The URL can be used to link to this page

1985-07-09ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL JULY 9TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal 4817, at the request of Tim Gale, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an alternate access from lots while 25 foot street frontage is required with access over such frontage on property located on New Hackensack Road & All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-360045, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 4822, at the request of H. B. Office Machines, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 square foot sign when a 2 square foot maximum sign is allowed on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46157-02-899988, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Appeal #767, at the request of Richard Dombrowski, a discussion on a re -hearing. 2. Appeal 4810, 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 property located on Lot #3A, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal 4813, 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 property located on Lot #3A, New Hackensack Road, and being Parcel 46259-03-987920, in the Town of Wappinger. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal 4818, at the request of Hugh Greer, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow automobile sales, service and repairs, on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 46158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAFFINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 Memo To: Zoning Board From: Linda Berberich, Secretary Date: July 1st, 1985 Subject: Addition to the July 9th Agenda Please add the following: Appeal 4805, 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 46258-03-286074, 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: July 2nd, 1985 Subject: Addition to the July 9th Agenda Please add the following: Appeal 4824, at the request of Theodore C. Gross, D.D.S., seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, #5, to allow a medical clinic in his residence, located on Lot 415, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel 46258-03-273193, in the Town of Wappinger. n a M ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 9TH, 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, July 9th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Landolfi - Chairman Mr. Cortellino Mr. Hirkala Mrs. Waddle Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator Mr. Landolfi asked if all of the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Landolfi asked to entertain a motion on the minutes of the last meeting. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to accept the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hirkala. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi then stated that they would go through each appeal this evening, we will give each person an opportunity to be heard, we may or may not render a decision this evening. Either way you will be notified. Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal: Appeal #817, at the request of Tim Gale, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an alternate access from lots while 25 foot street frontage is required with access over such frontage on property located on New Hackensack Road & All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel #6259-03-360045, in the Town of Wappinger. John Railing, Engineer - Tim Gale, applicant were present. Mr. Landolfi asked for the benefit of the people in the audience tonight, could you just take a minute to explain what your client is attempting to do. Mr. Railing stated, this particular map was prepared by my office, it is a sketch plan that was presented to the Planning Board and subsequently to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their suggestions. Mr. Gale has title to approximately 50.5 acres. The property is located off of New Hackensack Road, generally opposite the Dutchess County Airport. The particular property is bisected by a stream which runs behind John Alexander's property on down through the pond by the Jewish Community Center. This particular property is half, if you will, by this particular stream. Mr. Gale had gone to the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger in attempt to subdivide this particular property into 3 parcels. The of the property is Page -2- July 9th, 1985 zoned AI -2A, Airport Industrial - 2 Acres, the rear portion of the property is zoned Residential - R-40, which is 40,000 square foot zone. Because of the err✓ location of the stream and the difference in the zone on a single parcel, Mr. Gale wanted to subdivide off the AI -2A from the residential and since he was before the Planning Board, at any rate, he requested to subdivide the residential parcel into 2 properties. The result Parcel A being approximately 12 acres, Parcel B being 12 acre in the AI -2A zone, Parcel B being 16.7 acres, Parcel C being 21.8 acres and those two parcels being in the R-40 zone. The first parcel, Parcel A, did have a small portion of the 12 acres which did include some residential in the area of the stream. The Planning Board had advised us that under §412 of the ordinance we would have to seek an interpretation of the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether or not we would have to take the 25 foot access for Parcels B & C, the residential parcels, from the New Hackensack Road area where we had shown a 25 foot access. We had requested to take access for these two residential parcels through a right-of-way which exists to the, on the Southern end of the property. That right-of-way does not cross over our lands it crosses over the adjacent property owners land. We came to the Zoning Board of Appeals, we asked for an interpretation, the interpretation was that the ordinance in fact required that we take the access off of the 25 feet. We then asked the Zoning Board of Appeals if we applied for a variance from this particular requirement of the Zoning Ordinace, §412, and thus we are here today. What we are asking for is to rather than take access from the 25 foot strip on New Hackensack Road for parcels B & C, we are asking to take our access through the right-of-way which touches onto All Angels Hill Road to the South. To get into the reasons for the request and the hardship that is involved with that if you want to at this time or we can wait. Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks he better explain. Mr. Railing stated that, the right-of-way through the property has existed for some 25 or 30 years. I can show the deeds that reference that. The variance that we have requested we have requested for several reasons. Number one - along the stream that I spoke of is a rather large flood plain. To gain access to parcels B & C is pratically impossible. The type of structure that you would need for a single family residential lot would far preclude the development of a residential parcel. The stand of this flood plain is approximately 200 to 300 feet and in some cases even larger. Therefore, we really do not have access to the residential portion, and thus the practical difficulty of access does exist. If one were to think back 25 or 30 years the reason for a reservation for a right-of-way becomes obvious at that point so it would not have the problem of crossing the stream which does during the heavy rains from 100 year storm flood exceed its banks and spread out in a rather large pattern. The hardship therefore is unique in that the residential portion of the property is seperated from its access point which touches on the road. We feel that the variances would observe the spirit of the ordinance. This is a residential zone along All Angels Hill Road, we plan to develop these 2 residential parcels, the parcels are large in size, we are not trying to over- incumber the land with an access number of parcels, we are only asking for two, and in that sense we feel that it is within the spirit of the ordinance. The earlier deeds quote this particular right-of-way and it is descibed, I won't go through the meets and bounds etc., except to indicate that the right-of-way was conveyed and it was allowed to endure to the benefit of the grantees, their heirs and sons. Mr. Cortellino stated that he missed the earlier part about when Mr. Gale bought the land -or did he buy the land. Mr. Landolfi asked, did he own it, is this contingent upon granting of a variance. Page -3- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Gale answered, no, I have owned the land for approximately 4 to 5 years. It used to be a parcel that was owned by Mrs. Moon and subsequently it was subdivided along All Angels leaving this right-of-way back when it was subdivided. Since then what has evolved, it all used to be one parcel that was subdivided on the road frontage. Mr. Cortellino asked, you said it was about 5 years ago you bought it, so it was already zoned Airport Industry and Residential at the time. Mr. Gale stated, the subdivision line, as Mr. Railing pointed out, is pretty much dividing at the Wappingers Creek area there so that the buffer between the Airport Industrial and the residential would be the creek itself instead of trying to construct a bridge that would cross. Mr. Cortellino stated to Mr. Railing, I understood what you said in an informal talk, this is the formal hearing. You would contact the owner of the right-of-way, the individual who granted the right-of-way because I pointed out what difference does it make if he continues to own that right-of-way or whether he sells it to you since essentially he can't use it for anything once he allows you to run over it. What happened there. He will not sell you the r -o -w. Mr. Gale stated that he has a house on the lot, on the r -o -w. In fact, his driveway is on this r -o -w. Mr. Cortellino asked, my question is why can't he sell you a strip right next to it. Mr. Railing answered, as I explained again in the informal talks, the problem is like him selling a particular strip of land would make his parcel non -conforming. Mrs. Waddle stated, in other words, you just said that his driveway is on this r -o -w. Mr. Gale answered, it appears that way. Mrs. Waddle stated, you really don't know. Mr. Railing answered, I can't tell you exactly whether it is his driveway also. I think that when we discussed that we indicated was the fact that his house is on the land and his driveway may not be within the r -o -w, but the problem is we couldn't buy any land because of the fact that it would make him a non -conformer. Mr. Landolfi stated that we don't know that for a fact. In other words, that was a suggestion that would aliminate granting the variances. Mr. Gale stated, well I know from his neighbors, Dr. Heaney I believe, he had spoken with him he was interested in the parcel, and he had said at the point, yes, he was aware of it, obviously with the deed also, and that would be useful for a driveway. He said that it is good for a driveway. Mrs. Waddle asked if the man who has the r -o -w here this evening. Mr. Heaney asked if Mr. Gale could tell him what he said. Mr. Gale stated, I thought that you said you had spoken to Mr. McCamy and you said yes you had realized that it exists but that.......... Mr. Railing stated, one point that probably I haven't made, is the fact that this Page -4- July 9th, 1985 r -o -w did exist some 30 years ago. Mrs. Waddle asked if it was ever used. Mr. Gale answered, I haven't used it myself. Mr. Railing stated, whether the previous owners ever used, I do not know. Mrs. Waddle stated, well I don't know, we have an attorney present, so he is going to be able to tell us whether it is a r -o -w or not, I guess. Mr. Railing stated, at any rate, what I am trying to say is, the r -o -w has existed for some time, I have a copy of the deed here, Library 857 441 which indicates, April 29th, 1954. Mrs. Waddle stated, so that was 30 years ago. Mr. Railing went on, it indicated, at least to this deed, the r -o -w. It begins approximately at the bottom line then it goes to the second page. Mr. Cortellino asked, the lot that you don't own here where the r -o -w is, what is the acerage there, do you happen to know. Mr. Railing answered that he did not know. Possible you can find out as the meeting goes along. Mr. Cortellino stated, because, I will tell you where I am leading to. This is approximately, here it is 50 feet from the edge of the driveway to the property line. Over here there may be 40, so lets say 50 times 500 feet is a quater acre. That is zoned R-40, so if he has over an acre, in other words, if he has an acre and a half he could sell off this strip. Mr. Railing stated, the problem is, if you were to take the strip as it is presently described, I think it would cause a severing of that property into 2 pieces. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think it is a mute point at this time because the owner of the r -o -w is here and we haven't heard from these people yet whether they even want to consider it. There is a legal precident to be set. Mr. Landolfi asked who would like to speak either in favor or against this appeal. Mr. Alan Rappalyea and I am here for Mr. McCamy who are the people who own the property which the so called r -o -w, we are not conceeding that there is a r -o -w what we would like is to give you some information, show you some photographs, first Mr. McCamy would like to read a statement, which he will then give you and then I would like to address you. Mr. McCamy -54 All Angels Hill Road, Wappinger. Mr. McCamy then read a statement which is now on file. Mr. McCamys stated, I have here a map of the land and I have photographs. This map has certainly more detail, since it show, it does show the position of the house, the well, the shed, the driveway. Mr. Cortellino asked Mr. McCamy, when you bought the land was the r -o -w on the property already? Mr. McCamy answered, the r -o -w had been established earlier. My deed simply refers to Page -5- July 9th, 1985 rights of way and easements of record. When you go back to check the record, you find a very interesting thing. The r -o -w is described as being a r -o -w to Myers Corners Road. Myers Corners Road is about three quaters of a mile from my house. We have, there are maps in your office. Mr. Cortellino stated, excuse me, maybe you didn't understand my question. For instance, I have a r -o -w through my property, it is for Central Hudson, I am trying to find out the purpose, was it for just access, where did you say it was to, Myers Corners. Mr. McCamy answered I do mean, yes that is what the deed says. Mr. Cortellino stated, it doesn't state the purpose other than just an access. Mr. McCamy stated, looking at that it didn't appear as though it had anything to do with my property, however, it turns out, if you do follow the exact angles and dimensions it is referring to this r -o -w, so there are maps even in you office upstairs that refer to Myers Corners Road. But at any rate, that was the description. I have photographs of the area if you are interested in seeing what it looks like. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think we are all probably familiar with your property, we have been out checking, and we are somewhat familiar. Mr. Rappalyea stated, I think I would like to have to call your attention to Mr. McCamy's map, I think he refers to atleast one Central Hudson pole that is dead in center of the so called r -o -w and of course I think the pictures are important because they show that, and it is our claim of course, that this so called r -o -w was abandoned and has never been utilized, thus abandoned, and in fact is covered with a heavy growth of trees, all mature, and as Mr. McCamy pointed out, if utilized,there is no guarantee the use would be restricted to one lot so that it will have a dramatic effect on this house. I would like to further point out to you, as brief as I can, the fact is that the purpose of the ordinance is essentially to provide that everyone has access to public streets and that purpose is further important to note that access to a public street allows utilities, water, sewer, fire and all those things that a person needs to have the use of that property and have access to it. We of course contend that no such r -o -w exists now because it has been abandoned. We also contend that what the deed that its contained in does refer to Myers Corners Road and thus is invalid in that sense. What I would further point out to you is that the deed itself that eligally gives this r -o -w is very restrictive in that it says simple that the persons owning on it, I assume Mr. Gale and its co-owners,of the persons who own that property now, since they have the right to pass and re -pass over a r -o -w owned by Mr. McCamy, in other words, if there right exists, it simply exists to pass and re -pass, because they have never utilized it in the past 10 years, we believe it is abandoned, but even if it did exist, again, simply to be repetitive, the right of pass and re -pass, in other words, there is no possibility that they can construct anythin upon it. There is no possibility that they can put utilities over it because there is no wording to allow that, and I am sure that you are aware that these restrictions and these rights are strictly read, there is no right to put in utilites underneath the ground there, so that anyone utilizing this, and if you are going to allow 50 acres in instant to be developed there, there will be no possibility of them having these rights, unless the Town of couse goes in and condemns the land for that benefit of that property owner, its not my idea that the Town is willing to do that, so that, the very limitation of that r -o -w in my mind should absolutely prohibit the use of it as it is thought that they might want to do here. Perhaps when they wrote this document up they just didn't give it enough thought. Maybe they intended that, it really give access to this inner parcel, the fact is that they didn't do it legally and Mr. McCamy now owns the property and relying upon the absence of any Page -6- July 9th, 1985 traveled r -o -w he unfortunatley or his accessor, predecessor to title, built a house which in fact faces the so called road or r -o -w and it is owned 17 feet there from, so that if this is utilized as a right into this property, allowed by this Board, in a sense it would be creating another problem because as these photographs show, the so called right is staked out and I think you should take a look at them, and make them part of the record and the car that Mr. McCamy has parked there was parked there purposely with the thought in mind that that would be the approximate north edge I believe of the so called r -o -w and that is where his house is, so you see what the situation is. We are going to pass all of these photographs up to you. I would just simply like to remind and I know this Board is well aquainted with the fact that the burden is upon the petitioner here to prove hardship, I don't think any hardship has been shown. There has been a statement made that it would be expensive to pass over this creek but there has been no proof offered as to what this so called expense would be or why it could not be mitigated by developing the property in another way or more heavily, developing it it does permit 30 homes and you are talking, we are not really objecting to it being developed, Mr. McCamy is just objecting to the property being developed in a way that it destroys his property so that there is other access. There is access from New Hackensack Road as Mr. McCamy has pointed out, there is access from neighboring properties that would not destroy his property and he believed that the ordinace should not be violated because the very purpose is to protect people like Mr. McCamy. Mr. McCamy, by the way, has never been approached to my knowledge by the applicants here, in fact Mr. Gale pointed out its not even....r-o-w so called but, he has never been approached about purchasing any land, but certainly this particular proposal is not in accord with good development practices. We do note, and perhaps the Board is aquainted with the fact that at one time when that was before you there was a proposal to put a road in from New Hackensack Road. We do not see why that should not still be done. It is my understanding also that there are other neighbors here, and not to take an....lenght of time, but they would like to voice their objections on the record and perhaps say something in opposition to this, and of course Mr. McCamy is here if you have any questions, and we will be happy to answer them. I would like to force an opportunity at this time if we may for any further statements by the appellant, so I reserve that right. Mr. Railing stated that he would just like to quiet one point, and that simple point is that the proposed sketch plan does not indicate any road coming into the property, quite the opposite where it indicates in sketch plan form is two driveways to the two residents, there is not any intent to put any "Town Road" on the particular r -o -w. Mrs. Waddle stated, at this point in time. Mr. Railing answered, it is physically impossible to do as sighted by the Attorney. You cannot put a Town road on land that you do not own, and we never intended to do that, we intend to put two driveways there, and if necessary we would combine the two driveways into one. Mr. Cortellino asked, are you on record that Parcel B willforever have just one house on it and Parcel C will have just one residence on it, or can that be further subdivided. Mr. Railing stated, it does not have a viable access to do that, that is what I am saying. Mr. Cortellino stated, it doesn't have it now and you want to put up a residence. Mr. Railing stated, that is why we are asking for a variance, because of that hardship. Page -7- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino answered, right, but if you have that r -o -w then you could come back and ask for an additional. Mrs. Waddle stated, whoever the parcel is sold to can come back and ask for an additional..subdivision. Mr. Railing stated, what we tried to do is equate the subdivision ordinance. We have this r -o -w that is some 30 years old. Mrs. Waddle stated, that at this point in time you are not really sure whether you have a r -o -w or not. I have a feeling that it is going to go through courts if you press this there may not be a r -o -w. Mr. Railing stated,one other comment is that when this gentlemen purchased the land in 1970 no attempt was made to quiet such title. He has owned that property for some 14 years and no attempt has been made to quiet it. Mrs. Waddle stated, well, obviously he hasn't been near the place or used the r -o -w. Mr. Railing stated, only at this point now that he has come forward because this property now he wants to split into two parcels, so I am not a lawyer. Mr. Hirkala asked, go back and tell me why Parcel B and Parcel C are split up from the rest of the property in the manner that they are split. Mr. Railing answered, one reason is because of the visible seperation of the property by the stream and the very expandable 100 year flood plain. It physically and practically seperates the parcel in two. Secondly, we have then taken Parcel B & C and split them in two based on trying to equate the permit of the ordinance two 25 foot accesses. We have also shown on this map, to call attention to the Board, that we have trying to meet with the spirit of the ordinance again show two 25 foot strips out to New Hackensack Road. Mr. Hirkala stated, Jack, you haven't answered my question. Why did you draw the lines the way they are drawn between Parcel B & C. Mr. Railing answered, between B & C, no particular reason. It seperated the parcels basically in half. I can adjust that line to your liking. There really is no reason. We followed the r -o -w line to the first portion of the line coming from All Angels Hill Road then we followed the line splitting the parcel in half ane then we just followed the rest of the line down through the 25 foot strip to a 25 foot strip on a Town road. Mr. Hirkala asked, what is the intent of having two parcels back there rather than one parcel. Mr. Railing answered, the intent of having two parcels rather than one. Only to aquate to the ordinance. The ordinance allows you on 25 foot of road to take access for a-single"family dwelling in a R-40 zone. We have 50 feet of r -o -w, obviously he would like to develop this with 2 houses and he has 50 feet. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Chairman I don't even know how we can rule on this or give a variance because it hasn't even been established that there is truly a r -o -w there. So, until that is established I don't see how even it can come before the Zoning Board. Page -8- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Gale stated, just to answer your question there correctly, Mr. Rappalyea here has, my interpretation of his discussion indicates that all of this is a new thing. I didn't see him .......Mr. McCamy's deed which says "subject to the easements and right of way of record in the zoning and building ordinance in the Town of Wappinger" on Mr. McCamy's deed. So it is not new thing that has just cropped up. Mrs. Waddle stated, we are not saying that it is a new thing. Mr. Gale stated, what he has insisted on is in -Mr. McCamy's deed is my point. Mrs. Waddle stated, if a r -o -w truly exists today is a legal point which this Board cannot rule on, therefore, I don't see how we can even grant a variance based on the contention that there might not be an established right-of-way at this point, and I think that would have to be solutioned legally before you gentlemen even come in here and obviously it hasn't. Mr. Gale stated, the r -o -w is recorded in my deed and Mr. McCamy's deed. Mrs. Waddle stated, that doesn't matter, the r -o -w has not been used and I am sure that Mr. Rappalyea will proceed to court with the issue and therefore we can't grant on what is a supposed r -o -w becuase we don't know if one is established at this point. Mr. Railing answered, I think if that is your feeling, and you are one member of the Board, I think that possibly is what you seek is you own legal opinion. Not to force us into court. You can't just send us away today and say fight it out in court. r Mr. Cortellino stated, I support Mrs. Waddle's position. I am not going to ask Mr. Rappalyea to advise us, but our lawyer is not here, so I would like to table this, it is a very good point that, say someone gave indians a r -o -w through their property because they are very nice indians to go pick apples off a tree, the indians are gone, does it last forever, it is a point I would like to know. I am supporting Mrs. Waddle, I would like first to find out if the r -o -w exist. We have in our ordinance that if a business has discontinued, legally non -conforming six months something has not happened, it reverts back to what that zone was, it doesn't last forever just because at one time it was existing. Mrs. Waddle added, and if there is no r -o -w and we don't even have a case we don't even have to rule because......... Mr. Gale stated, as a matter of record let me speak. We are not proposing 30 lots and we are not proposing a highway. Mrs. Waddle stated, you're not, the next guy might and then we have a big problem in the Town. Mr. Hirkala stated, if the next guy comes in and says I have 20 acres here in R-40 zone, I can put 1 acre per lot or 10 lots in there and I don't have access, you better give me access. Mr. Walter Heaney spoke. My property abuts or adjoins the McCamy property. I have lived here for 12 years, I have yet to have seen anyone use this r -o -w. The r -o -w would be within 20 feet down to approximately 5 feet of my property. I object to it due to the fact that there is access off New Hackensack Road. I investigated this property for purchase myself from Mr. Gale. There is a r -o -w set off on the plan that is submitted to you and that is the same plan that I had. With this access I don't see why one should have a home one has lived in for 20 years de -valuated to practically nothing. That one small area of homes along All Angels Hill Road Page -9- July 9th, 1985 and Brook Place is a unique little area in the Town. This r -o -w could do horrendous damage to that small area of the community. I would just like it stated that I am very much opposed. Herbert Graff - 60 All Angels Hill Road. I property adjoins Mr. Gale's property. I am opposed of violating the ordinance and I would like to point out two things that haven't been pointed out yet. The r -o -w would emerge right on the corner of the road, the map doesn't even represent the visibility factor. The reason I object is because I fear that there will be muliple homes installed, I believe there is an ordinance that you need an exit and entrance for such a development which would be provided between New Hackensack and All Angels and then that road would become a short cut and the whole residential area, this quiet area would be transformed into a thruway, so I object. FlorenceGraff - 60 All Angels Hill Road. I strongly object to this, I think that it is herendous that anyone would even think of about going through a mans property dead center but Mr. Gale's property as you can see has 360 feet of frontage on new Hackensack Road and even if he had a 25 foot entry because of the fact that there is low land he could make a bridge if he had to just to get to the property. There is also another access to his property, another right-of-way next to White and Baschetti and it touches right to the end of the corner of Mr. Gale's property. I don't know why he hasn't tried to get into there. The other thing is, I don't know about this a,b, & c that he has cut up the property but he does have I don't know how many acres that is zoned airport industrial. It goes back I don't know how many feet and then begins your R-40. One of the fears is as an example, B & D had bought up 5 acres on All Angels Hill Road that was zoned R-40. When he went in to have a variance, he got his variance to change it to airport industrial. Why, because the airport will not allow, as far as I have heard, not allowed houses to be built there,becuase of the traffic patterns of airplanes. Mr. Hirkala stated, correction please, that was not a variance, it is re -zoning by the Town Board which is not this Board which is not......... Mrs. Graff asked, it was re -zoning, is that because they wouldn't allow houses to be built. Mr. Hirkala answered, that has nothing to do with it. Mrs. Graff stated, aside from that, it is a possibility that in the future he is mentioning about 2 parcels, if he means 2 parcels means 2 homes, is that what you mean, two homes being built on 50 acres. That doesn't make sense to me but, the other scary thing is sometimes the swaying of people, they could extend that airport industrial even more into the R-40 because alot of that land is in a valley where the Board may object or the zoning would object to having any homes down there but they certainly wouldn't object to having industry in there, and that would be one of our fears, aside from the fact that it is a herendous crime against the owner. Pat Phillips - speaking for the Terwilliger property on All Angels Hill Road. It is my mothers property. I agree with everything that the other people have been saying, however, there is one point that I find particularly neediling that has not been brought up before now. It is difficult to get in and out of your driveway with your car because of the on going traffic in either direction because of the IBM building down on Myers Corners Road. It is difficult to go and get your mail just walking across the street. There is no reason to feel that there would be less of A problem, it would be more of a problem if you have access from All Angels Hill Road onto that piece of property. Page -10- July 9th, 1985 Mary -Ann Gasko - 58 All Angels Hill Road, our house would be two houses to the south next door to Dr. Heaney. We are opposed to you granting any variance or anything that would in any way allow them to come into this so called r -o -w. One of the reasons that we would be very upset because of this, our house being the second house is already very close to the road. When we moved there 12 years ago we went to the County to the Master Plan to make sure that they weren't thinking about widening the road, and of course at that time they were not. However, in order to make some sort of road for them to get in besides just a little driveway it is, as Mr. Graff said, on a very bad curve, so something would have to be done and my fear would be that it would come across my property which would probably put us closer to the road in order to get into, jsut to make it safe for these people to come in and out of it. Mr. Rappalyea stated, we would like to present the Board with one additional photograph which is the drivers view as one is coming out of Mr. McCamy's driveway. That curve that has been referred to is shown. Mr. Cortellino asked to see a copy of the deed. Mr. Rappalyea stated, I would like to mention that to. This is not a copy of our deed, per say, Mr. McCamy was correct, his deed simply refers to rights of way granted. This is the deed that eligally creates the......... When you are referring it to council I would like you to get from him his view as to the meaning of the language that is in there. The point is as I mentioned earlier is that it is our position in addition to the fact that the r -o -w had been abandoned that its use is so restricted that as a practical matter the whole proposal would be frustrated by the inability to use it in any other fashion then simply the right to pass and re -pass in other words, no utilities, no electric, no other purposes, and so the ordinance which intends that they have access to public streets is frustrated again and so the variance shouldn'-t be granted for that reason. So, when you are asking your lawyer, please ask him to define how limited this access really is if it exists. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak either in favor or against. John Cook - 68 All Angels Hill Road. I just want to register my objection to this. I don't border any of this property. I just don't think it is right to take someones property in the manner that they are asking and there is another way to get into this property. Mr. Landolfi stated that they would now close this appeal. There was a discussion among the Board. Mr. Landolfi asked for the wishes of the Board. Mrs Waddle stated, I move that we deny the variance since the petitioner has other accessable means into that property. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Page -11- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #822, at the request of H.B. Office Machines seeking a variance of Article VI, §416.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 3 square foot sign when a 2 square foot sign maximum sign is allowed on property located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6157-02-899988, in the Town of Wappinger. Robert Hettinger, owner, was present. Mr. Hettinger stated, I request a simple sign noting that we are a business on Myers Corners Road. We have had many occasions over the last 12 years of having no problems what so ever, however, when the County had come in and raised the level of the road approximately three and a half foot on the west side to five and a half foot on the east side, the level of the road navigated it so anyone using a train of sight would almost bypass us. Over the first 12 years we had no difficulty what so ever, and again it is a simple sign. I have had complaints which had instigated this appeal for a variance. The sign requests for larger than the required simply because of the physical attractiveness of a sign if it was made to allow someone to see it would have to stick up on stilts, whereas a sign 3 x 3 we feel it is adequate to acomplish what we want. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Hettinger, I believe you are a non -conforming, in a non- conforming zone right now. Legally non -conforming business in a non -conforming zone. This would make you even more non -conforming. Mr. Hettinger stated, I have proof, I didn't bring it with me, when this became a non -conforming business approximately 24 years ago there was a sign on the property that had been there. Mrs. Waddle stated, sir, you haven't been at that place for 24 years. Mr. Hettinger answered, when the ..... were there in a physical time which was.... Mrs. Waddle stated, that was a different business and 24 years ago that was before the zoning ordinance came and they would have had to come into conformance had they stayed there also. Mr. Cortellino asked, You roof has a sign, right. Mr. Hettinger answered, yes. Mr. Cortellino stated, and you have, what I would call a sandwich sign on the shoulder of the road. Mr. Hettinger stated, which we want to eliminate. Mr. Cortellino asked, where will this sign be going. Mr. Hettinger answered, this will be going right abutting the drive as it comes in through our store. Mrs. Waddle stated, you don't have setback there. You can't put it right on the road. Mr. Cortellino asked, how many feet off the road. Mr. Hettinger answered, probably 8 foot. Page -12- duly 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, you can't do that. You have a problem there. Mr. Landolfi stated, that is a different problem than the size of the sign. Mr. Hirkala stated, the ordinance says 5 feet, but that doesn't mean for commercial purpose that means for residential purpose. Mrs. Waddle stated, you can put a sign on the building. Mr. Hettinger answered, I have one. Mr. Hirkala stated, the problem with the fact that he is asking for a sign variance on Article IV, §416.31, §416.31 says signs in resident district. This is not a resident sign it is a commercial sign. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think you are in the wrong district, you looked in the wrong district or whoever helped you looked in the wrong district. he is a non -conforming business in a residential area. Mr. Cortellino stated, that so called temporary sign or whatever you want to call it is illegal. Mr. Hettinger stated, what would happen if we granted your variance it would make your property more non -conforming that it is already. Mr. Hettinger stated, I am only looking primarily for the safety of our property and the traffic that is on that road. It isn't my fault that IBM built there now we have 10 times the amount of traffic. Mrs. Waddle stated, you knew when you went in there that it was a non -conforming area when you opened the business there. Mr. Landolfi stated, if I understand your customers, I believe the majority of your customers are repeat customers, is that not a fact sir. Mr. Hettinger answered, that is right. Mr. Landolfi stated, you do have an excellent reputation, I could find you out in the dark becuase, without any signs because of your reputation, I don't see where the sign that you are requesting has any baring or an impact on your business. Mr. Hettinger stated, okay, I will withdraw it. If somebody gets killed there, don't come to me. Mr. Landolfi stated, the sign isn't going to help whether somebody is going to get killed ornot, there is going to be an accident..... Mr. Hettinger stated, the trees are obstructing since the raised the road. Mr. Landolfi stated, that has nothing to do with the size of your sign. That is a different issue. Mr. Hettinger stated, you are by it before you see it. Regina Pace - 53 Myers Corners Road. I just feel that it is unnecassary for him to put up a sign due to the fact that it is a busy road and it is clearly visible from both directions and the ordinance is in effect to be followed. And, since I do live there it is my home and I really think it is unnecessary to put up a sign. Page -13- July 13th, 1985 Mr. Hettinger stated that he has gotten complaints. Mr. Landolfi stated, I don't deny that, that you do have some but, by the same token, out Board is powerless, we shouldn't make a piece of property that is non -conforming more non -conforming. Mr. Hettinger asked, why weren't we told this prior to us coming here. Mr. Landolfi answered, you can still request a variance, andyone can request a variance. Mr. Cortellino stated, we are restricted as to what we can give a variance for. It is not a vote, if the Town of Wappinger has a big election, everybody says give him a variance we cannot give you a variance, we are restricted legally -as to when we can give a variance. Mr. Hettinger asked, we were told that if we requested this it would be within the confines of the law as far as the depth of the sign off the road. Thats what we were told, otherwise we would have never had done this. Mr. Landolfi stated, there are two problems, one is the closeness of the road that you have to contend with as well as the size of the sign that you are requesting, so there are a couple of problems that you are confronted with, plus, as we pointed out by saying, as Mrs. Waddle pointed out, you are in a non -conforming zone to start with. Mr. Cortellino stated, if you say trees are blocking the view of your place of business those same trees must be blocking the view to Roberts Lane. Mr. Hettinger stated, they are only blocking the view sir simply because the road level has been raised up. Mr. Cortellino stated, you didn't let me:finish. Complain to the County Highway as it is unsafe since they did that and they can give him a line of site the trees should be taken down, that simple, they have done it on New Hackensack Road and they didn't even widen that and they cut down 100 year old trees. If a safety hazard exists you report it. Mr. Hettinger stated, I will retract it. Regina Pace stated, I have no trees in the front of my house. He is supposed to have an entry and exit sign on his property according to the State and your regulations and rules, he does not have them. Mr. Landolfi stated, we will have that checked out. Regina Pace stated, also, he is supposed to be 3 ffet from my property line with his blacktop, he is up to my property line, it has been allowed to pass, they said the ordinance states that he is supposed to be 3 feet away they said we will let it go, nobody ever did anything about it. Mrs. Waddle asked, who did you talk to. Regina Pace answered, the County and the Zoning Board. Mrs. Waddle stated, you never talked to us, we are the Zoning Board. Page -14- July 9th, 1985 Regina Pace stated, I called once. 4*01 Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against. There was no one. Mr. Landolfi stated that he will now close this appeal. Mr. Cortellino stated that he moves that the variance be denied. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The Board called a 10 minutes break at 8:00 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 8:08 P.M.. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: 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. James P.-Elsbree was present. Mr. Elsbree stated, I own Lot #1 on Kent Road, Cedar Creek Estates. I started negotiations for buying this lot and I close that last October, I put a binder on it at that time, I negotiated with Pete Luckel. We couldn't come to an agreement on a price for the house and ended up he sold me the lot, and I bought the lot on the first of March for $32,000.00. Before I went final on the lot I made sure that I could build a house on it and at my price range so at that same time before I bought the lot I contacted a builder whom I had known for a long long time, a neighbor, I got a price quate, actually a fixed price from him on a particular house, the sketches that I had made. At that time he questioned the sideline variance, I questioned the sideline variance, I called Barger myself who was the land surveyor on it that appeared on the map. I also called the Town, I don't know who I spoke to back in December or January time frame, when I purchased the lot I was given this map as part of the purchase agreement, which I know that you have all seen, personal copy and you know about the little sketches on there. Knowing that I had a house designed, this was my proposed plot plan that I gave to my surveyor to survey the lot, title search and lay out the lot and so forth. I allowed for a 16 foot sideline setback on the house so I wouldn't come close to the 15. If you notice also on the front corner it is 20 feet out there. I positioned the house 75 feet back, there were trees knocked down already before I bought the property. And that is basically where the hole was, in the woods, so that was basically where the house would go, I didn't want to cut down anymore trees than necessary. I did have to go in because there were trees on the sideline that I had to take out all the stumps were there so I payed to get trees cut down and I also payed to have the stumps removed from the property taken away and dumped and the brush cut out. This is a picture of the house that I am going to build. It is a cape cod style, this is the main sections of the house, this is going to be -made to look like an extension which is actually the building and a 2 car garage on the side. It is going to be a one bedroom house all on one floor, it is just my wife and myself Page -15- July 9th, 1985 my kids are all grown up. You can see basically what is in there. This is what I had invested in the lot already. I have quite a bit of money invested in the lot, I applied for the building permit back around the first of March. Mr. Landolfi stated, so the record shows, as you know we did have a, we called a special meeting with the Planning Board and the members of the Town Board to try to remedy if you will the situation out in that development and we, as you know there are many problems, we are trying to weigh your case obviously independent of any other and not trying to be prejudice in any way shape or form. However, I think you did sit in and if you did recall the discussions that went on relative to.... Let me ask another question that may be pertinent here. At what stage are you right now, you did apply. Mr. Elsbree stated, I applied for a building permit back around the first of May, April 29th, up to that time as far as I know, there were no building permits rejected for Cedar Creek Estates. Mr. Landolfi stated, you did some land clearing becuase I went out there and I saw the lot and as you say you paid for that. Mr. Elsbree stated, up to this time I knew that he had already built two houses and almost completed the third that was given the variance last week. He started the foundation on the lot next to me so I had no idea that there was a problem. Mr. Landolfi stated, we told Mr. Luckel, you know, we would not like to see it back in here. 5o, go back to the drawing boards and adjust the lines or the size of the houses or whatever. Mr. Elsbree stated, in this case Anna told me about the three points as far as a variance goes, one it shouldn't change the nature of the neighborhood and I am sure that my house going on here isn't going to change the nature of the neighborhood. Looking at the house from the street you can't tell that I am only 16 feet from the rock wall on the one side, I am 20 on the front part of the garage but the way it angles in, the pye shaped lot, I am in violation in that back corner, so as far as the nature of the neighborhood, it will enhance the neighborhood to put a nice house in there. As far as creating a hardship myself, I don't feel that I have created a hardship myself, this is something that I got involved into, I think I did reasonable checking on the thing, I was advised by my builder to check it, and I checked it, the real estate, but I did check with Luckel, I checked with Barger, I checked with a member of the Planning Board and I did call the Town. They told me as long as I had the map, it has been approved, it was signed off, and all that, so, I knew no better. Mrs. Waddle stated, you do have a couple of options here. You can place the house sideways on the lot and then you don't need a variance or you can take the garage and put it in the back of the house and you don't need a variance, and there are options that you can do with that piece of property. Mr. Elsbree stated, I think looking at the side of the house from the street isn't very pretty. Putting the house sideways you have no backyard what so ever. The abckyard is your privacy thing, you want a backyard, sideyards aren't to much good but backyards you are going to have your garden. Mrs. Waddle stated, you are 210 feet deep, and you don't have to go back the 75 feet. Mr. Elsbree stated, in order to conform I would have to move the house within 25 feet of the road, I have done all of this on a computer, made the measurements. Page -16- July 9th, 1985 In order to get 20 foot sideline on this house so it would comply I would have to take 25 off the building which is violation. I want to stay behind the trees to keep the noise down the dust and everything else. To detach the garage and move it in the back I still have a problem even though I could then put my garage within 10 feet of the line which you know, that is the law. If I moved it back, and I checked with Don on this, that would be a financial hardship because it is going to cost me about $5,000.00 to do that for replans, an extra foundation on the garage, and extra wall for the garage, and two off the side, he already gave me an estimate on that, $5,000:00 more in addition to what I have in there is just to much, I can't go for it. I would have to sell the lot. I am into this thing, I was very careful with money because I only have so much and I can't go out and build a $150,000.00 house I just don't have the money. This is affordable, I am going to do part of the work myself even to save money so that I can keep it within my budget and I am on a budget. I did look at that possibility, it effects the house in that right now I have my cellar stairs in the garage going down into the cellar, basically I have a hobby which is wood working and I have wood working tools and I want a wood shop in the cellar and my wife doesn't want me dragging through the house, so that is basically why the entrance is in the garage, if I would detach the garage I have no entrance and that becomes a hardship. It is a real financial type of hardship. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal. Mrs. Waddle asked, was the building permit issued Mr. Elsbree. Mr. Elsbree answered, no, it was not. Mrs. Waddle asked, and what time frame was it rejected. Mr. Elsbree answered, April. In the meantime I am paying interest on all of this money. I just can't afford to keep on doing it. After it was rejected Anna told me to go back to the Planning Board which I did and I wrote the letter, Mr. Luckel followed that up and he was told to apply for a variance on my own which I did and I went to the Town Board. Mr. Landolfi stated, we thought that would be in the best interest of not only you but the Town and....... Just for your information as well, if in fact if the Board does decide to even, if they did grant a variance you would then have a non -conforming lot meaning anytime that you tried to do anything add on, etc., you would have to come before us and again, I am sure that we would not make it more non -conforming, so what we are trying to figure out is to give you some suggestions to consider perhaps how you can still do what you are trying to do without a variance. Mr. Elsbree stated, there is no way. I rotated it, I twisted it, I changed it. Mr. Hirkala asked, there is no way you could put that garage in the back. Mr. Landolfi stated.he got an estimate from his builder for $5,000 more. Mr. Landolfi stated that they will now close "this appeal. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to grant the variance. Mr. Hirkala stated he would second that motion but he would like to make a comment. In my view, the reason that I second the motion is because I think this particular gentlemen is the victim rather than the perpatrator. I think the builder specifically the subdivider should have known better and this gentlemen came along and I think he probably did pretty much what most people would do in checking out -the sidelines and in all honesty I think he thought he was right in going ahead with it and I think Page -17- July 9th, 1985 he is the one that is really, quite honestly, if the guy was a builder I would be not inclined to go along with the variance. The fact that you the homeowner, I think not the building trade, I think has alot to say for it. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #824, at the request of Theodore C. Gross. D.D.S. seeking a SUP of Article IV, §421, #5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a medical clinic in his residence, located on Lot #15, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel #6258-03-273193, in the Town of Wappinger. Jack Railing and Ted Gross were present. Mr. Gross stated, I am Ted Gross, 637 Main Street Poughkeepsie, I have my office there. You said a medical clinic, that is not quite what we want to have, we want to have a dental office in our home. Mr. Cortellino asked, is this the building we gave a variance to last month or the month before. Mr.Landolfi answered, yes it was. Mr. Cortellino stated, and at that time wasn't it because he wanted a large house and not a clinic.it was specifically referred to as a residence. Mr. Gross stated, it is a residence, it is a house with offices. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Chairman, at this point we usually refer SUP to the Planning Board, since we are having a problem in Cedar Creek Estates which needs to be cleared up, I move that we grant no further variances or SUP in that area until the problems out there have been cleared. Mr. Railing stated, I don't really see the problem with this particular lot. Mrs. Waddle stated, I see a big problem in the whole area at this point Jack. Mr. Gross stated that, I just charted the other problem, and also I am not a victim or whatever, I also have been negotiating for a long time. Mr. Cortellino stated, you were granted a variance based on being a residential. Are you going to live in it only. Mrs. Waddle asked, what were you told at the time that you bought the house. Mr. Cortellino stated, the variance was not granted so that you could build a large medical clinic, the variance was granted so that you could have a large house befitting your station in life not as a medical clinic. *460 Mrs. Waddle asked, when you bought the house sir, did you inquire about having a office within the house from your builder. Mr. Gross answered, yes, right from the start. Page -18- July 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle asked, what did he tell you. Mr. Gross answered, he told us very little, in fact we haven't gone into contract yet on the house because we want to straighten these things out. Mrs. Waddle asked, you have not bought the house yet. Mr. Gross answered, we have not bought it yet. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Chairman, I have a motion on the floor. Mr. Landolfi asked, is this your signature on this request sir. Mr. Gross answered, yes. Mr. Landolfi stated, does it not say to allow medical clinic in residence up there. Ms. Young stated, I wrote that. I fill in the section. Mr. Landolfi stated, don't write anything. I want them to sign there life away not you. Mrs. Waddle stated, he is a dentist, he is not asking for a medical clinic, he is asking for a dental office in his home. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion on the floor. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Mr. Landolfi asked, what the motion was. Mrs. Waddle answered, to deny the SUP until the problems in that area are cleared up to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and the Town Board. I don't think at this time we should go into allowing people to have a dental office, medical offices, or anything further out on those parcels untilwe see what is going to happen out there. Mr. Hirkala stated, I agree with you, but I think to deny, to table all applications. Mrs. Waddle stated, you don't know when this is going to be settled. Mr. Railing stated, I just wanted an opportunity to speak before you take action. What I would like to say is. Mr. Gross stated that he hadn't been to any of the meetings. Mr. Railing stated, I have just recently been retained to help represent him. Under the statutes in the ordinance, and there is a section which allows for special use permit, the installation for home and office use. Realizing that some of the other lots may be problems, I think we are down to two, if I remember Mr. Luckel at the meeting the other night. He indicates that there are only two lots that have a problem. Mrs. Waddle stated, that is what he indicated, but we have no way of knowing. Mr. Railing stated, I am just saying, a problem at this time does not exist on this lot with setback, at this time. What we are saying is we would like to be treated seperate from all that. Now, under the ordinance we have the right to request a Special Use Permit. Mr. Landolfi stated, absolutely. Page -19- July 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, we have the right to deny it. Mr. Railing stated, I understand. All we are asking is for consideration in this matter so we might proceed forth, as I understand one of the first things that you are going to do is refer us to the Planning Board. Mr. Landolfi stated, perhaps. Mr. Railing stated, we would like to be considered for that, as our right under the ordinance without blanket stopping all action on this particular subdivsion which really doesn't relate to this particular lot. I just ask you to consider that, that we are seperate at this point, we do not have a problem as some of the other lots. Mr. Landolfi stated, a variance was granted on May 16th, 1985. Mr. Cortellino asked, Carol can you withdraw your motion temporarily so I"can ask a question to keep the hearing going. Mrs. Waddle answered, fine, I will. Mr. Cortellino stated, I wish to verify that when that variance was granted it was for a residence. Now a doctor can maintain an office in a residence, this was in the days, and by the way that may get changed, I would like to make a recommendation that 60% of his practice has to be out of that house otherwise he can't do it except in an emergency. The variance was granted based on a variance. if he wanted to put up a school we might not have granted a variance, if he says I want it as a residence, as we did grant the variance. Now, its true a medical clinic can operate in a residentail with a special permit, but we did not grant the variance for a clinic we granted it f6r a residence. Now we can withdraw the variance and he can come up before us and ask for a SUP for a clinic, that is feasable. Mr. Landolfi stated, when the request was taken into consideration for your variance, if you will, we all interpreted like it said, that it was for a residence. A home. So we kind of went along with that, as a home. Now it is a medical clinic. Mr. Gross stated, lets not call it a medical clinic, a home office. Mr. Cortellino asked, for you yourself only. Mr. Gross stated, my wife is also a dentist. We don't want to have a clinic,we are not going to have over 20 dentist in there. When we were talking about that lot, I wasn't aware that there was problems with it as far as variances go. Then I found out about this Special Use Permit. It has been presented to me a little bit at a time. Mrs. Waddle asked, do you have an attorney sir. Mr. Gross answered yes. Mrs. Waddle stated, I would advise that you use him. Mr. Cortellino stated, when we are talking about rejecting, you say all that you do is refer it to the Planning Board that is true but we also put restrictions for instance if there are problems that we might want access, we may want in and outs or where is your parking, all those things we can put restrictions on and the Planning Board can put restrictions on. Page -20- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated, keep in mind that this is an accessory use to your primary residence. You intend to live there and you intend to have an accessory use an office. Now you also have an office which is your primary place of business somewhere else. Mr. Gross stated, I have an office in Poughkeepsie, my wife and I. Mr. Hirkala asked, and this is strictly for emergency use. Mr. Gross answered, no, we want to start a family and it would be nice to also have a home office. Mr. Hirkala asked, so it is going to become your primary... Mr. Gross answered, no, it will be a secondary. Mr. Cortellino stated, she will practice at the house where the kids are and he will practice in Poughkeepsie. Mr. Hirkala stated, so it is going to be a primary place of business for somebody. Mr. Gross answered no, not necessarily we both right now practice in Poughkeepsie and we are going to start this practice as a home office so that my wife can spend some time at home when we start having our family. We will rotate, I will also spend some time here to. Mr. Hirkala stated, This has been the problem in my view anyway.with this whole subdivision. Its understandable to get a piece of property and try and put as much on it as you can but the intent of the Town, for years and years that that won't be the case in the Town of Wappinger, and what is happening is that more and more people are getting smaller lots and trying to put more and more on them and then they come to us to request variance to allow them to put this more and more on there and this is one of the problems. Mr. Railing stated, he didn't specifically request the original relief. Mr. Hirkala stated, the builder told us he had a buyer for a large house. Mr. Railing asked, do you have an objection to an office/home on this particular lot because he is 60 feet from the front. Mr. Landolfi answered, no. Mr. Cortellino stated, lets say that you want to put a deck on your house, you come before us, you could do anything legal but it still would be considered illegal becuase you would have to come to us and we probably would grant it to you but not necessarily. Mr. Railing stated, this is the plot plan prepared by Richard Barger for this particular lot, this shows a 20 foot sideyard and it shows the 60 fronts and you have no problem in the rears. Mrs. Waddle asked, what does he have next to him. Mr. Railing stated, right now they are empty lots. Page -21- July 9th, 1985 This particular house does fit on this particular lot. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Landolfi stated that he will close this appeal. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board. Mr. Cortellirio seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #818, at the request of Hugh Greer, seeking a special use permit of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow automobile sales, service & repairs on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger. Jack Railing was present. Mr. Railing stated, basically what Mr. Greer would like to do, and this is the preliminary site plan that was presented to the Planning Board, and they told us we need a SUP and that is why we are here. it is between Walbaums and the car wash, it is in an SC zone. This particular piece is all within the Town of Wappinger. This probably would have been better as an HB or an NB but it is SC, and it has very restrictive sidelines, 50 feet rear sides and 100 front. Mr. Incoronato stated, let me put it on the table here. A few days ago I got a call from one of the pricipals of adjacent properties to the current Greer operation on Route 9, namely, Greenbaum & Gilhooley's and LeRoy property. There is a culvert that runs through there. About two weeks ago a thike was a milky white discharge running through the culvert that these two properties stratle. One of the principals called the DEC in, called Jack Hill in, a representative from the White Plains Office came by and he told the Greer owners to cease and decist and traced it to the Greer garage. The individual from the DEC in White Plains, Ken Cole, was told that Greer was going to place its discharge in some kind of septic system, a holding tank, so the question now is how does this elieviate the problem, what are they doing to re -cycle it, nutralize these solvents that apparantly this milky white discharge is. And what safe guard says that water table water had there particularily now that it is in the proximity of a restuarant and what safe guards do we have for the Special Use Permit beyond that and I think there should be linkage. I think the matter here should be cleared up by the DEC. I have requested a status report from Mr. Cole, I left a message at his office today, so I am hoping to get the official report on what is going on at the Greer motors. I think if this office; or"dt least this Board would at least wait to they get that report in a week or two and also to assure maximum safe guards as to the proper disposition of discharge materials, materials that are used to clean up engines to clean up the parts, all the solvents that are use in this sort of business. I think that we shouldn't just willy nilly give out these SUP particularly in that kind of situation when you have sometimes exotic chemicals being used for automotive service. I would ask that the Board table this until we get further notification from the DEC on what is going on. Page -22- July 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we have to seri it to the Planning Board and then they send it back to us for some kind of action. Mr. Incoronato stated, under the amendment, I believe that you can sumarily dismiss the request. Mr. Hirkala stated, not dismiss we just can't consider it under the new amendment that the Town Board passed linking violations. Mrs. Waddle stated, he doesn't have a violation on the property that he wants a SUP on. Mr. Incoronato stated, he doesn't have to have it. It can be any violation by the principal or the individual, corporation included. Mr. Cortellino stated, my feeling on this is one of the reasons you come for a special use permit is you have a right to go into a certain area and do something but the reason you come for a SUP is so that safe guards can be implanted on the granting of it. Here we have a case, possibly, I am not accusing the corporation right now but certainly questionable of violating enviornmetal procedures. What assurance would I have that if we give him a SUP that they won't be violating. You tend to go by track records. If there is a violation now, we have rule that we shouldn't consider'it.arid #2 I would like to see some corrective action taken before I expand his business. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to table it until we can least find out whether it has been resolved. Mr. Railing stated, I understand from Mr. Incoronato, there has not been any actual violation cited; and I think that is the point that I want to make, Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mrs. Waddle stated, I think in relation to that I think almost every auto body business in this Town probably has some kind of a violation. I don't know whos job it is to check them out but something should be done because I think anybody who is using the paints or the chemicals that they have to do in the repair business is probably discharging it someplace onto the ground or in someplace where there will be a problem and I think that exists all over the Town in that kind of business. Mr. Incoronato answered, that is true. Ken Duxbury, the Chairman of the Conservation Advisory Council, is putting together an ordinance to inspect and monitor these gasoline tanks and other solvent tanks that are buried under ground. The thing that triggered this was the call I received a few days ago and I was told that it was on the agenda. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4767, at the request of Richard Dombrowski, a discussion on a re -hearing. Joe Ryan, Attorney, Rich & Carol Dombrowski. Page -23- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Ryan stated, I have a chart here showing the deck that is being proposed to �- be built. My understanding at this time is Rich and Carol were before the Board once before and they were looking for a deck of about 16 feet from the rear of the property or the rear of the building, and that has been changed, at the time I just have originally approached the Board, it was suggested that they make a smaller deck might be in order and that is what they have done. They changed the deck that they are asking for to be instead of 16 feet out it would be 10 feet out from the back of the building and as you can see this is the back of the building here and the deck would wrap around the side there so that it would not be in violation of any zoning ordinance. Can I just submit that. Mr. Landolfi asked, is this the one with the zero setback. Mr. Ryan answered, that is correct. Mr. landolfi stated, so you would be looking for instead of a 16 foot variance you would be looking for 10 foot. Mr. Ryan stated, also from pictures that have been supplied by Carol and Rich you can see the level of the sliding glass doors in the back of the house, Rich is 6' 5" so apparently it is about, the sliding glass door is approximately 5 feet off the ground. The land slopes also from the back of the house it slopes downward. Here is another picture, again the child is in the picture giving you a better perspective of the height. Mr. Dombrowski stated, there is another house across the street with sliding glass doors on the top and bottom. Mr. Ryan stated, here are some other pictures. There you don't have as much of a perspective because there aren't any people in the picture. I also have another picture, but I believe this is the neighboring property showing a deck. Mrs. Waddle asked, how many variances have we granted out there for decks. Mr. Landolfi answered, for decks, none. We granted them for other things. Without having the layout, are the rest of these dimensions in line with the.... Mr. Dombrowski stated, originally I had on the side of the house I was going to put a 12 foot and then I found that I had to go for another variance for that so I put that back to 10 also. Mr. Landolfi stated, at the time that you confronted us i suggested to you that rather than spend money needlessly that you perhaps discuss it with us to see. Now, as you know as an attorney, anyone can request a re -hearing providing that they have some either new additional information or whatever, it is then the perogative of the Board to decide whether or not to grant a new hearing. In this particular case if the Board so deems so fit, you would have to go through the process. Mr. Dombrowski asked, you mean another month. We would have to wait another month. Mrs. Dombrowski asked if she could say something. We started this procedure in May, it is already July 9th. Mr. Landolfi stated, we denied it. Page -24- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi asked, weren't you supposed to be here at the last meeting. Mrs. Dombrowski answered, we were not notified in the mail or we would have been here. Mr. Landolfi stated, according to what I have got on here, this is a discussion on a re -hearing, was new paperwork filled out. Ms. Berberich stated, I put it on as a discussion to discuss a re -hearing to see if they had any new information. Mr. Landolfi stated, they did right. They were trying to save you perhaps, so money not time. They could have very easily said to you, look make out a new appeal request and go through that procedure again. Mr. Ryan stated, I also have some additional information here. These are letters from parties who are adjoining the property and Mr. & Mrs. Falipe and they have no objection to the 16 foot and they couldn't be here for this evening so they wrote a letter saying that they have no objection to the present change. And then there is another party Smith, again a letter there is no objection. Mrs. Waddle asked, are all these adjoining neighbors going to be in for variances to build decks. Mrs. Dombrowski answered, two have decks and the other has no intention of ever building one. Mr. Ryan stated, this neighbor again, this is on the side lot, so there is no variance with regards to her lot, but they were kind enough to provide us with a letter saying they have no objection to it. Mr. Landolfi stated, maybe some where along the line, you are in tonight, as I understand it, to discuss a re -hearing, is that correct. Mrs. Dombrowski stated, excuse me, this was your idea. We went in to re -apply and fill out the paperwork for a variance and we were told that we could not re -apply for a variance. We would have very willingly got the information, paid for the advertising, which was put in the paper last year and no one came forward, we have the neighbors permission. Ms. Young stated, I doubt that anyone in that office told them that they could not re -apply or appeal. Mrs. Waddle asked, who told you that. Mr. Dombrowski answered, I talked to you (Ms. Berberich) and you didn't say that we couldn't do it, you told me that if I came in here for my time tonight also, that I couldn't get a variance granted to me, I would have to discuss. Mr. Landolfi stated, as a lawyer, didn't you advise them of what the procedure is. Mr. Ryan stated, I called the Board and asked what was on the agenda. Mr. Landolfistated, you called me, I recall the conversation and I think I made it very infatic to you that are secretary tried to save you some time and money because this is not automatice, the Board does not have to grant you a re -hearing. Page -25- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Dombrowski stated, you had also talked to my wife for the previous meeting that you had and that is when you had mentioned that you would put us in for a discussion but you never told her when and we never recieved anything anyway. Mrs. Waddle stated, you never recieved anything because it was never on the June agenda. Mr. Ryan stated, we do say that that is the whole summary there, they are going to be pitted with continous delays and..... Mrs. Waddle stated, you have no guarantee that you are going to get a variance. Mr. Ryan stated, I am not assuming, there are time constaints and therfore if you could expidite matters we would appreciate anythin that the Board could do on this. As.I say, it was suggested to them by the Board that a smaller deck might more giving and that is what they have done. The neighbors have no objections. Mr. Landolfi stated, if you come in with 50 of these from the neighbors, this isn't really, it isn't a popularity thing. Mr. Ryan stated, we are not saying that just because we have letters from neighbors and they have no objections, but that is something that should be considered by the Board. Basically, the builder was aware that there was going to be a deck put on and apparently the Building Inspector also knew of the level of the or how much above the ground and how it sloped down etc., and knew that the sliding glass doors were being put in because otherwise.............and apparently no one said anything about it, we don't have papers as to what was submitted to the Town by the builder and but apparently the builder was well aware that a deck was going to be put on. Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't understand what you are saying, what consideration. Mr. Ryan answered, the fact that the deck was going to be put on that it would be less than 40 feet. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think the builder knew very well what the problems were. You can put sliding glass doors all around your house if you want to. Mr. Ryan asked, sliding glass doors to no where. So what I am saying basically is apparently it was an error by the builder and my clients are really the victim. Mrs. Waddle stated, I agree, but the problem is and we have builders and we seem to have victims in this Town. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with people coming in to this particular Board and I think that alot of people can agree with it, the fact that they say the builder did this, the builder did that, and they refer to the Town the Building Inspector didn't catch it. This Town, no Town in this country, no Town in the world has a responsibility of surveying ever piece of property that anybody wants to build on in it. The builder has that responsibility. Mr. Dombrowski stated, I"had no idea -what setbAcks would be in that area, I of course should have done research and everything, but I didn't know. Mr. Ryan stated, the plans do not show anything with regards to a deck etc., Mrs. Waddle stated, that is right, that is where the Building Inspectors responsibility ended. The house was placed in the right position. Page -26- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Ryan stated, do I not understand that the Building Inspector inspects the house so would have been aware of the sliding glass door. It has already been out that it is necessary for a, that therefore, a council or whatever, carefully scrutinize plans submitted with licensed applications, what they are saying basically is, the law is, or under case law is that the situation, such as the Dombrowski's are just going to end up being the victims, they are going to get a CO but there is something that should have been spotted and made known, in other words, the party or the owner who is purchasing is not responsible for the errors that have been made. Mrs. Waddle stated, no errors have been made. Mr. Ryan stated, by the builder. The builder was aware of the fact that there was going to be a deck put on and did not advise either the Town of the Building Inspector. Mrs. Waddle asked, how can you hold the Town responsible for something like that. Mr. Ryan answered, no, I am saying the builder error. Mr. Cortellino stated, you keep referring to that other gentlemen and so forth that we went through the Town or you saw some Town official. I am not an attorney, but in Town Law, not Town of Wappinger Law, in Town Law, even if she says go ahead and do it and the foundation is off, it makes no difference, it still can be torn down. The Town is not in a position to advise a builder or anyone else. They will make an exam to satisfy the Town but they can be wrong and that the Town is no liable. You keep saying why didn't they pick up the sliding door, if you want your house to be all sliding doors, there is no regulation against it. I admit, and I am going to ask the Advisory Committee that anybody that submits a house plan with sliding glass doors, because we had a number of cases like this, the builder says, they want a sliding door, I will put a sliding door. If we keep giving variance because builders put in sliding glass doors, so you can't put in a deck, and we give you a deck, the Town is being victimized. Mr. Ryan stated, my clients are not applying for anythingbut this particular issue, you are talking about generalities. Mr. Cortellino stated, I am not talking about generalities, they want 10 feet, say they want 5 feet, and another house wants 5 feet, and another house wants 5 feet, who is the victim, the Town is because our Zoning Ordinance is being violated by the Town granting variances. Mr.Dombrowski stated, I would just like to point out that the other houses bordering around our house, at least 3 of them, have been granted variance or would not, the porch in the back of that one house directly across the street does not have a 40 foot clearance. Mr. Landolfi stated, we granted a variance on one house because of I believe a 2 foot overhang on the one house, that was Marge Costa, we granted I believe 2 others out there and then Jeff Hunt, -his attorney, and his engineer were warned by our Town Supervisor that any other -home that were off -the money, if you will, tear them down. Mr. Ryan asked when that was. Mr. Landolfi answered, we had a special meeting to try to resolve all of these problems. Page -27- July 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, we have Mr. Incoronato here from the Town Board, I am sure he is well versed in this whole problem. Mr. Incoronato stated, yes, it was 6 or 8 -months ago. The Town Board decided to give them a hard line because of the ............. Mr. Cortellino stated, in fact now I remember, I got his builder to admit that he lied. He told a homeowner not to come down he would take care of it and we didn't give the variance, it was in the contract that the deck would be built in violation. That is what Mr. Versace said, come in for 1 inch and you will go to court. Mr. Ryan stated, the problem that the Town has then with the view that the Board has taken is that we have a problem with this builder. Mrs. Waddle stated, no, we have a problem with that development because the houses are built correctly and there is enough property for the houses. The problem is the Town really doesn't know what this man told these people that were buying these houses and there was just enough room for the houses and there was no room for decks. Every house will be in violation if they have decks. Mr. Ryan stated, it is builders error that I am talking about. Mrs. Waddle stated, but it isn't a builders error. How can it be a builders error if he put the house in the right spot. Everything is correct, they have the right amount of property, now they want to add a deck. Mr. Ryan stated, because they knew that a deck was to be added and was well aware of it and did not so advise the Town and he should have. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think your recourse is against the builder. Mrs. Dombrowski stated, we had the option to contract the deck with the builder. What if we had contracted for that deck. Mr. Landolfi answered, you wouldn't have gotten,it. You wouldn't have been able to build it. Mr. Dombrowski stated, being it was a corner lot we had talked to him about angling the house and once the house started finally going up it wasn't angled and we were surprised at that and its just, it seems he would tell us something just to satisfy us but we actually had no idea, I called up today to find out what the original position of the house was, just so I could know what I was talking about over that poit, but we did originally have the house to be angled and he was telling us, fine no problem, whatever, so I don't know how that fits in but I say it would be the builders responsibility, how can he tell me okay I can build a house with sliding glass doors, he asked me if I wanted the porch, I said no, I would build it myself, and yet built me right on the line. Mr. Ryan stated, what he is doing is playing my clients, using them as....... Mrs. Waddle stated, not only yours. Mr. Ryan stated, the Board has a perspective and sees what it going on, but the individual person of course..... Mrs. Waddle stated, I think what we really have to do is take a look at that whole development out there, see what houses would be in violation if they have decks Page -28- July 9th, 1985 added to them and then try to come out with some kind of solution that we are not going to be effectively again re -zoning the whole neighborhood becuase of this problem. Mr. Landolfi stated, Jeff Hunt and his partner told us that, he told us that how many homes that he was building deck on at the time of our meeting and they would be so warned, if you will, that if they did have decks like they were requesting they wouldn't be allowed to build on them. Mr. Ryan asked, when was that. Mr. Landolfi answered, 6 to 8 months ago. Mr. Ryan stated, then again the house was built. Mrs. Waddle stated, some of the houses were built when they discovered what the problem us. Mr. Cortellino asked, do you remember the day Joe and I came over to your house. To find your house we asked his workman where is lot so and so, you didn't have a street address, do you know that the mis-directed us. They were in the next lot and they didn't direct us, they didn't want us to get to your house. Mrs. Dombrowski asked, then why are we being held responsible. Mr. Cortellino answered, you are not being held responsible, you are a victim and we are a victim. Mr. Landolfi stated, we are not held responsible, you have a case against the builder I think. Here is where we stand right now, let me clarify this so, let me net it all out. This is to discuss a re -hearing. It is up to the members of the Board here to decide whether or not to grant a re -hearing. Does everyone understand that. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have to have more information. I have to know what other problems we are going to run into out in that neighborhood by granting variances becuase this is only the tip of the iceberg if we re -hear and happen to grant it. Mr. Cortellino asked, for Anna to go out there and find out what violations exist that we are not even aware of and so we can have a comprehensive picture first. Mrs. Waddle stated, I would like to table this discussion until we see what is going on out there. How many more houses are in this predicament that we would have to grant variances on, what kind of problems are out there before we go ahead and run just pell mell into granting variances. Mr. Landdlfi asked Ms. Young, how long do you think it would take your guy to go out there and take a look. Ms. Young stated, we could have something for you by the next meeting. Mrs. Waddle stated, we could re -hear this. I don't have any objection to having it AL reheard. Mrs. Dombrowski asked, do we fill out the form and apply and go through.... Page -29- July 9th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, no, I would make a motion that we grant a re -hearing at the next meeting: By that time we should have the information that we need. You are not going to get a variance tonight. Mrs. Dombrowski asked, would it be under the Zoning Ordinance to have a detached structure. Mr. Cortellino stated, that is being changed. Mr. Hirkala asked, are talking about leaving a deck two inches off of the house. They tried that before. They changed the law. Mrs. LandoIfi'stated;_in fact ofii-was done out there to accomodate Hunt. Mrs. Dombrowski stated, and it is still standing. Mr. Hirkala stated, the law was changed. Mrs. Dombrowski asked, when was it changed. Mr. Landolfi stated, 3 or 4 months, I am not sure, we can check for you. Mr. Ryan stated, I would just point out, your Board is probably aware of this, but that under the case law, it says on an area variance you don't need to show unnecessary hardship or undue hardship etc., you just nee to show practical difficulties with regards to variances and it has been held that when an applicant has acted in good faith, as obviously my clients, you know they of course did not purchase the house without getting the CO first so they knew what was being to the Town etc. and.... Mrs. Waddle asked, but sir they have what they purchased. Mr. Ryan stated, but of course, but they weren't aware of the fact that'what the builder had not have mentioned or said or submitted, in other words the builder knew from the beginning that there would be a deck on there and just never mentioned it to the Town thats, showing that, from what I am saying is that my clients acted in good faith obviously. Mrs. Waddle stated, sir, I made a motion that we grant them a re -hearing for the next meeting. Mr. Hirkala stated, I will second the motion before we vote I would like to make a comment, if you check on the case law on the area variances you will also find some of the examples cited are .....steep slopes not the builders screw ups. Mr. Ryan stated, the builders are also referred to in ....... Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we are missing the point. The builder has not made an error. The house is in the correct spot. Mr. Ryan stated, it would definitley call for the amount of the builders error. Mr. Landolfi stated, a motion made to grant a re -hearing, do I hear a second on that. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala The motion was carried. Page -30- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi stated, just so your clients know what has got to be done now for a re -hearing. Could somebody please make sure, it has to be resubmitted just like its......... Mrs. Waddle stated, to grant a re -hearing you have to put it in the newspaper. Ms. Berberich asked, does it have a new form with a new appeal number or its the same one. Mr. Landolfi stated, we are opening it up and they did provide they did make some alterations. Mrs. Waddle stated, it has to be put in the newspaper again, but they won't be charged again. Ms. Berberich asked, so they can fill out another appeal fofm with the new dimensions and everything on it and just put that one through.. Ms. Young asked,with a new appeal number. Mrs. Waddle answered, no, not a new case, we are re -opening the old case with new information. Mr. Landolfi stated, it will be the second Tuesday of the month. Mr. Ryan asked, what needs to be submitted as for instance the new drawing. Mr. Landolfi stated, give us as much information, if you will, attach it to that form. Mr. Ryan asked, is there a fee that has to be paid. Mrs. -Waddle stated, no, we are re -opening the old case. Mr. Landolfi stated, no, we are going to waive that. Mr. Ryan stated, what we have done is to put it down to discuss. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think your wife misinterpreted what, I believe the girls in good faith tried to tell her, I don't know how she misunderstood. Mr. Dombrowski stated, I am upset to. We wasted the whole summer. Mr. Landolfi asked, when did we deny your request last time. Mr. Ryan answered, August of 1984. Mr. Landolfi stated, that was last year, so I mean, we didn't hold anyone off, you could have come back in the next month. Mr. Hifkala stated, you could have said at that meeting, we will reduce it to 10 feet. Mr. Landolfi stated, I think we suggested that if you go back to the minutes. We are feeling like we are the bad guys when its been a year, now we didn't hold anybody up, in fact the winter would have been the ideal time to go through the paper work mill. a • i Page -31- July 9th, 1985 Mr. Ryan stated, I think they gave it some thought over the winter. Mrs, Waddle stated, the thing is now that your clients are blaming us because we are not doing it fast enough, they have had the whole year. Mr. Ryan. asked, is there any indication as to why the variance can't be granted tonight. Mr. Landolfi stated, by law, if you were my brother I couldn't give it to you tonight. Mr. Landolfi stated, we have one more, this letter from Gina Petroleum. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to deny a re -hearing on Gina Petroleum. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Cortellino stated, I would like a letter to be written to the Building Inspector, while the Town has no responsibilities in guiding the people or what not, when he is looking over the building plans something that sticks out like a sliding glass door he should pick up where is this going to lead to. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M.. lb Respectfully submitted, t Linda Berberich, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board