r~c- m..
If. 46-4.. f5;J.A
w. ~1t'7161
phone =If
L 1i<1fY1t7U. ,..;;)e1 . J4A1L.
s.treet .
PetK'
Town
!-/. 'I.
state
NAME & ADDRESS Or' OWNER: ()J. (l')c.c.~.Jt~e,.... ,,~.
'" "', _ f..
, .
I") 3 -t"
6-1 b - 0 '!) .:>
phone #
3 ''1011/\0 Dr
street
PoY..
TOwn
fl. '/.
state
please specify use or uses of building and amount of floor area
devoted to each (V! 'if 00 ClCf';>';' !1iA,/OPUljl/)[. t2i1~';/,e
,
....
-.
^' ~.-)~ "'J p . (}';: r Ie ~_ . Wi'U r n"';t. jZO€1J117 ;>,.112 T!.. LI L T ILl riA :f
, , ,
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: ~IJ 111'1t.i1-~ iflLJ- ;!d.. -J' rJ'JlU~ 1-ilJ...J- 1),2.
ZONING DISTRICT:
H.D
JI.CREAGE;
.!1-
ANTICIPATED NO. OF EMPLOYEES:
.'1
of-
NO. OF PARKING SPACES PROVIDED:
J$J
~,
SIGNED: f.A..).~. 1114L~f'<Jo--'
Appl'icant
DATED:
9~J-3 ..s-3
Note: Applicant is responsible for the' costs involved in publishing
the required legal notice in the local newspaper~
. .
DATE:
111-3/45 ~
1M" ,~o
J'
"" ~
t~
AP~ENDIX B
SHORT ENVIRONMEnTAL ASSESSME!IT FOR'"
--
INS7RUCTIONS.
(a) In order to answer the questions in this short EAF 1s 1s assumed that the
preparer will use ccrrently available information concerning the project and the
likely impacts ot the action. It is not expected that additional studies, research
or other investigations will be undertaken. ..
(b) It any question has been answered Yes the project may b. significant and a
coo?leted Environmental Assessment Form is n.ces~ary.
~... - (c) It all questions have been answered No it is likely that this project 1s
~ significant.
(d) Enviro~T.ental Assessment
1. Will project result 1n a large physical change
to the project site or phYSically alter mo~e
than 10 acres of land? . . . . . . . . . . . .
s. Will project significantly effect. drainage flow
on adjacent sites? . . . . . ~ . . . . . .
- Yes X. No
-
.
Yi'-~ -}(., No
- _.
~ Yes~. No
Yes X No /
-
Yes )( No
-
Yes )l No
-
Yes b( 110
- -
Yes X No
z. Will there be a major change to any unique or
unusual land form found on th~ site? . . . . .
). Will project alter or have a large effect on
an existing body of water? . . . .~. . . . . .
4. Will project have a potentially large impacb on
groundwater quality? ............
6. Will project afrect any threatened or endangered
plant or animal species? . . . . . . . . . . .
'.
7. Will project result in a reajor adverse effect on
a:r quality? . . . . . . . . . . . .
8. Will project have a major effect"on.visual char-
acter of the community or scenic views or vistas
known to be important to the community? ...
9. Will project adversely impact any site or struct-
ure of historic, pre-historic, or paleontological
importance or any site designatad as a critical
environmental area by a local agency? .. .
10. Will projec~ have a major effect on existing or
future recreational opportunities'l . . .
11. Will project result in major traffic problems or
cause a major effect to existing transportation
syste~s? . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes ..K.. No
_ Yes ~ No
_ Yes ~ llo
12. Will project regularly cause objectionable Odors,
nOise, glare, vibrat~on, or electrical disturb-
ance as a result of the project's operation? .
~). Will project have any impact on public health or
sa.fet:,'? . . . . . . . . . . . .
Yes )l tlo
-
. Yes )l No
- -
11.. Will project affect the existing cOIT'Jnunity by
directly causing a growth in permanc!"t pop'.Ils-
tion of more than 5 percent over a one-year
period ~ have a major negutive effect on t~e
character of the community or n~ighborhood? .
Yes
X 110
-
j( 110
15. In there public controvers)" concerning
PREPARER'S SlCr:ATlJRE: U,:'D i~c:c.~ ( ~
REPRESEr.TI!lG:
QIII7A
the project? Yes
TITLE: (\pr',c.o. ^-+
DATE: q I J-3/f5"~