1981-03-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, March 10th, 1981 beginning
at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
Donald Mc Millen
Members Absent:
Howard Prager
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle asked if the abutting property owners and the
appellants had been notified.
The secretary replied that the appellants and abutting property
owners had been notified according to the records available in the
Assessor's office. Mrs. Christensen had sent the notices out.
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 heard, 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 the Board may or may not render a decision on each
appeal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ¢# 528, at the request of Frank and Juliana Garofalo,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit a temporary mobile home to remain as a
permanent caretaker's cottage on property located on Smith Crossing
Road, being parcel ¢# 6359-01-110650, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Garofalo was present and noted that he came before the
Board to appeal to keep the mobile home because of the nature of his
business, have thoroughbred race horses, are semi -retired people
and we are unable to build a permanent house because of the
tremendous cost of constructing the present home and buildings
on the property, and to build an additional home would be a tremendous
hardship for us, this cottage is located to the rear of the property,
it is not really a cottage it is a mobile home for and occupied by a
caretaker who has to be on the property to care for these horses which
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- March 10th, 1981
are quite fragile, there is no rental property near or around our
property and the cottage is unobtrusive,, cannot be seen from the
road and is located along against the woods in the back of the property
and behind the barn, it is not causing any obstruction to any other
home or property, it is located approximately 2,000 feet from
Maloney Road and about 1,500 feet from Smith Crossing Road, our
primary problem is the cost over -run in construction and if we were
to incur any further costs in building another permanent home, have
been notified that we would have to reassess the entire property,
in other words if we took a piece of this 133 acres that we have
the rest would be assessed according to the piece we took off to
build something..
Mr. Cortellino commented you mean if you were subdividing.
Mr. Garofalo replied yes.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the Board is not discussing
subdividing.
Mr. Garofalo replied that he was just trying to explain the
problem.
Mr. Cortellino added he didn't see how they would be reassessed
if the cottage would be on the same property and not subdivided.
Mrs. Waddle commented that he is permitted a caretaker's
cottage.
Mr. Garofalo replied yes that they would like to have this
as the caretaker's cottage, the other problem of the property
is that the railroad road goes right throught the property and we
have been trying to negotiate with Con Rail to buy this railroad
bed which has been there for about 75 years and unused, never been
used but we have not been able to negotiate so that we could build
a little cottage on that property, now we were told that if we built
a little cottage we would have to make a formal subdivision and
that the assessment ....
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Garofalo who told him that.
Mr. Gunderud replied that Mr. Garofalo wanted to build a second
dwelling.
Mr. Cortellino commented that's different.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- March 10th, 1981
Mr. Gunderud and the Board then briefly discussed the
difference between a second dwelling and a caretaker's cottage.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Garofalo what were they t
talking about.
Mr. Garofalo replied that they needed a cottage for the
caretaker for the care of the horses, we have a mobile home there
at the present.time, this mobile home is not causing any interference
with anyone else in the neighborhood.
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Garofalo if he was living on the
property.
Mr. Garofalo replied right, we just moved there about eight
weeks ago.
Mr. Cortellino then asked why did they need a caretaker.
Mr. Garofalo replied that they were not capable of taking
care of throughbred race horses, my wife and I.
Mrs. Waddle then asked how many horses were on the property.
Mr. Garofalo replied right now 23 but might have 24 by
morning as we are having a foal tonight.
Mrs. Waddle noted that actually this man was a stable hand.
Mr. Garofalo replied yes, a stable hand.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that last year or so ago, Mr. Garofalo
came in and was told that he could have the trailer there for a
year, here now and pleading hardship that he expended a lot of
money but on the things he spent money there was no requirement
to spend money but there was a requirement for him to replace the
trailer home, why did he feel.
Mr. Garofalo replied that he would tell them the problem,
you know the property, you know that property had been bought and
sold before because of a tremendous water problem on that property
and the fill required to fill in where the house was to go cost more
than $40,000 and that just about broke them , we had to build roads
and the amount of fill that had to be hauled into the property,
that property has more water than all of Wappinger , so in order to
build a cesspool it was a major operation which they had not
calculated, that was just something that was inherient in the
type of property it was and we'were not aware of it, getting
the cesspool in there was a major problem and we had such a tremendous
Zoning Board of Appeals
ME
March 10th, 1981
pad that there we no funds left to do anything else , we are
retiring now and we could not even maintain this property if
we had to pay any additional costs on it.
Mrs. Waddle commented that he was saying that they have
built a home there already.
Mr. Garofalo replied yes, we have a home there now,
outside is not completed just the home itself is completed.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it was her understanding that
the mobile home was to stay there until the home was built,
correct.
Mr. Garofalo replied that the mobile home was for the stable
hand, we did not live in the mobile home.
There was then some discussion with regard to the purpose
of the mobile home and Mr. Gunderud indicated that he would check
through the file and minutes.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the man living in the trailer had
a family or was a single person.
Mr. Garofalo replied that it was a family, a wife, husband
and child.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Garofalo about his consultation
with the agricultural agent in Millbrook.
Mr. Garolfalo replied that he had purchased the property
before he spoke to the agent, was unaware of the water problem
on the property, found out that there was to be a subdivision
of the property by the previous owner but this was abandoned
because they couldn't get cesspools in.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there were horses there.
Mr. Garofalo replied no, brought the horses from our farm
in Bedford Hills and in Florida, have eight children but none are
home, they are away at school.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Garofalo how many other men
were employed.
14
I
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- March 10th, 1981
Mr. Garofalo replied just the husband and wife and a boy
from Hopewell Junction who comes in and does day work. He added
that there was nothing nearby which could be rented for the workers
and the horses do need attention and someone to care for them
as the horses are fragile.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if they had constructed a house and
a barn within the last year.
Mr. Garofalo replied that the barn was constructed at the
end of 1978 and the house was just constructed now, moved in the
day before Christmas.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that previously it had been indicated
that Sid Corbin and his wife would be managing things.
Mr. Garofalo replied that they managed the construction of
the barn and house, Mr. Corbin supplied the fill, they managed
as we lived forty miles away.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the Board members had any other questions.
The Board had no other questions.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
Appeal # 529, at the request of Stephen Wilantewicz, seeking a
rehearing on a previously denied variance of Article IV, Section
416.73 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a
free-standing sign at a closer setback than permitted from the
front yard line on property located at 282 New Hackensack Road,
being parcel # 6259-03-435163, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Dr. Stephen Wilantewicz was present and noted that he would
like to clarify one thing with the Board is that the correct
address is 282 New Hackensack Road , were just notified by the
Post Office that we are 282 and am here tonight as the last time
he was unable to make the meeting as he was called to the hospital,
and would like to bring to the Board's attention that this piece
of property is a non -conforming parcel of land, the setback of the
Zoning Board of Appeals 1 -6- March 10th, 1981
of the property according to the surveyor's map is 33' 7"
from one corner of the building, from the easterly side and
32' 8" from the westerly side, that is by John Morano, the
problem with this building is the setback as it is and the
entrance into the building there is not adequate visibility
for patients, for Allstates Insurance Company, the Dutch Treat
Travel Agency and for the County who are occupying offices
within this building, need some type of sign notifying the public
that this is 282 New Hackensack Road and of the various tenants
within the building. He continued Noting that people are driving past
the building, have to then go down to Ted Alexanders or in some.
cases they are illegally turning within New Hackensack Road because
the building is setback and they can't really see the building upon the
approach due to the King's property which is adjacent to the building
on the easterly side and on the westerly side going down towards
Route 9 you can't see the building either until you are on top of
it, so think before damage is done to anyone, patients or clients
of Allstates that we should have some type of sign place, looked at
various buildings on New Hackensack Road and noticed the Brown'
building their sign is approximately ten to fifteen feet from the road,
don't care how far back but have to have a sign for that building.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that there was quite a bit of frontage
on the building and there was a line of sight.
Dr. Wilantewicz then reitered what he felt were the problems
in locating the building and generally go right by it before they
are able to identify it and felt that the sign was certainly necessary
He added that there was a tree line that also made idenification
difficult.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that the clientele return.
Dr. Wilantewicz replied no, get different clientele all the
time, clientele are told 282 but they usually drive right by,
call and we tell them across the way from the airport, down the road,
drive past and then have to tell them it is big brown building
and then they drive back and come in, there is no obvious sign out
there. He then presented a rendering to the Board of the type of
sign they would like to put up and noted that he would take the direction
of the Board to where they would want him to place it but obviously
it would have to be somewhere in the front of the building.
Mr. Cortellino then asked when the building was built.
Mr. King noted that he was on the west side and believed
the building went up in 1954.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- March 10th, 1981
It was noted that the building would then be non -conforming.
Mr. Gunderud noted that the required setback was 25 feet.
Dr. Wilantewicz noted that if this was done the sign would
be adjacent to the walkway.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that there could be a sign on the building
and had noticed that there were signs on the building.
Dr. Wilantewicz replied that they were only the placques
which were orignally going to be placed on the sign.
Mrs. Waddle also noted that there were signs in the windows
and she had been able to identify the tenants.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that a recommendation had been received
from the Dutchess County Department of Planning which says
"this department recommends that the sign variance application be
disapproved, there is no hardship in this instance, sight distance
from the road to property is adequate, a sign structure at less the
required setback would serve to distract drivers of vehicles along
the roadway; it could also provide an obstacle to a future road
widening•, that is for the record.
Dr. Wilantewicz then referred to a professional building
down the road which had a sign and the County airport terminal
sign which could have also been further placed' -closer to the road,
feel they should object all the way down the line, this is the
way he felt.
Mrs. Waddle replied that this was theLr recommendation.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that he had noticed- that one of
the prospective tenants had a large ad in the paper which said
280 New Hackensack Road.
Dr. Wilantewicz then explained that there was some confusion
about this and that the stationary had been printed as 280:and then
found out that this was the number Mr. King used, the post office
then gave us 282.
Mr. King noted that Mr. Rudolph had given him the 280
number and Lafko had been 284.
Dr. Wilantewicz noted that they now had the official word and
they would be 282.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- March 10th, 1981
Dr. Wilantewicz added that basically he finds that it is quite
difficult and wouldn't like to see anyone hurt on that road and
would go on record and if someone is then it will come before the
Town, assure you of this.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked if just wouldn't the number 282
be enough, wouldn't this be a good locator.
Dr. Wilantewicz replied yes, agree if all of New Hackensack
Road did that then wouldn't feel that the Board is slanted or biased
against him for placing a sign out there, would agree providing other
people along New Hackensack Road which were rendered favorable decisions
did the same, but wanted to be shown the same favoritism or whatever
that has been granted to other citizens of this Town.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that in Dr. Wilantewicz's previous
professional residence there was a small sign and people did not
seem to have difficulty.
Dr. Wilantewicz replied that he had a professional sign
outside and that he had a big name, point is that they need something
out there to let the people know that they are there and that he was
a doctor so ask for consideration as they wish to have a sign that
would be enhancing to the the building and will take direction on
where the Board wants it placed but would certainly like it to be
seen.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against the Appeal.
Mr. King of New Hackensack Road noted that he was 280 and
stressed that it was very important that this be clear and then
noted that Central Hudson had placed high tension wires over his
property and that when Mr. Lafko had the building this line was placed
underground.
After it was determined that Central Hudson had an easement,
the Board advised Mr. King to contact Central Hudson about his concern
and that Dr. Wilantewicz was aware of the problem with the number
and had corrected it.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present who wished
to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:31 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- March 10th, 1981
Appeal # 530, at the request of Dr. Daniel J. Hannigan,
seeking variances of Article IV, Section 411.2 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit side yard and rear yard
setbacks of existing buildings which -do not conform where lots are
being resubdivided on property located on Myers Corners Road, being
parcels 6258-03002082, 026062 and 015132, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Dr. Daniel J. Hannigan was present and noted that he was asking
for variances and this request originated upon request of the
Building Inspectior and also the Town Assessor, had a problem over
the years starting went zoning first went into effect in the Town
and it was decided that ten acres was required in order to operate a
veterinary hospital or kennel and at that time we had to purchase
other properties around us to make up the ten acres of land and those
properties have always stayed as individual parcels although they
were connected and no one had ever said anything about having to join
them together,until Mr. Gunderud was sharp enough to find out that
this was not according to the zoning ordinance as it exists and
requested that we do something about changing it to get into
one ten acre piece of land which the animal hospital sits upon.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that she thought the Board had
gone over this before when Dr. Hannigan was in.
Dr. Hannigan replied that this had come up in discussion but
that nothing was ever resolved and are now in a situation where
they cannot get a final Certificate of Occupancy until this is
resolved.
The secretary then noted that when Dr. Hannigan was previously
before the Board it was regarding a dispute as to whether or not
a Special Use Permit was required and it was determined that since
it was basically non -conforming the Board did not have jurisdiction
and that was where it was left off.
Dr. Hannigan noted that they would like to get this straightened
out and they had gone to Barger and Russ for plans and believed the
Board had copies, want to get this straightened up as they have been
operating for some time on a temporary Certificate of Occupancy,
this is uncomfortable situation.
Mr. Mc Millen commented that they would basically be getting
Zoning Board of Appeals -10-
March 10th, 1981
the animal hospital as one non -conforming use on one separate
piece of property and the residential would be on their own
conforming lots.
Dr. Hannigan commented that the one word is not so, the
animal hospital is conforming.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the new animal hospital would be
conforming.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that the only variance that would be
required would be just a sideyard variance from the existing residence
and the old animal hospital where the surveyor drew the new line to
make the two parcels because of the two existing buildings are so
close together there was no way to draw a line through there to
get the required twenty-five foot setback and it was his feeling that
this will be more conforming and clarify a difficult situation which
exists because of old buildings which were built before zoning and
uses that were established prior to zoning and think there was some
confusion on the application when it was issued a couple of years
ago with regard to planning and zoning involvement, some of these
issues should have been addressed back then and might have avoided
some problems but feel this will make this whole parcel and all
the houses conforming except for just the minor setback problem
on the lots and would recommend so that Dr. Hannigan can go ahead
with subdivision approval from the Planning Board and he would need
the variances first before he presents,the plans for subdivision
approval, he has three parcels now and is really reconfiguring
those three parcels so they now become conforming parcels.
The Board and Mr. Gunderud then looked over the maps and
briefly discussed what the changes in the lot lines would be.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard for or against the Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m.
Appeal # 531, at the request of Taylor Rental Center,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a free-standing sign larger
than the 25 square feet area maxiumum size permitted on property
located on Route 9, being parcel # 6157-02-624589, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- March 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Leonard Spinelli was present and noted that he was here
to get the sign approved, it isslightly larger than the required size
and found this out after he had already ordered the sign and
almost exploded as was told there would be no permission requested
but then he didn't want to feel like an intruder in the Town of
Wappinger so he called the Building Inspector and found out that
only 25 square feet was permitted and already had installed a
slightly larger sign, they don't make any smaller sign only make
larger, would be no way to get a smaller one so requesting permission
to allow the sign.
Mrs. Waddle then asked how long he had had the business.
Mr. Spineeli noted that he had been operating on
Route 44 for the last eight years but had just moved in to
the one in Wappiners.
Mr. Cortellino then asked about the setback of the sign.
Mr. Gunderud replied that 25 feet was required.
Mr. Spinelli noted that the pole was existing only replaced
the sign, it is still in the same place.
It was noted that it was about 55 feet back.
Mr. Landolfi asked about the size of the sign.
Mr. Spinelli replied that it is four foot by eight foot, make
a larger sign but not smaller, it was installed about two weeks
ago, didn't know he would need all this, thought he was doing the
right thing, the landlord told him and his lawyer told him was
no problem but then later checked with the Town and found out.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if he had a local lawyer.
Mr. Spinelli replied yes, from Poughkeepsie.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that the following recommendation had
been received from the Dutchess County Department of Planning,
"Applicant request a variance from the regulations governing the
maximum size of signs. The Town Zoning Ordinance provides that
free-standing signs have a maximum size of twenty-five square feet.
The applicant requests a variance for a sign of thrity-two square
feet. Existing commercial signs in the vicinity of this site,
near the intersection of Route 9 and Hopewell Road, reflect a
concern for a quality type of visual environment.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- March 10th, 1981
Recommendation
In view of the above findinds, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that this sign variance application be.
disapproved. An approval of this application could set a precedent
for future requests of a similar poture. An excess of signage
can hazardously distract drivers of vehicles on Route 9, a major
state road.", that's recommendation from the County Planning Board.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the sign could be cut down and was it a
lit sign.
Mr. Spinelli replied that it was illuminated, can't get it smaller,'
is only seven feet more, don't think it makes a lot of difference,
hope the Board favorably considers this as he can't afford to take
it down.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard for or against the Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:47 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that a recommendation from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning had been received on the
Hannigan matter and the crux of it was that they do not presume to
base their decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts
or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action and leaves the
decision up to the local Zoning Board.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that on Appeal # 526, at the request
of Chelsea Ridge, the Board did receive -..a memo from Mr. Gunderud
and the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
Mrs. Waddle then read the recommendation of the Dutchess
County Department of Planning dated February 6th, 1981. A copy of
said recommendation is attached to these minutes and is on file.
Mr. L. Richard Rosenberg then commented that he felt it was
inappropriate of the County to comment as they don't have jurisdiction,
it is a State road and am really somewhat disturbed at the apparent
inconsistency of the County on County property particularly the
airport to erect whatever they want and for the rest of us folks
they tell us what they think the law should be and think there is
a glaring disparity and think the Board should take notice of that
and would like to also hand up a clarification of the submission he
had given the Board last time and thought there had been a misunder-
standing on just what there would be. He then briefly went over
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- March 10th, 1981
the proposed dimensions and location of the signs.
Mr. Rosenberg then noted that he would like to share with the
Board a copy of a memo from the Town Supervisor which was sent
to the Town Board it specifically and then again it was sent to
me gratitiously as it wasn't something he had requested and would
like to share it with the Board but specifically the following:
"Enclosed shopping malls, mini -malls such ast'Chelsea Ridge
is unique as it is impossible for people to know what is inside
an enclosed mall. In this case, my first impression from the outside
was disappointing yet when I toured the facility I found it exciting
unique, and most pleasing. Advertising of some nature is necessary
here to bring people into the enclosed mall." He added that this
was from Louis Diehl, Town Supervisor. He then handed a copy of the
memo to the Board.
Mr. Rosenberg noted that he also had some merchants present
if the Board wanted to hear from them on the extreme need for
signage in the mall.
Mrs. Waddle advised that the Board would take this up under
"Unfinished Business" when they returned from their recess.
The Board then recessed at 8:55 p.m.
The Zoning Board reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 528, at the request of Frank and
Juliana Garofalo, Mr. Mc Millen moved that a one year extension
be granted to the present variance and recommend that plans be
made to build a residence for the caretaker in the near future.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously.Carried
By 'Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal ## 529, at the request of Dr. Stephen
Wilantewicz, Mr. Cortellino moved that the variance be denied as there
is adequate sight distance, a mail box with "282" on it would suffice
for address purposes, sufficient setback is available in front of
the building to conform with the Zoning Ordinance. the motion was
seconded by Mr. Mc Millen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
"' By Those Members Present
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- March 10th, 1981
With regard to Appeal ## 530, at the request of Dr. Daniel J.
� Hannigan, Mr. Landolfi moved that this variance be granted to resolve
the difficulties and non -conformities of the property. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal ## 531, at the request of Taylor Rental
Center, Mr. Mc Millen moved that the requested variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 526, at the request of Sol Silver and
Richard Rosenberg, d/b/a Chelsea Ridge Associates, Mr. Cortellino
moved that a free-standing logo sign theme at the end of the curved
brick wall to serve as a directory sign to be 15 feet inside face of
curb along shoulder of Route 9D be granted. In addition, Mr. Cortellino
moved that the appellant not exceed the 100 square foot sign area on
the building. Signs 2, 3, 4, and 5 described in the petition dated
2/10/81 must be of some smaller portion of 100 square feet. For
example, if signs 2, 3, 4, and 5 were 25 square feet each, the sum of
the areas of the individual signs would not exceed 100 square feet.
The Chelsea Ridge sign, shown in photo marked "photo 1" shall be
removed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unaimously Carried
By Those Members Present
A motion was then made by Mr. Mc Millen,seconded by
Mr. Landolfi, to adjourn.
br
il
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members PResent
The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
0
4 E=.0
DUTCH
COUNTS
- -- --SENT OF 1N
47 street, pcu9hta�e new ynrk26C�1 485-9890=
Tax Map Parcel No. 605602-635539
To: Zoning Board of Appeals
Referral: 81-14, Town of Wappinger
Re: Chelsea Ridge Associates Sign Variance
In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article
12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m), the Dutchess County Department of
Planning has reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent
inter -community and county -wide considerations. Upon field
investigation and analysis, this Department makes the following
findings:
Applicant requests variances pertaining to the size and location
of a free-standing sign for a property located on the west side
of Route 9D, north of Chelsea Road. The Zoning Ordinance requires
a setback of twenty-five feet for free-standing signs; a ten -feet
setback is requested. A free-standing sign approximately 100
square feet in area is requested and the regulations stipulate
a maximum sign size of 25 square feet.
Route 9D is a winding, two lane, undivided roadway linking towns
in the southwestern part of Dutchess County. There is a low level
of development activity in the vicinity of the subject site. The
site has good visibility from the road; a sign at the required
setback would be readily seen by people in passing vehicles.
Recommendation
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that the
subject sign variances be disapproved. Approval of these sign
size and setback variances would set a precedent for further
requests of a similar nature, resulting in an unnecessary and
possibly hazardous distraction for drivers. Such approvals
would also contribute to a deterioration of the visible
quality and character of the Town.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume
to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the
facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action.
Dated: February 6, 1981 By
f Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning
V
"�41 &tJL'
Richard Birch
Senior Planner