1981-07-14The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger
was held on Tuesday, July 14th, 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 McMillen
George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Insp./Zoning Administrator
Jean Christensen, Acting Secretary
Mrs. Waddle then 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 name and addresses for the record, the Board then takes a
short recess and then re -convenes at which time the Board may or may not render
a decision on each appeal.
% � Public Hearings:
Appeal # 539, at the request of George and Esther Hulsair, seeking a Special
Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 18 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to convert their existing dwelling
into a two-family residence on property located on 269 Myers Corners Road, being
parcel #6258-02-970580, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
George and Esther Hulsair were present.
Mrs. Waddle read correspondence from the Planning Board, which stated that
at the July 6th, 1981 meeting, a motion was made by Mr. Fanuele that the Planning
Board had no objection to the Special Use Permit providing that the requirements
of the Dutchess County Department of Public Works are met. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Keller. Motion was carried unanimuously.
Mrs. Waddle also read a fetter from the Dutchess County Department of Public
Works regarding the U-shaped driveway on the Hulsair property, and requesting that
the easterly leg of the driveway be abandoned and that an internal turn -around area
be provided.
Mr. Hulsair pointed out that this has been an existing driveway ever since
the house has been there, and asked why is it*suddenly it became a hazard.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- July 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle replied that there had not been a two-family house there.
Mr. Hulsair replied that if he tried to enter the upper driveway with his horse
trailer, that he would be blocking the entire road, but by using the easterly
drive, this could be avoided.
Mrs. Hulsair displayed a map to the Board members and explained the location of
the driveways. She also distributed photos to show the room available for parking
and the grade of the road and driveways.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion that the appeal be tabled until the Superintendant of
Highways visits the premises and makes a reccmiendation regarding the driveways,
and notifies the Board of same.
Notion was seconded by W. Landolfi.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m.
Appeal #544, at the request of John Guido, seeking a variance of Article Iv, Section
421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a mobile how to remain as
a second residence on property located on Curry load, being parcel #6157-01-494622,
in the Tbwn of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
W. John Guido was present and explained that there had been a trailer on the
property, on and off, since 1958, that he had had a variance for the trailer, when
his mother lived there, and that he now had his daughter living in the trailer. He
pointed out to the Board that the trailer did not cause defacement to the other
properties around him, since the structures were quonset huts, and that he would like
the trailer to remain as a permanent dwelling. _
Mrs. Waddle brought out the fact that Mr. Guido had came before the Board on
November 9, 1976, and asked for a variance to allow the trailer until his mother
passed away and that he then intended to build on the lot at a later date.
Mr. Guido replied that he did not recall stating that he would build on the lot, but
at this point, he would not be building on it.
W. Landolfi asked if Mr. Guido was aware of the decision made at that time
Mr. Guido replied no, he was not aware.
Mrs. Waddle stated that Mr. Guido was issued a Special Use Permit to have the use
of the trailer for one year, in October 1975. Then Mr. Guido came back to the Board
in 1976 at which time Mr. Landolfi had asked if it was understood that this was
strictly a temporary condition, and that Mr. Guido had replied "yes, I want to build
on this lot later.
Mr. Guido replied that that was so at that time, but that he had reservations after
that.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- July 14, 1981
He also repeated that the trailer was an attractive trailer, not an ugly one.
Mr. Landolfi asked what was constructed or added to the house.
Mr. Guido replied it was an extra roan which was just about finished.
Mr. Landolfi asked if that was the one without the building permit.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many people were living in the house now.
Mr. Guido replied that there were four, with his daughter living in the trailer
with her two children, and that his daughter was having marital problems are present.
Mr. McMillen asked if there had been a trailer on the property since 1958.
Mr. Guido answered in the affirmative, and that the trailer had remained there
until 1963. Then the trailer was removed from the property until 1975.
Mr. McMillen asked if the trailer and house were on the same parcel of property.
Mr. Guido replied that it was one parcel, but that he had two separate deeds.
Mrs. Waddle noted that Mr. Guido also had an apartment in his hare.
Mr. Guido replied that he did not have an apartment, that his house is a single-
family dwelling with an extension that was just made.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many kitchens were in the single-family house.
Mr. Guido replied that he had one kitchen, but that he would be bringing up at a
later date the possibility of putting another kitchen in upstairs.
Mr. Landolfi asked if the problem of the chimney had been taken care of.
Mr. Guido replied that the chimney on the trailer had been replaced.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were anyone present to speak for or against this appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Appeal #545, at the request of John Montfort, seeking a variance of Article Iv,
Section 421, Schedule of Regulations for Residential Districts (R-40 Zone) of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance and relief as an aggrieved person as kitchen
facilities in a guest house were denied by the Building Inspector and were excluded
in the building permit application for property located on Cedar Hill lead, being
parcel #6256-01-405807, in the 'Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. C. Bradley Lynch of Lynch & Cornacchini Architects was present to represent
Mr. Montfort. He stated that the publication was somewhat confusing, that they were
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- July 14, 1981
not asking for a variance but rather to exercise the perogatives of the Town Law
to review the Zoning Administrators decision.
Mrs. Waddle stated that it would be a variance if the Building Inspector did not
issue a building permit.
Mr. Cortellino explained that Mr. Montfort could only ask for an interpretation
or a variance.
W. Lynch replied that they would leave it to the Boards' option and proceded to
read a prepared statement objecting to the exclusion on the building permit of a
kitchen for the guest house being built.
Mr. Cortellino interrupted and stated that Mr. Lynch was referring to the number
of kitchens and lots , while the appeal refers to a kitchen in a guest house.
Mr. Lynch asked to start his address to the Board again. He stated that their
understanding of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance is that in the district
in which they are constructing, permitted use is a single-family residence. They
contend that Mr. Montfort, his wife and mother-in-law constitute a single family.
Mrs. Waddle added, single-family in a single dwelling and pointed out that these
were two separate dwellings.
Mr. Lynch emphasized dwelling unit rather than single dwelling.
Mr. Cortellino referred to single dwelling structure.
Mr. Lynch continued stating that accessory use was permitted in the Tamm of Wappinger
and a guest house was permitted but that as far as they were concerned, the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance was mute as the definition of a guest house, garden house,
pool house or any of the rest listed as accessory use. The items historically refer
to dwelling units in the sense that we use dwelling units, and that a garden house,
was historically, a building in which the family resided through the summer months.
A guest house could accomodate the guests independantly of the main household. It
does not, in the Ordinance state whether a guest house is with or without a kitchen.
They contend that the primary use on the site is a single family residence consisting
of John Montfort, his wife and mother-in-law, and that they chose to construct a
guest house in which Mrs. Mntfort's mother may elect to live and they can offer
her the privacy of a separate residence on the site, They are not in agreement with
the Ordinance which specifies that the accessory use may not be used for renumeration,
orit would cease to be a guest house.
Mr. Cortellino asked if guest houses were normally attached to the main structure.
Mr. Lynch replied that a guest house can be attached or detached.
Mrs. Waddle asked how it was attached to the main structure.
Mr. Lynch replied that it was attached by a common entrance.
Mrs. Waddle stated that then it could be construed as a single structure with two
apartments in it.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- July 14, 1981
Mr. Lynch agreed that it could be construed in that way but that the guest house is
approximately one-third the size of the main house and obviously subsidiary to the
house and not the primary use on the site. It is accessory use by definition of the
Zoning Ordinance as it would not be there if it were not for the main'house.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it was not completely sealed off from the main house.
Mr. Lynch replied that you could walk from one into the other by going through the
ccmmn entrance hall.
Mr. Cortellino suggested that the guest house could be considered an apartment since
there is no set size or area specified.
Mr. Lynch replied that their point was basically consistant with the Ordinance that
the primary permitted principal use on the site is single-family dwelling.
Mr. Cortellino replied that Mr. Lynch was defining what he considered the principal
use, while Mr. Cortellino takes the attitude that the principal use is two apartments.
A discussion followed between Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Lynch as to whether there must
be money exchanged to constitute using the term of apartment.
Mr. Lynch then reiterated that the Nbntforts are not asking for a use variance
because it is not applicable since they are not asking for a use that is not permitted
on the site. They are asking the Board to review the decision of the Zoning
Administrator and to issue the building permit.
Mr. McMillen then stated that the issue at hand was whether the Board would agree
*i✓ with the Zoning Administrators interpretation or with Mr. Lynch's interpretation.
If the Board should agree with Mr. Gunderud, then a variance is required and if the
Board agrees with Mr. Lynch, then the building permit would be issued.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Lynch if he was asking for an interpretation at this point.
Mr. Lynch replied that they feel that the Board would have to interpretes the
Ordinance since the Ordinance is mute on the manner in which the Building Inspector
interpretes it.
Mr. McMillen asked for a plot plan with the design of the house.
Mr. Lynch displayed a drawing to the Board which all members reviewed.
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;30 p.m..
Appeal #546, at the request of Joseph Zeller, seeking a variance of Article IV,
Section 422, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow an extension of the
time limit for the removal of a mobile home on property located on Maloney load, being
parcel #625902-840815, in the Zbwn of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- July 14, 1981
Mr. Joseph Zeller and his son Roger Zeller were present.
low
Mrs. Waddle stated that the Board was familiar with the case and asked Mr. Roger
Zeller if he had found another place to live.
Mr. Roger Zeller replied that he had not.
Mr. Cortellino asked how long an extension Mr. Zeller was asking for.
Mr. Zeller replied that he would need more than two or three weeks.
Mr. Landolfi asked what Mr. Zeller's intentions were.
Mr. Zeller replied that if he could sell the trailer, he would. He also stated
that he owned four more houses but that the apartments were occupied by people whom
he would hesitate to evict.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he had investigated openings in mobile parks.
Mr. Zeller replied that he had not had the time and that in his opinion the trailers
were too close together in mobile parks.
Mr. Landolfi asked how much time was needed on the extension.
Mr. Zeller replied that he would like at least another six to eight months and that
hopefully someone would move from the apartments by then.
Mr. Landolfi asked what the plans would be for the trailer at the end of the extension
if it were granted.
Mr. Zeller replied that he did not know and that usually one or the other of the
tenants in the apartment were moving all the time.
Mrs. Waddle read a letter from the Dutchess County Department of Planning stating
that Airport Industry zoning does not alow residential uses.
Mr. McMillen commented that the County had addressed the wrong problem, the Appeal
is for an extension of time, therefore the letter has no value.
Mr. McMillen asked Mr.. Zeller if an extension of six months would satisfy him.
Mr. Zeller answered that it would.
Mrs. Waddle then told Mr. Zeller that he would have to make a concerted effort to
move the trailer or sell it.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion that the Board grant a six month extension to Mr. Zeller.
Mr. McMillen seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously carried.
The hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- July 14, 1981
Appeal # 547, at the request of L. Walter Hereford, seeking a variance of Article IV,
Section 421 of the 'Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct
a 16' x 24' attached garage within twelve feet of his sideyard lot line where
fifteen feet is required, on property located on 16 Quarry Drive, being parcel #6258-
01-022524, in the Zbwn of Wappingers
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice,
Mr. L. Walter Hereford was present for the Appeal.
W. McMillen asked if Mr. Hereford was certain that he would have 12 feet left to
the lot line.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he had looked at the property and that the drawings were
correct.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone present to speak for or against the .Appeal.
No one wished to be heard,
The hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m.
Appeal #548, at the request of Donald J. Currie, seeking an interpretation of
Article IV, Section 422, NB Zone, Permitted Uses, paragraph3 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance with regard to the number of retail uses permitted in
an NB Zone, in connection with premises located on Route 9D, in Hughsonville, being
parcel #6057-02-987580, in the Tlown of Wappinger.
Mrs, Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Donald Currie was present, He told the Board that he would like an inter-
pretation on using his hoarse for shops much like the ones he is running in his barn,
and whether he can rent rocros or space to people with antiques or similar businesses
as he is presently doing, Mr. Currie would move out of his home and use the space
for shops.
Mrs. Waddle asked what type business he proposed to rent to,
Mr. Currie replied that it would be antiques, furniture, materials and crafts,
Mrs. Waddle asked if there would be any type of candy or food,
Mr, Currie replied no.
Mrs. Waddle asked if W. Currie would continue to live on the property.
Mr Currie replied that he would not,
Mx'. McMillen asked the size of the property,
W. Currie replied 1h acres.
LM
Zoning Board of Appeals -8-- July 14, 1981
Mr. McMillen.suggested that perhaps the solution would be to
subdivide the property, leaving the house or a separate parcel,
which would then also be in the NB Zone.
Mrs. Waddle pointed out that there might be a problem with curb
cuts since it is a dangereous road and a state road.
Mr. McMillen commented that perhaps both buildings could be
served by a common entrance and that this would be about the
only way the house could be used for business purposes.
Mr. Landolfi stated that the only other way would be to seek a
change in the Zoning Ordinance by going to the Town Board with
the request.
Mrs. Waddle read a letter from the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommending that the decision be based upon local study
of the facts.
The hearing was closed at 8:50 P.M.
Appeal #549, at the request of Donald J. currie, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422, NB Zone - Permitted Principal
Uses, paragraph 3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordiance, to
allow more than one principal retail iise on property located on
Route 9D, in Hughsonville, being parcel #6057-02-987580, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Currie was present.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the request for variance was very similar
to the interpretation.
Mr. Cortellino said that he felt further questions to Mr. Carrie
were unnecessary, and that if the interpretation was favorable,
the variance would be given.
Mrs. Waddle read a letter from the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommending that the variance application be disapproved.
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.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- July 14, 1981
The hearing was closed at 8:53 P.M.
Appeal #550, at the request of Nussbickel Brothers Realty Corp.,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit an addition to the N.& S.
Supply Building, to be located at a lesser rear yard setback
than required on property located at the intersection of Old
Route 9 and Route 9, being parcels 6156-02-764754, 764724 & 765714,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
No one was present to represent the Appellant.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to table this Appeal.
Mr. McMillen seconded the Motion.
The motion was unanimously carried.
Appeal #551, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Sections 473.2 & 472.2 of the.
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit 9' by 18' parking
stalls with 24' manuvering aisles where 10' by 20' parking stalls
with 25' manuvering aisles are required, with regard to the
proposed development of property located on Myers Corners Road,
in a PI-lA Zone, being parcel # 6258-03-350303, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Ron Bouchard of Pizzagalli Development Company was present
along with Mr. Bill Rohde, -from Hayward & Pakan, Consultants and
Mr. Tom Lorio of I.B.M.
Mrs. Waddle then announced that she would abstain from any voting
or conversation on this Appeal since she is a member of the I.B.M.
management team, and that Mr. Landolfi would conduct this hearing.
Mr. Bouchard then made a presentation to the Board concerning the
fact that the size of cars, even so called full-size cars, have
gotten smaller in recent years.
Mr. Cortellino asked if Mr. Bouchard had made a survey lately of
parking in industrial facilities.
r�
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- July 14, 1981
Mr. Bouchard replied that he had I.B.M.'s experience in this
area. The I.B.M. spaces are 9' x 18' with 24 ft..aisles.
Mr. Cortellino asked what the mix of cars was as opposed to the
mix of vans and light pick-up trucks.
Mr. Bouchard replied that he did not have that number.
Mr. Cortellino asked what the national survey said about the
small cars.
Mr. Bouchard replied that it was about 50-50 with the regular
size cars versus the compacts. He then continued his presentation
pointing out the advantages of granting the variance. He also
informed the Board that the Dutchess County Department of Planning
had recommended in favor of this size parking spaces and aisles
in a similar situation in Poughkeepsie a few months ago. Also,
Bouchard stated that he had a letter from the N.Y.S. Department
of Transporation saying that these sizes were sufficient.
Mr. McMillen said that he would like to see the proposed layout
and asked if there were a plot plan available.
Mr. Landolfi read exerpts from a letter from the Dutchess County
Department of Planning stating that they have been encouraging a
change in parking requirements since the trend toward smaller
automobiles, but recommends that the request for variance be
disapproved and that a zoning amendment process be pursued.
Mr. Cortellino asked if the parking area will have the length
marked out in general but not the individual slots marked.
Mr. Rohde stated that the slots will be marked with individual
lines.
Mr. Bouchard presented an overall site plan to the Board stating
that there:,were 788 spaces on the lot.
The Board examined the site plan, and asked various questions
regarding the marking and traffic -flow for the parking spaces.
Mrs. Jonah Sherman, an adjoining property owner, informed the
Board that she and her husband are in favor of granting this
variance.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
for or against this Appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- July 14, 1981
Mrs. Jonah Sherman came forward and read a letter from she and
her husband endorsing the approval of this Appeal and also the
one that follows. The contents of this letter is as follows:
July 13, 1981
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Wappinger
RE: Appeal #551 and #552
I am Joan Sherman, a resident abutting the proposed development
of property located on Myers Corners Road in a PI-lA zone.
It is my understanding that IBM plans to occupy the two buildings
to be constructed on the site. I would encourage the Zoning Board
of Appeals to approve both of the variances requested, to facilitate
this kind of development in the Town.
Jonah and I have appeared at many planning and zoning meetings
regarding use of this property and for the first time we see an
applicant presenting a development proposal that meets the intent
of a PI-lA zone. This particular zone, as you know, is right in
the middle of a residential area and it has been very important
to us and to others nearby to have an appropriate neighbor. Now
we think we will have such a neighbor. We know, too, that this
proposed development will return substantial taxes to the Town and
it will encourage a substantial number of employment opportunities
in support services to the new complex.
We want to note that we do have some concerns about the development,
particularly about water quality and lighting, and we are in
discussion about them. We have no objection to these variances,
however.
Very truly yours,
S/Mrs. Jonah Sherman
The hearing was closed at 9:05 P.M.
Appeal #552, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 476.22 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for six loading spaces where
eighteen spaces are required, with regard to the proposed develop-
ment of property located on Myers Corners Road, in a PI-lA Zone,
being parcel # 6258-03-350303, in the Town of Wappinger.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- July 14, 1981
Mr. Landolfi read the legal notice.
Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Rohde and Mr. Lorio were present.
Mr. Bouchard stated that due to the use of the buildings, they
are requesting only five loading docks.
Mr. Rohde pointed out that there had been changes made on the
buildings and referred the Board to the correct map. .
Mr. Landolfi asked if these changes were the result of going
before the Planning Board.
Mr. Rohde replied that they were.
Mr. Bouchard explained the plans, designating which building
would have three and which building would have two loading
docks. He also stated that the principal use of the buildings
would be for office use.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against the Appeal.
Mr. Landolfi then read exerpts from a letter from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning recommending that the Town review
its zoning regulations pertaining to off-street loading and that
this variance application be disapproved.
The hearing was closed at 9:10 P.M.
Mr. Landolfi then turned the meeting back to Mrs. Waddle, Chairperson.
Appeal #553, at the request of Robert W. Inacker, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow a deck addition with a 34 foot rear yard setback
where forty foot is required, on property located on Pine Ridge
Drive, being parcel # 6257-04-971161, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Robert Inacker was present and told the Board that he was
attempting to place the deck for the pool -so that it not only fit
the terrain and with the trees, but follow with the contemporary
design of the house. Also, he stated that the nearest neighbors
were situated so that the deck would be 70 feet or more from their
house.
M
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- July 14, 1981
Mr. McMillen asked if Mr. Inacker was providing a deck for a
swimming pool.
Mr. Inacker replied that the deck was attached to the house and
would have two levels. The higher level would be the triangular
shaped deck with the lower deck that goes along the pool.
Mr. McMillen commented that the 34 feet would be at the point
of the triangle. Also, that another variance had been granted -
the lot subdivided before was incorrect on the lot width. When
he purchased the lot he was unaware that the lot did not conform
to the depth of planning.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
for or against this Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M.
Unfinished Business:
Appeal ##537, at the request of John J. Fiore, Sr., seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 421, permitted accessory uses,
paragraph 5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit
a boat and trailer to be stored at a lesser setback than required,
on property located on 10 Gold Road, in the Town of Wappinger,
being parcel # 6258-04-817461, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle asked is anyone here to speak for this Appeal.
Mr. John Fiore presented a survey map.
Mrs. Waddle asked if it corresponds with neighbors.
Mr. Fiore stated there was a discrepency in the lines - about a
2 foot difference.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
for or against this Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M.
Em
Zoning Board of Appeals -14-
July 14, 1981
New Business:
Richard & Barbara Wiest - Request for a re -hearing to permit
an additional use on property on Route 376 & All Angels Hill Road,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Wiest stated that he wants a new hearing to subdivide the
store for a real estate business for his wife. The store is operating
at a loss. He also stated that he had his last 5 years of income
tax with him to show the Board as it definitely is a hardship case.
Mr. Wiest stated if his wife could open a real estate office, she
could help with expenses. Her business would be by appointment only.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the apartment was rented out.
Mr. Wiest stated that's included in --the gross sales. Mr. Wiest
said he combined it all in one and it shows a steady decrease for
the past 5 years.
Mr. McMillen made a motion to grant a re -hearing for Mr. Wiest.
It was unanimously carried.
The Board will grant a re -hearing and the hearing will have to be
re -advertised in the paper.
Charles J. Biuso - Request for a re -hearing to permit a free-standing
sign to be located at a lesser setback than required on property
on Route 9, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Biuso stated that he was in touch with Mr. Birch, Dutchess
County Department of Planning, regarding survey of site, he said
he would send a communication but he had not received any as of
this date.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Biuso if he had any new information.
Mr. Biuso commented that on his meeting with Dutchess County Department
of Planning he recommended an inspection of site.
Mr. McMillen stated that Mr. Biuso must re -apply for a variance as
he has now moved the sign to a new location.
Mr. Biuso requested that Mr. McMillen please explain.
Mr. McMillen asked Mr. Biuso if he wished to leave the sign where
it is presently located.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- July 14, 1981
Mr. Biuso replied that was correct.
The hearing was closed.
Mrs. Waddle acknowledged Mr. Nussbickel at this time.
Appeal #550, at the request of Nussbickel Brothers Realty Corp.,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit an addition to the N.& S.
Supply Building, to be located at a lesser rear yard setback than
required on property located at the intersection of Old Route 9
and Route 9, being parcels 6156-02-764754, 764724 & 765714, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle asked who was present to represent the Appellant.
Mr. Louis Battoglia and Mr. Paul Nussbickel were present.
Mr. Battoglia respectfully requests a variance for the encroachment
of the required 30' frontyard setbacks on the basis of practical
difficulties. There is immediate need of 7,000 sq. ft. of storage
area, in the future another 10,000 sq. ft. will be needed because
of difficult topography on the westerly side. It does not give us
an option of going in that direction, the closer we can stay in the
front the better it is for the land utilization.
Mr. Cortellino asked when you say westerly do you mean towards
Route 9?
Mr. Battoglia stated yes, towards Route 9.
Mr. Cortellino stated that you show future additions which you
are not here for tonight, why do you need 3,700 more proposed sq. ft?
Mr. Battoglia stated it's because we're looking to consolidate the
building, without looking to destroy any more of the yard than we
have to.
Mr. Nussbickel stated that at the warehouse point most of our materials
are moved by forklift, we have to be able to move from one area to
another under one cover (roof).
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
for or against this Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 9:30 P.M.
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- July 14, 1981
The Board then recessed at 9:30 P.M. and reconvened at 10:15 P.M.
With regard to Appeal #539, at the request of George & Esther Hulsair,
a motion was made to table action.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #544, at the request of John Guido, a motion
was made to deny the requested variance with a 6 month extension to
remove trailer.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #545, at the request of John Montfort, a motion
was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Landolfi, to table for
further consideration.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #546, at the request of Joseph Zeller, a motion
was made to grant a 6 month extension.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #547, at the request of L. Walter Hereford, a
motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. McMillen, to grant
the requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #548, at the request of Donald J. Currie, a
motion was made by Mr. McMillen that the Board adopt the following
resolution:
Neighborhood Business allows only one business -
Multiple Uses apply only to Shopping 'Center Districts.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #549, at the request of Donald J. Currie, a
motion was made by Mr. McMillen, seconded by Mr. Landolfi, to deny the
requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
M
IM
In
Zoning Board of Appeals -17-
July 14, 1981
With regard to Appeal #550, at the request of Nussbickel Brothers
Realty Corp., a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mr. McMillen, to grant the requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #551, at the request of Pizzagalli Development
Company, a motion was made by Mr. Urciuoli, seconded by Mr. Landolfi,
to grant the requested variance.
Mrs. Waddle Obstained
Motion Was Carried
With regard to Appeal #552, at the request of Pizzagalli Development
Company, a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. McMillen,
to grant the requested variance.
Mrs. Waddle Obstained
Motion Was Carried
With regard to Appeal #553, at the request of Robert W. Inacker,
a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
grant the requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal #537, at the request of John J. Fiore, Sr.,
a motion was made by Mr. Urciuoli, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
deny the requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
A Motion Was Made to Adjourn the Meeting. Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
JC/dlh/dab
Re e fully Submitted,
n Christensen, Acting Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals