1981-02-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, February 10th, 1981, beginning
at 8:00 p.m„ at the Town Hall, Mill St., Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
Donald McMillen
Members Absent:
Howard Prager
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Jean Christensen, Acting Secy for Betty -Ana Russ
The meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m..
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the abutting property owners had been
notified, as well as the appellants.
The secretary replied that the appellants and abutting property
,Owners had been notified according to the records available in the
Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle then explained that it was the procedure of the
Board to hear all the appeals and give everyone present an opportunity
to be headd, it is asked that they give their names and addresses for
the record, the Board then takes a short recess and then reconvenes
at which time they may or may not render a decision on each appeal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ## 521, at the request of Thomas Coughlin, seeking
variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit an auto dismantlers operation to
continue in a residential area, on property located on Ketchamtown
Road, being Parcel # 6157-03-326130, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the legal notice.
Mr. Ben Roasa, Attorney of 398 Main St., Beacon, N.Y. was
present to speak for Mr. Coughlin. Mr. & Mrs. Coughlin were also
present.
Mr. Roosa then told the Board why Mr. Coughlin was seeking
the variance, and explained that in 1965, Mr. Coughlin had suffered
an accident which had left him partially disabled, thereby limiting
him to part-time work. However, Mr. Coughlin was able to do auto
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- February 10th, 1981
dismantling by pacing himself, and in 1973 he purchased the property
on Ketchamtown Road to live and to operate the dismantling business
from. He has no intention of expanding the business, but it is his
sole source of income outside of the disability payment that he
receives. Since it is strictly a part-time business, it is not
feasible to locate it anywhere else. Mr. Rossa then submitted a state-
ment to the Board signed by neighbors asking that Mr. Coughlin be
allowed to continue his business at the present location.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Coughlin to explain how long it
takes to dismantle a car.
Mr. Coughlin replied that it takes him about one half of a day.
Mr. Landolfi asked what the volume of business was.
Mr. Coughlin said that he handles roughly 60 cars per month.
Mr. Landolfi commented that there were approx. 12 unregistered
vehicles on Mr. Coughlin's property, and that some of them appeared
to have been there for some 1$agth of time and asked Mr. Coughlin
what the status of those vehicles was.
Mr. Coughlin explained that the vans would be dismantled along
with the majority of the cars. He also stated that he fixed the
late model cars to sell.
Mrs. Waddle asked if Mr. Coughlin was selling these cars
from the property.
Mr. Coughlin replied that he,only sold one or two a year, was
limited without a dealers license.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Coughlin if he intended to remove some
of the vehicles that had been laying dormant if he were to be
granted a variance.
Mr. Coughlin replied that he would.
Mr. Roosa commented that one of the principle reasons for the
variance was that Mr. Coughlin was required to get a Dismantlers'
License from the State, and that one of the provisions for the license
was the approval of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Landolfi noted that Mr. Coughlin had purchased his property
in 1973 and asked if he had purchased the property with the intent
of using it for the auto dismantling business.
�J
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- February 10th, 1981
Mr. Coughlin replied that he had purchased the property for
residential purposes and was at that time in the construction business.
A discussion by the Board MeMbers and Mr. Coughlin followed
concerning the length of time involved to sell the parts and the
stripped cars, and the type of parts that he removed from the cars,
and where he obtained the cars.
The Chairperson asked if the Board had any further comment.
No one had any comments or questions.
The hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m..
Appeal #522, at the request of John J. & Paula B. Gniewek,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421, sideyard setback
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit an existing
deck to remain at a sideyard setback of less than one foot where
a twenty foot setback is required, on property located on 12 Cady
Lane, being Parcel #p 6258-03-445137, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the legal notice.
Mr. Bruce Hofstetter, Attorneys 11 Cannon St., Poughkeepsie,
N.Y., was present to speak for Mr. & Mrs. Gniewek who do not presently
11%r reside in this area. Mr. Hofstetter explained that the deck was
constructed seven years ago, thinking that the stakes for the lot
line were further back, and that there have been no complaints within
that time. Now Mr. & Mrs. Gniewek are in the process of selling
the house and need the variance to do so. Mr. Hofstetter then
submitted a current survey may to the Board.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was a family living there now.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that the Gnieweks' have been transferred,
but the purchasers' are living in the house at present, pending the
outcome of this hearing.
Mr. Landolfi asked if the sale was contingent upon the deck.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that the sale was contingent upon
complying with the Zoning ordinance, either obtaining a variance or
having to remove the deck, which would be a hardship to the owners
who weren't even aware of this before the survey map'came out,.
Mr. McMillen asked if there was an earlier survey map.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that there was none and that the Gnieweks'
had mistaken some stakes on the Alexander property as marking their
lot line.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- February 10th, 1981
Mr. McMillen suggested that the Board -.hould have a second
survey map to compare, since it was possible that this map, could
be off. Descrepancies in distance are too far.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that Mr. Husted, an independent contractor,
had made the survey map at the request of the new owners, and that
it was he who brought to everyone's attention the closeness of the
deck to the lot line.
Mr. Cortellino inquired if the adjoining property Owners had
been contacted for their feeling in the matter.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that the only one involved would be
Alexander, that he was aware of the situation and had no objection.
The Chairperson asked if the Board had any further questions.
No one had any comments or questions.
The hearing was closed at 8:20 p.m..
Appeal # 523, at the request of Salvator A. Rega, seeking
a rehearing on a previously denied variance of Section 411.2 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to subdivide
his property which does not meet the R-80 Zoning requirements,
said property is located on Smithtown Road, being parcels numbered
6156-02-949899 & 6156-02-984923, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the legal notice.
Mr. Salvatore Rega was sent and distributed maps and
photographs to the Board. He thanked the Board for allowing him the
opportunity to appear again, and said that he would address his
remarks to the three way test used to determine the necessity of
a variance.
1. Uniqueness - when the property was purchased in 1964 the road
was in existance as a right of way and the property was zoned R-40.
Since ,Mr. Rega wished to build on the easterly portion of the property,
he found it necessary to purchase an additional acre of land. This
then gave him 2 parcels which conformed to the R-40 zoning. Mr. Rega
then commented that he felt that the Board had perhaps placed too
much emphasis upon the road at the previous hearing.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he did not understand Mr. Rega's
reasoning and asked him to repeat it.
, Mr. Rega replied that when they had paved the road, they had
fire commited an act which could have been construed as a violation.
Mr. Cortellino commented that Mr. Rega was referring to the
road as one of the tests, but that that was not one of the considerations.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-5- February 10th, 1981
Mr. Rega repeated that in this instance, his property is
unique, with property on both sides of the road.
Mr. Cortellino replied that it is not a question of property
being on both sides of the road, but of acreage.
Mr. Rega then referred again to the 3 points that he wanted
to prove to the Board. Mr. Rega noted that a variance Would not
be a detriment to the area, because the property on the Smithtown
side faces a PI area, and the other property is less than the R-80
requirement, therefore making it impossible to build upon or to
sell for residential purposes. Therefore, Mr. Rega contends that
instead of being a detriment, the area would be enhanced if he
were,granted a variance.
Another point made by Mr. Rega, wa that of hardship, because
even though he can find no application to his problem, he wants to
separate the property so that he can sell it. Without the variance,
the property would remain in limbo. Also, that when he had asked
for an explanation for his previous appeal being denied, that Mr.
Landolfi had told him that he had no power to change the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi responded that that was correct, and that the
Board had suggested an alternative, that Mr. Rega go to the Town
Board to request a Zoning change, and that the rehearing was granted
so that Mr. Rega could present new evidence that he might have, so
that the Board could be of assistance to him.
Mr. McMillen stated that he wanted to clarify the fact that
the property in question was one parcel of property, and that Mr.
Rega is referring to it as two parcels.
Mr. Cortellino then stated that Mr. Rega is also referring to
the fact that he would be able to redi.ze more money on sale of two
parcels if the variance for subdivision were granted, and that that
is not a valid reason for granting a variance.
Mr. McMillen explained that the Board could not issue a variance
to create a non -conforming lot.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Rega if he had contacted the Town Board
concerning the matter.
Mr. Rega replied that he had not, awaiting the outcome of this
case and commented that the Rogers property had been granted a
variance.
Mr. McMillen explained that Mr. Rogers was granted a variance to
build -on his non -conforming lot.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-6- February 10th, 1981
After a discussion by the Board members concerning the size
of lots in that area, Mr. McMillen suggested to Mr. Rega that he
talk to his neighbors and enlist their help in petitioning the
Town Board for a zoning change, which would be of benefit to them all.
Mr. Cortellino added that Mr. Rega should act immediately if
he wanted to be on the agenda for the Town Board meeting next month.
The Chairperson asked if the Board had any further comments.
No one had any comments or questions.
The hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m..
Appeal ## 525, at the request of Roy Rogers' Restaurant -
Marriott Corp., seeking variances of Article IV, Section 416.9
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a free-standing
sign which would be larger than the maximum permitted size and
additional signs to be located on the building which would exceed
the maximum square footage permitted, to be located on premises
on Route 9, being the Wappinger Plaza, parcel # 6157-02-647955,
in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the legal notice.
sholl Mr. John Cromarty representing the Marriott Corp. was present.
He distributed photos of what he termed a typical menu board to
the Zoning Board members.
Mr. Cromarty then explained that a menu board is not designed
or intended to be an advertising piece in any way. It is strictly
a functional piece of equipment, in so far as it allows the patrons
to make use of the drive through window, that without the menu board
the patrons would have to leave their cars and enter the restaurant.
Mr. Cortellino asked if Mr. Cromarty was stating this as a
fact or an opinion.
Mr. Cromarty replied, as a fact, that without a menu board,
they could not operate a drive-thru restaurant.
Mr. Cromarty further explained that since the Zoning Ordinance
defines the menu board as a free-standing sign, they are seeking the
variance.
Mr. Cromarty went on to explain the second part of the present-
ation, which was the additional sign on the building. This sign is
to identify the window where the drive-thru pick-ups are to be made,
merely to let the patron know where to stop to make his purchase.
The variance is needed because this sign is regarded as a second
building sign.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- February 10th, 1981
Mr. McMillen asked for the location of this sign.
Mr. Cromarty explained that this is the "Drive-Thru" sign and
explained the size and colors of this sign. He then explained that
an additional sign was also requested to identify the back of the
building facing the shopping center.
Mr. Cortellino asked how large an area would be used on the
back of the building.
Mr. Cromarty replied that the largest le:Ztzer would be 26" high,
total width of sign 14'3" wide which is roughly 28-29 Sq.Ft..
Mr. Landolfi asked if the sign would be illuminated.
Mr. Cromarty asnwered that it would.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the back of the building would be similar
to the front of the building, are the people going to be able to
enter from the back.
Mr. Cromarty said that the building will have two entrances,
but the back section of the building will be used for the refrigeration
area, dumpster area, etc. with a high wall.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that even though there was a sign
back there, people could not enter from the back, and asked if
this was a correct assumption.
Mr. Cromarty replied that it was correct.
Mr. Landolfi inquired about the internal signs.
Mr. Cromarty said that they would withdraw that from the
application.
The Chairperson asked if the Board had any further comments.
Mr. Joseph Ryan of 35 Baldwin Drive, Wappingers Falls, N.Y.,
came foreward and informed the Board that he had been involved in
a similar situation elsewhere in the County while acting on the
Conservation Advisory Council, and offered his services and assistance
to the Board.
The Chairperson thanked Mr. Ryan.
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m..
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- February 10th, 1981
Appeal # 526, at the request of Sol Silver & Richard Rosenberg,
D/B/A Chelsea Ridge Associates., seeking variances of Article IV,
Sections 416.51, 416.52 & 416.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit signs to be located on the buildings which
would exceed the maximum area permitted, to allow a free-standing
sign of approximately 100 square feet where 25 square feet is the
maximum permitted and to allow the sign to be placed at a ten foot
setback where twenty-five feet is required, on property located
on Route 9D and Popula Boulevard, being parcel # 6056--2-635539
in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the begal notice.
Mr. Richard Rosenberg was present and distributed copies of
signs and a sketch of the free-standing sign to the Board.
Mr. Rosenberg then addressed the Board, explaining that so far,
the mall has not looked like a mall at all, due to the unique
architectual arrangement and not like the malls that most people
are familiar with - stores in a line and parking area in front.
The trouble now at Chelsea Ridge is that people drive by and do
not realize that this is a mall. Mr. Rosenberg then illustrated
the entrance way with photos, and drawings of the sign that they are
requesting, and informed the Board that the setback had been changed
from 10 feet to 15 feet. He further explained the architecture of
the curved walls and the tower and described the proposed sign as
following in the same theme using 18" high letters for the name
"Chelsea Ridge Mall", so as to be visible from both north and south,
and below that, lined individual sign boards that would have a
listing of various entities in the mall.
Mrs. Waddle asked if each one of these would be 12" high and
how wide.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that they would be approx. 4'h ft. wide, each
would be of the same material and color and that they have selected
this style to coincide with the tower and to make the entrance way
the focal point, but are limited by lack of land area.
Mr. Cortellino asked if this had been brought before the
Planning Board - about location and size.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that it had and that they were asked at
that time to remove it because the Planning Board could not grant
it at the time the submission was made.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that before construction started
Mr. Rosenberg realized that there was a problem with the sign.
ry
Zoning Board of Appeals
-9- February 10th, 1981
Mr. Rosenberg replied that he was aware that he would have to
go before the ZBA for a variance.
Mr. Rosenberg then went on to explain that one of the problems
was that Chelsea Ridge has been there for many years and that years
ago they constructed the turret as part of the decorative entrance
way which is 16' high so that with the geometry of the roadway, if
they were to have to relocate the sign, it would have to be behind
a pole. The best solution would be to remove the sign and put the
mall location sign in the same general location.
Mr. Cortellino questioned the existing sign which looks as if
it is in violation.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that the sign was pre-existant before the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino stated that if it was not in existence before
1963, then it is in violation.
Mr. Roserd�erg then went on to explain the second sign that
they are requesting. They would like a sign located on the store
where the liquor store is located - a sign on the building which
would say "Wine_& Liquors".
Mrs. Waddle noted that Mr. Rosenberg is requesting a directory
type sign, listing the individual business' and asked why a second
sign was needed.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that due to the location of the building
housing the liquor store, a sign was needed to identify it as you
were approaching it.
Mrs. Waddle asked what source Mr. Rosenberg expected business
in the mall to come from - the tenants in the apartment buildings
or outside, and asked if he planned to use other forms of advertising.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that most advertising would be done by
individual tenants.
Mrs. Waddle asked why it was necessary to have a directory sign
if the individual stores were going to be identified with separate
signs.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that the main concern was to identify the
liquor store on the building as that sign would be visible from the
road when approaching the mall entrance.
Mrs. Waddle then suggested putting the mall sign on the building
and just having a directory sign at the entrance.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that they would take direction from the
Board. However, he stressed the necessity on maintaining a balance
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- February 10th, 1981
to keep the aesthetic quality of the mall and avoid a commercialism
approach.
Mr. Rosenberg then explained the request for sign #4, which would
be a small sign which would say "Chelsea Ridge Deli" to identify to
the people in the parking area where the food store is located.
This sign would not be visible from anywhere but Popula Blvd..
Mr. Rosenberg continued with explanation of sign #5 which would
say "Chelsea Ridge Mall" and stated that he would take direction of
the Board, the problem being the location of the building where he
proposes locating the sign, so that you would not be aware of the
sign until you are almost upon it, because of the fact that it is
almost perpendicular with the road and the curve in the road obscures
it. Mr. Rosenberg again stressed that whatever the direction of the
Board, he felt that the directory sign was absolutely essential, and
to do the sign as he was suggesting would be in very good taste with
the rest of the mall.
Mrs. Waddle asked how the signs were to be lit.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that there would be incandescent lighting
or perhaps a vapor lamp shining on the sign.
Mr. Landolfi asked if the present sign on the wall would remain,
the one that advertises "Chelsea Ridge Apts."
Mr. Rosenberg replied that it would.
Mr. Gunderud stated that there are 2 parcels fronting on Rte 9D
and that is on a separate parcel.
Mr. Rosenberg then explained another sign which he is requesting
showing the main pedestrian entrance to the mall, again this sign would
,-,only be visible from Popula Blvd. which is their own private driveway.
Mr. McMillen inquired if the mall was fully rented.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that there were still several vacancies.
Mr. McMillen then asked if this would then mean additional signs.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that at this point they were not making
any request.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many stores were available and how many
signs there would be.
Mr. Rosenberg replied there would be 9.
1141✓
Zoning Board of Appeals
-11- February 10th, 1981
Mr. McMillen mentioned the fact that in addition to the directory
sign, Mr. Rosenberg is requesting additional signs for only four
tenants and asked if the other tenants would want signs also.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that he did not think this would be a
problem.
Mrs. Waddle then read a telegram received from Mostafa Mozayeny
ciwner of the adjacent property, objecting to the granting of the
variance for Chelsea Ridge Mall which is as follows:
Received your January 22 legal notice today. Due to short notice,
it is impossible to change my plans and attend public hearing on
Fegruary 10. I do seriously object to the suggested variance in
Zoning Ordinance. Huge oversize signs with inadequate setback
distracts drivers and increases traffic accidents in an already
critical area. It causes devaluation of property on 9D and lowers
the aesthetic value of the area. There is no justification for this
variance and it is not to the interest of the public. There is no
metit in changing the established Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger
in favor of the interested party and against the interest of the
public. Will you please have my objection recorded and inform me of
what may inspire. A letter from my Attorney will follow.
Sincerely,
Mostafa Mozayeny Owner of the Adjacent Property
P.O. Box 308
Marco Island, F1. 33937
Mr. Gunderud asked Mr. Rosenberg if the Board had been given
the exact setback.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that it would be 15 feet from the curb.
Mr. McMillen then asked Mr. Rosenberg if that referred to the
footings location.
Mr. Rosenberg replied that the 15 feet was to the edge of the
shingles and that the footings would be approx. 21 feet back.
Mrs. Waddle referred to a letter received from Mr. Mark J.
Woodward, Attorney for Dr. Mozayeny, reflecting the same view of his
client, and asked that the letter berplaced on record.
Mr. Gunderud questioned the total area of all the signs involved.
Mr. Rosenberg then explained the approximate size of the lettering
of the signs.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- February 10th, 1981
Mr. Robert A. Steinhaus, 99 Brothers Road, Wappingers Falls, N.Y.
then came forward to address the Board. Mr. Steinhaus is the proprietor
of the wine & liquor store in the mall and stated that he chose the
�1►- location because of the reputation and -aesthetic appeal of the
development. However, he pointed out the need for more identification
by the use of appropriate signs, saying that people had difficulty in
locating'hs-store.
The Chairperson asked if there was anyone elso present who
wished to be heard.
No one had any comments or question.
The hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m..
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal # 524, at the request of Joseph & Jeanne Ryan, seeking
a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 430 to operate
a day nursery on their property located on 34 Baldwin Drive, in
the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairperson read the appeal.
Mr. Joseph Ryan was present and explained to the Board that
he and his wife wished to operate a Day Nursery at their home, that
they have had the Dutchess Co. Board of Health inspect the premises
and that they are in compliance with all Board of Health rules and
regulations. They are not making any structural changes to their home.
They plan to have 10 children in the 4 yr. old session and 8 children
in the 3 yr. old session. Mr. Ryan stated that there was no opposition
from his neighbors on either side. He and his wife are both certified
teachers and his wife would be directing the program. It is not
their intention to change the natureofthe neighborhood by having
this school within their home, and would follow all rules and
regulations that have been set up for this.
Mrs. Waddle asked what Mr. Ryan ment by two different sessions -
if they would be having two different sets of children daily.
Mr. Ryan replied, yes, but if there were a greater need, there
would be longer sessions, but only a day operation, not extending
into evening hours.
Mr. Landolfi asked if the Ryans have contacted the fire district.
Mr. Ryan stated that he had not, but that the inspector from the
Board of Health had outlined the requirements for fire safety.
Mr. Cortellino asked if the children would always be kept indoors.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- February 10th, 1981
Mr. Ryan replied that they would be constructing a play area
at the rear of the house.
Mr. Landolfi asked what type of fetce would be used at the
rear, adding that there was quite a sharp drop off in back.
Mr. Ryan replied that they planned to use post and rail fencing
and place wire fencing to the back of it.
Mr. Landolfi asked how advertising would be handled if they
were not going to use signs.
Mr. Ryan replied that they would be using brochures and
personal contact.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they were aware of all the nursery schools
in the area.
Mr. Ryan replied that they were, but felt that there was still
need for quality operated schools.
The Chairperson asked if there were any further comments.
No one had any comments or questions.
The appeal was closed at 9:50 p.m..
Stephen Wilantewicz - request for rehearing on a previously
denied variance - Appeal # 518.
The Chairperson read the request, and asked what was the pleasure
of the Board.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion that the Board grant the rehearing
at the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. McMillen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
The Board then recessed at 9:55 p.m. and reconvened at 10:50 p.m..
With regard to Appeal # 521, at the request of Thomas Coughlin,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino that the requested variance be
denied on the grounds that the property is being presently used as
a residential property, use for which it was originally intended.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- February 10th, 1981
With regard to Appeal # 522, at the request of John J & Paula
B. Gniewek, a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, that the requested
variance by granted with the condition that any replacement or
repair of the present deck would require the issuance of a building
permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. McMillen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 523, at the request of Salvator A.
Rega, a motion was made by Mr. McMillen, that the requested variance
by denied and that the Appellant should seek other alternatives
such as a rezoning request to the Town Board. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 525, at the request of Roy Rogers'
Restaurant - Marriott Corp., a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, that
the requested variance by granted for the following: 1.-Drive-thru
sign, not to exceed 10 sq. ft.. 2. -Menu Board sign. 3. -Pylon sign,
sketch on file. 4. -Two signs on building(1 on front, 1 on back) 26"
' high by 1413' wide. The motion was seconded by Mr. McMillen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 526, at the request of Sol Silver &
Richard Rosenberg, D/B/A Chelbea Ridge Associates, a motion was made
by Mr. McMillen, that the requested variance by tabled until a report
could by obtained from the Highway Superintendant and the Building
Inspector. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
NEW BUSINESS:
With regard to Appeal # 524, at the request of Joseph & Jeanne
Ryan, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, that the request for a
Special Use Permit be sent to the Planning Board, with a request for
site inspection. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- February 10th, 1981
With regard to Appeal # 527, at the request of Stephen A.
Tacopina, a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi that his interpretation
was that a building should be designed for one use only. Motion
was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By 'Those Members Present
A motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Landolfi
to adjourn the meeting.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m..
Re tfully submitted,
Jean Christensen, Acting Secy. for
(Mrs.) Betty-Ahn Russ, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
N