1985-08-13ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 13TH, 1985 - 7;00 P.M.
AGENDA
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal X6767, at the request of Richard & Carol Dombrowski, seeking a
variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow
a 30 foot rearyard setback when 40 feet is required on property located on
26 Mina Drive, and being Parcel 666157-02-970748, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #802, at the request of Kem-Lack Improvement Company, seeking
a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to permit a medical clinic on Myers Corners Road & Kent Road, and being Parcel
#6258-03-240146, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal #823, at the request of Charles Coretti for All Star Water,
seeking a Variance of Article IV, §416.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to allow (2) signs affixed and paraller to the outer wall of structure when
only (1) sign is allowed on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel
#6157-04-617311, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal #825, at the request of John G. Todd Sr., seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 -foot
rearyard setback when 25 feet is required on Bank Street, and being Parcel
#5956-12-997622, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal X6832, at the request of Presision Contracting seeking a variance
of Article IV, §411.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow rearyard
setback to extend into the flood plain while all requirements must be satisfied
by measurement on dry land on property located on Lot X69, Cedar Creek Estates, and
being Parcel #6258-03-297141, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal #833, at the request of Precision Contracting seeking a variance
of Article IV, §411.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to all6w rearyard
setback to extend into the flood plain while all rearyard requirements must be
satisfied by measurements on dry land on property located on Lot 468, Cedar Creek
Estates, and being Parcel 666258-03-278141, in the T6wn of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal X6827, at the request of James R. Sheedy, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §421 of the T6wn of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow
a real estate office in his residence located on 15 Bell Air Lane, and being
Parcel X66157-02-903829, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #830, at the request of R. John Hannigan, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Z6ning Ordinance to allow a
chiropractic office in his residence located on Myers Corners Road, and being
Parcel X66258-04-697361, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal X6831, at the request of The Mid Hudson Sikh Cultural Society, Inc.,
seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421, paragraph 4, to allow a house
of worship on property located on 152 Ketchamtown Road, Lot 463, and being Parcel
#6156-01-197949, in the Town of Wappinger.
11
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 26TH, 1985
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS TO THE AUGUST 13TH, 1985 AGENDA
Please add the following:
1. Appeal 4834, at the request of AKHR Associates seeking a Special Use Permit
pursuant to Article IV, §422, note "e", of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to allow multiple use, Retail 50% and Office 50% on parcel B & C located in a
HB -2A Zone subject to Special Use Permit on property located on Route 9, in the
Town of Wappinger.
2. Tekben - Discussion on a use.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
AUGUST 13TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
MINUTES WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, August 12th,
1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Mr. Landolfi, Chairman Mr. Cortellino
Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle
Mr. Hirkala
Others Present:
Mrs. Ann Garrison, Acting Secretary
Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Landolfi asked if all the abutting property owners had been notified.
Mrs. Garrison answered, according to the records available in the Assessor's Office.
Mr. Landolfi asked to entertain a motion on the Minutes from the July meeting.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to accept the minutes.
Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we will go through each appeal this evening, we will give everyone
an opportunity to be heard. We do ask if you are going to speak, please come forward
and identify yourself for our records.
Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal:
Appeal #767, at the request of Richard & Carol Dombrowski, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 30 foot
rearyard setback when 40 feet is required on property located on 26 Mina Drive, and
being Parcel #6157-02-970748, in the Town of Wappinger.
Richard & Carol Dombrowski, applicants and Joseph Rihn, Attorney were present.
Mr. Rihn stated, the last time we were here was to allow a hearing for this particular...
so at this time I would present 3 letters from adjoining neighbors who may or may not
be affected by the ...of a variance. All three neighbors have indicated that they
have no objection at all.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would become part of the records.
Mr. Rihn stated, if the Board would recall, originally the Dombrowski's had been
before the Board asking for a variance. The are looking to build a deck that would have
come out approximately 16 feet from the residence and if you recall also, the way the
house is situated it is situated as such that the house presently is 40 feet setback
from the property line. It was suggested perhaps that they should reduce what they are
Page -2- August 13th, 1985
asking for and that perhaps a smaller deck would be more feasable. And then at this
hearing what we had presented, and I believe the Board has a copy of, the deck has
been proposed instead of being 16 feet out form the house it will only be 10 feet
from the house and then to accomodate the space that would be needed it would be more
of a wrap around back which will wrap around to the rear of the building to the side
of the building. That wrap around portion on the side as I understand does not require
a variance since it is normal setback limitations.
Mrs. Waddle asked Ms. Young if that was correct.
Ms. Young answered yes.
Mr. Rihn stated, we are he this evening so what my client is a variance, an area
variance as we know. In this particular situation, when my clients originally purchased
the house the builder had been advised that there would be added on a deck after
sometime after the closing at my clients convenience, and my clients so advised the
builder, and the builder had apparently not so advised the Town. We don't have the
actual plans that were submitted to the Building Inspectors Office but the indication
is that the Town was not so advise by the .builder.tha.t in fact that the deck was to
be put on to be.built. The present situation is that the sliding glass doors lead out
to nowhere and I believe that it is approximately 5 feet off the ground. So obviously,
so there will be a need to put a deck out there with stairs come down in order to gain
access to the rear of the property from the sliding glass doors. It is a modest deck
and of course and of course it doesn't in any way harm or effect the public, as I say,
it is an area variance. And also, it isn't matter that would create a precedent either.
Mr. Cortellino stated, unfortunately, I drop that argument. I am listening very carefully.
Unfortunately this house is not unique. There are builders in this Town who build
sliding glass doors to a deck where no deck can go. That is one of the reasons .......
Mr. Rihn stated, one thing that I would also point out for the Board, the reasons are
that zoning ordinances are constitutional in the first place is that there is a certain
built in flexibility which is allowed by the variance portion of the ordinance for
provisions that allow certain flexibility such as this as someone has been victimized
and really needs a variance. Also, I know that the Board itself ........
Mr. Cortellino asked, when the house was being constructed, why wasn't a deck being
constructed at the same time, this would have solved the problem.
Mr. Dombrowski answered, basically just because of cost he wanted to build it for me
I felt that I could build a bigger and stronger deck.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either in favor or against this appeal.
Richard Phillipe - 4 Scotse Road. My property boarderlines with Richards. I have no
problem what so ever.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would now close this appeal.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I don't have a problem as long as they work with us and and brought
the deck down to 10 feet they actually chopped 6 feet off the variance. My problem is
how many more problem do we have out there.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I am willing to go along with Carol for one case, but if it is
going to be a whole series, then it is re -zoning.
Mrs. Waddle stated, we have to know what we are letting ourselves in for.
,Page -3- August 13th, 1985
Ms. Young stated, Jean Joyce and I went out to Pondview, we did count 20 decks.
Mrs. Waddle asked, that are legal.
Ms. Young answered, legal, we do not know. I did pull the building files and it seems
that 2 building permits were issued for decks in Pondview, however, many of our building
files have been put in boxes and stored in preparation for the move so I cannot at this
point say whether the decks are legal. Only two of the decks that are out there were
on the final plot plans by the builder.
Mrs. Waddle asked, how many homes are in that whole development.
Ms. Young answered 47.
Mrs. Waddle asked, are all the plot plans for Pondview in boxes.
Ms. Young answered no.
Mrs. Waddle asked, how many would be in violation if decks were to go up, of the 47.
Ms. Young answered, of the 20 we counted, we found 2 building permits.
Mr. Landolfi asked, are there any more like the Dombrowski's that, with sliding glass
doors that go to nowhere.
Ms. Young answered, that we don't know. We didn't go onto the property.
Mr. Hirkala asked, is there any way that you can tell, based on the information that you
can get at, how many will be in violation.
Ms. Young answered, there are a possible 1.8 in violation right now, but I don't have the
proof.
Mr. Caballero stated, this particular person is asking for a 6 foot setback variance.
We all know that we are going to have a problem with everyone of those houses. The
builder has put the sliding doors in well knowing that you couldn't put a deck behind
the house, and everyone of them that wants to build a deck will be in violation, we know
that for a fact, there is no going around it, so, we either make a decision on the basis
of each persons merit and the amount that they are asking. We have 3 letters from
the abutting property owners that there privacy is not being invaded and that they are
willing to go along with.
Mrs. Waddle stated, he has reduced it from the 16 to the 10 feet, I really don't have
a problem with that, as long as it stays at 10 feet. I wouldmake a motion that we
grant the variance fo put up a 10 foot deck.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkal - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi stated to Ms. Young, before we see another Pondview house in here, I would
like several things done. I don't know what it is going to take but it is a must. We
want to know all of ther homes, those with the sliding glass doors who have a deck, I
•Page -4-
August 13th, 1985
need a status before another Pondview homes comes in here.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I would like to also add to this that by granting these people a
variance for a deck we are no way setting a precedent in the pondview development.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #802, at the request of Kem-Lack Improvement Company seeking a Special Use Permit
of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a medical clinic
on Myers Corners Road and Kent Road, and being Parcel 46258-03-240146, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Michael Morris was present.
Mr. Morris stated, I am the owner of this property. I have been for about 9 or 10 years.
I have come before the Board tonight, I have been before the Planning Board for their
recommendations and it is zoned R-20, 3 acres, half of which, a little less than half
of which is a pond. I felt and proposed to the Board a doctor type office for a number
of reasons, one there is central sewer and central water system there, 2, would be
that the pond, and I feel that, and originally I intended to build a house there for
myself, I intended to clean up the pond, dress up the pond and that was appearing before
the Board, I know Bill Parsons was concerned that if it ever did go to that they would
like to see that pond cleared up. And I think looking at it that it would take a
commercial type of indeavorin order to do the job right and an individual homeowner, it
would be kind of tough. It is ideal also that there is a good use of the land becuase
there is know with the school, developments going on all around there that a doctors
type, dentist type of facility, I think there would be a call for it in that area.
Finally too, I think that it would, doctors and dentist hours blend itself a little more
to the traffic pattern in there. So, based on that I am looking for an appeal to see
if I can get a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Landolfi asked, a question, a medical clinic, for the benefit of the Board and
the people in the audience, tell us what your proposal is at this time relative to that.
Mr. Morris stated, it would be a proposal for a doctor or dentist type office. As it
stands right now I have no tenants. I am not talking about that I am ready to build.
It would be approximately 6,000 square feet which would be approximately 6 offices
maybe. The pond is about 1/3.
Mr. Caballero asked if he had any architectural plans for what this would look like.
Mr. Morris answered, not at the moment because what I would like to do, if we got it,
we would have to architecturally blend it in with the pond. I have just the site plan.
Ms. Young stated, the Planning Board felt that generally it would be a good use for
the land.
Mr. Morris stated, the County said that it would be a biable use, and the Planning Board,
as I understood, that they unamously felt that it would be a good use of the land.
Mr. Landolfi asked Ms. Young, are those parking spaces in line with the square footage
of the building.
Ms. Young answered, yes. I did check this over some time ago and I don't see a major
problem. It might be off one or two parking spaces.
Mr. Landolfi stated, that is one concern that I had. The other concern, the plantings.
Are they going to be similar to what we have and with other people, what they are proposing.
,Page -5- August 13th, 1985
There was a discussion on the 6 foot high fence.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we don't want it higher than 6 feet.
There was a discussion about the screening between the commercial and the residential
use.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he is not sure that he cleared the flood plain. I have no
problem with the concept of a medical office going in there but if it gets approved
highlight it to the Planning Board for the site approval that there is a problem
with flood plain with setbacks.
Mr. Landolfi asked if anyone had any other questions or concerns.
Ken Franklin - Lives in the lot right next to where he wants to build.
My concern is mainly the flood plain. The flood plain is 186 and we have been flooded
out 3 times already. We just went through an extensive amount of money to a decent
contour of our property and we don't want that ruined. Also, we were concerned with the
traffic that would be added on. As it was stated, we are in the middle of a very
heavily populated area now. I am concerned with that and the children in the area.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Morris his intended hours of operation.
Mr. Morris stated, what the normal doctor hours are. The Planning Board may required
special drainage methods.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would now close that appeal.
Mrs. Carol stated, I move that we grant a special use permit subject to the proper
screening as determined by the Planning Board, requesting the Planning Board to pay
particular attention to, the parking is adequate for the building, the problem of
the flood plain are address, concern.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I second the motion with another item, the fact that on the flood
plain situation that the intensity of the flooding in that area be particularly looked
at in view of the fact that there was a comment by a neighboring homeowner that did
have a problem.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4823, at the request of Charles Coratti, seeking a variance of Article IV, §416.5
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow 2 signs affixed and parrallel to the
outer wall of structure when only 1 sign is allowed on property located on Route 9,
and being Parcel 46157-04-617311, in the Town of Wappinger.
Charles Coratti was present.
Mr. Coratti stated, when I first applied for the permit to go ahead with the building
we asked everbody what we had to do and this was the last Building Inspector. We
showed him everything and everythingwas completed and he said go ahead with the building.
So we spent thousands of dollars. They are not dirty old signs they are nice signs.
Page -6- August 13th, 1985
They look good. So the only reason why I got a good tenant on the digital service center
is a very big computer company is because they wanted to advertise a little on the main
highway. So of course they okayed my sign so we put them both up.
Mrs. Waddle asked, they okayed your sign.
Mr. Coratti stated, they okayed the whole 2 signs.
Mrs. Waddle asked, your sign was up first, correct.
Mr. Coratti answered correct.
Mrs. Waddle asked, and then these people put up this other sign.
Mr. Coratti stated, the digital came down and they relocated............
Mr. Cortellino asked, if you put up a building you had your office and you put up a
sign.
Mr. Coratti stated, we all moved in together. The building was complete. I came down
and spoke to Anna about why I was being bothered now. First of all, digital wouldn't
stay there if they couldn't have their sign there. Neither would I. We are 75 feet off
the main road. We have our regular sign out there which is within the rules and all of
a sudden now, a year or so later somebody comes by and says you have to much sign there.
Mrs. Waddle stated, if my memory serves me correct, when that was built, it was built
for All Star Water and there was never a mention of digital service, another tenant
^ when this was built. We were under the impression that it was going to be All Star Water.
Mr. Coratti stated, as far as I know we had the tenants before we even ran it through
and finished the building and the signs were both okay.
Mr. Caballero asked, how many uses are allowed on that property.
Ms. Young answered, they have an amended site plan for the office space, it was approved.
Mr. Caballero stated, but there is more than one tenant there.
Mr. Coratti stated, we have 5 tenants.
Mr. Caballero stated, 5 tenants, and that was approved.
Mrs. Waddle asked, who was it approved by.
Ms. Young answered, it was approved by the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero asked, does our Zoning Ordinance allow 5 uses in that particular area
for one property.
Mr. Landolfi stated, normally one acre per business for all intense purposes. I don't
know how this got as far as it did, that is the concern that we have. That building
was constructed for your water company and only that.
Mrs. Waddle stated, one acre, one business.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have a different problem, the sign is nothing.
Page -7-
August 13th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated, we have to find out how we even got this far.
Mr. Caballero stated, according to our Zoning Ordinance, it is illegal.
Mr. Cortellino stated, we don't know how it got through.
Mr. Coratti stated, there has been 2 or 3 people coming in and out of my building telling
me what to do and what not to do in the 1st 2 or 3 years. Now, what is a person supposed
to do.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table this.item.
Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4825, at the request of John G. Todd seeking a variance of Article IV, §421
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 15 foot rearyard setback when
25 feet is required on property located on Bank Street, and being parcel 445956-12-997622,
in the Town of Wappinger.
John Todd Jr. and Mrs. Todd were present.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she is going to obstain from this because she knows Mr. Todd.
Mr. Todd stated, what they want to do is construct a screened in porch to the rear of
the house and it doesn't confrom to the existing zoning law.as far as the rear setback.
To put it in any other place, the porch that is there now is not a screened in porch
and is slightly smaller than what they want to replace it with and it is in desperate
need of repair. To put it to either side of the existing structure, the house itself,
would be a severe hardship on the one side is the well and the other is the septic and
the cellar way, the only logical place to put it is where the entrance to the house is.
Currently which is to the rear of the house. The rpoposed porch is 14J feet from the
property line.
Mr. Landolfi asked, why not 10 or 12 feet.
Mrs. Todd answered, it would not be big enough, it wouldn't be worth while.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what are the requirements that you need.
Mr. Todd answered, she wants a screened in porch so that she can put a table that you
could eat a meal at plus some lawn furniture, casual furniture.
Mrs. Todd stated, the reason I wanted the 16 x 18 is that we do have a large family
who come up, several of them are allergic to bees and hornets, so I fugured that as
long as I am putting on a porch I would like to have a porch that I could have a table
that was large enough so that we could sit comfortably and have enough chairs.
Mr. Cortellino asked, do you mean windows with screens or do you mean just held up
be strips.
Page -8-
August 13th, 1985
Mr. Todd answered, just screens. We submitted a rough sketch of the proposed structure
it is just for summer use. Screen from floor to ceiling.
Mrs. Todd stated, I have a note from the two neighbors directly to the rear and one
neighbor accross the street saying that approve of the variance. I called the man
to the left. He told me he had no objection at all. .
Due to a malfunction of the machine the next portion of the minutes are not complete.
James Tompkins - across the street stated that he has no objections. The property is
well kept and taken care of.
June Wyant - Bank Street - abutting. No problem.
Mr. Landolfi called for a 10 minute break.
The meeting was called back to order at 8:10 P.M..
Mr. Caballero stated, I can't see granting a variance for that size of a porch making
it more non -conforming that it is now.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I lean towards a variance but a lesser variance.
Mr. Landolfi asked for recommendations for a smaller one.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would look favorably for a 12 foot deck. That would mean that we
would be giving them a 13 foot variance which in my mind is still to much but due
to the circumstances.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to grant for a 12 foot porch.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
mrs. Waddle - abstained
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #832, at the request of Precision Contracting seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow rearyard setback to extend
into the flood plain while all requirements must be satisfied by measurement on dry land
on property located on Lot #9, Cedar Creek Estates, and being parcel 46258-03-297141,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Dick Barger was present.
Mr. Barger stated, first of all I think we would like to get a clarification on the
rearline interpretation, becuase if you go to your Article 460-63 in your zoning it
allows us to build a building in the flood plain area. Now, if I can build in the
flood plain area, where is the rear line.
Mr. Landolfi stated, before I even try to answer that question, lets back up to a
metting that we had with you gentlemen, and it was my understanding that, and Anna, would
you please help my memory if I am incorrect, I thought when we left that meeting that
you and Mr. Luckel were going to go back and redefine all the lines, if you will, of
-Page -9-
August 13th, 1985
those lots that were still remaining. Meaning, I don't know whether it would eliminate
this problem, but, now I see that we have some new owners present and........ what did
you do relative to those lines, if anything. I thought again, the game plan was to get
that whole area into some conformity that you were going to take, I think there was a
total of 17 lots and were going to subtract the 3 that were buildings on, and you were
going to take the remaining. You were going to take the 14 lots and possibly either
loose one or two lots even to get that whole thing into conformity.
Mr. DiSantis stated, what we did on the two lots that you are talking about, we reduced
the size of the homes.
Mr. Barger stated, this is an interpretation on the......
Mr. Caballero stated, I have in front of me an appeal for a variance not for an
interpretation.
Mr. Barger stated, from the rear of my lot to the rear of the property I have 100 and
some feet, the Zoning Administrator claims that I have to be so many feet to the flood
line and I disagree with that because I can build in the flood area.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you cannot build in the flood area.
Mrs. Waddle read 460.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Barger read from §460.63.
-� Mrs. Waddle stated, you have to get a Special Use Permit first and you don't have
one.
Mr. Barger stated, we don't want to build in the flood plain, so, I am saying if I do
build in it I am allowed to building the flood plain area.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you are not allowed to build in the flood plain area. You
can't use it 2 ways.
Mr. Barger stated, I am not, I am saying if they say if you build you get a special
use permit to build in the flood plain area, now here is the real line. What I am saying
if I build with all your requirements, if I build in a flood zone area and take care
of all those requirements where is my rear line.
Mr. Cortellino answered, we measure from where your property ends.
Mr. Barger asked, so then if I come ahead of that flood plain area now you are telling
me you are going to take the rear line to the flood plain.
Mr. Cortellino answered, right, because now you are not applying under that section.
You are no longer coming in under special permit to build in a flood plain area.
Mr. Landolfi stated, when you filled out the paperwork. As this application was made out
you are talking 411.5. Even the legal notices that are submitted that were geared to
that section and that section only.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what you have to decide is whether you are going to come to us
for 411 or for 463, you can't use them both together.
Page -10-
August 13th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated, we can only act on the request that is made out which is by law
is in the legal notices.
Mr. Santis stated, it was submitted to you before and there was a problem with the 15 foot
side lines. I reduced the size of the house, now I have resubmitted now and I have no
problem.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with this particular request. First of all, and
you remember Dick, when we pulled out that full map, I pointed out to you Lots 8 & 9
would be a problem and you wanted variance side lots and you said you can't move it
back becuase you have a 100 year flood plain so you needed the sideline variance. So
you reduced the size of the houses now this request here for Lot 8 & 9 doesn't tell me
anything as to what you are gaining by building, by us granting you a variance allowing
youto not have to fulfill your rearyard requirements on dry land. If you move the house
back to the 100 year flood line and we gave you a variance allowing you to do it what
does that give you as far as side lots are concerned, how many feet.
Mr. Hirkala asked, with the revised building plans you don't need any sideyard the
sideyard is well within but you are not within the setback requirement on the rearyard
line now how many feet away....
Mr. Santis answered, 15 feet on Lot 8 & 9.
Mr. Caballero asked, and you require how much more, Anna.
Ms. Young answered, rearyard setback is 40 feet. 40 feet on dry land.
Mrs. Waddle asked how deep the whole lot is.
Mr. Barger answered 412 feet.
Mrs. Waddle stated, you have no more than 107 of the minimum area requirement of a lot
may be fulfilled by the land which is in the flood plain. Howmuch of that land is in
the flood plain, what percentage of that 412 feet is in the flood plain.
Mr. Santis answered 507.
Ms Young stated, what they are saying is 207 for the district so they are in an R-20
district therefore they need 18,000 sq. ft. of dry land and they have 77,000.
Mrs. Waddle stated, total land is 77,000 square feet in the two acres. How much of
that 77,000 feet is in the flood plain, what percentage.
Mr. Barger stated, I would say 607 of that is in the flood plain.
Mrs. Waddle stated, forget it. I feel very sorry for you gentlemen and I can empathize
with your problem, but, I don't see how this Board can go on with the problem with we
have over in Cedar Creek Estates without some other guidance or without talking to the
Planning Board. I think this whole situation is getting out of hand.
Mr. Caballero stated, number one, the variance that you are asking for has to be properly
legally notice.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we couldn't act on that based on what we have here. It would be
illegal.
Page -11-
August 13th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak either for or against this appeal.
Ms. Young stated, on page 80, 466.32, "b".
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would now close that appeal.
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to deny the variance.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4833, at the request of Precision Contracting seeking a variance of Article IV,
§411.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow rearyard setnack to extend
into the flood plain while all rearyard requirements must be satisfied by measurements
on dry land on property located on Lot #8, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel
446258-03-278141, in the Town of Wappinger.
This appeal with withdrawn.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4827, at the request of James R. Sheedy, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a real estate
office in his residence located on 15 Bell Air Lane, and being Parcel 46157-02-903829,
in the Town of Wappinger.
James Sheedy was present.
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Sheedy, are you aware of the face that it is granted that we
do have a sign ordinance, especially being in a residential area.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board for their review.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4830, at the request of R. John Hannigan, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a chiropractic
office in his residence located on Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel #6258-04-
697361, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Hannigan was present.
LM
Page -12-
August 13th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated that this is on All Angels Hill Road.
Mr. Hannigan stated, I am a chiropractor practicing in Long Island, and we would like
to buy this house on All Angels Hill Road and have a part time practice in it and there
is room enough in the downstairs area to have a part time practice there.
Mrs. Waddle asked, are you still going to practice on Long Island.
Mr. Hannigan answered, absolutely.
Mrs. Waddle asked, this is going to be a weekend place or are you going to be here on
two days a week.
Mr. Hannigan answered yes.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this to the Planning Board.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #834, at the request of AKHR Associates seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant
to Article IV, §422, note "e", of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow
multiple use, Retail 507 and office 507 on Parcel B & C located in a HB -2A zone
subject to Special Use Permit on property located on Route 9, in the Town of Wappinger.
Ms. Young stated, Mr. Klein believed that you would just refer this to the Planning Board.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - abstained
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn.
Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Page -13-
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M..
lb
August 13th, 1985
Respectfully submitted,
'A U4k_&t—QULt_e_'zC_k_
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals