1981-04-14The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, April 14th, 1981 beginning
at 8:10 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:
Vacancy on the Board
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 according to the records available in the Assessor's office
had been notified.
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 # 532, at the request of Raymond & Theresa Langer,
seeking a varinace of Article IV, Section 421, Sideyard Setback
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to erect
a 20' by 30' attached garage within eleven feet of their sideyard
lot line where twenty feet is required, on property located on
4 Russett Lane, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel # 6258-04-
549149.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Raymond Langer was present.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- April 14th, 1981
Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. Langer what type of house he had.
Mr. Langer replied that it was a raised ranch with a one
car garage, have three cars, two children, both wife and himself
are drivers, one car is an antique.
Mrs. Waddle then asked where the present garage was located.
Mr. Langer replied that it was under the house, can store one
car in the winter, it is filled with bikes, etc.. He added that
the existing room would be added to, it is 9' by 10', a small bedroom
and this would make another room. Mr. Langer then noted that he
had presented drawings to the Board and felt that the addition
will enhance the home.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the rec room was 12' by 251.
Mr. Langer replied not quite, and that it is a raised ranch
and as far as the location of the garage goes this is the only
desirable place to put it other than building a detached garage
and would be happy to answer any questions the Board might have.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about the possibility of a detached
garage.
Mr. Langer replied that he hadn't really thought about this,
by attaching it to the house it would add to the lines of the house,
plus the effect on the cost as having it attached meant one less
wall would have to be built.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how close to the neighboring house
it would be.
Mr. Langer replied that he did not know.
Mr. Gunderud commented that the minimum setback in the
area is twenty feet.
Mr. Langer noted that he was locked into this house with
mortgage rates and wanted to stay there rather than make a move.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- April 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle then read the following letter from Julius M. Gerzof.
Dear Ms. -Waddle:
I received your notice of appeal ##532 and I assume that the ap-
plication of Raymond and Theresa Langer for a sideyard variance
is on property contiguous to the lot owned by me.
For a number of years I was not permitted to sell this lot
because of the refusal of the Building Department to issue
a permit on the claim that the equipment installed in front
of the property affects accessibility. If the property of
Raymond and Theresa Langer is indeed contiguous to my property
I can .forsee further difficulties with the Building Department
and therefore strenously object to the granting of this variance.
If, on the other hand, the property of Langer is not contiguous
to mine, I have no objection to the request for a variance.
It was noted that Mr. Gerzof did not directly abut the
Langer property but that the Margarone property was between Gerzof
and Langer.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against the Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:16 p.m.
Appeal ## 533, at the request of Bart D. Williams for the
New Hackensack Pharmacy/Angress Pharmacy, Inc., seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 416.8 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit signs to remain in place on business located in a building
on the corner of Route 376 and Maloney Road, in the Town of Wappinger,
being parcel # 6259-02-530791.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Bart D. Williams was present and noted that he felt that the
window signs were necessary to the business, can't see how it
can function, the plaza is not doing well and know that the window
advertising might not be attractive but for the pharmacy they
do attract customers.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board is concerned about these
signs on a safety factor.
Zoning Board of Appeals
MC
April 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle added that this is a heavily travelled road
and signs of this type could dangerously distract drivers and
✓ that there is a directory sign and the pharmacy also has a neon sign.
Mr. Williams commented that this can't be seen.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she felt it could be seen and plus
there was the building sign.
Mr. Landolfi then asked about employees.
Mr. Williams replied six.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that Mr. Williams indicated on
his appeal form that new jobs would be created.
Mr. Williams noted that he would be able to employ several
more if the business increased.
Mr. Landolfi them asked Mr. Williams to relate how the signs
would create these new jobs.
Mr. Williams replied that it would increase the volume
of business.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how this business was unique,
as unusual circumstances is one reasons and real financial hardship
is another for the granting of a variance, how is your situation
unique.
Mr. Williams replied that he didn't think it was unique as
the plaza wasn't doing well and can't stay in business without
signs.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked Mr. Williams if this was turned down,
what would the effect be.
Mr. Williams replied that he would have to shut down,
the previous business had some of these signs and that about
80 percent of the business was from the area.
Mr. Landolfi noted that was the point, most are repeat customers.
31
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- April 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle added that people get locked in and come back to
the same place of business.
Mr. Williams replied that the prescription business had
run down, it is our sales that are getting people to come in,
the over the counter items and that he had the business for eight
months.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he felt the signs distract drivers
and most of the people who do see them are already in the plaza.
Mr. Williams replied that this is a common practice.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that at one time all the businesses
in the plaza had individual signs, and the Board had gotten this
down to one directory sign, have a strict ordinance, there is
the directory sign and the pharmacy has sign, feel that is enough.
She added that there is the newspaper and word of mouth and the
quality of the business is denoted by the sign which is there, don't
want a guady effect.
Mr. Williams replied that his business has improved with
the signs.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the Board granted the window signs
for a period of six months until the business built up, would he
still need them.
Mr. Williams replied that when there is an increase in the
present business probably not but the sales in the front are the
draw into the pharmacy now.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he had six months to a year
would this be sufficient.
Mr. Williams replied that he thought he could agree with
that.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that the recommendation of the Dutchess
County Department of Planning had been received and read the
following.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-6- April 14th, 1981
"Applicant requests a variance from the sign provisions of the
' Town Zoning Ordinance. A variance is requested from the pro-
vision prohibiting window signs.
Applicant's property is located in New Hackensack Plaza at the
intersection of Route 376 and Maloney Road.
The sign regulations of the zoning ordinance provide for identi-
fication of the plaza and each individual business within the
plaza. The purpose of these sign regulations is to identify
specific businesses; advertising is not an objective of sign
regulations. The pharmacy has no hardship that is unique to its
specific;.location or use.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that this application for a sign variance be
disapproved."
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 8:33 p.m.
Appeal ¢# 534, at the request of Nycrest Corporation and
Norman Johansen, seeking variances of Sections 416.73 & 416.8 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a free-standing
sign to remain at a five feet frontyard setback where twenty-five
foot is required and to allow signs on the front windows where none
are permitted on the Handy Stop Food Shop building located on Route 9,
in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel ## 6158-04-535308.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Clifford Diehl was present and noted that they had put
throughthe appeal for the free-standing sign and the window signs,
our sales went from $4,300 to $6,500 with the specials that are shown.
He added that they serve local and transient customers, it is a
convenience type operation, this is a heavily travelled road
and by advertising the specials they are able to maintain their
overall prices but without the specials we couldn't do this.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked if the window signs were large
enough to read.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- April 14th, 1981
Mr. Diehl replied that their business was not so much from the
window signs as the road sign which advertises the specials, the
building is setback from the road and you can't really see until
you are at the ingress, trying to get in and out is difficult, the
road sign is beneficial, the two or three specials are important,
such as milk and eggs which are family items, think basically
it has helped out business in keeping princes lower, need the road
sign more than the window signs and that they had been in business
for two to three years.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the company had run any type
of survey.
Mr. Diehl replied that this was being purchased by the
Convenience Food Marts and they had done a study in the
Wappinger area. -but not this particular store and that the sales
did rise from from $4,300 to $6,200 to $6,500 from the road
sign.
Mr. Cortellino then mentioned other stores in the area
which did not have free-standing signs.
Mr. Diehl commented that they felt that the free-standing
sign was important.
Mr. Cortellino then commented on the philosophy of signs
and the difference between having a brick wall and a glass wall
with regard to the amount of signage a building could have.
Mr. Diehl replied that the window signs were not as important
as the road sign, the road sign has helped a great deal based on the
sales figures.
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 8:38 p.m.
Appeal #k 535, at the request of Arnold Solomon/Arnold's Health
Food Store, seeking a variance of Section 416.8 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit signs and/or advertising material to
remain in windows where none are permitted in place of business
located in a building on the corner of Route 376 and Maloney Road,
in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel # 6259-02-530791.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- April 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Arnold Solomon was present and noted that he had been in
business since 1973, wentthrough the signs before and there are
only a couple of window signs and think they should be made legal.
He added that he and his mother run the store, the plaza is in
bankruptcy and have lost a number of stores, the window signs
have been up there since 1973 and were never addressed before, would
be a great hardship if they had to go, they advertise special bulk
discounts, others advertise name brands, can't afford any other
type of advertisement, it is the smallest store in the plaza, have
no employees, complied with other signs and don't feel we are
bothering anyone and if the signs have to come down know that
business will drop off.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board was familiar with the
store when it was in for a sign variance before.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard.
No one else present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that recommendations had been received
from the Dutchess County Department of Planning on this Appeal
and the Nycrest appeal which were similar to their recommendation
on the pharmacy. (Said recommendations are on file.)
The hearing was then closed at 8:45 p.m.
Appeal # 524, at the request of Joseph and Jeanne Ryan, seeking
a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, paragraph 16 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to operate a
nursery school to be known as the "Circle R Nursery" on property
located on 34 Baldwin Drive, in the Town of Wappinger, being
parcel # 6257-02-560918.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Joseph Ryan was present and noted that he had been to the
Board of Health and it meets the specifications for up to fifteen
children, plan to operate from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., three
semesters, basically the Wappinger School District schedule,
the drive is 18' by 68', 29' in the back. He noted that he
had received a letter from the Highway Superintendent and didn't
+} understand as had taken measurements based on the average station
wagon and six cars would fit easily and also spoke to Jim Spratt
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- April 14th, 1981
who is with the Dutchess County Department of Public Works and
he didn't think it would be a problem as it is basically a pick
up and leave off operation and Mr. Gunderud-had explained that
four spaces were required.
Mr. Gunderud added that this is what is required by the
zoning ordinance and didn't know why the comment was made.
Mr. Ryan added that both his wife and himself were
professional educators, trying to play this by the book,
are licensed, will fence and the drive is there and that
he had been to the Board of Health.
Mr. Landolfi noted that.these are requirements for this
type of operation.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Ryan about when he planned
to operate.
Mr. Ryan replied that they would operate within the school
district schedule but would like the option for possible year round
operation, 15 children would be the most, plan on no more ten four-
year olds or -eight three-year olds, easily 15 is the widest
perimeter we are looking for and know we to comply with State and
County codes.
Mr. Cortellino then asked about education.
Mr. Ryan replied that his wife is certified for nursery school
and kindergarten to sixth grade and he was certified for secondary
education and that his wife would be handling the nursery school
and he was going for his school administrator's degree. He added
that in the Town there are a number of nursery schools and the
average seems to be 12 children and that the State permits up
to 15 children and that he is located on a cul-de-sac and it
is a pick up and drop off operation to serve parents who both
work.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about enrollment.
Mr. Ryan replied that they had some from the neighborhood
and the school district and had contacted the Fairchild personnel
department as this is within one mile of our home and many
employers are looking for this type of service.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- April 14th, 1981
Mr. Landolfi then asked about converting the garage.
Mr. Ryan replied that if and when they decide that
they would want a garage that they would add one bay and
it would be in the back so it would not be necessary to obtain
a variance.
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 8:55 p.m.
The Board then recessed and then reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 532, at the request of Raymond and
Theresa Langer, a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi that the variance
be granted with the stipulation that the size of the garage be reduced
to 15' by 30'. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mc Millen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeals # 533, 534 and 535, at the requests
of the New Hackensack Pharmacy, the Handy Stop Food Shop and
Arnold's Health Food Store, a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle
to table action on these appeals pending direction from the
Town Board and with regard to Appeal# 534, the Board requests
that the appellant supply a drawing of a permanent sign ant its
proposed location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 524, at the request of Joseph and
Jeanne Ryan, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino that s Special Use
Permit be granted subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday and three semesters a year.
2. Enrollment shall be limited to 15 children.
3. The rear yard shall be fenced by post and rail
fencing covered with 11 gauge green vinyl coated mesh with
no openings larger than 30, and that the rear portion of the
fence be no less than 4' minimum to the top of the post.
4. Approval of the Dutchess County Department of Health shall
be obtained.
14
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- April 14th, 1981
5. The Zoning Board of Appeals reserves the right to review
the parking area for one and a half years from the date of
operation.
6. The New Hackensack Fire Company shall inspect the premises
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Requirements
of the Fire Prevention Bureau of the Town of Wappinger shall be
complied with.
7. The Special Use Permit is issued to Joseph and Jeanne Ryan.
At such time as they Ryans cease to have the nursery use, the
Special Use Permit would no longer be in effect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mc Millen.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mr. Landolfi, to adjourn.
br
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
J
(Mrs.) tty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoning oard of Appeals