1981-09-08The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, September 8th, 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 - arrived at 8:15 p.m.
G. George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Judy Dugan, Acting Secretary
Mrs. Waddle asked if the abutting property owners and the
appellants had been notified.
Mrs. Dugan replied that the allMpmOlIl 11 and abutting property owners
were notified accerdizk9crto the records available in the Assessor's
office.
Mrs. Waddle then welcomed theublic to the Zoning Board
P g
meeting and noted 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 address for the
record, the Board then takes a short recess and reconvenes at
which time the Board may or may not render a decision on each
appeal, the public is welcome to stay or they may call the office
in the morning.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 363, at the request of the Dutchess County Pistol
Association, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.34 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a mobile home to be
placed and used as a watchman's quarters on property located on
St. Nicholas Road, being parcel # 6258-01-290900, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-2- September 8th, 1981
Mr. Richard Crawford of Swain Drive in the Town of Pleasant
Valley came forward and noted that he was the president of the
Dutchess County Pistol Association, would like to put the trailer
on the property for a watchman, want to have someone there at the
range at all timesfor safety purposes.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if it would be a family unit in the
trailer or a watchman.
Mr. Crawford replied it could be a family or one person, the
club would not own the trailer, we have applications from some
people that are interested in going there to do the job, the ones
that we have are a single person and a married couple who have just
been married.
Mr.ILandolfi then asked about the mobile home that had been
there previously, who was it occupied by, a single person or a family.
Mr. Crawford replied that it was a single person at the end,
orginally it was family, a husband and a wife.
Mr.,Landofil then asked why did that use cease.
Mr. Crawford answered they were terminated, we had no control
over the trailer.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he had a question, or&44nally it
was a single iadividuhh�and thdpla,married couple, that you didn't
own the trailer, what did they do sell the trailer to the next people.
Mr. Crawford replied no, the trailer was removed from the
property.
Mr. Cortellino repeated his question noting that earlier he said
an individual lived in the trailer and then later on a married couple
lived in'that trailer, Mr. Crawford replied yes to the individual
living in the trailer, Mr. Crawford replied no to the married couple,
Mr. Cortellino asked if it was a different trailer.
Mr. Crawford replied that the same trailer has been there for
not familar with how many years, but was a married couple but then the
husband died and then the wife stayed on.
There was then an interruption from the audience and Mrs. Waddle
noted that he would be given an opportunity to speak later.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- September 8th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle then asked if now he meant that he had applications
from two -parties, one a married couple and one a single person to
put a trailer on the premises.
Mr. Crawford replied yes.
Mr. Landolfi then asked where the trailer would be located on
the property.
Mr. Crawford replied it would be located in jst about the same
spot, might have to move it up on the hill a little bit as the trailers
seem to be a lot longer than the one that was on before.
Mr.', Landolfi then asked what size trailer he thought might
go in there.
Mr. Crawford replied that one party who had applied, has a
12 x 65 foot trailer, the other party doesn't have one, would buy
one and would assume it would be about the same size.
Mr. Urciuoli then asked if there was any clubhouse or structure
on the property now.
Mr. Crawford replied yes there is a clubhouse and what we call a
stat office and a range shed and one tool shed type building.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that you do then have shelter
for a watchman, it just that instead of paying a salary for a
watchman you are giving the use of the land to a watchman, caretaker
can use
Mr. Crawford replied that the clubhouse is open like this is
here.
Mr.Cortellino asked him what he meant as the meeting room
here is closed.
Mr. Crawford replied well there is no rooms in it, it is just
a meeting hall.
Mr. Cortellino commented that he could keep out of the weather
in that building.
Mr. Crawford replied that he could get out of the weather but he
couldn't - live t ibbere .
Zoning Board of Appeals
-4- September 8th, 1981
Mr, Cortellino commented right, but if you were to hire a
watchman to work nights he would live somewhere else, what you are
doing is inlieu of hiring someone you are offering them the
use of the land.
Mr. Crawford replied yes.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if damages had been so bad to warrant
a watchperson.
Mr. Crawford replied thatthey hadn't had any vandalism of any
kind within the last few years.
Mr. Landolfi noted that they had mentioned that there had been
unauthorized use of the range, how often does this happen.
Mr. Crawford replied that they were not really sure as
there is not someone there at all times, there is indication that
people come and use the range and we have lovers that park in there
at night.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the Sheriff had been notified.
Mr.Crawford replied yes, the Sheriff comes by pretty often,
Vory often he cp ess and thought that was one of the reasons they
haven't had any big problems of any kind.
Mr. Landolfi noted that if a person was allowed to go in there,
that person, he or she would have some free time where they would be
away from the premises as well, that person wouldn't be confindd=to
the property 24 hours a day and have checked with other pistol
associations and they don't seem to have that problem, trying to get
the relationship as to why, what is different about the one on
St. Nicholas versus the others.
Mr.' Crawford replied that there is nothing different and don't
have an 'existing bad problem, we are just trying to prevent one
from ocduring.
Mr. Landolfi commented that they could function as an effective
organization without the trailer.
Mr. Crawford replied yes.
Mrs.
Waddle
then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak
on this
Appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- September 8th, 1981
Mr. Walter Smithslof of P.O. Box 476, Fishkill noted that he
was a life member of the Dutchess County Pistol Association, former
director and officer, and is purpose in being here tonight is if
the Zoning Board of Appeals should grant a variance so they can bring
another mobile home on the property he didn't want the person coming
in to be subjected to the kind of deal that Mrs. BoAI*Y did.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this did not have anything to do with the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Smithslof then went on noting the previous tenancy
agreement with the Bodleys and Mrs. Waddle commented that this
was between the Dutchess County Pistol Association and their
tenant,'' that does not have anything to do with the Zoning Board
of Appeals, if you have something to say on why you do not feel
think a',trailer should be on the property we will be glad to hear
that but we are not going to go into any disputes between the
Dutches',s County Pistol Association.
Mr. Smithslof then commented that he did not believe that the
DCPA was interested in security and made reference to improvements
that were made by the Bodleys and the eviction notice Mrs. Bodley
received and noted that he had placed concrete block to block off the
pend 101weTs use and these have been removed, the clubhouse door
is not ''locked, it is left open, the kitchen door can be opened by a
knife blade, other doors have combination llo<lk®, they are interested
in rent not security and I would like to see if approval
was granted that there would be some provisions made that the
persons couldn't be put out.
Mrs. Waddle advised him that the Board could not do this,
that is' not the function of this Board, just hear to listen to
an appeal to place a mobile home on the lot and if you know of
any reason without going into the specifics of their business
that they shouldn't have it there or if it is going to be
detrimental to the neighborhood we would be glad to hear this.
Mr's. Waddle asked if there was anyone else to speak against this
appeal.
Mr,. Ernest Paskey noted that he resided on St. Nicholas Road
and have one question he would like to ask, the membership is
governed by the executive board and would like to know how many
members of that board reside in the Town of Wappinger.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- September 8th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle repeated Mr. Paskey's question.
Mr. Crawford replied that he could not answer.
Mr. Paskey then commented to have 24 hour coverage, Jekoce
Acres at the other end of the road they then had two mobile homes,
how do you intend to have 24 hour coverage with one mobile
home, I had a mobile home on my property in 1963 and in 1966
had removed and taken off the tax roils was told I couldn't replace
it later and if they don't suffer any financial loss there are no
grounds for them to get a mobile home, have had my mailbox smashed
several times and windows broken so does that qualify him to have
a mobilo home too.
Mrs. Waddle commented that his point was well taken and thanked
him.
Mr. Crawford then commented that the objection raised by the
first man to speak was by a past member of the pistol association
and is no longer involved.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that the Board would not get into
the internal affairs of the club.
Mr. Urciuoli then asked if the club would be receiving income
for the trailer in the form of rent or anything.
Mr. Crawford replied no.
Mr, Mc Millen noted that he was out to the property today and there
were two trailers on the property, correct.
Mr. Crawford replied no and believed that Mr. Mc Millen was on
the Jekoce Acres property.
Noone else present wished to be heard and the hearing was closed
at 8:17 p.m.
Appeal # 564, at the request of John J. & Marilyn E. Fiore,
seeking an appeal as an aggrieved person (s) seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 421, to permit a boat and trailer to be
stored at a lesser setback than required, on property located on
10 Gold Road, being parcel # 6258-04-817461, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present to speak
for this Appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- September 8th, 1981
No one was present and the Board noted that this would be tabled
until the end of the meeting.
Appeal # 565, at the request of Charles J. Biuso, seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 416.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to allow a business sign to be located at a lesser setback than required
on property located on Route 9, being parcel ## 6157-04-649068, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
No one was present and the Board tabled this until the end
of the meeting.
Appeal ## 566, at the request of Theodore Zysk, seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
Ordinance, to allow an in -ground swimming pool with a 25' setback
where 35' is required on property located at 70 Spook Hill Road, being
parcel # 6257-01-155689, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Ted Zysk came forward and noted that he lived at 70 Spook
Hill Road and that he had spoken to his two neighbors on either side,
72 Spook Hill Road and 68 Spook Hill Road and showed them where the
pool would be , what size it would be and neither of them have voiced
any objection, right now he has some pine trees along Spook Hill Road,
ten foot off the road and will f -those trees along to help
conceal the pool and as he stated he will be putting in a privacy
fence around the pool.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the pool would be in the front of the
house.
Mr. Zysk replied that it would be forward of the house, yes, as
you can see from the plot plan we have a twenty foot backyard which
doesn't provide much of a recreation area for us.
Mr. Cortellino then asked what was the objection* to ;going-35»,feet
back.
Mr. Zysk replied that you could not see the rock ledge on the
map, it in the back, Mr. Gunderud has been back there and has seen
the big rock ledge there, that is in the back, the property rises.
Mr. Gunderud noted that he hadn't really looked at the lot in
relation to the rock but knew it was a difficult lot.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- September 8th, 1981
Mr. Mc Millen then asked what makes him think that the rock
ledge isn't coming forward to the road, had he test bored at all.
Mr. Zysk replied no, but if he had to dig it would be from the
ground level down instead of up, tagking about a five foot difference
in rock and then again have the problem with the property line, his
neighbor in back require setback from the property lines.
Mr. Mc Millen and Mr. Zysk discussed moving it back and
Mr. Zysk explained what he felt would be a problem with being
too close to the neighbor and he also had the shed on the property
to consider.
Mr. Mc Millen commented that he would still like to suggest
that test borings be made to insure that Mr. Zysk could locate
the ppol there, as it appeared to-hime that the rock ledge ran through
where he wanted to locate the pool,sbilopes right down in that direction
and as long as he might have to blast and go to that expense felt he
might just as well move it back ten feet further.
Mr. Zysk replied that in doing this he would have a problem
with the location of the shed and staying away from the neighbor.
Mr. Landolfi asked how far he had progressed with the
pool people.
Mr. Zysk replied that he had no commitment on his part to them,
is contingent in getting the pool in -and Y --c-. there will be a problem
with rock.
Mr. Mc Millen noted again that if he had to blast it would be
better to locate it further back and had he taken any actual
measurments of the location of the shed from the front line, to see
if it would interfer.
Mr. Zysk replied no but looking at it this was the only
location it could too, khat is why we are making the appeal.
Mr. Cortellino then asked about the outer portion of the paved
driveway how far in feet is that from the house.
Mr. Zysk replied he believed that it was thirty.feet, from the
side of the house.
Mr. Cortellino then asked that if he got the variance would he
have test borings done.
The Board and Mr.
ZVkJr
then discussed the plot plan and
noted that this was a
corner
lot.
Mr. Cortellino then asked that if he got the variance would he
have test borings done.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- September 8th, 1981
Mr. Zysk replied yes, once he got permission to go ahead would
do this to find out if he could go ahead.
Mr. Cortellino then asked why he didn't do it now, it might
influence the answer.
Mr. Zysk replied that why should he go to this expense if he
might not get the variance. He added that if it proves to be too
expensive he would drop the whole matter.
Mr. Mc Millen then noted that Mr. Zysk had some idea where
his four corners would be and why didn!t he drive a pipe down,
saw the rock there thkmk he will hit this.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there were any other questions or was
there anyone present who wished to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that the next appeal # 567 was a
request for a rehearing not a public hearing.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board would look into this when they
returned from their recess.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that Appeal # 568 had been tabled at the
request of Mr. Eichler.
Mrs. Waddle noted that Appeal # 569, at the request of Walter
Heaney was for an interpretation and the Board would discuss this
upstairs.
Appeal # 570, at the request of Lisa Nelson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit the continuation of a house on an existing foundation on
property located on 16 Lakeside Drive, being parcel # 6158-02-623642,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Fred Boehmer of Hosner Mountain Road of Stormville was
present and that the reason for coming for the variance is because
the house is located on a private road.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- September 8th, 1981
Mr. Boehmer noted that the notice had been in the paper and
the neighbors were notified and he wasn't aware of any objections.
Mrs. Waddle then asked how long the existing foundation
had been there.
Mr. Boehmer replied that it had been there for fourteen years.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it had been there for fourteen years
and were just going to build now.
Mr. Boehmer replied yes, it had been occupied by the owner
and then owner's husband past away and they never got the chance
to finish it until now.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there were any questions and was there
anyone present to speak for or against the Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m.
The Board then discussed Mr. Price's request for a rehearing
and it was noted that financial information had been received.
Mr. Mc Millen then moved that a rehearing be granted to Mr. Price
at next month's meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Waddle then commented to Mr. Price that the Board
had granted a rehearing, he is to appear before the Board next month
and that his attorney was aware of this.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that the Board would now take a short
recess.
The Board then reconvened their meeting following the
recess.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-11- September 8th, 1981
With regard to Appeal # 563, at the request of the Dutchess
County Pistol Association, Mr. Cortellino moved that the requested
variance be denied as strict application of the Ordinance would not
produce undue hardship, the property in question would yield a reasonable
return and the hardship created is not unique. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 564, at the request of John and
Marilyn Fiore, Mr. Landolfi moved that the requested variance be
denied as the property in question would yield a reasonable return
and the hardship created is not unique. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 565, at the request of Charles Biuso,
Mr. Mc Millen moved that the requested variance be denied. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 566, at the request of Theodore Zysk,
Mr. Mc Millen moved that a variance be approved for an in -ground
:✓tl pool installation only, if the owner decides to put in an above -ground
pool on the same spot this will not be approved for an above -ground
installation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Waddle noted that Appeal # 567 was for a rehearing which the
Board will hold in October.
Mrs. Waddle noted that Appeal # 568 had been tabled until the
October meeting.
With regard to Appeal # 569, at the request of Walter Heaney
for an interpretation, Mrs. Waddle read the Board's interpretation.
"It is the interpretation that a chiropractic office is a
permitted use in this zone subject to proper site plan approval
and safeguards and restrictions as determined by the Planning Board
and the Zoning Board of Appeals."
With regard to Appeal # 570, at the request of Lisa Nelson,
Mr. Urciuoli moved that the requested variance be approved. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- September 8th, 1981
With regard to Appeal # 555, at the request of Walter Roeper,
Mr. Mc Millen moved that the requested variance be granted. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Waddle then noted that Appeal # 558, at the request of
Jerard Hankin and A.Y. Homes would be tabled pending action by the
Town Board.
With regard to Appeal # 559, at the request of Richard and
Barbara Wiest, Mr. Mc Millen moved that the requested be approved
subject to the same owners operating the store and the office in the
same location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Mr. Cortellino voted nay. Motion was Carried
Mr. Mc Millen then read the following interpretation
of the Board:
"The interpretation on Appeal # 559 on the number of uses
permitted in a General Business zone, the Zoning Board interprets
that one use is permitted per parcel in a General Business zone."
Mr. Cortellino then moved that Central Hudson's request
for a Special Use Permit be referred to the Planning Board.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Mrs. Waddle noted that it was Appeal # 571.
It was noted that there was no other business.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion to adjourn which was seconded by
Mr. Cortellino.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
The meeting was adjourned.
These minutes were transcribed from a tape of the meeting
attended by Mrs. Judy Dugan, Acting Secretary.
Respectfully submitted,
LM6 0- ;rOW
Z.
rs. y- nn uss, Secre ary
Zoning Board of Appeals
br