Loading...
1981-12-08The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, December 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 Members Absent: Donald Mc Millen G. George Urciuoli Others Present: Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to welcome those present at the Zoning Board's meeting and then explained that the Board will hear the cases and then may or may not render a decision on each case and that tonight they would be starting a new procedure by swearing people in who wish to speak. Mrs. Waddle then explained to Mr. Clopp that the Board would have to table action on his application as they would not have a quorum to vote on it. She explained that two members were absent, one thru happy circumstances as Mr. Urciuoli's wife had a baby girl. Mr. Clopp then asked about the time limit. Mrs. Waddle replied that it was out of their control, two members have to abstain and two members are absent, cannot vote on the case. It was noted that the time starts when the application is received by the Board which in this case was the October 10th meeting and the Board has ninety days. Mr. Gunderud noted that he had spoken to the Town Attorney about it and this was confirmed. Mrs. Waddle then asked for the roll call vote. The roll call vote was taken. Mrs. Waddle then asked if the abutting property owners and the appellants 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. Zoning Board of Appeals -2- December 8th, 1981 PUBLIC HEARINGS: Appeal # 576, at the request of James A. Klein and David Alexander, seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to operate a Maaco Auto Business for the repair and repainting of motor vehicles on property located on Route 9, being parcel # 6157-02-687634, adjacent to Mid -Hudson Contractors Supply, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. Kenneth C. Russ was present and Mrs. Waddle swore him in. Mr. Russ noted that the property was in an HB - 2 zone, however, the new zoning ordinance requires that a Special Use Permit be obtained and that site plans had been submitted and sent out and he believed the Zoning Board had gotten a positive recommmendation back from the Planning Board. Mr. Landolfi noted that the Planning Board had some comments with regard to various approvals being obtained. Mr. Russ replied that they would need Department of Transportation approval, Health Department approval, the proplew,, with D.O.T. is that they require a six to eight week review period now and that is why the Planning Board did not have their comments back and it was subject to their approval. The Board looked over the plan and noted that they had no further questions. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to be heard on this Appeal. Mrs. Concetta Olivieri noted that she had received a letter from the Board and had some questions and concerns. She noted that she was concerned that the entrance would be on Hopewell Road and that here child waits nearby for the school bus and is concerned about this. Mr. Russ noted that K&ein and Alexander own this piece of land behind Mid -Hudson Contractors and the reason this strip of .land was left was for a possible feeder road to run from the Lloyds' property to Hopewell Road, this is the only reason this is shown, the only entrance will be off of Route 9. Zoning Board of Appeals -3- December 8th, 1981 Mrs. Oliveri noted that the dirt road is used by the rental places and that there is also another small access to other property and is concerned and worried that something will happen there and on this strip, also what about her well water and run off, it now runs down the back and follows the natural drainage course, will this change, what about noise pollution, how safe will this operation be, my well and septic, will the paint go into the ground. Mrs. Waddle noted that this would be subject to D.O.T. approval, Health Department approval, these are the agencies we must depend on for that type of input. Mr. Russ then commented what he thought we should do for the record especially since somebody is here is that Mid-Hudson.Contractors have no permit whatsoever to be using Hopewell Road, if they are using it, they are using it illegally. Mrs. Oliveri replied that she didn't know if it was them or their customers, that is a very dangerous hill, school bus stop is there and cars have passed the buses, someone could be killed there. Mr. Russ.replidd that regardless of who is using it, it is illegal, there is no permit to get accessoan Hopewell Road. Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gunderud if he was aware of this situation. Mr. Gunderud replied that he saw one ups truck there last week and thought he was dropping off at Mid -Hudson Conttaetoos and thought that if Mr. Klein was made aware think he would do something to prevent it. Mrs. Oliveri noted that when she first moved there this access was blocked off by piles of dirt, these are not there now, they have been removed, it is an open dirt road, it is very dangerous, there is also a large bush on the gas station property that should be removed, can't see the hill when you pull out of there. Mr. Russ commented that Klein and Alexander do not use it, they. used it at one time when they were hauling shale out and would probably use it again for that purpose, but you are coming out with a ten wheeler where a guy is sitting up eight feet in the air is a little different then a car he thought that if the Zoning Administrator asked they would be glad to block what they own:_-�©ff, will close off on our property, all the grading on this site and the drainage, everything we are doing, is all sloped to Route 9, it can't possibly affect anybody. Zoning Board of Appeals -4- December 8th, 1981 Mrs. Oliveri noted that she was concerned about the drainage, when Taylor Rental went in thavy took a lot of shah out, assume that same would happen here. Mr. Russ replied that they would be removing shah but it would not change the property near her, are only working in an area large enough to get the building and some parking, are not going way up in the back, all will be cut down and will go to State drainage system on Route 9, so we will be below you so it can't affect you. Mrs. Oliveri then asked what about the noise. Mr. Russ replied that it would all be contained within the building. Mrs. Oliveri noted that she gets noise from just the rental place, now, are just testing saws and stuff. Mrs. Waddle commented that she thought in an area like that where there is commercial establishments up and down Route 9 you are going to get some nosie and was sorry but did not think there was much the Board could do about it that. Mrs. Oliveri again asked about the storm drainage. Mr. Russ replied that the storm drainage is in on Route 9, this development of the property should be twenty feet lower than her property, we will not be going too far back and then explained the site plan to Mrs. Oliveri noting that the 15 foot right-of-way would not be touched, this should be at least 100 feet from her property, the fifteen foot right-of-way has no real value, will be coming in and out of Route 9, would be using Hopewell Road only to haul out shale. Mrs. Waddle then explained to Mrs. Oliveri that the Board would probably adopt a resolution which would have restrictions of the Board of Health approval, the D.O.T. approval, fire department approval, and the Building Inspector, all these agencies get involved. Mrs. Oliveri commented that she hoped that they would look into this. Zoning Board of Appeals -5- December 8th, 1981 No one else present wished to be heard. Mr. Cortellino then moved to grant the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Dutchess County DepartmentcJof Health - shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Approval of the New York State Department of Transportation shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Sufficient radius must be present at the top of the entrance for fire apparatus. 4. The Fire Prevention Bureau recommends that the entiance drive be 25' wide with a "No Parking"zone delineated on both sides for its entire length. 5. The building plans shall be supplied to and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau in accordance with the Fire Precention Law of the Town of Wappinger. 6. Provisions for erosion control shall be made and approved by the Building Inspector. 7. Signs shall conform with the requirements of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance unless a variance is first obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 8. Downstream drainage fee of $ .15 a square foot"for newly covered roofed areas and areas covered by impervious material shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. Department of Labor approval shall be vbbained prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi and was carried. Roll Call Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciuoli - absent 4 Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Mc Millen - absent Zoning Board of Appeals -6- December 8th,. 1981 The hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Appeal # 577, at the request of Barbara Guarino, seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, paragraph 5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Orfinance, to permit her to operate a home for the aged on property located on Route 82, consisting of 2.5+ acres, being parcel # 6356-01-282945, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. Russ noted that he was representing Mr. and Mrs. Guarino who should be here shortly and could perhaps better explain• what they planned to do. Mrs. Waddle noted that Mr. Russ was considered to be sworn in for the duration of his appearance before the Board tonight. Mrs and Mrs. Guarino then arrived and Mrs. Waddle swore them in. Mr. Russ commented that perhaps the Guarinos could explain what this entails. Mr. Guarino noted that the facility is to care for the elderly, there is a minimum amount of care involved, for their basic needs, they can't live by themselves. Mr. Cortellino commented that they would be basically self-sufficient. Mr. Guarino noted that there would be thirty people maximum, would start with 24 people. Mr. Landolfi noted that they mentioned that there would be four people employed. Mr. Guarino replied that they would probably be nurses aides, not L.P.N.'s or nurses and that he had a letter from a doctor who would be on call. Mr. Guarino presented the letter to the Board. He added that the doctor would visit the facility, the doctor would be on call and his name is Dr. Clement Landanno. Mr. Landolfi then commented about the four employees and visitor parking, is it enough. Mr. Russ replied that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance and unfortunately these people do not generally get too many visitors. Zoning Board of Appeals -7- December 8th, 1981 Mr. Guarino noted that these people would not have their own cars. Mr. Cortellino then noted that before they said these people were self-sufficient. Mrs. Guarino replied yes but that they need some assistance with regard to cleaning and feeding, some have arthitis, need some care but not constant attention or the care of registered nurses. Mrs. Waddle noted that this seemed like a type of facility such as the Fishkill Health Related Facility where the people need some care but are basically self-sufficient. Mr. Russ noted that something other than this would be on the _. nursing home type scale where there would be continuous care. Mrs. Guarino notedthatit is basica&ly an adult home, needs someone to cook and clean for them, someone to be there. Mr. Landolfi then noted that the Planning Board had bade a comment with regard to the construction of retaining walls. Mr. Russ noted that the recommendation had been for retailing wall$ to be constructed so that we have an access 18 feet wide around the building, not 18 foot retaining walls, 18 foot driving area for fire access. The Board indicated that they had not further questions. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present who wished to be heard. Mr. Martin Leskow then camel forward and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle. Mr. Leskow then commented that as of today he had been the owner of the adjacent property for forty years and then went on at some length with regard to the history of the area and the 1955 flood and that there was always water on the property and that five acres of his land in the Town was classified as a wetland, how can they even fit a building on thei property. Mr. Russ replied that they meet the minimum setback requirements. Mr. Leskow then noted that the 6cardapane property on the other side is wetlands and that the 11h acres he owned in East Fishkill and the 5 acres in the Town of Wappinger are wetlands, can't do anything with them, this is from the D.E.C. Mr. Russ noted that the Town has copies of the D.E.C. maps, look at the scale and it is 1,200 feet to the creek, we plan on using the first 300 feet, we are coming up, not going in the back to the creek. Zoning Board of Appeals -8- December 8th, 1981 Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Leskow where he abuts and wbat floods. Mr. Leskow commented that his property has never been flooded, it abuts this property but his property is higher. He then noted that when he was Assessor in the Town there were three old peoples.homes and there was nothing but problems, these people will walk around, what about their safety and the safety of other property owners, what about a septic, there is always water there. Mr. Russ noted that the Health Department had been on the site two weeks ago and did not feel there would be any problems. Mr. Leskow indicated that he disputed this. Mr. Russ replied that he could go to the Health Department tin check their files on the test holes and their reports. Mr. Leskow then again commented on the 1955 flood and how this entire area was flooded. Mr. Russ then noted that there is flood plain insurance. Mrs. Waddle then suggested tabling action until there is input received from the Conservation Advisory Council. Mr. Guarino then commented that they have already had several delays and have had to hold off on their closing date, don't know what another month will do. Mrs. Guarino noted that they went to the Ketchamt High School when D.E.C. was there and this property was not a wetland. Mrs. Waddle then noted that Mr. Leskow had no further input and asked if anyone else present wished to be heard. Dr. Felix Scardapane then came forward and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle. - Dr. Scardapane noted that he really had nothing against the operation, had lived there since 1937 but there is plenty of water and that on his own property he had a trench put in that goes to the creek and the back is always under water, not the front but 300 to 400 feet back find water, before this is done think the Health Department should come out and judge before they start. The Board noted that this would be subject to Board of Health approval along with other requirements and thanked Dr. Scardapane for his comments. Zoning Board of Appeals -9- December 8th, 1981 Mrs. Waddle then noted that she wished to retract her motion. Mr. Landolfi ,then made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Dutchess County Department of Health shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Approval of the New York State Department of Transportation shall be obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit in accordance with their letter dated 12/2/81. 3. Retaining walls 18 feet in width shall be constructed to facilitate access for fire fighting equipment. 4. Provisions for erosion control shall be made and approved by the Building Inspector. 5. Downstream drainage fee of $ .15 a square foot for newly covered roofed areas and areas ctVmled by impervious material shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. Signs shall conAorm to the requirements of the Town of Wappinger Zoning ordinance unless variances are first obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 7. The Building plans shall be supplied to and approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau in accordance with the Fire Prevention Law of the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Cortellino noted that condition # 3 should be changed to read that rbttiUih9iNi14s shall be constructed to provide 18' access to facilitate fire fighting equipment and to add another condition that the approval of the Coservation Advisory Council be obtained prior to final approval. Mr. Landolfi agreed to the changes and then Mr. Cortellino seconded his motion. The motion was carried. Roll Call Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciuoli - absent Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Mc Millen - absent Zoning Board of Appeals -10- December 8th.';L 1981 Mr. Leskow then asked if this was a change of zoning. Mrs. Waddle replied that this was a permitted use, an adult home is a permitted use in a residential zone. Mr. Leskow then asked the Board if they would require that a six foot chain link fence be installed along his property line. Mrs. Waddle replied that Mr. Leskow could install a fence on his property if he wished, this would not be a requirement of the Board. Mr. Leskow then commented that these people would be walking all over his property, was Assessor in Woodstock and this happened. Mrs. Waddle replied that this was not Woodstock and that Mr. Leskow could put up a fence on his prpperty if he so desired. No one else eished- to be heard. y, The hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m. Appeal # 580, at the request of Curtis W. & Margaret Conklin, „► seeking an interpretation of Section 404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for a determination as to whether a change from one permitted use to another permitted use within the zone would violate said section of the ordinance and if an infevprableiinterpretation is rendered a variance of Article IV, Section 404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance is sought to allow for a change of one permitted use to another,permitted use on a non -conforming property which has other pre-existing uses 6n property located on Route 9, being parcel # 6157-04- 6332285, in the Town of Wappinger. Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice. Mr. Curtis Conklinwas present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle. Mr. Conklin noted that he was looking for an interpretation and if the interpretation was unfavorable, where the Board did not agree with his thinking, a variance was sought. He added that it was his interpretation that you could have other permitted uses that are listed for the zone. Mr. Cortellino replied that it was his belief that you can only have one principal use per property, can continue non -conforming if there is not a change but he was planning a change of use. Mr. Conklin then commented that the Board interprets that a specific use has been made, correct, would now seek a variance based on the unique situation. Zoning Board of Appeals -11- December 8th, 1981 Mr. Cortellino then asked if he had been aware that there were three non -conforming uses on the property. Mr. Conklin noted that there was the auto body shop in the back, a residence and the retail store which had been a carpet business although it had previously been a restaurant, the building wasn't mains= tained, have screened prospective tenants carefully, feel it will improve the property, the loss of the use of this building will cause a hardship. Mrs. Waddle then commented that Mr. Conklin didn't live on the property. Mr. Conklin replied no, he didn't live on the property, bought if for future development, he was a teacher for the Arlington school district and also has a fmm in Peekskill but like the Dutchess County area and would someday like to have a similar operation here but that is a long way down the road and had owned the property for eight years. He added that the prospective tenant planned to have a sandwich deli operation, for sandwich type meals. Mrs. Waddle commented that there was not much parking. Mr. Conklin replied that there was an old site plan which showed parking for 13 cars, the lot will be cleaned up and this should provide a larger area. Mr. Cortellino noted that he had a number of question on the figures Mr. Conklkn supplied, net or gross, loss according to the figures he had quoted. Mr. Conklin replied that these reflect without the use of the building, this is not the key to retirement but hope to sometime in the future put in his own business. The Board then discussed the financial information with regard to projected losses. Mrs. Waddle then asked andut. nance. Mr. Conklin replied electicity, snow removal, garbage collection and repairs. Mr. Cortellino commented that the rent should cover a reasonable return, at least 10 percent. Zoning Board of Appeals -12- December 8th, 1981 Mr. Conklin replied that he wanted to use the property, wanted to produce an income, couldn't get a higher return if he operated ik it himself, intention is to remove present operation from Westchester �tw area sometime but may not be a good time to sell in that area for some time, enjoy Dutchess County and want to eventually settle here. Mrs. Waddle did note that when the restaurant was operating the site was pretty clean but that the Board had been rather upset over the carpet operation and its looks. Mr. Conklin commented that there will be a definite improvement, have best possible tenant, it will not be an eyesore but will be a positive step.. Mr. Cortellino asked if the tenant had run this type of operation before. " Mr. Conklin replied yes. Mr. Cottellino commented what if the business is successful and the tenant wants to expand, is he aware that it is non -conforming and could not be expanded. Mr. Conklin replied that it would be difficult if he wanted to expand, would have to understand this. Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished to be heard. Mrs. Frances Tornatore noted that her property adjoins this and that she would like to speak. Mrs. Waddle then swore Mrs. Tornatore in. Mrs. Tornatore commented that here parents had owned the land for thirty years and it never looked like this, talked to the man that had the carpet place claimed that Mr. Conklin the owner, wouldn't do anything, wouldn't keep the place clean, does not mow the grass, where the house there have been septic problems, there is garbage, the highway department had dmpp4d dirt because people were going by the block- ade and blocking her driveway, Mr. Conklin felt it wasn't his duty to keep this place clean, the property now in the back where he has taken the highway dirt and filled that in, does he plan to use that as parking in the back of the building, the drainage from here and Route 9 floods up to here driveway, the tenant in the has had a lot of problems with the septic, with rain coming in, the man who ronted:—th�: carpet -gt43vFe4'_-aa,Jdthat Mr. Conklin wouldn't do anything to keep the place up, and it is a mess and Mr. Conklin does not take care of the property and with a delis JM +tbeXre, going to have a lot more cars Zoning Board of Appeals -13- December 8th, 1981 there are no facilities for cars there since the new Route 9 went in, concerned that they would start coming up on the side road where she lives, every time the Town puts dirt there he takes it away, tw has had heremailbox knowked down several times, no one,else uses the road but her and then commented about the body shop in the back, it is a junk yard, think something should be done, must be some zoning laws on that. Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gunderud if he had been up there. Mr. Gunderud replied that he had been up to Frank and Brothers, that he hadn't been up there recently but that no one had made any complaints. Mrs. Tornatore then commented that the tenants in the house had com- plained to herd even had the Board of Health get in as Mr. Conklin wouldn't do anything, the water, septic and a lot of other problems. Mrs. Waddle then thanked Mrs. Tornatore for her commentd. Mr. Conklin was then recognized and commented that some of the accusations that 1#rs. Tornatore made are in his opinion untrue, the grass is mowed between the property, Mrs. Tornatore interjected that it was not. Mr. Conklin et commenting thatt-bhe grass is mowed and the parking area she referred to is not supposed to be used, they graded it,, will put a new lawn in, the dirt does get mpved, the snow plows move it and what might have been true in the Mast when Mr. Binghim had will be changed for the better with the use change, this will be a different type of operation, would have changed. Mrs. Waddle noted that for eight years he did nothing. Mr. Cortellino then asked in the lease who was responsible for maintenance, what about removal, use it as a weapon. Mr. Conklin replied that this can be a lengthy process, did occasionally fix it up, some attempts have been made, are new to this. Mr. Cortellino then asked about what would be done with the body shop. Mr. Conklin replied currently nothing. Zoning Board of Appeals -14- December 8th, 1984 Mr. Gunderud noted that he had not received any complaints about the body shop, went there once about a year ago and it was a mess, but they are way up in the back, a w of this would take months, spoke to those in the shop, looked up the use and found that they were a legally registered use. Mr. Landolfi noted that he was trying to understand what they would do differently. Mr. Conklin replied that he didn't think that they would find the same type of situation with the new tenant, carpet store to restaurant, don't want retail store, dontt want unhappy situation, think that the change to the restaurant will be a much better situation. Mr. Landolfi asked about his control thru the lease. Mr. Conklin noted that he is not there all the time it is a problem. Mrs. Tornatore then commented about the garbage problem before and her feelings that a restaurant would generate more garbage and that she lives ne$t door and he is not on the property all the time thinks what she says is right, can check with the tenants, when it was a restaurant before it was kept up, it looked like a botanical garden, now it always looks like a mess, check with the tenants, as a restaurant, it will be smelly, no parking, a lot more cars and her driveway would be blocked. The Board and Mr. Conklin then discussed maintenance of the property. Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Landolfi then indicated that he would $ike the figures substantiated by a C.P.A. or notarized, something better than what had been submitted. Mrs. Waddle then noted that the Board would require that the figures be t4i by a C.P.A., perhaps income tax return or financial statement'thru a C.P.A., the Board would like to puruse them, an accountant and notarized. Mr. Cortellino noted that if you are pleading hardship this is a requirement of the Board. Mr. Conklin asked if the Board could act before this. Mrs. Waddle replied no. It was noted that the Board could not accept the figures as presented by Mr. Conklin and that the Board had required this before. I Z� zoning Board of Appeals -15- December 8th, 1981 Mr. Conklin then asked that if he stayed with,the retail use, it would be no problem. The Board replied that this was not necessarily so. Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to table as the Board wanted notarized figures by a C.P.A.. Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would also like to do a site inspection of the property. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion and the motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino then asked if the facilities had been changed since it was a restaurant before. Mr. Conklin replied that the facilities other than the stove and the sink would have to be put back in, the majority is there. No one else wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 9:27 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: Edwin Niemcyk - Request for a rehearing to permit him to continue to operate an auto repair and parts business on residential property located on Old State Road, being parcel # 6057-04-744305, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Leo Ritter, Attorney at Law, was present in behalf of Mr. Niemcyk. Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board would entertain a request for a rehearing if he had any new information from the last hearing. Mr. Ritter noted that he did not quite understand the request for a rehearing before a hearing is held, is it the custom of the Board to do it this way, there is new material but obviously the new material is something that should be presented to the Board as a whole. Mrs. Waddle then asked him if he could tell the Board the nature of the new material, why the Board should have a rehearing on this case as opposed to what the Board has already heard. Zoning Board of Appeals -16- December 8th, 1981 Mr. Ritter commented that he didn't think it was for a rehearing but rather a new application. Mrs. Waddle noted that she had it as a request for a rehearing, wants to reopen the case again. Mr. Ritter replied that they were making a new application. Mr. Gunderud then commented that he had checked with the Town Attorney since Mr. Niemcyk had been through the process for an appeal on the very same subject, for the very same variance request, and was denied before and sent to the Town Board to seek rezoning and he didn't pursue this avenue and then he came back to this Board and checked with the Town Attorney who suggested that this would be a rehearing and would be under the rules of Town Law 267 whereby the Board would have to have one of the members initiate a motion for rehearing and a majority of the members present Mould have to vote in favor and then the next month the hearing would be conducted and unless more information is presented the Board may not wish to hear the case. The Board then discussed with Mr. Ritter that they would want to see new information and not just a more polished presentations of information that had been previously presented -and reviewed. + Mr. Ritter indicated that he felt that they would have some expert testimony, pictures and perhaps some of the neighbors who might wish to be heard, did not expect that this would be heard before January or February. The Board again stressed to Mr. Ritter that they would want to see new information, new points and thought that Mr. Ritter would have reviewed the minutes and Mr. Niemcyk's previous appeal but the Board had not yet heard this type of information. Mr. Ritter then suggested that this be tabled until next month at which time they would come back to the Board with more information. Mrs. Waddle then noted that the Board would need a financial state- ment of hardship by an accountant or a notary, any statments with regard to the condition of the property, know that Mr. Niemcyk's has a very narrow roadcg3dim ilp to his property and this was one of the concerns and contentions in turning him down the last time as there was a concern about getting fire fighting apparatus up to the property if there was a large fire in the barn. The Niecyks then commented that a large tanker had gotten up to the property to fill the pool with no problems and Mr. Niemcyk added that if there is a fire it burns, was not concerned about this,. and Zoning Board of Appeals -17- December 8th, 1981 with what is in there did not want anyone there to fight a fire. Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board also had to be concerned about Mr. Niemcyk's neighbors. Mr. Cortellino then made a motion that this be tabled until next month. Mr. Landolfi tab6aded the motion. Motion Was Carried By Those Members Present Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any other business to come before the Board. The secretary then noted that Mr. Gunderud had submitted a letter to the Board regarding the application of American Lumber for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Russ noted that he was representing Operican Lumber. Mrs. Waddle commented that the Board would refer the S.U.P. applic- ation for American Lumber to the Planning Board and would make this a motion. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Motion Was Carried By Those Members Present The secretary then asked the Board if they had any corrections to the Novembmer minutes. The Board indicated that they had no corrections. Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to adjourn, The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino. ;br Motion Was Carried By Those Members Present The meeting wa=s adjourned at 9:40 p Respectfully submitted, (Mrs. Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals