Loading...
1985-01-08M s ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL JANUARY 8TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #790, at the request of Merritt Seymour, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a barn to replace a shed and garage on a non -conforming lot located on Old Albany Post Road, being Parcel #6156-02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #792, at the request of William C. Gross, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 413.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow site planning to proceed with adjusted frontyard setbacks. Although a variance from 75 feet to 35 feet has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, 25 feet is requested by the Planning Board for Site Plan purposes, on property located on Route 9, being Parcel #6156-02-737984, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #791, at the request of Dr. Daniel J. Hannigan, seeking an interpretation of Section 421, #6, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 January 4th, 1985 Zoning Board of Appeals Members Town Hall - Mill Street Wappinger Falls, NY 12590 RE: Zoning Board of Appeals Revenues for 1984 Dear Board Members: For the year ending December 31st, 1984, the Zoning Board's revenues total $2,450.00. There were 47 variances received in 1984, and $1,680.00 represents the total variance fees collected. Fees of $560.00 were collected on 6 Special Use Permit applications. Fees of $175.00 were collected on 5 Interpretation applications. Fees of $35.00 were collected on 1 Appeal as an Aggrieved Person. very truly yours, ck- Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals lb cc: Ann Garrison, Comptroller Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk Town Board Members f __ i Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Minutes Mill Street January 8th, 1985 Wapp. Falls, NY The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, January 8th, 1985, at the meeting room of the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, Nem York. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Joseph Landolfi, Chairman Charles Cortellino Angel Caballero Carol Waddle George Urci©uli Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Mrs. Pamela M. Farnsworth, Zoning Administrator Mr. Landolfi asked if the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they have been according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Landolfi asked to entertain a motion on the minutes from the previous meeting. Are there any corrections, additions. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that they table the acceptance of the December meeting Minutes until the next meeting when the Board members who haven't been in Town will be able to review them. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero aye Mr. Urciouli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi stated that we only have two cases before us this evening. We will go through each appeal, we will give everyone the opportunity to be heard, all we ask is that you please come forward and identify yourself for our records. We may or may not render a decision this evening. Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal: Appeal #790, at the request of Merritt Seymour, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a barn to replace a shed and garage on a non -conforming lot located on Old Albany Post Road, being Parcel #6156-02-828650, in the Town of Wappinger. Robert Foreman, Attorney for Mr. Seymour was present. Zoning Board Minutes -2- January 8th, 1985 Mr. Foreman stated that what Mr. Seymour proposes to do is, he owns one lot approximately 1.64 acres in a planned industry of one acre. He has two residential units on the property, two single family houses. There also is a 20 x 20 garage and a 12 x 12 shed, both are which in somewhat dilapitated condition. What he would propose doing is to remove those structures and replace them with a pole barn in roughly on the same location on the property, which would be, the side setbacks would be approximately 165 feet and it would be roughly 150 feet from the street to the pole barn. r Mr. Cortellino asked how large would:lthe barn be. Mr. Foreman answered roughly 30 x 30. Mr, Caballero asked what the present size of the garage now. Mr. Formman answered that the garage is 20 x 20 and approximately 8 feet behind the garage is a 12 x 12 shed. Mr. Landolfi asked if the 30 x 30 would take the place of both of these. Mr. Foreman stated that we would remove the garage and the shed and replace them with one unit which would roughly cover the entire area. now taken by the garage and shed and a space between the garage and the shed. Mr. Cortellino asked how the property is used now, strictly residential. Mr. Foreman answered that it is strictly residential. It has a one story one family house on one side of the premises and a two story one family house on the other side. Mr. Cortellino asked what the purpose of the barn would be. Mr. Foreman answered to replace the existing structure, basically to use it to store cars. Mr. Cortellino asked what he meant by store cars, why not use a garage. Mr. Foreman answered that he has a garage already, he has the garage and the shed. The cars right now can't, the garage rather cannot be used because of its condition. Mr. Cortellino asked if I had cars, I would want them in the garage, not in the barn. You are coming for a barn for which you are going to put in cars. Zoning Board Minutes -3- January 8th, 1985 Mr. Foreman answered that he does not know why he has elected a pole barn rather than an oversized garage, it may construction technique, I don't know. Mr. Cortellino stated that he would tell Mr. Foreman his feeling. I may be in favor of a garage but not in favor of a barn because one of my earlier questions was what is the parcel being used for in other words I am wondering, if in addition to the two uses that he has now whether he would be using the barn for a third use, so I would like that clarified whether it is to be a garage, a barn that will be used as a garage or a barn that will be used as something else, because, aesthetically I would think that if you had a house you would"want a garage rather than a barn. Not many of our homes have barns attached. Mr. Landolfi stated that obviously the question pertains to the use of the building. Mr. Foreman answered that he does however have, since there are two families residing there, there would be somewhat more storage use outside of the house thathwould-_'bethe(4uired than a single garage could provide. Mrs. Waddle stated that I wouldn't have as much problem if he would just replace the standing structures which come to 544 feet, but he is increasing that to 900 feet which is almost doubling his space. Why can't he build a barn or garage or whatever at 544 square feet and replace just what he has there, I would lean more to giving him that than to increasing the size of the structure. Mr. Landolfi added that in other words you are going to -,end up making it obviously more non -conforming than it is already. Mrs. Waddle stated that I really don't think the Board would have a problem if he wanted to tear down two buildings here that really are in bad shape and put up one that is the same size as those two. If you would like us to table this and go back to your client, or is he here this evening. Mr. Foreman answered that he is unfortunately out of the state. Mr. Landolfi stated that lets be clear on what we are looking for. One, why the barn opposed to a garage if in fact what you said to store the cars and whatever. Two,. we have a concern with the size, the overall size which will end up being larger than the two existing buildings. Mr. Foreman answered that the square footage, the interior square footage would be increased. The overall dimensions from the front of the present garage to the rear of the present shed and from the side to side would not be increased. Zoning Board Minutes Mr. Cortellino answered that that things like that, but still it is know whether it was a poor choice storage of cars. I do not store; car in my garage and I take it ou -4- January 8th, 1985 would take care of side lot and a larger building. Also, I don't of words on your part, you said y cars in my garage. I place my periodically. Mr. Foreman answered than in that case it was a 'bad choice of words on my part. He is not planning on using it for any use other than what one would normally use a garage for on ones property, it is just that he,does, since there are two families on the premises he does have the use for the larger space since there are two families that are sharing in the space, I would point out that the property at this point is surrounded by commercial property, I do realize that it is a non -conforming use. What I would ask then if you would have no objection with the one structure of the same total square footage that I will then go back to him with that and I would assume that that would be acceptable to him, he would certainly be willing to do that, may be the best bet would be to table this until the next meeting. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this appeal. The motion was seconded 'by Mrs. Waddle. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #792, at the request of William C. Gross, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 413.2 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow site planning to proceed with adjusted frontyard setbacks. Although a variance from 75 feet to 35 feet has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, 25 feet is requested by the Planning Board for site planning purposes, on property located on Route 9, being Parcel #6156-02-737984, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. William C. Gross and Mr. William Eustance, Engineer were present. Mr. Eustance stated that our problem here is that we have a non -conforming: lot and properly zoned for its activity but the Planning Board is requiring that there be no parking in front of the building so we cannot put the building in the back. In order to get the proper amount of parking and the septic system we have had to pull the building forward to the 25 foot setback and therefore requesting a variance. Zoning Board Minutes -5- January 8th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino asked if we had already granted a variance of 35 feet from the 75 foot. Mr. Landolfi answered that yes, that has been done. Mrs. Waddle asked why is the Planning Board seeming to take us more out of conformance with the Zoning Ordinance than keeping us within the guidelines or within the Zoning Ordinance. They seem to have a quirk about nobody seeing anything at the front of the building. Mr. Eustance stated that what we have here is a lot that has an extremely long natural setback. Mrs. Waddle asked what his feeling was with the parking in front of the building as opposed to the back of the building. Mr. Eustance stated that he would rather have it in the back. For one thing, we have handicapped parking and we can get them in the back and we can get them right in the back of the building, I would just rather have them in the back, it is not a restaurant, its not a furniture store which depends for part of its pull on having people out front. This is a professional building where the people will pull in, some employee parking, some people do their business here. Mr. Cortellino asked but you illuded to engineering reasons. You said the septic tank was the reasons. Mr. Eustance answered that one of the reasons we are having to pull so far forward is to get all of the parking plus the sewage disposal. If the Planning Board would allow parking in the front then we could have the sewage disposal someplace else. Right now we are stuck with a configuration. We have a natural setback of approximately 60 feet from the pavement to the, from the property line. Mr. Cortellino asked that when you say pavement you are saying the concrete or the blacktop of the road not from the property line. Mr. Eustance answered not from the property line. There is 60 feet from the concrete of the road to the property line and there is approximately 45 feet from the edge of shoulder to property line so we already have a long setback from the street. I am stuck with the fact that in order to get the parking and the septic system the building has to come forward and if the Planning Board would allow parking in front of the building I could push the building backward put parking in front of the building and reorient the septic system. I can't do it giving the Planning Board constraints, I am sort of helpless. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that I am a little late in the game relative to site plan review. We have been at the site and there is some major wet problems there. So, it is not only a non -conforming lot Zoning Board Minutes -6- January 8th, 1985 in its size, it also has some wet problems so I don't think he has all the freedom in the world as to where he places the septic system, ans the septic system is rarely done well with parking over it, so this is part of his configuration. Adjacent to this is a car repair shop and on the other side is the entrance to a mobile home, and I think that an attractive looking building that is relatively visible would certainly help move the neighborhood in an upward,directon so, if the engineering can. --,,be adequately done at all, and it needs to be done better moving the building toward the front, I would think that reasonable to add addition&l cars to this building as well as having a car repair shop along side does not seem to be best in a planning sense. Now, I know we are the Zoning Board, and I am the Zoning Administrator, but in a planning sense I think the parking to the rear would be preferable. Mr. Landolfi stated for this particular case. Mrs. Waddle asked now, what do we do with the rest of the property down there, is it going to come in one by one. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that with this particular situation there is water flowing this way. If you throw a stick in here you see the water flowing this way and right now there is a deep drainage swale that has been cut here maybe a head of the game, and there is the mobile home park, and then we start getting into different kinds of sites that are far deeper here, so I would not anticipate continued problem. Mrs. Waddle asked then it is not going to be a pattern. Mr. Landolfi stated that he did not think there is enough properties to do that with down there. Mr. Caballero stated that I think the Planning Board in their minds are looking to put all these buildings in the front and putting the parking in the back. I have seen this before where they are looking to put the buildings in the front and parking in back and that is going contrary to our Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cortellino stated that if the Town wants that, not the Planning Board, if the Town wanted it, I would be willing to grant a variance for this until they change the Zoning law, but they have given no indication that they want this changed. Mr. Caballero stated that also that is a states, a County Road, and which the County is involved. Do we have anything from the County on this. Ms. Berberich stated that she sent this to DOT and Planning. Zoning Board Minutes -7-tr January 8th, 1985 Mr. Caballero asked Mrs. Farnsworth to read the letter from the County on the 35 foot setback. Mrs. Farnsworth read the letter. Mrs. Waddle asked what the pratical difficulty, accept that the Planning Board wants them to park in the back. Mr. Caballero stated yes, but, you have already a variance for 35 feet from 75 feet. Mrs. Waddle asked how can we substantiate another 10 feet if there is no difficulty, that is what I am asking. Mr. Gross stated that originally the problem was when it was in before the problem we have is there is an existing well on the property located next door plus there is a water course here in fr6nt of the property. Mrs. Waddle stated that you knew that when you came in and asked for 35 feet. Mr. Gross answered yes. Mrs. Waddle asked if he was satisfied with the 35 feet. Mr. Gross answered that the County Board of Health was not satisfied when they tried to put the, locate the septic, and that was the problem, and that is why we are back now. We need the additional 10 feet. Mrs. Waddle stated that we don't have that information at all. We were just told that the Planning Board wants the parking in the rear. Mr. Eustance stated that bheically, the reason we are coming in now is that in order to get the parking and the septic on here,...... Mrs. Waddle asked if they had a problem with that building if it was to go back 35 feet, forget about the parking. Mr. Gross answered yes, the problem that we have, I think the County Planning Board had said why not located the septic in the front of the building. The problem that we have with that, is that we have an existing well on the property next door plus there is the water course here in front of Route 9, and we have to stay 100 feet away from that. Mr. Cortellino asked that it was the County Planning,-Depa:ttment that said why not the septic tank in the front or the County Meal-th Dept. Zoning Board Minutes -8- January 8th, 1985 Mrs. Farnsworth answered Planning. Mr. Gross stated that the Planning said why don't you put it in the front of the building. As a practical matter, we can't do that because we have the well next door plus there is the existing water course along Route 9, and there is water draining through there constantly. As a result, we have to stay 100 feet off that water course so the septic must go in the back of the building. Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like something from the Dept. of Health. Mr. Eustance stated that he could reorientate this septic system, turn it, in which case we could pull the building back and this parking that is back here would have to go in the front. But, the Planning Board has said ........ we would not be here. Mr. Cortellino answered that is what you are saying. You would not be here if the Planning Board didn't say we want the cars in the back. Mr. Eustance answered basically, yes. Technically, I can reorient this, pull the building back and get parking in the front. I am f- not sure I can get all the parking in. Mr. Gross stated that is the thing. We tried to do that before with the building set back 35 feet and the problem was we were short 2 spaces. If we go ahead and pull the building forward 10 feet we get the required spaces in the site. Mr. Cortellino stated that maybe you are constructing to large a structure for the property. I know it is a non -conforming lot. Mr. Caballero stated that it seems that the problem is that the Planning Board wants the building up front and we want the building in the back, according to our Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that on the Department of Health question, if a building permit had been requested, they would be asked to give some input to the process. In subdivisions, early on in the process, shortly after preliminary they get the chance to look at it. Here this is a site plan not a subdivision so we have not really asked r,, for the Department of Health information. I can belieBewiVhatM'_. _-:s Mr. Gross says relative to the septic system and Health Dept. because of my observation of the site. I can see there could be problems locating all that you needed to on the site. Mrs. Waddle stated that that would be fine, then there would be a hardship. Right now we don't have anything in front of us to show a hardship. Zoning Board Minutes -9- January 8th, 1985 Mrs. Farnsworth asked Mr. Eustance if he had any correspondence from the Department of Health. Mr. Eustance answered no. We had Mr. Felchin out there with us observing the deep test holes and he said we had to be 100 feet away from the front ditch, that is not in writing but he was on the site. Mrs. Waddle asked when they planned to start construction. Mr. Gross stated that he was hopings-thataass000naas I got this variance I was going to go ahead and apply for a building permit at least a foundation permit while the weather is still fairly good. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gross if he had any problem with putting the building where it belongs, 75 feet back. Mr. Gross answered yes, because at that point there is no way I can get the septic system located on the property, that is why the original variance was granted. Mr. Cortellino stated that we understand that the Planning Board wants the cars in the back, but if we were not to grant a variance, what could you come up with that would meet with the Dept. of Health. Mrs. Waddle stated that I would make a motion that we send a letter to the Town Board, recommending, inquiring, the 75 foot setback, the Planning Board wanting iie to go out of conformance even further with the Zoning Ordinances when there is not practical hardship. I think that if the Town would set some kind of policy on what they are going to do along there it would make things easy, but right now it is going to be very haphazard I believe, and we are going to come up with a mish mash again. Obviously, if they can meet the practical tests that is one thing, but if it is just a whim of the Planning Board that is another. Mr. Eustance stated that another problem is loosing all this area. If we pull the building back and I squeeze the septic in what little I have left, we are not going to fit the parking, as you can see we are tight now, we have a front lot, we have a green area of approximately 20 x 80 and it is going to be physically impossible to move this around and get all the parking. The Planning Board wants green in the front. Mrs. Waddle asked why it has to be 20 x 80. Mr. Eustance stated that that is what we have left. Zoning Board Minutes -10- January 8th, 1985 _ Mr. Gross stated that my preference is,as the person developing the property is I would like to see as much green area in the front of the buildingLas possible. I have no objection with the Planning Board when they say bring all the parking to the back. From a aesthics point of view I think that is the better way of doing it rather than having cars park in the front of the building, quite frankly I just don't find that very sitely. Mrs. Waddle stated that she does not tend to disagree with you, but then we have to do something about our Zoning Ordinance if the Planning Board is going to bring buildings forward and bring them out of conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gross stated that as a practical matter we have a hardship here in locating the building mainly because of the existence of the water course in the front and the existing wells, we have only one place to put the septic and we can't put the building on top of it. Mr. Cortellino asked that but, it is not beeause the Planning Board wants the cars in the back. Mr. Gross answered that no, that is not the reason we are seeking a variance. At this point I would ask that to amend the request for a variance based on the fact that there is a hardship with the setbacks from the different water courses and the well. Just for the purposes of the application here, it is not for the, we would like to be able to satisfy the Planning Board, but really that is not the reason why we are here. The reason we are here. is so we can fit everything on the lot properly the way it should be given the facts that we have, with the regard to the amount of property, that we can actually use. Mr. Landolfi stated that we have a couple ways that we can go here. Mr. Cortellino stated that all I see here is a foundation which is roughly 40 x 70 and they ate requiring you to have a certain amount of parking spaces for each office that you have. So your problem, in spite of the drainage and what not is because you are going two stories. There is no requirements saying you have to go two stories either. Mr. Gross answered that whether I have two stories or one story - really doesn't matter, it is a question of where the building has to go and where the septic has to go. Mr. Cortellino answered that I understand where the foundation goes as .. the wells and septic has to go. The lack of parking or how much parking you have is due to, if you were to put up a skyscraper you would have to buy half of nine to put in the right number of parking spots. You said before earlier that you would not have enough parking spots and I asked are you a two level 'building. If you cut your building in half meaning one level you would need only half the Zoning Board Minutes -11- January 8th, 1985 the parking spots. You are asking me, you are on a non -conforming lot, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to the same building as a conforming lot. The hardship is not parking lots the hardship is because you ar a putting a large building on a small lot. Mr. Gross answered that the way this has been engineered at this point, we are getting a maximum amount of building space that we can possibly fit on that lot with the existing septic. -1-7, wra�r Mr. Cortellino asked, for the foundation. Mr. Gross answered yes, I grant you that. Mr. Eustance stated that we still have a technical problem that was brought up by the Planning Board, they said then why don't you put your parking over the septic, and technically you can't do that particularily in these soils. That was the other problem that arose. Mr. Urciouli stated that he agrees with Charlie. Thats the whole point of it is, the building is to big for the lot. Mr. Caballero stated that he agreed. Mrs. Waddle stated that the lot may be small. It is a tax payer, you probably wouldn't get the true value of the property if you put up a one story building there. The problem I see is that what are you short, one or two parking spaces. Mr. Gross answered that we are short two parking spaces, if we go with the plan we have here we can fit everything on there. Mr. Cortellino asked meaning you can get the 25. Mr. Gross answered that I can get the correct number of spaces the way I am right now according to this plan. Mr. Cortellino asked with the 25' variance. Mr. Gross answered with the 25' variance. Mrs. Waddle stated that if you can show a practical hardship with the Board of Health as he said I would not, I would give him the variance, based on the hardship. Mr. Landolfi answered that we want something in writing. Mr. Ur-ciouli stata&-tMb -the building isn't physically there. If it was renovation of a building then I could see if there was a hard- ship but there is not physical 'building. Zoning Board Minutes -12- January 8th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated that he is putting in a foundation whether he went up one story or two stories. The foundation is still going to be there. It is just going up in the air. So whats the difference, Mr. Gross stated that the prbblem I had as a practical matter is everything has to'�-be economically feasible and the problem that I have, if I reduce the size of the building given the cost of the lot, I run into a problem making the thing work. My contract is contingent upon this variance and the approvals. Mr. Cortellino stated then you are not the owner yet. Mr. Gross answered that he is not the owner yet. Mr. Urciouli stated that we are putting a building up in East Fishkill, and what we did is we calculated the maximum size of the building that we could put on the lot, having our septic with the parking spaces that happens to be 28,000 square feet. I can't put a 30,000 square foot building on that 3 acre parcel, unless I go to the Zoning Board and tell them I have a hardship because i want a 30,000 square foot building. Mr. Cortellino stated that now you can't talk about investment. You have no money in this that you have to make back. Mr. Gross answered that given the commitment that I made to this - already, I am going to but the lot whether or not. Mrs. Waddle stated that I think you are better off at this point-- sticking ointysticking with your 35 foot variance and doing what you have to do. You have a variance for 35 feet, you are going to put a building up at 35 feet whether this Board says no to 25 feet. As you can see from the feelings of the Board, I think it is not you, it is mixed in with alot of the things that the Planning Board is asking us to go out of bounds on alot of Zoning. It looks like you are going to stick with 35 feet. Mr. Landolfi stated that he would have to see something from the Board of Health on the.., before... with all do respect. It is a verbal communication, I would prefer the Board being able to see something. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal. Mr. Landolfi stated that he would now close this hearing. Zoning Board Minutes -13- January 8th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino made a motion to deny the requested variance for 25 feet on the basis that there is no hardship. The original variance for 35 feet still stands. The motion was seconded by Mr. UrciaQli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - abstain Mr. Urciouli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #791, at the request of Dr. Daniel J. Hannigan, seeking a interpretation of Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. John Hannigan was present. Mrs. Waddle asked for the letter from the Town Attorney. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that she has not heard from him yet. Mrs. Waddle stated that she is not even going to entertain this until she gets some legal advice. John Hanningan stated that his father is away, and he asked me to be here to represent him and answer any questions that you may have. I am a chiropracter, and I would, what we are asking is that this building that the question is about, be renevated and to be used as a chiropractic office. Right now it is an unused building. Mr. Landolfi stated that just for your information, all that is being asked of us right now is strictly interpretation. What we asked for that we didn't recieve is a position from our Town Attorney relative to this property. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to table this appeal until we get a position from our lawyer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Urciuoli - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero asked for some discussion. I think the Zoning Board of Rppeals should send a letter to the Town Board and to the Planning Board in reference to the 75 foot setback that they do not recommend Zoning Board Minutes -14- January 8th, 1985 setting those buildings forward. Mrs. Farnsworth stated in non residential areas. Mr. Caballero stated that the Planning Board does not recommend to the developer to move the building forward of the setback that is in our Zoning Ordinance for any reason. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that the reason i said something about non residential was because the 75 foot setback has been changed to mett any rear side front from County roads for residential or State roads for residential purposes. I think the questions of the Planning Board in wanting to move structures that are in the non residential areas where they are talking about moving them closer to the road. Mr. Caballero stated that on the Planning side, the way this building looks, I appreciate a building in front and the parking in the back. My problem is with the interpretation of our Ordinance. If that can be changed by the Town Board I would have no problem, in a matter of fact I would love to see those buildings in the front and the parking in the back. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that I agree with you on the commercial buildings but I would like the residentials to still stay a distance so that is why I wanted that clarification in the letter. Mr. Caballero stated that I am not that flexible. I want to _ifter- prate=the Zoning Ordinance as I see it written, so if it is written as residential that they can come forward I will follow that Zoning Ordinance. If they put it back I will follow that. Mr. Landolfi stated that if it requires a workshop with them we would be willing. Mr. Caballero made a motion to adjourn the meeting.'.�The motion was, seconded by Mr. Landolfi. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals