1981-11-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, November 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
•G. George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle commented that she would like to welcome those
present to the Zoning Board'd meeting and then asked for the roll
call vote;
The roll call was made and all members were present.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if all the abutting property owners
had been notified.
The secretary replied that the abutting property owners and the
appellants had been notified according to the records available in
the Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this evening the process will be that
the Board will hear the cases, take a short recess and then
may or may not come back with an opinion tonight and that if
you cannot wait, you may call the secretary's office in the
morning. The secretary noted that the office would be closed.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that it would be Vetern's Day and that
the office could be called on Thursday.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that first of all she would like
to table Appeals538� Madcb7Auto for the repair and repainting of
motor vehicles and Appeal 577, Barbara Guarino for Special Use Permits
as they are not out of the Planning Board yet, these will be
continued next month. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Zoning Board of Appeals
-2- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone y present for those
cases and noted that she was sorry but these would be next month
as the recommendations are not back from the Planning Board yet.
There was then a question with regard to whether or not
a map was available. Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board did not have
this information at this time, the hearings would be held next month.
Someone then inquired if they would be notified and the secretary
replied that she would send out notices again.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal #p 573, at the request of Robert T. and Sandra A. Clopp,
seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, paragraph 4 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, topoperate the "L'11 Friends
and Company Nursery School" on their property located on 25 Wildwood
Drive, being parcel # 6158-02-978719, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Robert Clopp then came forward and noted that he was not
familar with how the Zoning Board operates -and how it relates, this
is his second appearance before,the Board , the submittal was the
first appearance and now the hearing, will there be a decision on
this tonight.or can it be deferred.
Mrs. Waddle replied that this would depend on the information
the Board has in front of them or if we need further information.
Mr. Clopp then introduced himself noting that he had
been a resident of the area for 16 years, been involved in civic
and other activities in the Town, up until this year,had worked out
of town, kind of coming back home again and part of that would have to
due to my wife who is a school teacher, why are we trying to do this,
will try to relate to that, one thing is economic, causing a problem
in that we all need money, second thing is that my wife is a school
teacher, an unemployed school teacher, who can't get a job, so what
we are trying to do is to use her expertise, we do have a house and
if the business does suceed and we get approval we would look cintb- other
areas to occupy other than the confines of our home and what we are
looking for basically is to earn some extra money with my wife working
and would like to do as there are some questions that came up and
some new information would like to give you those.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- November 10th, 1981
He continued noting that a statement on the hours orfeQperation,
r,r the maximum hours of operation will be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
planned hours will be 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and the minimum
hours would be 9:00 a.m. to twelve, basically the maximum operation
would be three semesters a year, the planned operation would be based
on the Wappinger school district calendar of planned holidays, we will
limit the session to no more than 15 students.
Mr. Cortellino commented that he was confused with regard
to the Wappinger school district schedule and the three semesters,
does this include the summer.
Mr. Clopp noted that it would include the summer and
that there was some concern and heard the number of thirty,
that number of thirty, if broken down would be fifteen students
per session, one session in the morning and one afternoon session.
Mrs. Waddle then asked what time the session in the morning
would end.
Mr. Clopp replied that the mormmmggsession would run from
9:30 a.m. to 12:00, afternoon session would start at 12:30 p.m.
and end at 3:00 p.m., and would also like to make a statement that
we propose to create a day nursery which conforms to the letter and
the spirit of the law and we wish to work with any approporiate
State and local official and will do what is necessary to make whatever
modifications are deemed necessary and then submitted information
to the Board.
He then noted that he had a signed petition from 35 residents
in the neighborhood and would like to submit that. Mr. Clopp submitted
the petition to the Board. Mr. Clopp commented that he had
made some notes and would like to refer to them, it occured to him
that we are looking at a local nursery school, some concern about the
amount of traffic, with 15 we have mostly walkers and we will cater
to the local area if at all possible, working with Mr. Gunderud on
several occasions, as a matter of fact when hesebba Attddmhisr,aDtli.tat on
he had a note from Hans (Mr. Gunderud) which 3AYsTEhat-An ardbrTto
expedite the approval process he would need ten copies of the application,
plans, environmental form, etc. by September 25th, 1981 so these
could be sent out to the Planning Board prior to actual acceptance,
see the flow chart, please call if you have any questions and that was
dated September 25th,Yesubmitted the plan which he believed the Board
had a copy of and would call exhibit "a" and reviewed that plan with
Hans for its completeness and the accuracy of the data, as of today
have heard no response back about that being inadequate from Hans
Zoning Board of Appeals -4-
November 10th, 1981
by the way he did submit a check and that check has cleared, the other
things he -had tried to do and understand that there was a letter
rr from the Planning Board coming back and have gone to many areas to try
to find out what are the requirements to operate a nursery school
in the Town, a list, I called the State and the State sent bim a -l: st
of forms, a whole packet on day care and have communicated with a
representative from the State and was advised by him that you need
nothing to operate a nursery school.
Mrs. Waddle commented as far as the educational process was
concerned.
Mr. Clopp added as far as any process was concerned, you just open
and hatg your shkig4&0 .
Mrs. Waddle noted that this information was wrong.
Mr. Clopp replied that he knew that now and had looked at it
further so what he began to do was to call and find out what were
the requirements and this was when he applied, on the 22nd of September,
clearly'Ataouvoownovbl*oi6hiowbich leads us to where we 'are today
the final hearing on this and what we want to do is live within the
intent of the law, we have opened previously, this question was asked,
and we are operating, were operating at that time without knowing
and operating on the advice of the State which we found was wrong,
so we still have at this point about ten parents who are sending
children and we are working with them and we have also had a number
of people who have asked to join,;we have refused them pending the
Board's decision, there has been indication of some concern and some
question whether this will be granted in own mind at this point
in time, so we have not taken on any additional people, but have
spent a lot of my own time going around to find out what the minimum
requirements are, checked with the State, have read their rules
and assume the Board is familar with them, submitted his form with
that in mind, they require approximately 35 square feet per child,
notice on application it meets that, it meets that both indoors and
outdoors, you will also note that smoke detectors, fire extinguishers,
have gone out of his way to try to meet what was in there, have also
talked to Hans, as a matter of fact Hans was out to the house a
week ago and made some recommendations, one of thmse recommendations
was that he had a problem with garage, .Igaz was waiting to see
what it was in writing beforel-BBaa$e any major alteration to the
garage but we moved the nursery school into the game room, in which we
believe Hans felt that there would be a fire exit and that would be
satisfactory, at least those were the comments made back to him, as
Zoning Board of Appeals
-5- November 10th, 1981
far as parking question, we have taken a look at that and there will
be no parking in his driveway except for the dropping off and
picking up of children.
Mrs. Waddle then asked where would the empl9yeesppark.
Mr. Clopp replied that one employee drives, onm walks,from next
door, the one that walks from next door the car will be parked in
her driveway, our car he ddXVVe iit tbow aIk .
Mrs. Waddle asked if he only had one car.
Mr. Clopp replied that the second car would be parked in a neighbor's
driveway which has been offered but we went -to clebrlyekeep that as ---an
area should there be a safety problem and we are going to do that, we
have asked the teachers and my wife to keep an eye on it, if anyone
stops they will be immediately asked to bring it in and also will
keep reminding the parents, it is important that they do not stop on
Wildwood Drive and that they pull into the driveway. He continued
noting that he got to the point where he called the State back again,
to check again on requirements, they have no requirements for a
nursery school, called the County Health Department, they really don't
have that many requirements, they sent me to day care, took it upon
myself ab that time to find out who is in operation as a nursery
school and thru Hans"bffice he received five applications that have
all been approved with no denials and visited ten nursery schools,
one of them is not in operation andhe would like to submit notes
on each onehe visited and ifhe may read them..
Mrs. Waddle asked if this included the four that have not
come before the Board.
Mr. Clopp answered that he had the � approval of the ones
that came before the Board.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he said he visited ten.
Mr. Clopp noted that he visited ten and would go thru these.
Mrs. Waddle commented that this would meanmmove7twmrkrfocuMderGdnderud.
Mr. Clopp noted that the reason he was mentioning these was to
to show he was looking for what he had to do to meet the nursery school
requirements as far as square footage, what changes diad he have to=make
in parking, what changes clU Ihethemetbomakke-for any other reason,
he visited a number of them, one of them was the Busy Bee - 8 Martin Drive,
it is a raised ranch, similar construction to mine, has a sign in
the front yard, it is held in the garage, these are observations he
made from the street without trespassing, a regular two car driveway,
and it is approved for twelve children, Witham - Hilltop, 19 Cider
Mill Loop, it is a wood raised ranch, it does have a fenced in yard, no
sign, no off-street parking, as a matter of fact the driveway to get to
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- November 10th, 1981 -
the house would take a mountain goat to climb up; sorry for that
comment but it is a steep hill to get to the house, and that was
approved according to what he saw, Ryan - 34 Baldwin in the Apple
Orchard, it is a wood raised ranch, no sign, normal driveway, no
turnaround, no fenced in yard, however,YPW recommendation is that
they have a fenced in yard, it is held in the garage, we have one on
Siena - Aspen DayiNursery, wood raised ranch, no fencing, says no
outdoors, will hold totally indoors, the nursery appears to be in the
basement, it wasn't completed when it was approved, regular driveway,
no turn around, it has no visible exit from the house,from the downstairs,
Little Angels on`A11 Angels Hill Road, it is a stone house, it was
built many years ago, a very old stone building, it has at best what
he would call a fence in the back yard, falling down, it has a looped
driveway off a high speed highway, All Angels Hill Road, it is
heavy trafficV,we have one on Pye Lane, it is a raised ranch,
this was doesn't have adequate parking in hi1s opinion, the nursery
school appears to be held downstairs in the garage area, we have one
on 58 All Angels Hill Road, wooden contemporary, nursery school located
in the basement, off-street parking, entrance to the parking on a
blind curve, both north and south bound is a forty mile an hour
highway on a blind curve, major commuter road to All Angels, no
floors downstairs that he could see, Town Tots - Middlebush Road, it
is a brick house located on a turn near the entrance,'-, about a 45
mile an hour highway, at least that it what he observed, -it is a main
commuter road, heavy traffic, hours of scheduling when schools are
opening and closing, there is a mc3ryorsshho(bl on both sides,of that,
adequate off-street parking, it does have a large parking area and
a fenced in area, nine, the Neighborhood Playmates - it is wood
construction located on what is(23adq Old Route 9, it is right across
from the Evans School, it has a fenced in front, split rail fence,
in the yard, it does have off-street parking, it is a small lot,
the tenth is the Peter Pan Nursery and it is closed, the point that
he was making is that lie went and looked andh-e watiswilling to make changes
but he can't really find out what the continuity, or what exactly has
to be done, point thathe wants to make is that lie %si willing to make
whatever changes are deemed necessary.
Mr. Clopp then noted that he wanted to address the Planning
Board's letter dated October 20th, 1981.and will answer each one of
the questions they had listed. The first question they had on the
useable area of the property is inadequate for twenty of more
children, think we have covered that questiono I agree had enough trouble
raising two children, there is inadequate off-street parking for
the employees and the residents of the dwelling, we will use the
driveway, that is what we are using now until we are advised
what other changes may have to be made, there is no area for the
discharge and picking up of children without causing a serious hazard,
he didn't understand that one, Wildwood Drive, this has been a bus, stop
Zoning Board of Appeals
-7- November 10th, 1981
for as long as ,.he -had lived there and he h;ad- never heard that this posed
a hazard, don't understand this, if this is a hazard why hasn't it
beenchanged and brought to the attention of the school, shouldn't
the Planning Board do this.
The Board expalined that was school district policy and if
the homeowners in the area felt it was a hazard they could and should
contact the school district and the school board.
Mrs. Waddle also noted that there was quite a difference
between a school bus which can be visibally seen than a car,
problem with cars dropping children off and children running across
and in.
Mr. Clopp noted that they would enforce the dropping off in the
driveway and that he has liability insurance and it is in his
best interests to see that it is safe.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she had given her opinion on the
differences between a school bus and a private car and that this
could be brought to the attention of the schoold district by any
private citizen.
Mr. Clopp noted that until the Planning Board notified him
he was unaware of a ihazard, the roadway does not lend itself
to the discharge and picking up of children, think we have made
changes to that to alleviate that concern, we will police it with
the teachers, will police it with the parents and we will keep an
eye on that situation, heggaessed hti thILe_zpbiit i fiat%e< -,that there
is no new information that hehhad, just want to ask at this stage of
the junction did not know what else he could do or should be doing
in the way of an issue and just ask if there are any more concerns
of the Board that he hadn't addressed yet.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that he wanted to'point out he thought
nursery schools or day care centers as such, as the economy
keeps getting worse, and not just because your wife cannot find
a job, but because my wife or somebody else's wife might have
to go to work there is a definite need for it, we are not here
to knock down the purpose of the nursery school but in looking
at the property the way the house in this particular situation
is situated on that corner, it is neither facing Wildwood or
Brian, it is kind of half and half, it is a very awkward situation,
when he looked at it, maybe part of the solution to this unsafe
situation of unloading the children and whatnot, think part of the
problem in his mind is that you don't have a parent coming at
7:30 a.m. and the next one scheduled to come at 7:40 a.m., the next
one to come at 7:50 a.m., you are going to have several of them
arriving at the same time, you might have four of them there at
the same time, you might have all ten or all fifteen, conceivably
Zoning Board of Appeals
-8- November 10th, 1981
within the first half hour. Mr. Clopp interjected if they were
`r. all driving. Mr. Urciuoli added that was right but there was no
way to distinguish between this year, this semester to next semester,
in all fairness, perhaps if there was some way. Mr. Clopp commented
that they could have staggered hours. Mr. Urciuoli continued that
he didn't know if that was feasible or how the Board would feel
about it, but maybe off of Brian if there was a way that a path,
not talking about a parking area, talking about where you could drive
into Brian, park the car and walk from Brian into the house without
having to go over the lawn.
Mrs. Clopp then commented that Gary Bloom lived next door to them
and they had offered as they are not there all day long, that we
could have them park there off Brian and cross thru their yard
to our house.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that Gary could sell this house.and you are
right back into the same situation, trying to give a situation where
they would be totally independent, on your own.
Mrs. Clopp then commented that the Board had mentioned
about what happens if they al& arrive at the same time, what about
all these other housesthat we rode around and looked at, doesn't this
happen to them too, a lot of them were approved for two car and three
car parking, am sure they must have five or six people arriving
at the same time, how do you handle that, what do they do.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to interject something
about all these places that were visited and didn't know if
they knew or not but some of these places are not people's homes
they are strictly for nursery schools, there is a difference,
and that the Board is going to be looking at these again but right
now the Clopps do have a principal permitted use where they are and
that is their home, this would be a second principal use,'which
is really not permitted under the zoning ordinance, if they were
not living in the house and you wanted an nursery school that would
be a principal permitted use, this way they are asking for two,
we are going to be relooking at all the nursery schools where
people are living in their homes and have nursery schools.
Mr. Clopp asked if this was a change.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was not a change, have been with
our attorney.
Mr. Clopp noted that he applied on September 20th, have
gone thru and at this point, and Board had sent out notices and he
had never heard, got a copy of the schedule of regulations from
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- November 10th, 1981
the zoning ordinance on the residential district and on there
it is defining this as a Special Use, you are saying that this
can no longer be there.
Mr. Mc Millen noted that on the top of the schedule it refers
to permitted uses.
Mr. Clopp replied permitted principal uses, does this
then apply to doctors' offices, are you saying that they can't
operate.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this @t@ under a different
area of the ordinance, what Mrs. Waddle was referring to
is that principal usually means one.
Mrs. Waddle commented one use.
Mr. Cortellino noted that she also said that the other
examples that were cited will be reviewed to see, even though
it is apparent that the majority of those mentioned people
are living in the homes, these will be reviewed because this
interpretation came in fairly recently.
Mr. Clopp then asked when did this come up, this seems
totally to be
y new and you have taken his money and his time
and you are saying now that there has been a change in what he
filed under.
Mrs. Waddle replied no; there is not a change, it is a
permitted use.
Mr. Mc Millen noted it was a permitted use if they wished to move
out of the home.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was an interpretation from the
Board's attorney to the Zoning Inspector and this was a recent
interpretation and he would not necessarily have seen it.
Mr. Cortellino commented that just as applicants make
inquiries, the Board and Mr. Gunderud also make inquiries,
he had made a inquiry and this was the answer that came down,
now this causes
Mr. Clopp commented that this was a change.
Mr. Cortellino commented that Mr. Clopp kept using the
word change, this is not a change, it is a recent interpretation
by the Town Attorney, it is fairly recently within the past two
weeks .
Mr. Clopp noted that he would like to know the date on this.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-10- November 10th, 1981
Mr. Gunderud replied that it was yesterday.
Mr. Clopp, commented yesterday, November 9th,
Mr. Gunderud asked Mr. Clopp if he had gotten a copy.
Mr. Clopp replied that he hadn't seen anything.
Mr. Gunderud noted that he had delivered a copy.
Mr. Clopp asked who it was delivered to.
Mr. Gunderud replied that it was delivered to the house,
to Mr. Clopp's son who took it.
Mr. Clopp replied no, he isn't home, he leaves, Mrs. Clopp
added that her son's leaves for swim iia they do not see
him.
Mr. Gunderud commented that he believed that they had
seen it.
Mrs. Clopp added that he might have it in his swim bag,
we do not see him, when she got home he was not there, wecadon't
see him to normally around 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Clopp asked if this was being submitted for the record.
Mr. Gunderud then commented that a member of the Town council
called him this evening and made him aware that this letter was
known to the Clopps today.
Mr. Clopp answered that he had not seen this letter.
Mr. Gunderud commented that he would stand by his statement.
Mr. Clopp then noted that he would like to read it for the
record.
Mr. Clopp then read the following memo.
MEMO TO: Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Insp. & Zoning Admin.
SUBJECT: Clopp - review of Special Use Permit application
DATE: November 10, 1981
In the course of my complete review of this application and
after verification with the Town Attorney, please be advised that a
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- November 10th, 1981
day nursery/nursery school/day care center is not permitted in this
' case as it would constitute a second principal use on a lot, where
our zoning regulations allow one si4gle principal use per lot.
The single-family dwelling is the permitted principal use in this
case.
Mrs. Waddle noted that based on this the Board would be
reviewing all the other nursery schools where people are living
within the house and operating nursery schools.
Mr. Clopp then asked if he may ask what prompted this at this time,
what caused this to come up.
Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board is constantly reviewing
the ordinance with the attorney.
Mr. Clopp cbmmehted that he would have to be very candid
with the Board, have been receiving an awful lot, hearing a lot
of rumors and innuendos on his application, from what started out
to be a rather straight forwarded application it has seemed to turn
into something a little bit different from that, and to have this
occur along with the whole other litany of Atege that have happened,
just don't understand it, am a little bit confused about the
timing, is it something dealing with his application, is it
something personal, is it something where someone maybia: being
vindictive.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she had no knowledge of any rumors
or innuendos or whatever, have ridden by the property, haven't
talked to Mr. Clopp or his wife, but have looked at the property,
we have had no pressure from the Town Board, Planning Board,
or any neighbors in Wildwood or anything like that, at least was
speaking for herself and she had not, and was sure if any member of
the Board has, they would excuse themselves fmie deciding on this
case one way or another and would expect that from any member of the
Board.
Mr. Clopp asked if Mrs. Waddle had talked to anyone about this.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she had not talked to anyone
in regard to this except the Zoning Administrator, which she felt
that she was free to do when we discuss a case.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the only people who had contacted
him were two people who wanted to bring forward the application
and a member of the Zoning Board.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- November 10th, 1981
Mr. Cortellino noted that with regard to Mr. Clopp's
original question, very often time, especially if we think
there will be an aggressive or rea
gg ppeal, to a court, for instance
from his manner he assumed that it would not drop here, perhaps
might obtain the services of an attorney and go to court, we
invariably ask the attorney for an opinion, Mr. Clopp is not unique,
we have asked for the attorney's many time to guide the Board,
we may- not necessarily follow what the attorney says, we use,
call many times, perhaps we should have called the attorney in earlier
in other cases except it didn't come up..
Mr. Clopp commented as he reads that it is a statement of
policy, that is his understanding,
Mr. Cortellino added that it was not policy, it was an
interpretation of the ordinance.
Mr. Clopp commented that it was an out and out direct
statement.
Mrs. Waddle noted that unfortunately everything in the
zoning ordinance is open to interpretation.
Mr. Clopp commented that he wasn't aware of thi$, la.ard to believe,
regardless of the wording.
Mrs. Waddle added that his perception could be correct.
Mr. Cortellino commented that some of the Board's cases are
requests for interpretations, this is quite common, ask what does
this paragraph mean and it has to be decided.
Mr. Clopp commented then a he reads this it appears that there
is no way that he could be granted a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Cortellino and Mrs. Waddle noted that was the implication.
Mr. Clopp then asked if it was just coincidential that
it happened to arrive here, the twelfth hour of his appeal.
Mr. Cortellino commented no, it depend on how you view it,
in other words after Mr. Clopp started his appeal,
Mr. Clopp noted that he filed in September never having seen
any denied before.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-13- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle noted that the case had just come back from the
-
114W Planning Board, the Planning Board recommended against it, as ke
well knew, that was their recommendation to us, then it came back
to us this month, this is the first time we are officially hearing
the case, we or rather Hans contacted the Town Attorney for an opinion
on this to aid us in out decision.
Mr. Clopp asked why on this case and not on any
others.
Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board does on other cases:
Mr. Clopp asked why this wasn't addressed on any other case
and asked the Board to remember the background information he had
given them, been kind of unusual from what he had been hearing,
even, did the Board have the Fire Inspector's report, is there
a fire inspector.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she believed that Mr. Gunderud was
the chief inspector.
Mr. Gunderud replied no, there is now a Fire Prevention
Bureau, there are at least two from each fire district, no report
has been submitted from the Fire Inspector, the Fire Prevention Board
did review the application and that is in the package.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this would only be one consideration
in the case.
Mr. Clopp commented that it was the way it came to him, let -him
quote, . it-io l ugrynintetebtingl; bhang and want to establish it, it
came to himtrfmom a good friend of theirs, who is also operating a
day care nursery school, and the fire inspector went up to her
and told her right out that she would be happy to know that he had
just closed down her competition, and he found that amazing.
Mrs. Waddle suggested that Mr. Clopp take that up with the
fire inspector.
Mr. Clopp noted the he relied on the Board, haven't done this
before.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this would have no bearing on whether
the Special Use Permit is issued, that would be if a permit were
granted the.Board would ask for fire department reommendations
and compliance with these before the business is started, would then
come into play, not before.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14-
November 10th, 1981
Mr. Clopp noted that the Board was saying this would have
no bearing.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it would have a bearing with regard
to what restrictions might be placed, ask that these be followed,
such as smoke detectors and fire extingusihers and exits, would
ask that these type of things be done, would be restriction as part
of the permit.
Mr. Clopp then noted that there has been no one on his
property representing the fire department unless it was Hans.
Mrs. Waddle replied that they would necessarily be there
until the Board asked them.
Mr. Clopp said he believed the Board did in their
request.
Mr. Gunderud then explained that the application had been
sent to the various agencies for review and the fire prevention
board was one of these, the board just goewzVe� *_Y rs
which are received, they do not make an inspection at that time.
It was noted that the secretary to the Zoning Board
is also the secretary to the Planning Board with regard to
responses due back.
Mr. Gunderud added that if an inspector did make an inspection
of the property it was outside of the authority or request of
the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Mrs. Clopp then asked if this recent interpretation on
single-family dwellings would apply to other nursery schools, this
applies only to nursery schools, not doctors.
Mrs. Waddle noted that an interpretation was just that,
an interpretation, the final dbmdi9Ed= rests with the Zoning Board
this is the official interpretation of the Town,Attorney, the
Board can accept that interpretation or we can grant a variance or
a special use permit, have to get into his mind the word interpretation.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-15- November 10th, 1981
Mr. Clopp commented that reading that as an outsider,
you are famil.at with it, he is not, has taken a lot of his time
to do this, and was even at the point where he visited several
lawyers, which is obvious, you know what the interesting
conclusion - none of them would represent him, you know why -
statement quote "I understand that the Mills are against you
operating a day school or a child care center" quote, unquote,
felt that it would be a conflict of interest, that was the first
indication, getting a lot of indications that he had problems,
and didn't mean to bring it up because he had been cooperative
and doing everything he could until he started running into
these kinds of situations and as a taxpayer and a resident he
had to ask what's happening, that was why his intent, didn't mean to
accuse anyone here but they had to understand where he was, am
naive on the inner workings of the Board, what he was hearing
being turned down and told he couldn't be represented, because
of a conflict of interest, for that reason, and he knew Bernice
she had been his neighbor for years, she is a very strong individual,
and has her own personal convictions,
Mrs. Waddle added that Mrs. Mills was not here to defend
herself this evening.
Mr. Clopp replied that she was welcome to come, there was
a public notice.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she couldn't speak for the other
members of the Board but was sure that none of the Town Board
members had spoken to them,
Mr. Mc Millen commented that no one individual or no one
family holds that much power in this Town, okay, if that did happen
we would be in sad trouble, and was sorry to hear something like this.
Mr. Clopp commented that he apologized for bringing it,up-,'but it
had bothered him.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she was sorry too as she read the minutes of
the Plann ngraoaidubfswhfch Mr. Mills is a member, she saw that he
abstained and also did Mr. Fanuele who also lives in.the Wisldwood
development, they both abstained and was sure that they don't want
to be accused of having a conflict of interest in this Town, they
are both prominent people,
Mr. Clopp noted that he hadn't read the minutes and was only
stating the fact of one person who he asked to represent him, asked
two and the comment of the one was exactly that.
Mr. Clopp noted in light of the fire inspector's comment,
been seeing these strange little missiles, like this one here tonight
was a very nice offering, you gotta say, can't be naive that all
this is coincidental; got to raise some doubt, put yourselves
in his ppetp,has there Qmwr been a special use permit turned down
for this nature, a nursery school or day care center in the
history of the Town.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he was correct and maybe that was
our mistake, on the Zoning Board of Appeals, we have been very
lienient on the Zoning Board of Appeals and think we all need to
tighten up and take a closer look at not only this application
but every other appeal that is before the Board.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he felt that the answer would have
to be that the Board has gone into depth on other appeals, carry
them over and do soul searching and what not before granting
the variances.
Mrs. Martin then came forward and noted that her daughter
attends the nursery school and had heard about a concern on safety
but that she didn't feel that it was unsafe street, she drops off
two children and then the other mother picks them up, pull in
the driveway, take their hands and walk them in, they don't head for
the street, they are so excited to go to school the first thing they
do is to head for the front door and don't think that any responsible
mother would just let her child take off.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she was correct but that they could
not monitor every mother that drops a child off,
Mr. Cortellino then cited an example where he almost struck a child
who ran in front of the mother's car and was on his blind side, luckily
was only going ten miles an hour and was able to stop, children do
this.
Mrs. Martin then added that she agreed but the thing she was trying
to point out was that the children stay indoors, they are not allowed
out, you have to come in and get your child, it is a good program
and her daughter had learned so much and hate to see them not even
be given the chance to get this off the ground.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mrs. Martin for her comments.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-16-
November 10th, 1981
Mr. Mc Millen commented
that he thought
that it was probably
an off-the-cuff comment, can
honestly say he
hadn't been contacted.
Mr. Clopp noted in light of the fire inspector's comment,
been seeing these strange little missiles, like this one here tonight
was a very nice offering, you gotta say, can't be naive that all
this is coincidental; got to raise some doubt, put yourselves
in his ppetp,has there Qmwr been a special use permit turned down
for this nature, a nursery school or day care center in the
history of the Town.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he was correct and maybe that was
our mistake, on the Zoning Board of Appeals, we have been very
lienient on the Zoning Board of Appeals and think we all need to
tighten up and take a closer look at not only this application
but every other appeal that is before the Board.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he felt that the answer would have
to be that the Board has gone into depth on other appeals, carry
them over and do soul searching and what not before granting
the variances.
Mrs. Martin then came forward and noted that her daughter
attends the nursery school and had heard about a concern on safety
but that she didn't feel that it was unsafe street, she drops off
two children and then the other mother picks them up, pull in
the driveway, take their hands and walk them in, they don't head for
the street, they are so excited to go to school the first thing they
do is to head for the front door and don't think that any responsible
mother would just let her child take off.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she was correct but that they could
not monitor every mother that drops a child off,
Mr. Cortellino then cited an example where he almost struck a child
who ran in front of the mother's car and was on his blind side, luckily
was only going ten miles an hour and was able to stop, children do
this.
Mrs. Martin then added that she agreed but the thing she was trying
to point out was that the children stay indoors, they are not allowed
out, you have to come in and get your child, it is a good program
and her daughter had learned so much and hate to see them not even
be given the chance to get this off the ground.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mrs. Martin for her comments.
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. O' Neill noted that her child will be twoY ears old
on Friday and attends the nursery, she drives in and takesher child
inside, the teachers keep her in the house until she returns for
her, feel her child is absolutely safe there, don't want to see the
program ended because there are not as many people who have the patience
and who are willing to take a two year old, and to do the marvelous
things with a two year old that they are doing with her daughter
and other children in the program who are getting remarkable
things coming out of this, keep hearing about safety, her child is
a very activec"d busy child,not once has she ever walked out of that
house without her, saying about access in other area, feel there
is no other than walking across the lawn or going thru a stockage
fence with a gate, don't feel it is a problem.
Mrs. Waddle thanked her for her comments.
Mrs. Clopp then noted that Mr. Urciuoli had suggested
having access from Brian, was he referring to a path, a walkway
or in other words if a walkway was added to the property, a flagstone
walkway, something like that so people would be able to actually
walk on the grass but would have an accredited path, would they
feel that this would be acceptable so that the cars would not be
stopping on Wildwood or in the driveway but on Brian.
Mr. Urciuoli replied that this would be another way of helping,
if someone was in the driveway what would he do if he wasddrppping
his child off.
Mrs. Clopp noted so if there was this access also this would
give another, there would be room for four cars.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that they were trying to help, got to
believe it, are trying to help, it may not seem like it but that
is why the Board is spending its time here also.
Mrs. Clopp noted that they could provide this walkway if it would
help.
Mrs. Waddle replied that this was something that would have to
be discussed.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that they hadn't gone thru a winter
yet, thinking about what happens on those icy, snowy days or after
you have had 8 to 10 ittdtmm of snow and have snow banks, where do you
go, there is a hazardous situation on this corner.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- November 10th, 1981
Mr. Clopp noted that this was a good suggestion and he
hadn't thought of it but that he could keep this plowed.
Mrs. Waddle noted.that there was another lady who wished
to speak.
Mrs. Schlenker commented that there had been talk about
safety but what about noise, have all summer from 8:00 to 4:00
in the afternoon, we are elderly people, we want to sell our
house once too, didn't think it is right, hear the kids screaming
from morning to night and sometimes the children don't
want to go and they scream.
Mrs. Waddle thanked her for her comments.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she wanted to thank Mr. Clopp
for his presentation, the Board would take everything under
advisement and she would ask at this time that the two members
of the Board who do live in Wildwood abstain in this case to prevent
any perception on the part of him or any of the Town of favorable
treatment or unfavorable treatment.
Mr. Clopp commented that he didn't mean to raise that question.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it has been raised and she wanted to
keep the Board in a good light, that the perception of the people
is that the Board is fair, is honest and are not prejudiced and
think that this is one way of doing it if these gentlemen will
cooperate.
Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Landolfi signified that they would
cooperate with Mrs. Waddle.
No one else wished to be heard and the hearing was closed
at 8:55 p.m.
Appeal # 578, at the request of George Urciuoli, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow an addition to a commercial use which exceeds
the permitted floor area ratio to lot size, on property located on
Route 9D, irrrthe NB Zone, being parcel # 6157-01-070628, in the
Town of Wappinger.
zoning Board of Appeals -19- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice and noted''that Mr. Urciuoli
would be abstaining from voting and dicussion on this matter.
Mr. Urciuoli inti rvdux)s " himself and noted that he resided
on River Road North in Chelsea and that the reason for the request
was that the building he was now operating from is somewhat
deceivi4g due°ta atcenteishall�situation+ A -16t of floor space in the
building is utilized by this center hall so we lose a lot of square
footage in the building, the other reason is also upstairs we have
what used to be called a tax floor where the ceilings are very low
and sloped, so if you actually multiply the square footage out,
the thirty percent of the lot coverage would exceed the lot but if
you actually look at the physical building it is somewhat deceiving,
so what we are trying to do is to gain, to put a dormer up and raise
it out twenty feet.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this does take the place of where he
had the back deck.
Mr. Urciuoli replied yes, it would probably go about five feet
past the back deck. ,
Mrs. Waddle then asked about the septicesystem.
Mr. Urciuoli replied that everything was out in the back lawn and
then presented a drawing to the Board indicating the septic and
well location, and noted that this would not interfer, nothing
would interfer with the septic or the well, that was one of the reasons
for going out twenty feet rather than twenty-five or anything more than
that.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he was extending the parking lot
also.
Mr. Urciaoli replied that the parking lot now goes all the way
to the back, asi.it is now, that is existing, nothing would dha
there.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he had visited the site and had
no problems.
Mrs. Waddle then asked the other Board members if they
had any questions.
There were no questions.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else here who
wished to speak for or against the appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals
_20_ November 10th, 1981
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Appeal # 579, at the request of Salvator A. Rega, seeking a
variance of Section 411.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit him to subdivide his property which does not meet the R-80
zoning requirements, said property is located on Smithtown Road,
being parcels numbered 6156-02-949899 and 61.56-02-984923, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Rega was present and noted that he had been before the
Board on two occasions, sure you are familar with the main thrust of
his appeal, your last recommendation was that he go back to the
Town Board and request a zoning change, we went thru that, it took a
long time and finally it was turned down and on the recommendation
of Mr. Johnson he was told to come back to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
which he was now doing, now there is a new member to the Board
here may not be familar with the situation and if hesasearbsmhlm he
is, will skip tohatapaptrt .
Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board could bring him up to speed
from the past minutes of the meetings.
Mr. Rega continued noting that he had asked the Board to help
him out of a diel, when this Board turned him down, he was he thought
at the end of the rope, but he wants to bring out one thing that
this property was bought way back in 1966, and he bought it with
the sole purpose of maintaining it as in investment, knew someday
the property could be sold but was unaware, thought entirely
that he did not know about the zoning change, the zoning change came
thru, found out he was locked in entira,y, what was done on this
change put him in the position where this property can never be utilized,
his desire are concerned, it consists of lk acres, severed by a
12 to 16 foot right-of-way, where his house is located it is located
on the smaller portion of the property and on the easterly line he has
another 1.2 acres which adjoins this, now he has asked this Board
for permission to redraw his lines so that the 1.2 acres will adjoin,
meet up with the 77bundredths of an acre to conform a conforming lot
and what is now a non -conforming lot parcel joining up with the
parcel of the first part will now leave him with 1� acres with a
new line drawn and that will be a non -conforming plot, with that
piece of property there it then becomes a potentially saleable
property and asks the Board to help him accomplish this, he didn't
know what more he could say.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle commented that she felt the Board knew the case.
Mr. Rega then asked if there were any questions the Board would
like to ask him.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked bn number Bwo, did he have a
separate deed for that parcel, for where the house is now, does he
have a separate deed for parcel number three, correct, where his
house is now.
Mr. Rega replied yes.
Mr. Mc Millen asked if he was using part of reference two
property as his right-of-way to that property, correct.
Mr. Rega Replied yes.and added that reference two and reference
three are now what he hoped to aocaIL:LbhhWer_e.
Mr. Mc Millen noted so the basic setup now is that one piece
of property located on reference three, we have one house parcel
located on a non -conforming Yot, correct.
Mr. Mc Millen then noted no we don't, the house is located on
reference number two, correct.
Mr. Rega replied yes.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked if there were any buildings on
reference number three, cort, that is the lot he bought later.
Mr. Rega replied only trees.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked if reference number one and
reference number two were all on one separate deed, right, that is
not a problem.
Mrs. Waddle noted that reference one and reference two were
on one deed, okay now how big is reference two again.
Mr. Mc Millen noted that it was one deed and was 2.29,
and reference three was non -conforming, if the house was located
on there it could be changed and made into a conforming lot,
feel it would be improving the non -conforming but unfortunately
the house was located on it too.
Zoning Board of Appeals -22 November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
s to be heard.
Mrs. Lilly noted that her property adjoins Mr. Rega
and didn't see why he can't get a variance, it is a large piece of
property, it was changed to R-80 from R-40, we didn't know this,
we weren't advised, they didn't tell us anything, wasn't until
after Mr. Rega's prolAb6m, told us we were R-80 which didn't matter
in their case but that's not the point, you just don't know, here
one minute gone the next.
Mrs. Waddle commented that this was in the newspapers and they held
public hearings on it over an extended period of time, as a matter of
fact believe it was three or four years that this was worked on.
Mr. Rega noted that he wanted to impress on the Board one
particular point which he found very disturbing, if this appeal
is denied, what is going to happen to this piece of property
across the road, it is separated by a well travelled road,
a private road, right-of-way was there when he bought.
Mr. Mc Millen commented that he inherited it, was aware
of it, at that time would have been able to subdivide it,
true.
Mr. Rega replied that he was aware and it was true that he
would have been able to subdivide before, now it was not for him to
ask the Board to deny or give it to him, want to point out that
this is something he saved his money for, if he can't dispose of
this property at his age, where could he go, was 70 years of age, a
senior citizen and thought he deserved certain consideration.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he deserved the same consideration
that every other citizen deserved.
Mr. Rega commented that he felt his.position should be
considered and that he would like to reiterate,'won't be able to
dispose of this piece of property, if he sold his home now,
he wouldn't be able to get rid of it, who would but it, might not
buy if he knows he can't do anything with it,
Mrs. Waddle noted that you could look at the other side of the
coin in that someone might not want anything next to them.and asked
if he had tried to sell the property.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-23- November 10th, 1981
He replied no, the whole thing hinges on what will
happen to his appeal here, the realtor told him he would have
a difficult problem selling his property if he has this appendage,
someone who looks at that property and says what can they do with
it, can't sell it to anyone there as it would be breaking up
a property and as he sees it he thin*s it is only right and
proper that he be permitted to put his property in harmony, the
Town will not be adversely affected in any way, if the property
was put up for sale and someone buys it, he will fell the trees,
clean up the property, build a house on it, the Town will collect
taxes, as it stands now they will not, if he was to sell his
house, was told by a fellow that he didn't want the other part,
now he has to sell the house, doesn't want other, what will happen,
is he barred from selling his house,
Mrs. Waddle replied that he was not barred from selling the
house, this is between him, the real estate agent and whoever will
buy the house, it is one big parcel and they would have to
understand that.
Mr. Rega noted that he couldn't sell as he wanted.
Mr. Mc Millen replied he would have to subdividean order to
break this piece off of this two acres, he wouldn't be able to
do this, would leave him with a non -conforming lot.
Mr. Rega then commented that he didn't know the ins and outs
of these things but thought and hoped that the Board will look at
it his way.
Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board would try to come to an ;rt,
equitable solution not only for him but for the Town also and thanked
Mr. Rega.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to speak on this appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that at this time the Board would take
a short recess.
Zoning Board of Appeals -24- November 10th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle reconvened the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
With regard to Appeal ## 573, at the request of Robert T. and
Sandra A. Clopp, Mrs. Waddle made a motion to table this for
further study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mc Millen.
Motion Was Carried
With regard to Appeal # 578, at the request of George Urciuoli,
Mr. Landolfi made a motion that the appeal be granted. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Urciuoli abstained
Motion Was Carried
With regard to Appeal # 579, at the request of Salvator A. Rega,
Mr. Mc Millen moved that Appeal ## 579 be granted. Mr. Landolfi
seconded the motion.
Mr. Cortellino voted nay
Motion Was Carried
OLV Mr. Mc Millen then moved that the Board adjourn. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Motion Was Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
r
(Mrs etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zonin Board of Appeals
br
UNAPPROVED