1985-06-11ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 11TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal #803, at the request of Michael & Susan Murray, seeking a variance
of Article IV, §411.925 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow for a
4 foot high fence while fencing in Fieldstone Farms is limited to 36 inches in
height on property located on 23 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel #6257-01-288709,
in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #804, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #15, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-273193, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #805, at the request of James P. Elsbree, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #1, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-286074, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #806, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #2, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-280084, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal #807, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #7, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-267150, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal #808, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #8, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-278141, in the Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal #809, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot #9, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-297141, in the Town of Wappinger.
8. Appeal #810, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 161 foot
frontage when 200 feet is required on Lot #3A, New Hackensack Road, and being
Parcel #6259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
9. Appeal #811, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2 foot
sideyard when 50 feet is required on Lot #2, New Hackensack Road, and being
Parcel #6259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
10. Appeal #812, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 50 foot
frontyard setback when 100 feet is required on Lot #2, New Hackensack Road, and
being Parcel #6259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
11. Appeal #813, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 161 foot
frontage when 200 feet is required on Lot #3A, New Hackensack Road, and being
Parcel #6259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
Page -2-
12. Appeal #814, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board to allow a 7 foot front
setback when 100 feet is required on Lot #1, New Hackensack Road, and being
Parcel X66259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
13. Appeal #815, at the request of Carl Swenson, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 foot sideyard
setback when 50 feet is required on Lot 461, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel
666259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger.
14. Appeal 66816, at the request of Barger & Luckel, seeking a varinace of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a 15 foot
sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on Lot 6617, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-295204, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal X6799, at the request of American Lumber Company, seeking a variance
of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an 18 foot
setback when 30 feet is required on property located on Chelsea Road, and being
Parcel #6056-01-174862, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #800, at the request of Tim Gale, seeking an interpretation of
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
3. Appeal 66801, at the request of AKHR Associates, seeking an interpretation of
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #802, at the request of Kem-LAck Improvement Company, seeking a
Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, §421, paragraph R-20 X65, of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for a medical clinic, on property located on
Myers Corners Road & kent Road, and being Parcel 666258-03-240146, in the Town of
Wappinger.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590
TEL. 297.6257
Memo To: Zoning Board
From: Linda Berberich, Secretary
Date: May 28th, 1985
Subject: Addition to the June 11th, 1985 Agenda
Please add the following:
Appeal X6767, Richard Dombrowski, Discussion on a rehearing.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590
TEL. 297-6257
Memo To: Zoning Board
From: Linda Berberich, Secretary
Date: June 3rd, 1985
Subject: Addition to the June 11th agenda
Appeal #794, Kathleen & Michael Schnorr, Discussion on a request for a sign variance.
L
ZONIOG BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 11TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
-' The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, June 11th,
1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Mr. Landolfi, Chairman Mr. Cortellino
Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle
Mr. Hirkala
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator
Mr. Landolfi called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M..
Mr. Landolfi then asked if all the abbutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's
office.
Mr. Landolfithen asked to entertain a motion on the Minutes from the previous meeting.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion that they be accepted. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Hirkala.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we will go through each appeals this evening, everyone will
be given an opportunity to be heard. We may or may not render a decsion. We do ask
whoever is going to speak, please come forward and identify yourself for our records.
Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal:
Appeal 4803, at the request of Michael & Susan Murray, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.925 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 4 foot high fence while
fencing in Fieldstone Farms is limited to 36 inches in height on property located on
23 Fieldstone Blvd., and being Parcel #6257-01-288709, in the Town of Wappinger.
Michael Murray was present.
Mr. Murray stated that the Board has the original letter that he submitted, and I wish
also to submit a letter from the veterinarian as far as the dog is concerned. Also, I
wish to submit a Sears plan of how the fence would hold on the back of the deck. Also,
some snap shots of the back of the house where the deck is.
Mr. Landolfi asked if any members of the Board had any questions of Mr. Murray.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she can't see how this is really a hardship on the land in
question. The dog is 12 years old, I think the life expectancy of a poodle is maybe
another 3 or 4 years, and this dog is ill, and you want to put all that money into
something in your backyard at this point. To me, I am a pet lover.
Page -2- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Murray stated that we have a 12 year old poodle with problems, agreed. A 12 year
old poodle in excellant health with medication and the life expectancy could be another
► 6 to 8 years.
Mr. Landolfi stated that Mrs. Waddle's point is that there really isn't a hardship on
the property. In other words, you bought the property as a residence, you are able
to use as a residence. There is nothing that says that in the meantime that you also
can add on.
Mr. Murray stated that they asked when they bought the house, we should have come
here. Agreed, we should have.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they had a lawyer.
Mr. Murray answered yes. Our first house, and we trust the real estate agent, and they
said yes, we could put a fence up.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he had a question. You said there is unleashed dogs.
Mr. Murray answered yes.
Mr. Cortellino went on to say that you don't say these dogs cause fear to you or attack
your dog.
Mr. Murray stated that the dogs have come at my wife and the poodle when they were
walking in the street.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many times have they called the dog warden.
Mr. Murray answered that his wife has called at least 15 times.
Mr. Cortellino asked if any action was taken.
mr. Murray answered that he has come in. He has talked, but alot of these dogs are
from the outside area. This is in an area, to what I understand, alot of the people
in the area, we call it Fieldstone Farms, was built. People used to walk their dogs
up that hill and whether the dogs go out and walk there on their own, which I think is
fact. There is a leash law in Wappinger, I agree. The thing is that the dogs are
there.
Mr. Cortellino asked what action does he take, he just agrees with you that there are
unleashed dogs.
Mr. Murray answered that he does come up, I understand, and talked to certain houses.
Mr. Caballero asked a 36 inch high will not contain the dog.
Mr. Murray answered that he does not think so. There are dogs in the area such as there
is one that sometimes gets away. It is an Irish Wolfhound.
Mr. Caballero stated that he does not think that a 4 foot fence is going to contain
it from a dog large enough that wants to get in there also. i am a poodle owner and
I know my poodle is more aggresive that any big dog that I ever met.
Mrs. Waddle stated that unfortunately when the Planning Board wrote up there specs out
there, trying to accomplish the fact that it would not get to over crowded and there
wouldn't be any mish mash of fencing and I am afraid that if we allow this to go through
then others will follow the suit and we will have set a presidence in that area which
Page -3- June 11th, 1985
we may want to take a look at.
Mr. Hirkala had a comment. I have a definate apporance to loose dogs. I have problems
of my own, but how do you solve it. This type of a thing I think is just a peace meal
thing. I sympathize with Mr. Murray, his problem, we have the long term solution to
look at. Putting a fence, god forbid, not to take away your personal feelings, but
the dog dies next year, we have a fence that is 4 foot high, so the next door neighbor
says I want a fence. Why do we restrictions for the thing in the first place.
Mr. Murray asked if the Board knew that post and rail were allowed and that chicken
wire can be put up against post and rail.
Mr. Hirkala stated that this Board didn't write the restriction.
Mr.Murray stated that there has been chicken wire put up and that is more of an eyesore
than anything else.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he thinks that is up to our Zoning Administrator and her person
to enforce that.
Mrs. Waddle asked when he came in for his application, were you given the 3 way test
for variances -to see if you met the criteria to really merit a variance. Because
going through here, I really can't see where there is any hardship at all.
Mr. Murray stated other than the dog. And yes, I did receive the 3 way test.
Mr. Cortellino stated the hardship as related to the law. However, I do have a suggestion
since I don't know how it will go if you don't get the fence. I have done in my yard
you can do natural plantings.
Mrs. Waddle stated that if you had a 3 foot split rail fence around it with roses
growing on it, even if you did put chicken wire on it so the roses oculd spread out
I think you could probably solve your problem.
Mr. Landolfi stated that there really isn't a hardship as it relates to your property
per say.
Mr. Murray stated that even though it is a member of the family.
Mr. Hirkala stated that in reality yes, but not by the law.
Mr. Landolfi stated that legally we wouldn't have any grounds to grant you a variance
on that, that isn't. If we granted you that variance someone else could probably even
sue us for our decision and they.would turn us around in a higher court, there are
no legal grounds for us to even stretch it.
Mr. Murray asked who originally passed the law as far as a Board with the 3 foot high
fences.
Mr. Cortellino answered, by the Planning Board who is an advisory capacity to the
Town Board. The Town Board doesn't over ride them the presumption is made that the
Town Board approves it.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion that the variance be denied. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cortellino.
' r
Page -4- June 11th, 1985
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we will now close the appeal.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #804, at the request of Barger & Luckel seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot sideyard setback when
20 feet is required on Lot #15, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel X66258-03-273193,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Dick Barger & Peter Luckel were present.
Mr. Hirkala stated that we can discuss Appeal X6804 at length and then the same reasoning
the same discussion holds true for all of them.
Mr. Barger stated that what we did a year and a half ago we came to the Planning Board
with a subdivision. We submitted under the R-15 zone, it is R-20 zone.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he gave two zones. What was it submitted under.
Mr. Barger stated that it was submitted under the R-15. The land is in the R-20 zone
but we submitted it with the R-15.
Mr. Cortellino asked how they could submit it under R-15 if it is R-20.
Mr. Barger stated that the ordinance allows that if you have Central water and sewer
you can go down to the next lower level.
Mr. Hirkala asked if they requested that.
Mr. Barger answered no.
Mr. Hirkala stated that then you didn't submit it that way.
Mr. Barger stated that we submitted it with the thing because the plan showed it
but we never officially asked to have it considered under the R-15. Although, the
whole map was made up under the R-15. So, we went through a year and a half, everbody
had the map on the map we have the plan showing 15 foot sideline, so we went all
through the thing and got it approved and filed the map, built four houses and we assumed
everybody was...... because the first 4 houses we built were 15 feet from the sideline
and when the Zoning Administrator went over it she picked it up and said you failed
to do one thing, you failed to make it legal, ask for the reduction so that is why we
are here.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many years has he been preparing sites in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mr. Barger answered 20 years.
Mr. Cortellino stated that then it is not the first time.
Page -5-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Barger answered that it is the first time he was here.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he misunderstood the question. It is not the first time
a map was submitted from your corporation, lets call it, and you know the law. I
don't understand the over sight.
Mr. Barger stated that because basically if you knew my operation Mr. Russ handled all
the Boards and he was alot more familiar with the laws than I was. It was an over
sight on my part not to request that the zoning from the R-20 to R-15, it went through
about 14 months of review and nobody in that time, I have a letter from the Zoning
Administrator at the time, Pam Farnsworth, going over the plan and okaying everyting.
It was an oversight on our part.
Mr. Luckel stated that they even asked us to reduce the subdivision by one lot to
reset some sidelines, so I mean everything that laid before them for 14 months.
Mrs. Waddle stated that we are effectively being asked to rezone that area.
Mr. Luckel stated that what has happened is the project is totally sold out. Every
lot is under contract. It is half built, and now we have this problem.
Mr. Barger stated that it is half built with the R-15.
Mrs. Waddle stated to let the Town Board settle it.
Mr. Luckel statedno, they sent us here.
Mrs. Waddle stated that I am saying, Mr. Chairman, the this is a Town Board problem,
not a Zoning Board problem. We are not going to re -zone out there.
Mr. Barger stated that we are not asking you to re -zone.
Mrs. Waddle answered that yes you are. Look at how many houses that you have here that
you are asking for variances on, that constitutes a re -zoning in that area.
Mr. Landolfi stated that if we in fact granted that variance as you request we are
ultimately doing a re -zoning in the area. I understand you got the okay all the
way up the line.
Mr. Luckel stated that it was a suprise as much to us. Everything is sold out.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she has no doubt that someplace along the line, someplace up
in the office, somebody didn't do their job by checking carefullly enough to see what
was filed. I think the blame lays in both areas because, like you said Mr. Barger, you
have been in business in the Town for 20 years, you know the regulations, I think it
is a two fold problem, but I don't think it is a problem of the Zoning Board.
Mr. Cortellino asked, just out of curiosity, howmany houses are built on them.
Mr. Barger stated that he thinks there are only two.
Mr. Cortellino stated that they don't need a variance on the ones that you didn't
build because all you do is build a smaller house.
Mr. Luckel answered that you can't becuase you are contracted.
' Page' -6-
June 11th, 1985
Mrs. Waddle asked that if they don't get the variance, what are they going to do.
The re -zoning, what are you going to do.
Mr. Barger stated that then you have no choice, but you ruin the area you are trying
to establish. The lots are not wide enough in that area for what we are doing
without the extra.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she could understand this, but I don't understand that we as
the Zoning Board have to grant variances hole hog if you will, I thin that is up to
the Town Board, if they are going to re -zone, then they are the people who should sit
down and do it.
Mr. Luckel stated that we are in a catch 22 now. We were up there and they sent us
here. We lost alot of time.
Mr. Caballero stated that he doesn't see any way that he can grant a variance on this.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks it has to be referred back to the Town Board for
re -zoning.
Mr. Hirkala stated that personally he could understand the situation, and I know Dick
well. But, I also know that Dick is going to take this plan and he is going to take
a piece of paper and he is going to take a piece of land and stick as many buildings
he can on it and he is going to give it to the Planning Board. The Planning.Board
didn't pick up on it and say that you have 2 or 3 or 4 less lots to be able to satisfy
the building requirements. Regardless of whether you got the shape of a lot you can
look and see what size house you can put on it and my feeling is that it would be
a re -zoning, it could border on a re -zoning if we go ahead and grant these kind of
variance in one shot. I think we could put ourselves in a catch a 22 situation, we
are sitting on alot of problems. A precedent that could be set with this type of
thing could be.....
Mr. Landolfi stated that he could also see the people that are buying those homes
I can see them coming into us.
Mrs. Waddle stated that they could be in a worse bind, they wouldn't be able to do
a thing on that property, unless they come in for a variance.
Mr. Caballero asked if Mr. Luckel is saying that if you get sued you are going to sue
the Town.
Mr. Luckel asked what choice does he have. Every lot is contracted, they are going
to sue me now.
Mr. Hirkala asked if they talked to the Planning Board.
Mr. Luckel stated that they sent us here.
Mr. Hirkala asked then you have not talked to the Town Board.
Mr. Luckel answered no.
Mr. Landolfi stated that the Town Board has been aware.
Page -7- June 11th, 1985
Mr.Cortellino stated that they do not re -zone, they do not legislate. If you say
there was a rock in the middle of the place that would cost $20,000.00 to take it
out, I would say fine, put the house right on the line. But other than that my hands
are tied.
Mrs. Waddle stated that if it was one house over there that had a problem it is different
than having 10 or 15 come in with the same problem.
Mr. Caballero stated that we have had people come in for a variances for a deck and
we have turned them down with a rear door that the builder had put in, they have been
turned down. How am I going to face them.
Mr. Landolfi asked that the two that are in, are they aware that what the have is it
like in other words that they can't add on.
Mr. Barger stated that they can add on 'the back.
Mr. Luckel stated that with a 15 foot sideyard you are not going to usually add.
Ms. Young stated that the Building Inspectors records indicate that only one foundation
is partially finished of the 7.
Mr. Hirkala asked that when this was found out, did you stop building.
Mr. Luckel answered yes.
Mr. Caballero asked who found out.
Mr. Barger answered the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cortellino stated that this brings up something new. Only one foundation is in.
What is it a slab.
Mr. Luckel answered no, it is a whole foundation.
Mr. Cortellino stated that if that is true he may look at it differnetly. If the others
will go in following the rules of the R-20.
Mrs. Wadddle stated that is why he is here. He can't.
Mr. Landolfi asked to get back to the lot that the foundation is in. I assume that
that is, a customer is committed to that already.
Mr. Luckel answered that the lot is sold and contracted. Every lot is contracted.
Mr. Caballero asked if he had an escape clause in the contract.
Mr. Luckel answered not when we accepted money.
Mrs. Waddle suggested that the get up to the Supervisor's office in the morning.
Mr. Luckel answered that he is well aware of what is going on here. He again recommended
that we come here.
Mr. Landolfi stated that after consultation with our lawyer, the only avenue they had
was to come to us at this point and request a variance from us.
Page -8-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Luckel stated okay, lets say it is a mistake, he says the only way to legalize it
now is to at least pass the variance so on record those particluar lots are legal.
The mistake has been made.
Mr. Barger stated that the only real mistake that was made was that we didn't officially
request going from R-20 to R-15. If we had requested it they would have approved it
that way.
Mr. Hirkala stated that I am looking at these lots, 65 foot frontage, 90 foot frontage,
in a half acre zone.
Mr. Luckel stated that those lots that you pointed out, Mr. Hirkala, were 65 foot
frontage, take a look at those, they are over an acre zoning. We did not rape this
land. It was 18.8 acres, we come out 17 lots.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he is looking at a lot that is 65 foot frontage, its 77,000
square foot, its pye shaped. The house is proposed at a position where, I don't know
looking at the contours, #8 they could satify the setbacks in a half acre zone by taking
the house back.
Mr. Barger stated that the heavy dark line, you can't go back in there, it is a 100
year flood way.
Mr. Hirkala asked what percentage of this lot is in the flood way.
Mr. Barger answered that he doesn't know what lot they were talking about.
Mr. Hirkala stated that it looks to him like 75 or 80% of the lot is in a 100 year
flood way.
Mr. Barger stated that he would say 60%of the lot.
Mr. Hirkala stated that the Town Board has the right to take this whole area and
down zone it to R-15, the Town Board has that right. We don't have the right. We
could grant relief under certain conditions.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the proper way is to re -zone it and then the people out there
want to build on or do something they don't have to come in here @verythime.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he doesn't care what they have to put on, they are going
to have to come before us.
Mr. Hirkala stated that you take any one of these lots, where the houses are located,
you have a sideyard problem, even if we grant a variance, because the people who buy
these houses, 5 years from now are going to want to do something different, and they
can't. They are going to have to get variances because they are too close to the
side lot lines. Whereas, if the Town Board down zones it.....
Mr. Luckel stated that he has one more problem. He has a house in there that is going
to close in one week. it has the same problem as this right here. Those people are
going to loose their mortgage, the whole thing. You now what is going to happen there.
What do we do with them. The house was built on the pretense of a 15 year setback and
the house will close in one week.
Mr. Landolfi asked what lot this would be.
Mr. Luckel answered Lot #10. They are futrue taxpyers of this Town. What am I going
to do.
Page -9- June 11th, 1985
Mrs. Waddle stated that we have been in this bind with builders before where we have
kw been put to the wall because they have people ready to close.
Mr. Landolfi stated that one builder has been putting up a couple in a hotel, and as
I told him, should I help pay for the expense, I didn't make that problem.
Mr. Luckel stated that he didn't either. If the Board did their job it would have
not gotten through. I look at it this way, gentlemen, I see 3 signatures on this
map, it is a filed map, everything is legal.
Mr. Cortellino stated that we cannot re -zone. You know under what grounds we can
grant variances, you got the sheet. Your only course of action is, one, you can
pursue the Town Board to re -zone that area to R-15 or perhaps go to court and they
will look kindly, and they have the power to over ride us.
Mr. Luckel stated that this is a financial hardship on Lot #10.
Mr. Hirkala stated you said the hardship is created. If the hardship is created by you
we can't find for you in a variance. The question to me here in my mind is whether
or not the hardship is created by the Town or by you or by outside forces. It seems
to me that there is a certain amount of culpability in your presenting the plan in this
form, with the hardship question, how do we seperate that out. Because, it specifically
states, in a matter of fact it has been founded in court. If the hardship is created
by the applicant it does not consist of a hardship.
Mr. Luckel asked, why do we come to these Boards with these projects if they are not
going to screen this stuff and find these errors.
Mr. Cortellino stated that they do screen it but they are not liable.
Mr. Hirkala asked whos responsibility is it to come into the Town of Wappinger or
any Town in the United States and take a piece of land and say I want to put some
houses on that land, whos responsibilty is it to know under what conditions they can
put houses on that land, it is the guy that is doind the building, it is not the
Board that he goes before.
Mr. Luckel stated that they even went to the point of asking us to remove a lot from
the subdivision to expand the lines, so obviously they looked at the sideyards.
I have a time problem, I have houses supposed to close, what do we do now, I lost
3 weeks, I stopped construction, I didn't mean to turn around and sue, I stopped
construction so I am going to listen to everybody, now I have a problem. You are
telling me that I have to wait one month to go to the Planning Board.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she would entertain that if they go to the Town Board and
perhaps the Town Board can set a special meeting in this place if the Town Board
doesn't give them any relief at this point.
Mr. Hirkala asked if they talked personally with any members of the Town Board on this
problem.
Mr. Luckel answered Mr. Versace. He recommended that we go to the Planning Board and
then they sent us here.
Mr. Hirkala asked if the Town Attorney even looked at this question at all.
Mr. Landolfi answered that he had.
Page -10-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Luckel stated that he recommended that we come here.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the other problem shed has is that when somebody in this
Town, in the Building Inspectors Office, in the Zoning Inspectors office, and the
Planning Board make the mistake they always come to the Zoning Board to bail them
out and we bail them out and then we have problems 3, 4 5 years down the road. I
have been sitting on this Board 15 years and I can tell you how they multiply when
we go into something like this. I think the Town is growing to fast and to big to
be very hasty in our decisions and especially when you have to consider all of these
pieces of property.
Mr. Barger stated that the Planning Board said that they legally couldn't do anything
to give us relief and they said we had to go to the Zoning Board.
Mr. Landolfi asked a question on Lot #10.
Mr. Cortellino stated that we don't have a lot 10 on this agenda.
Mr. Luckel stated that because it was already built under a permit with the 15 foot
sideyard. The house is up and it is going to close in a week.
Mrs. Waddle asked that the permit was issued under this.
Mr. Luckel stated yes.
Mrs. Waddle stated that that might be a special problem.
Mr. Hirkala asked that you have a building permit on that lot and you don't have a CO.
Mr. Luckel we don't have a CO.
Mr. Waddle stated that she thinks that since it has gone that far we may be able to
grant some relief on that one.
Mr. Hirkala asked if there are any other building permits on any of these lots that are
put forth.
Mr. Barger stated that he thinks Don Keller has one on Lot #2. Lot #1.
Ms. Young stated that they have not yet been issued, the application are.
Mr. Luckel stated that a building permit wa given on Lot 410 about six months ago, the
house is now built and ready to close and then this thing came up. I am going to
have a problem getting a CO.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she can see granting relief on that, there rest go to the
Town Board.
Mr. Landolfi asked Ms.Young to make a note that those owners should be notified that
they are legally non -conforming. They should be aware that they can't have any decks.
Mr. Cortellino stated that when it is legally non -conforming even if it is legal they
have to come before us.
Mike Santis - Precision Built - asked about lots 8 & 9.
Where I am concerned right now, I want to purchase Lot 9 & 8. Now if I change the
design of the house, a different type of home that I comply to the zoning sidelines
would I have to come before this Board.
Page -11-
Mr. Landolfi answered no.
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Hirkala stated that if you could stick a house on that lot that meets all the
setbacks of the R-20 zone you don't have to see us anymore.
Mr. Luckel stated that Lot #10 is going to close next week, Lot #2 has a foundation.
The rest of them we haven't broke ground yet. They are contracted but we haven't
broken ground.
Mrs. Waddle stated that you really have one problem with next week. Lets take that one.
Mr. Hirkala stated that we don't have an application for that one.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we can't legally act. The only thing we can do is........
Mr. Luckel stated that we had a permit on that already. The only reason is that we
are here at all is that we weren't granted permits to start construction on these. The
other one already had a permit.
Mrs. Waddle asked, didn't they tell you that you still had to get a variance on that
one also.
Mr. Luckel they said they gave them out three or weeks ago.
Mrs Waddle stated that that doesn't matter, she can't legally issue you a CO on it.
Mr. Luckel stated that they legally issued me a building permit at 15 foot sideyards.
The house is up.
Mr. Hirkala stated that you know that you have a problem with these other lots but
on.the other lot you have the same porblem and the only differnece is that you have
a house on it. That would be the one I would be in here first on.
Mr. Cortellino stated that if they pay for publication we could have a special meeting
two weeks from now for that Lot 410.
Mr. Luckel stated that they pay for that legal notice anyway.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they can't act on something that they don't have.
Mrs. Waddle stated that again, that should have been, the Zoning Officer that told
him he had to come in and get a varianceon that house.
Mr. Luckel stated that that was under the old Administrator.
Mrs. Waddle stated that that doesn't matter.
Mr. Landolfi stated that someone in that office at the time should have picked it up.
Mrs. Waddle stated that it could be published in the Journal on Thursday.
Mr. Hirkala asked that they get the application in first thing in the morning.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he did not want to see the owner of that house in here
saying he wants to add on and he can't, lets have no surprises.
Page -12- June 12th, 1985
Mrs. -Waddle stated that if we have to deny them one by one and then give the reason
fir+ as it amounts to a rezoning and it be referred to the Town Board to rezone the area.
A motion to deny appeal #804. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi then read the next appeal:
Appeal #806 at the request of Barger & Luckel seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot sideyard setback when
20 feet is required on Lot #2, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel #6258-03-280084,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to deny the variance and to refer this appeal to the Town
Board for a re -zoning. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala asked if the motion is specifically stating that it is the opinion of the
Board that this constitutes a re -zoning and go to the Town Board.
Mrs. Waddle stated that at this point we don't even have to deny them, you can table
the whole mess and send it to the Town Board.
Mr. Hirkala stated that if we sit down with the Town Board, and lets get Mr. Kessler
and find out exactly where he stands when he kicks it over to the Zoning Board of Appeals
and says that it is your perview to do this when it specifically it says it isn't.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she would recind her motion that we deny the variance and
table all the variance until we can sit down with the Town Board and, or sen them to the
Town Board for effective re -zoning of the area, that leaves and avenue open in case
this carries on to long.
Mr. Hirkala stated that we could even recommend to the Town Board to re -zone that
particular development.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion that all the Appeals by Barger & Luckel to be tabled and we
go to the Town Board. Appeal Vs 804,806,807,808,809,816. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi stated that we will now close the Barger & Luckel appeals for this
evening.
Page* -13-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Santis asked if the Minutes of the meeting are public record.
Mr. Landolfi answered yes.
Mr. Santis asked if it is possible if he could put a house within those sideline
requirements.
Mr. Cortellino answered yes.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 46805, at the request of James P. Elsbree, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot sideyard setback
when 20 feet is required on Lot 461, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel 466258-03-
286074, in the Town of Wappinger.
James P. Elsbree and Don Keller were present.
Mr. Elsbree stated that I bought this back in March and at that time I received
a map, I questioned the zoning, and talked with Pete and Canterbury Real Estate
who I dealt with when I bought this. I also checked with a member of the Planning
Board on the Zoning on the 15 foot sideline, I questioned it because I knew it
was R-20 I had checked on it. They said that the map was approved and signed off
by the Zoning Board. I went ahead then, I borrowed the money, bought the lot, paying
interest on this money, I had a house designed to fit the lot, I paid architect
fees, I had a house designed not at 15 feet but 16 feet sideline so that i would
be at least one foot underneath the requirement that was on the map. I have had the
lot surveyed, I have had the lot cleared, I have stumps removed and taken away, and
I have my builder and I gave him a downpayment over two months ago, quite a large
downpayment. I applied for the building permit and it was denied because this is the
fist time I heard about it and I think it is the first time Pete heard about it. I
got caught first. I then wrote a letter to the Planning Board asking them to question
this and get a resolution on it and I was on vacation and I called Anna from Florida
to find out what the Planning Board decided, she told me they approved it, everything
is go ahead, I got back from Florida and called Anna and she said they changed their
mind and something happened. I guess it was a legal question on whether or not they
had the authority to grant this. So, in the meantime, I am in the middle of this. I
have not started building, I want build, I am paying alot of money, I have paid out alot
of money already and I have these plans, so I am asking for another 15 foot sideline.
I don't want to re -zone the whole thing. The lot is a pye shaped lot like you saw
on the map. Lot 461 in the corner. It is 120 foot frontage. The house I propose is
a cape cod style house with a two car attached garage which will be 70 foot overall
length. Setting this thing back behind where the trees were taken out already puts me
about 70 feet back. At that point i only have 16 feet on either side -on the back
dimension of the house. On the front dimension where the garage I do have 20 feet
so from the street that is not going to look any different that the other houses in the
area, it is not going to change that character of the neighborhood. On the other
side where it is Griffith's property that house sits about 300 feet off the street
and that is all woods there so I am not going to be close to another house on the
other side. There is a rock wall there that is the property line. For me to
be denied this thing and go through the hassle and all that it is a real financial
hardship. I have been a taxpayer in the Town of Wappinger for over 20 years and
i just live about a half a mile Edge Hill, I like this property and we really wanted
that lot.
Mr. Hirkala asked about how much money he had in this.
Page -14-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Elsbree answered that he has about $34,000.00 in it right now that I am paying
interest on. I paid $32,000 for the lot and I have my architect fees, my surveying
fees.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Keller if he was the builder.
Mr. Keller answered yes. In spite of what you people feel about of the developer I don't
really, Mr. Elsbree has purchased his lot and he owns it free and independently, I don't
really think he ought to be penialized for anything that the developer did or the
Planning Board did, really it is a mistake the way I feel on the part of the Planning
Board or whoever approved the thing when we approved the subdivision.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Keller how long he had been building in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Keller answered 20 or 25 years.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would hear say that you probably know the zoning laws better
than we do. You also sit on the Planning Board. I am a little confused by all of that.
Mr. Keller stated that I wasn't involved with Mr. Elsbree buying the lot per say, I
made him aware, I said make sure that the house fits on the lot becuase I said that I
had a problem, we had changes, he says we didn't because I checked the zoning map,
when he said zoning map he meant that he checked this map. This map says 15 feet.
Mr. Landolfi asked when the last time was when we allowed 15 feet.
Mr. Elsbree stated that he was told that since it had been signed off and approved by
the Planning Board that was it, I didn't question it, Don did bring it up.
Mrs. Waddle asked if anyone on the Planning Board ask what zone it was in.
Mr. Keller asked, when we approved it you mean.
Mrs. Waddle answered yes.
Mr. Keller answered that we knew what zone it was in but we evidentally didn't know
there was a little scamatic at the top of the map. We didn't look at the scamatic
at the top that says the minimum sideline requirements and that states it on the map.
At the time, I think the zoning Administrator was probably Pam Farnsworth, or Hans
were supposed to review that, I am not sure who did that, evidentally they slipped up
and they brought it back and they signed off that it was okay. We as a Planning Board
don't really get into all that niddy and griddy stuff, we leave that to whoever
reviews that.
Mr. Landolfi stated that maybe that is part of the problem. We have been a garbage
collection agency here. I am surprised at what you just said here, how could you
not take all those things into consideration.
Mr. Keller answered that somebody reviews it on our behalf. This what not the issue at
the time, nobody had every brought the issue up of the sideline requirements, we
knew what zone it was in and we approved the thing, nobody had yet come in and applied
for a building permit where we knew there would be a problem. The problem the way I
see it is the thing on the map which says the minimum requirement. That is scamatic,
that is the problem right there. We as a Planning Board really don't look at all
those items, I will be honest with you.
Page -15- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Keller stated that he made a motion on the Planning Board that there should be
a note right on the map that this is the zone that it is and........ these maps don't
have it, now after this we changed, I made a motion that we do this. In bold print
on it that this is the zone, in other words you get an average density...........
What we are saying now is that the sideline requirements have to conform to the zone
in spite of it, and that has to be a note on the map in bold print.
Mr. Hirkala stated that even then, I can understand, and I have sympathy for this guy
here, the thing is that I suspect was happening is that there is a hecl of alot of
people looking at alot of maps, it sort of boggs up the mind, but the thing is that
you look at the development and you look at the shpaes of those lots, you have 87 foot
65 foot frontage, you have a pye shape lot and your limit is to how far back you can go,
what kind of house can you put on these places. Is it reasonable to assume that they
can put a house on a lot that shpae, with those kind, that is saleable.
Mr. Keller stated that in todays standards in this zone, when like you have in a R-40
zone you can put a 50 foot house on a 100 foot lot, that is the maximum house you can
put on it. The point that I think I am trying to put out is when we review these
maps, we usually take, we have a punch list that we follow so to speak, we give it to
the Zoning Administrator, whoever it was at the time, and they sign off on it, that
means that they reviewed it and everything on the map meets with their approval. If
we went over every nitty and griddy on the map, we would get one a year. I am not
trying to put the Planning Board on the table either, I am just trying to explain
his plight okay.
Mrs Waddle stated that they emapthize with Mr. Elsbree's plight, but I think we are
all caught in the middle at this point.
Mr. Elsbree stated that I told you, you asked me how much money was involved, I said
$34,000, I forgot my downpayment to Don, I also have 10% of the cost of the house to
Don. I have well over $40,000 bucks invested right now that I am paying interest on,
it is costing me a bundle every month. I can't put my house up for sale, I listed
it and I took it off the market because I don't know what is going to happen. I really
want to get started.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she knows, but I don't know how we can seperate this one out
from the others that are there at this point.
Mr. Elsbree stated that it is a seperate owner, individually, all by myself.
Mrs. Waddle stated that it is in the same area. If we issue that then we are effectively
setting a precedence in that area again, if we don't put it in with the rest of the
variances.
Mr. Elsbree stated that, I am not a builder, I am not a land surveyor, I am a taxpayer
that got caught.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he was wondering really that did he create his own hardship,
he didn't, the little bit of advice that he got stated that he was in good shape.
Mrs. Waddle stated that so did these gentlemen.
Mr. Hrikala stated that they are builders, he is not.
Mrs. Waddle stated that he is, and he is on the Planning Board.
Page -16-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Keller stated that he advised Mr. Elsbree on what to do, I didn't even know
what kind of house he was thinking, the over all lenght of the house he was thinking
about building when he approached me originally, he had modified the plans.
Mr. Elsbree stated that he even phoned some of the members of the Planning Board and
spoke to them and they all agreed with me.
Mr. Keller stated that it is in the minutes, we waived the requirements and granted him
the 15 foot thing on the whole thing. Something happened and I guess Vic checked
with the Attorney and he said that we really couldn't do that as a legal process, we
thought we could. He is really caught in the middle.
Mr. Elsbree stated that he is an individual and he owns that lot and it just happens
to be there, I have owned it for over three months now.
Mr. Hirkala stated that his feeling is that we grant him the variance becaused I think
he is a different case, he is a special case, I think that it is different from the
others that came before us. But, my only hang up is if the Town Board grants relief on
the whole parcel, does that make the variance .... because we gave him 15 feet.
Mrs. Waddle answered yes.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Elsbree when he was planning on starting to build.
Mr. Elsbree stated that he had planned to start at the end of April.
Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Keller when his breaking ground date is.
Mr. Keller answered as soon as we get the variance. The lot is cleared off and we
are just waiting.
Mrs. Waddle stated that unfortunately Mr. Luckel has stated that his lots are sold also
and they are all individual property owners at this point.
Mr. Hirkala stated, no, he is in contract. There is a difference. This is a completed
sale.
Mr. Luckel answered, so are these, these are sold houses.
Mr. Hirkala stated that I thought you said you had them all under contract.
Mr. Luckel stated that the project is sold out, contract to build. There is a house
for every lot in there, it is sold out.
Mr. Caballero stated that he has been very quiet listening to this problem and I don't
think that we can solve this problem for the gentlemen. I feel for them, for the
individual and the builder but this is out of our hands. This has got to go back
to the Town Board and make that area an R-15 to allow you to build those houses and
I think you are wasting your time here doing it becuase it is within their jurisdiction.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she would, if there is no one to speak either for or against
this, I would make the same motion, that this be tabled and that it be brought to the
attention of the Town Board within the next week.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he stands corrected, I assumed that those lots, the other lots
were just under contract of sale not contract to build.
Page -17- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Caballero stated that if you want to be fair to the zoning ordinance and the
other people who come before the zoning board of appeals on the other decisions that
you made in the past years, you have to give the same consideration to you particular
problem and it is not our duty to change the zoning ordinance, it is the Town Board's
and I can't see acting on any of these problems.
Mr. Elsbree stated that you are here to grant variances where cases of hardship...
Mr. Caballero stated that you have to meet the 3 way test, you might meet one of them.
Mr. Elsbree stated that he meets the 3 way test.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks in this case where there are 10 or 15 other properties
in the same area that have the same problems, you problem is not unique at this point.
All of those properties have the problem and we are attempting to solve that by having
the Town Re -zone that area to prevent further problems if you want to do something
else on that property, because, as we stated before, if you want to add on or do
anything else you are going to have to come right back here for a variance.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to table this appeal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Mrs. Waddle stated that we are going to try to attend to it as quickly as possible to
give these people relief.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi announced that there will be a 10 monute break.
The break was called at 8:05 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:18 P.M..
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 46810, at the request of Carl Swenson seeking a varinace of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 161 foot frontage when 200 feet
is required on Lot 463A, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 466259-03-987920, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Ernst Martin Jr. was present.
Mr. Martin stated that he would just like to aske the Board or make a statement that
Appeal 46810, which is 468 on the agenda and Appeal 46813, which is 4611, at this point
it will be not necessary that those be heard.as a result of a recent Planning Board
meeting that we went to we found that the, in reviewing the zoning Ordinance the line
between the residential and commercial zoning, initially we took it as being 600 feet
from the back of these lots, where in fact that it is actually taken from the roadway,
so by doing that it allowed Lot 463 to be much larger and therfore have the required
frontage.
Mr. Cortellino asked that he say that again.
Page -18- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Martin stated that this is the property line, initially we have 4 lots in here,
Lot #1, Lot #2, Lot #3, and Lot A. This particular property -lies in two zoning
districts, one being R-20 the other being Airport - 2 acres. In reading the zoning
ordinance when this line was laid out right here, we understood the zoning ordinance
to be 600 feet from the back of these lots to this line, seperating the 2 zones. In
going before the Planning Board along with Ms. Young, we realized, it was brought
to our attention that the 600 feet is not measured from the back of the lots it is
actually measured from the roadline.
Mr. Cortellino asked to see that sitation because.
Ms. Young stated that it is not in here it is on the zoning map.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he is not interested in the zoning map, I want to see it
in the zoning ordinance what it says.
Mr. Martin stated that you have to refer to the map and the small map is difficult
to read.
Mrs Waddle asked that how can you take it here if they don't own that property.
Ms. Young stated that it says that 300 feet......
Mr. Cortellino stated that when they defined the 2 zones they measured from the road
instead of from the back of the property line.
Ms. Young stated 600 feet from Daisy Lane was R-20. That is what it says on the
zoning map.
Mr. Landolfi stated that that takes care of 8 & 11, they come out, that they don't
have to be heard.
Mr. Martin answered that that is correct.
Mr. Cortellino stated is that what he would like to see is when they made the line
that called for a zoning amendment,, because at one time we did not have airport
industry. In the usual way that surveyors do, they are giving you non-descript
places, so many feet from point such and such. That is what I would like to see
where the measurments were taken from and not from the road. I want to see if they
said from the road or whether they gave a location, okay. Because, the map may have
been drawn that way, but I want to see what the amendment to the zoning law, how they
spelled it out.
Ms. Young stated that there is no amendment to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino stated that when the original zoning came out I don't think there was
airport industry. Every half year a little spot gets re -zoned at that time they spell
out the boundries, and I want to see how they spell out the boundries, whether they
spell it out from the road or from the back lot.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Cortellino if he was requesting item # 8 & 11 be withdrawn.
Mr. Cortellino stated say table until we find out.
Mr. Martin asked to table it so we don't loose it.
Page -19- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Cortellino stated that is right, because I want to find out not who is correct,
where the exact line is. The original definition of where........
Ms. Young stated that it might have been modified with the new zoning ordinance in 1980.
Mr. Cortellino stated that at the request of the applicant, I make a motion that
we table item #8, Appeal #810 and item #11, Appeal 4813. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Hirkala.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi stated that we table the hearing on these appeals.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4811, at the request of Carl Swenson seeking a variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 2 foot sideyard when 50 feet
is required on Lot #2, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-987920, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Ernst Martin Jr. was present.
Mr. Martin stated that what the applicant would like to do is again, to subdivide into
4 lots. Lot 441 conforms and Lot Vs 1&2 conform to the zoning ordinance, it has the
minimum frontage, it has the minimum area, however, there is an existing building that
is there, so that what we are asking for is a 2 foot offset.
Mr. Cortellino asked if this was existing even before zoning.
Mr. Martin answered that that is correct.
Mr. Cortellino stated that the problem is arising because now he is subdividing, am
I correct.
Mr. Martin answered yeas.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks the Board has a letter from the County on this.
Mr. Landolfi read the letter from the Dutchess Co. Dept. of Planning.
Mr. Martin stated that essentially, if we take this line and move it in the other
direction than we do not conform to the zoning ordinance on this property. It we
take it and move it in this direction and meet that sideyard setback then we cannot
get the number of lots that we so desire.
Mr. Cortellino stated that there is nothing saying that we have to give you the lots
that you so desire.
Mrs. Waddle stated that you can still do something with the property it may be not
exactly what you want to do with.
Mr. Landolfi stated that that is what the Co. Dept. of Planning is saying, you can
utilize it but not for what you intend.
Page -20- June 11th, 1985
Mr. Cortellino stated that it is not to give you an economic advantage, for instance,
if I had 4 - one acre lots in a 1 acre zone, I have no problem with putting up 4
houses if I follow the lots. But, if I say I want to put up 5, I would have a problem
and I could say very well, now I have 5 lots, I can get a larger return, that is not
the purpose, to give you larger return, the purpose is to minimize the granting of
variances and try to get you to conform with the zoning ordinance as much as possible.
Mrs. Waddle stated that like right now they are asking for 6 variances on this piece
of property.
Mr. Landolfi stated that using his example, that is a self inflicted hardship. You
are creating your own hardship.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the property can really be designed to such where you maybe have
to come in for one variance and not 6, and I think 6 is going a little over board.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he thinks that the request for a variance on Lot #1, all the
requests for variances on Lot #1 are aimed at one purpose, for saving the buildings.
That is benefiting that developer, we can't grant relief.......
Mrs. Waddle stated that he can move down this line and still save the building, maybe
not have as much on the other end, as long as it conforms with the zoning ordinance.
He has alternatives.
Mr. Martin stated that the alternative is to loose one lot by moving this down and that
is an economic hardship to the applicant.
Mr.Cortellino stated that not enough for a variance.
Mr. Caballero stated that it is self created.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he has to point out the fact that a piece of this parcel was
cut out for Brown Chiropractic, wasn't it, some years back.
Mrs. Waddle answered yes.
Mr. Hrikala went on to say that that in itself is part of the problem.
Mr. Landolfi stated that there is no hardship that he can see here.
Mr. Martin stated that again, for the records, and I am repeating myself, by moving
that line over, yes, we can make this lot larger to conform to the ordinance but
we are going to be using one lot. As far as my client is concerned, that is an
economic hardship.
Mr. Cortellino stated that we have that on the record.
Mrs. Waddle stated that unfortunatley he would have to prove to us that it would
be an economic hardship in dollars and cents.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we would need notarized CPA statements, if in fact that you
and your client elect to go that route.
Mr. Cortellino stated that economic hardship does not comprise of that I can make more
money, it is that he is not getting a fair return for the use of the lands for the
purpose it was intended, that is economic hardship, not that I can earn $20,000 more
so you know what the ground rules are.
21
Page -21-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would close that appeal.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to deny the variance. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
The motion to deny with the reason that it is a self-imposed hardship.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4812, at the request of Carl Swenson seeking a variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 50 foot frontyard setback when
100 feet is required on Lot #2, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-987920,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Ernst Martin was present.
Mr. Cortellino stated that before he makes a motion on that one, this is right now,
these buildings and all of this are on one lot, am I correct.
Mr. Martin answered that that is correct.
Mr. Cortellino stated that then itis self-imposed, then I make the same motion.
Mr. Martin stated that he disagrees with that. The existing property line is right
here, this building was in prior to zoning.
Mrs. Waddle stated that he can bring it into conformance now.
Mr. Martin stated that on the front setback, no.
Mrs. Waddle stated that not on the frontsetback, I am sorry, no.
Mr. Cortellino stated that what I am saying is that we don't want it subdivided the
way you show it.
Mrs. Waddle stated that what the Board is trying to say is take it back to the drawing
board and come into conformance as much as you can, and then if you still have a problem
come back to us.
Mr. Martin stated that he was confused, he thought we were talking about 812.
Mr. Cortellino stated that perhaps what we should do is save you money and table all
this.
Mr. Martin stated that that is not the point here. 812 we are talking about frontyard
setback. The zoning calls for 100 feet and we are asking for 50.
Mr. Cortellino asked let me ask you a question, since our lawyer isn't here, and I know
you are not a lawyer, since it is legally non -conforming, why are you requesting a
variance now.
Page -22-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Martin answered because they would like to have everythin proper.
Mr. Hirkala stated that it is legally non -conforming, you don't need it.
Mrs. Waddle stated that instead of denying this I think you should withdraw that
because you don't need a variance on that.
Mr. Cortellino stated that it was there before zoning.
Mr. Martin stated that then we don't even have to come before the Board.
Mr. Caballero stated no, not for the 50 foot setback.
Mr. Hirkala stated that the next one is the same thing. A 7 foot front setback.
Mr. Landolfi stated one at a time.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she would ask Mr. Martin to withdraw that since it is not
needed.
Mr. Martin asked the applicant if he wished to withdraw this appeal. He answered yes.
Mr. Landolfi stated that it is withdrawn.
Mr. Martin asked if he would get something in writing to that effect. You will put
that in writing.
Mrs. Waddle stated that it is in the zoning ordinance. And anyway the minutes are
public record.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they will close that appeal.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #814, at the request of Carl Swenson seeking a variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 7 foot front setback when
100 feet is required on Lot #1, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-
987920, in the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Ernst Martin was present.
Mr. Caballero stated that that is legally non -conforming.
Mrs. Waddle asked what is in there now.
Mr. Martin stated that he thinks it is a fitness center.
Mrs. Waddle stated that that is in there, so that is also legally non -conforming.
You don't need a variance on that one. Do you want to withdraw that one.
It was decided that there was a variance previously granted for Dr. Brown.
Mr. Landolfi asked then Appeal 4814, that is being withdrawn.
Mr. Martin answered yes.
Mr. Landolfi then read the next appeal:
Page -23 -
June 11th, 1985
Appeal #815, at the request of Carl Swenson seeking a variance of Article IV, §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 foot sideyard setback when
50 feet is required on Lot #1, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-987920,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Ernst Martin was present.
Mr. Caballero stated that this is the same as the others. It is legally non -conforming.
Mrs. Waddle stated that they don't need a variance on that lot either.
Mr. Landolfi stated that appeal is withdrawn.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 44799, at the request of American Lumber Company, seeking a variance of ArticlelV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an 18 foot setback when 30 feet
is required on property located on Chelsea Road, and being Parcel 46056-01-174862, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Martin, Engineer and Mr. Saul Palick representing American Lumber.
Mr. Martin stated that as they know this was before the Board last month and a concern
that the Board had was relative to the offset of an existing building as far as the
fire safety. We had the Fire Chief from the Chelsea Fire Company come down to the site
and make an inspection. He gave us a verbal okay that he didn't see a problem with it
however, I unfortunately do not have a letter to produce to you tonight.
Mr. Landolfi showed Mr. Martin the letter from the Fire Inspector for the Town.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we asked for the overall dimensions of the buildings relative
to the property.
Mr. Martin stated that they have addressed that on the plan. I think the allowability
coverage is 307 and by adding this on we are actually about 177, so we are under the
allowable.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he has a problem with, there is nothing here that talks to the
fact of the fire dept. having any kind of a problem getting to that property where all
the storage is on the property now.
Mr. Palick stated that the reason they built the other property, 50,000 sq. ft., black -
topped, fence around it, is to elieviate that problem. We have been growing and when
growing you have to have more lumber and we want to take the lumber that it sitting
in this yard where we are putting this building shed take it out all together. Get all
that spaced cleared there will be plenty of room. We need working area, thats or why
we run into the expense of building. This shed that we intend putting up, we want to
put some high class lumber in there so we need a shed over it. Right now we have stacks
of lumber in that very place with a fence, it has been there 25 years, all we want to
do is take all those stacks of lumber out of there and put a shed up where the lumber
was for 25 years and put high class lumber in it, lumber that we don't want to get wet.
This is all we want to do.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he thinks Mr. Hrikala has a point. This is a unique situation
where you have stuff that is out, regardless if it is a building or not, and you have
to think of the width of a fire truck and its movement through the area. You may have
177 coverage it could even be 57 coverage but especially with lumber or barns you will
never put out the fire.
Page -24-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Palick stated that the isles between the lumber are 30 feet.
Mr. Martin stated that the owner is willing to go to the 20 feet as requested by the
fire advisory council.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they will now close this appeal.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she does not have a problem as long as they take into consideration
what the Fire Prevention Bureau. I make a motion to grant the variance with the
consdieration given from the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like consideration given that if there is going to
be outside storage, I mean permanent storage also will maintain those lanes.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hirkala.with a comment. One of my concerns is the long
term plans of the company. They are growing they are big, will this site accomodate
any more growth. Are we going to be asked to grant more variances on this property
because on the blacktopped property they want more sheds. My concern is that the growth
of this company on this particular piece of property might well be at its limit.
Mr. Palick stated that in this particular area where we want to put this shed now I
agree with you, you can't do anymore.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - nay Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #800, at the request of Tim Gale seeking an interpretation of §421 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Jack Railing was present.
Mr. Railing stated that this particular property borders on New Hackensack Road and
has frontage on the same. The parcel is in 2 zones, the frontage on New Hackensack
is AI -2A to the rear is R-40 which through all the deeds there is a 50 foot right-
of-way to All Angels Hill Road. There is also a stream that runs across the front of
the property about where the separtion is between the AI -2A and the R-40. The
problem is with this particualr piece is it becomes a practical difficulty to take
access back to the residential area from the New Hackensack frontage. We have shown,
this is a proposal we have before the Planning Board, its a 3 lot subdivision which
is basically splitting off the AI -2A from the residentail and secondly creating a 2
lot subdivision, eash lot being about 20 acres. 16 and 21 acres. What we had
proposed to do to satisfy the section of the ordiance which I will quote to you in a
minute was to show actual 25 feet along the frontage of New Hackensack and flag lots
coming back to these but yet taking access through the existing right -or -way that
comes out on All Angels Road. The Zoning Board gave the interpretation that that
section of the ordinance, which is §412, stated that we had to take the access off of
the R-20, 5 foot frontage. My request since then has been to request a variance, if
that is at least possible from this section of the ordinance to allow us in this
particular case because of the practical difficulty to take our access off of the 2
25 foot right-of-way strips on All Angels Road.
Page -24- REVISIONS June 11th, 1985
Mr. Martin stated that the owner is willing to go to the 20 feet as requested
by the Fire Advisory Council.
Mr. Cortellino stated that this is 10 now, take off 10 more, 20 feet total between
buldings.
Mr. Palick stated that that is logical, I agree to that.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to grant the variance with the recommendations of the
Chairman of the Fire Prevention Bureau.
Page -25-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Railing stated that the question is, can I request a variance from that portion
of the code because of the practical difficulty of the stream which runs between the
Ai -2A and the R-40. You can see that I have plotted on there the flood plain from
the Wappingers Flood Map indicating the expanse that you would have to go through to
try to get a driveway across that and for 2 residential lots that I think that we could
agree that it does become quite a difficulty and quite a hardship in this particular
case.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #801, at the request of AKHR Associates, seeking an interpretation of §422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Railing and Mr. Klein was present.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he is going to step down from this appeal.
Mr. Railing stated that what we have here are 2 parcels of land, actually 3 parcels
exist under the Benedetto Subdivision which was created some years ago. One site
plan has already been approved for an office building. Mr. Klein is now into the
Planning Board with the, what we call Parcel B & C, this is all HB -2A zone, the
application is for 2 office buildings, in effect it is two seperate properties be
placed on the same map with a site plan so that we can do it as one unit to make
everything work together. What we have requested, or are requesting is an interpretation
of that § of the Zoning Ordinace which relates to use. We can place on this particular
parcel all retail, we can place on this particular parcel all office and we can do the
same on this particular parcel, now what we would like to do, and as I interpret the
ordiance, is split that use to a certain degree in effect what we are doing is that we
are designing both parcels together and in that respect it has that added attraction
for this particular site plan. What we would like to do is have each building with
one half office and one half retail, whatever portion of that building it is going to
be, we have no problem with relating. In other words we would have both retail up and
both office down or visa versa, whatever the case may be. We will do it in a coordinate
fashion.
Mr. Landolfi asked what type of business they had in mind.
Mr. Klein answered low key retail, drug store, travel agent, stereo.
Mr. Railing stated that they have gone before the Planning Board and we have told them
what we would like to have, and they suggested that we come here for the interpretation.
I assume that if the Board says fine, we think that you are within the interpretation
of the ordinance then we will go back to the Planning Board and say okay this is what
we are doing. If you don't agree then we will take any advice that you have to give
us to try to make it work for the total site.
Mr. Caballero stated that he has no problem with office space and retail as long as it
is done nicely.
Mrs. Waddle stated that they would have to get a special use permit if you mix.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he suggests that they proceed to the Planning Board
Mrs. Waddle stated that the interpretation is that they can do it with a Special Use
Permit.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #802, at the request of Kem-Lack Improvement Company, seeking a Special Use Permit
pursuant to Article IV, §421, paragraph R-20 #5, fo the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
for a medical clinic, on property located on Myers Corners Road & Kent Road, and being
Page -26-
June 11th, 1985
Parcel 46258-03-240146, in the Town of Wappinger.
' Michael Morris, from Morris & Andros was present. He is the owner of the property.
Mr. Morris stated that he has owned the property for about 10 years, I guess, and the
reason I am before the Board tonight is that it is 3 acres and in an access of 3 acres.
It is in a R-20 zone. It is on Myers Corners with Central Water and Central Sewer.
It has the pond there which is one of the reasons I bought it, I felt that the pond
could be made a natural, appearance wise, it could be really cleaned up and look nice
but not for an individual home it would be economically hard to where a doctor office
you could really dress up.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the only thing we can do tonight is make a recommendation that
this be sent to the Planning Board and then when we get it back we set a public hearing.
I would make the motion that this be sent to the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero seconded that motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4767, Richard Dombrowski, discussion on a rehearing.
There was no one present.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would have to re -apply.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she would ask him to come in and discuss his new information
and why he wants us to rehear the case.
Mr. Elsbree asked if he could get some information.
Mr. Elsbree asked that he would like to know what the procedure is now. You said that
you are going to table this and....
Mr. Landolfi stated that the plan is to try to meet with the Town Board immediately
and discuss with them the whole smash there and your included in that and to also
give some recommendations to them to consider. If they do end up re -zoning, they will
have to have a public hearing.
Mr. Caballero stated that lets say they decide not to re -zone the area and leave it as
it is. I feel that if you can present your case and the Board would have to make a
decision on your particular situation.
Mrs. Waddle asked Ms. Berberich to make the Supervisor's office aware that we want
a meeting right of way.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4794, at the request of Kathleen and Michael Schnorr, Discussion on a request
for a sign variance.
Kathleen & Michael Schnorr were present.
Page -27-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated that they did meet with the Town Board.
Mr. Cortellino stated to Mr. Schnorr that he did not follow what the Planning Board
suggested. You were suppose to come before us before you filed everything to ask
about a sign variance. You did not do that. You have a check list of things to do
for site plan approval, one is to come before us for a variance for a sign. You didn't
do that, you put up a sign and then you came in.
Mrs. Schnorr stated that we didn't put a sign up. There is a little one on the mail box.
Mr. Hirkala stated that they are still missing the point. Legally we still can't act
on this because he is operating the business illegally in the zone. The Town Board
did not vote at the Town Board meeting to re -zone that property. That is a legal function
of the Town Board to re -zone the property.
Mr. Schnorr stated that then everything that happened at that meeting was a waste of
out time. So, what Mr. Versace said, that it is back to you guys and you guys can
now move.
Mr. Hirkala stated that if the proper step are not taken you are the one that is going
to get hurt in the long run. Right now you are operating that business illegally in
that zone, now, anything that you do from here on out is going to lock you into a big
problem. If you go to sell that property later on, or sell the business or anything
you are illegal, you will never get a mortgage on it. The fact of the matter is is that
the business that you have in that zone doesn't conorm there. The only way to fix
it is to change the zoning or have the Town Board actually legally say that in their
perview ther wouldn't be a re -zoning and then the Zoning Board of Appeals can act on it.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we are going to meet with the whole board and our lawyer
on Luckel, and I will ..............
Mrs. Schnorr asked if they recalled the meeting in March, and didn't we discuss that
yes it was a problem and that an error was made and that we were operating there and
the Town made amistake or whatever it was. And, that we could continue our business
there and then we were told that in order to get the variance we would have to go
before the Town, so we did that.
Mr. Cortellino stated to get a re -zoning you go before the Town to get a variance you
go before the Zoning Board.
Mr. Schnorr stated that it is a neighborhood business and in order for you people
to rule on it it has to be general business.
Mr. Landolfi stated which would be a re -zoning. Our Board can't re -zone.
Mr. Schnorr stated that it seemed to me that when we left that meeting everything was
taken care of.
Mr. Caballero stated that he thinks that this Board should make a decision on the variance
on the variance, the application that is made on the sign either approve it or deny it.
I would not approve a sign on that property.
Mrs. Schnorr asked what the purpose of that meeting was.
Mr. Landolfi stated to try to help you.
Mrs. Schnorr asked then why did they bounce it back to you.
Page -28-
June 11th, 1985
Mr. Caballero stated that even if you were legally there I would not grant a variance,
I would turn down a variance for a sign to clse to the road there.
Mrs. Waddle suggested they get some legal advice.
Mr. Cortellino asked Ms. Berberich that when an applicant comes in, ask them it they
are going to appear with a lawyer. The reason I ask this I would like to have this
to be quoted on the application.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
Y)
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
lb