Loading...
1985-09-10ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL SEPTEMBER 10TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #824, at the request of Theodore Gross, D.D.S., seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a dental office in his residence located on Lot #15, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel #6258-03-273193, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 4836, at the request of A.L. & Lucy Lim, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 13 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on property located on 19 Tor Road, and being Parcel 46257-02-818771, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal # 837, at the request of Lourdes M. Costa, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 18 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on property located on 3 Scotse Road, and being Parcel 46157-02-969724, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal 4841, at the request of Donald W. Nickerson, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow minimum lot width of 94 foot when 100 feet is required on property located on All Angels Hill Road & Pine Ridge Drive, and being Parcel 46257-04-999171, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal 4842, at the request of Can Tekben, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422, note "d" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 58 foot setback when 75 feet is required on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel 446259- 01-478772, in the Town of Wappinger. UNFINISHED 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 permit automobile sales and repair service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 46158-04- 623038, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 4823, at the request of Charles Coratti 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 parallel 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. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal 4835, at the request of Friedrich & Andrew Metzger, seeking a Special Use Permit of .§404.3:,&:404.33 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit meat storage and processing plant on property located on Old Myers Corners Road, and being Parcel 46258-04-535305, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 4838, at the request of Francis Tornatore, seeking an interpretation of Article IV, §422, HB -2A, note "f" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. 3. Appeal 4839, at the request of Kevin Salaun, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, 116 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 46157-04-680140, in the Town of Wappinger. Page -2- 4. Appeal #840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV. §422, 116 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a Goodyear Service Building and attached mall on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-600971, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal #844, at the request of Richard G. Barger, seeking an interpretation of §421 & §460.63 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 10TH, 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, September 10th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York beginning at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Landolfi - Chairman Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle Mr. Hirkala Others Present: Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M.. Mr. Landolfi asked if all 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 from the August meeting. Mrs Waddle made a motion that the August minutes be accepted. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi stated, we will give everyone an opportunity to be heard this evening. We will go through each case, we do ask that you please come forward and identify yourself for our records. Mr. Landolfi read the first appeal: Appeal #824, at the request of Theodore Gross, D.D.S., seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a dental office in his residence located on Lot #15, Cedar Creek Estates, and being Parcel #6258-03- 273193, in the Town of Wappinger. Jack Railing and Theodore Gross were present. Mr. Landolfi stated, for the benefit of the Board and the people in the audience could you please just take a moment and let us know what you would really like to do. Mr. Gross stated, what we basically have is, we have a practice in Poughkeepsie and we recently got married and are planning on having a home office in addition to that that will allow us to spend some time at home while we are beginning a family and what we had planned on was the first floor being the dental part and the second floor being the living part -and as far as it being used as a dental office, it would be used when we are not in Poughkeepsie by one of us at a time and the other one would be in Poughkeepsie and we are planning on a somewhat small office, it is not going to be a clininc or anything like that we would have 2 chairs for myself and 2 chairs for my wife and a reception area, a little laboratory, and a laboratory. September 10th, 1985 Page -2- Mr. Landolfi stated, being familiar with your house, I have looked at it on several occasions, right of way your are saying that you would like to put 4 chairs in. Mr. Gross answered, that is right. Mr. Landolfi stated, if I understood you correctly, you mentioned that it would probably be only in operation by either on or the other. May I ask why four chairs. Mr. Gross stated, we are in sort of a unique position. Mr. Landolfi stated, let me tell you why I am asking the question. Assuming that you are a new, young couple, I suspect very stronly that there may be a family forth coming and I am just looking ahead for additions if you will. I am having difficulty under- standing if it is only going to be the type of office that you are telling us that you need the whole first floor and 4 chairs. Mr. Gross stated, it sounds large when I say the first floor being the offices, it is a small house to start out with, so the first floor is not that large an area. But, to further explain why we need 4 chairs, we are in sort of a unique position in that we are married couple, both of us being dentists, and further being unique in that my wife is right handed and I am left handed, that makes a dental set up different for each chair. In this office we would have 2 set ups for left handed use and 2 set up for right handed use, the reason for that is if we have a right handed chair and I am left handed a long time I am going to have problems. That is pretty much the reason why we are doubling up on that. Mr. Landofli asked what they proposed for hours of operation. Mr. Gross answered, hours of operation would be a normal day. Our office in Poughkeepsie is operating Monday through Saturday so we are busy in the city of Pough. so I would think possibly 2 days a week to start off with and maybe expanding to 3 or 4 days a week. But we can't spend to much time there because we are spending alot of time in the city to and this is basically going to be a small practice. Mr. Landolfi asked, you are going to have a receptionist area, are you going to hire a receptionist as well. Mr. Gross answered, maybe down the road, I wouldn't say point blank that I am never going to hire a receptionist because the phones are ringing. To start off with we would have an assistant who would be answering the phones. Mr. Landolfi asked, how many patients do you think you could accomodate dring the given day. Mr. Gross answered, 4 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. 8 patients and if they are shorter visits you could possibly add a couple more. Mr. Landolfi stated, we have 6 parking spaces here. Mr. Gross stated, we have two spaces here on the side, one would be for one of our cars and one car would be in the city and the other one would be for our assistant then we have....... Mrs. Waddle stated, excuse me, then you are going to have a dental assistant in there working with you. Mr. Gross answered, yes. Page -3- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, and that could be plus a receptionist at a later time. Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are looking at is a full blown operation. This is not a sideline aside from your Poughkeepsie office this is a branch office. This is a full time operation. Mr. Gross answered, there are degrees of full time operation. In the city we have a... Mrs. Waddle stated, it could develop into a full time operation. Mr. Gross answered, yes, it could, but we do not have that intention. We have a full blown operation already. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem with the half acre with this type of situation the problem in this Town is the fact that some of these people are trying to put too much on to little. Mrs. Waddle stated, the problem that I have is not only with you putting an office in there but as you know there was quite a few problems in Cedar Creek Estates which I don't think are all cleared up at this point in time which may not having any bearing on the case but I still think as a Board that we have to take into consideration the whole development in that area of the Town and i think it is a very serious consideration at this point and that is nothing to do with your own. Mr. Landolfi stated, there is already a variance on this lot. Mr. Railing stated, we did get a variance already from the 75 foot to 60 foot. Mr. Caballero stated, I also have a couple of concerns. I noticed that alot of dental offices or medical offices are coming on Myers Corners Road on corner properties, they create a problem because there is not enough parking spaces for their patients and they end up parking out in the street creating a traffic hazard as people are trying to get into Myers Corners Road. In this particular case I think there is already some doctor on the other side so that means that there will be people parking on both sides of the street which will make that driveway into Myers Corners Road a very hazardous place to get into Myers Corners Road. My other concern with this is the size of the lot and the amount of parking spaces. My third concern is that most of the abutting property owners that will live there will not get a chance to come to this hearing and voice their objections or their favor of it because they don't own the properties around it yet. Mr. Railing stated, related to parking,.we had to go before the Planning Board for their recommendation, we were referred by the Zoning Board of Appeals and after considerable discussion we originally had less than what you see here in parking based on the require- ments of the ordinance. After considerable talking with the Planning Board we then added the additional parking so that we would have a total of 6, I think you will find in the Planning Board's recommendations that reflects their wishes. Mr. Caballero stated, I believe the Planning Board can play games back and forth with moving those buildings back where they would like to see them but that has nothing to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals. They are recommending more spaces as we saw it also. Mrs. Waddle stated, they are making a site plan if the Special Use Permit is granted. Mr. Railing stated, all that I am trying to say is that if the Planning Board has been satisfied relative to the number of spaces shown on the plan regardless. Page -4- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, I don't think that is the overriding factor at this point, I think &I Lthere are many other concerns with that property out there in that development out there and I don't think we have a main concern right now with 4 parking spaces, that is the least of the concerns. Mr. Caballero stated, on that Planning Board there are more than 1 or 2 members.and 2 members, Mr. Mills and Mr. Hawksley voted against this and their concerns were the parking spaces so you have just squeezed throught the Planning Board. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Mills and Mr. Hawksley were also opposed to this because of the size of the lot. Mr. Railing stated, relavant to the siz of the lot I would like to state that the coverage of this particular building is probably in the area of 13 or 14% coverage of the building which is not s significant coverage, it is not a super large office building. It is a house, the use is pordominately for residentail. The dentistry use is incedental to that use, the only reason that they are interested in having this particular building there with this in there is so that when they raise a family they can have time to spend with those children and the reason that you have the double set of offices becuase Ted also wants to share in that up bringing. Mrs. Waddle stated, there are many people in thie Town that are raising children that have to go to an office everyday. It is very nice to say that you would like to work in your home but we would have every resident in the Town of Wappinger ready to work in their homes trying to raise their children and I don't think that that is a consideration at this point. I think the considerations are on the housing and the development in the area in which he is. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Gross if he would accept one chair there and no assistant as part of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Gross answered, I can't work without an assistant, no. Mr. Landolfi stated, what could be the minimum that you could accept becuase to hear Jack who just finished it almost, I find it hard to believe that you just got finished saying that really the prime use is residential when he is going to the extent that he is going. If there was only one chair, perhaps, like there are a few dentist that only have one chair and then the rest of it was residentail. This is the reverse, you have 4 chairs, a receptionist area. Mrs. Waddle stated, Dr. Gross has an office in Poughkeepsie where he can continue his practice. Mr. Railing stated, he also is a modern man in that he also wants to share in the up bringing of his children. Mrs. Waddle answered, they don't even have any children at this point and nor do you know that they can ever have any children for the record, if you want to look at it that way. Mr. Caballero stated, once the SUP is granted he can sell that office and another 2 doctors can come in there. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Gross, would you be willing to be a resident in the Town of Wappinger if you weren't allowed to practice. Page -5- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Gross answered, I would but I would not choose this particular location. Mr. Caballero asked, so you picked the location because it could be an office. Mr. Gross answered, I picked the location becuase it is on Myers Corners Road which is a main street. You don't pick an office out in the woods somewhere. Mr. Hirkala stated, this is where I am confused. Is it a home or an office. If it is a home with an office as an assessory use that is one thing, if it is your primary office that is something else. What is the primary function of the business. You have a business presently which is your primary place of business, now you are either talking about making another primary place of business, which means that you will have two branch office so to speak or you are making a home and you need an accomodation to satisfy certain wants that you have, that is perfectly alright. But, the problem I have and I think that some of the rest of the Board has is that is doesn't look that way. It looks like you are trying to create another office, now if that is the case you are here under false pretenses. Mrs. Waddle asked Dr. Gross if he had bought this house yet. Mr. Gross answered, almost. Mrs. Waddle asked, is this house predicated on you getting a Special Use Permit. Mr. Gross answered, yes. Mrs. Waddle asked, then you are not in financially ...... I am not in favor of a SUP in that area at this present time. Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to also see something from the County on this which I haven't seen as far as the traffic. Mrs. Waddle stated, yes, but we still have problems out in that area and we are going to compund the problems in that area at this time by granting permits and variance until it is straighten out. Now, a year form now when people are living in there and they have a chance to voice their opinions either yes or no and all the problems have been straightened out there I would be glad to entertain it again but I don't think at this point in time this is the right time to be granting Special Use Permits in a development that isn't even set as yet. Mr. Gross stated, there was a question raised earlier, I never got around to answering it,about one operatory and no assistant. In the past all the dentist used to operate like that, they could have one chair and no assistant. Today, there is something called four handed dentistry where you sit down, you need suction, and basically you need an assistant to be handing it to you that is why.......... Mr. Caballero stated, Mr. Gross, with all respect, I would like you to do that in your Poughkeepsie office and take care of an emergency in your home or something that doesn't need two people working on a patient. Mr. Landolfi stated, you are having difficulty convincing us under the circumstances, like you stated, I have trouble understanding that thats going to be kind of a incidental, not incidental but an assessory use. Mrs. Waddle stated, Dr. Gross I think what we are trying to say is we would love to have you as a resident in the Town of Wappinger, we would like your business to stay in Poughkeepsie. Page -6- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Gross stated, I think you are assuming that we will have a full blown practice in the next five years, which we are not, obviously. I now we cannot guarantee you that we are just going to limit it to two chairs, one chair, but we are working within the limitation of the land which we realize the size of the land. The total of the square footage of the house is something like 1800 square feet, and we are very realistic of what we can fit in that square footage. Mr. Landolfi stated, I can tell you how you can gain space if you take two of the chairs out. There is some more footage for your living space, and the reception area. The hangup that I have is that you already have a variance on that property, you haven't even moved in yet, you are not even a resident of the Town and we already offered you a variance, now you are coming in on top of the variance looking for a Special Use Permit. I have a hangup with the lot size, the size of the living space in relation to your acessory use. We have to have something from the County as far as visibilty coming in and out on that. I wouldn't even try to render a decision tonight unless I had that. But, the more we are digging here and the more I am finding out what you really want to put in there. Mr. Railing stated, I don't understand the relationship with the County. Mr. Landolfi stated, anytime you are on a County Road we get a........ Mr. Railing stated, if your exit is, I understand that, his exit is not on a County Road. Mr. Landolfi answered, his property is on a County Road, we always get a recommendation or opinion from them, it is just a normal procedure that we go through. Mr. Hirkala asked for rough dimensions of the house. You are talking about 1800 square foot building with a 23 1/2 setback in the rear and a 62 1/2 setback in the front and we granted a variance on this property off the 75 foot setback in the front because the request was made by the developer of this property that he had a potential customer that wanted a bigger house and we didn't think there was any big impact with the 75 foot versus 60 foot variance. Now I am looking at this lot, if we didn't grant that 75 foot variance you wouldn't have been able to put a house on that period. The front of the house would be Schnabl Court not Myers Corners Road. Right now, the way this thing lays out you have a driveway on Schnabl Court but the front of the house faces Myers Corners Road. Mr. Railing stated, I can answer that. First of all the house is 46 roughly x 26, there is a couple jogs outside of that. The reason why you are finding these problems on all the corner lots relates to a recent amendment that was made to the Zoning Ordinance. The original zoning ordinance allowed the developer, lets forget about Dr. Gross for a minute, allowed the developer to choose his frontyard and he could, such as in the case of Lot #6 on Shelburne Hills. Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Railing to read him that section. Mr. Railing read the definition of a lot line front. If you remember, I think it was lot #6, Shelburne Hills, we argued before this Board and the Board agreed with us, as a result of that, because what he did, he had the 75 foot from the County Road and we wanted to be as close as 50 and wanted to stay 75 feet from the internal roadway. We argued to the Board and the Board agreed us. Immediately after that, the.law was passed changing the portion of the ordinance so that now you have to deal with both streets. If that did not change we could have said that we only need 50 feet from here and we would not have a problem. I think this is one of the things they are studing in the ordinance. Page -7- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, you are right and out in Pondview we hace the problem with that when they elected a frontyard and it put the house almost in somebody elses, the rear of the house almost in somebodies front yard. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Landolfi asked for any further questions from the Board. Mr. Gross stated, you mentioned the County Road and needing some information from the County. I have been waiting about a year for this, almost a year now, I would just assume that if you could forget the County and if you were going to go negative even no matter what the County would say to have that, I want to find out what is going to happen. Mrs. Waddle answered, okay, are you going to buy the house in any event. Mr. Gross answered, it is contingent upon the Special Use Permit. Mr. Caballero made a motion to deny the request Special Use Permit. The lot is to small to accomodate for both the home and a dental office. It will no accomodate for sufficient parking, allowing parking to be done on the street impairing the traffic flow of that corner. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4836, at the request of A.L. & Lucy Lim, seeking a variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 13 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet is required on property located on 19 Tor Road, and being Parcel 46257-02-818771, in the Town of Wappinger. A.L. Lim and Lucy Lim - 19 Tor Road were present. Mrs. Waddle asked, would you like to tell us why your are requesting the varinace. Mr. Lim stated, we are requesting the application because we want more space to add an additiona room. The reason is to be able to accomodate my wifes mother for part of the year. We are kind of taking turns, the family, to accomodate this parent because she doesn't speak english therefore would not be suitable to move into a home and she is very attached to the family. Our custom is to look out for elders and it would help us a great deal for the extra space. Mrs.Waddle asked, you are only adding a bedroom. Mr. Lim answered, what we are doing is converting our garage. It is a raised ranch house and so we are trying to build over the driveway, it is a long driveway, and it would be a one story structure, this garage. The garage space that we have now would be converted into a kitchen and a family room. Page -8- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi asked, does this come under the mother/daughter. Ms. Young answered, it might. I was not aware that the Lim's were going to put a kitchen. There was a discussion on the mother/daughter. Ms. Young stated, when the Lim's originally appeals it was my understanding it was one room which was the bedroom for family member. Mr. Lim stated, we are not putting in another kitchen, we are moving our kitchen. Mr. Hirkala asked how many kitchens will the house have. Mr. Lim answered one. We are just rearranging the house. Mr. Landolfi asked, may I ask how many are in your family right now without your mother. Mr. Lim answered, our daughter is there and us. It is a three bedroom. Mr. Lim stated, the thing is that with her mother living with us we expect to get alot of visitors with members of the family visiting her. Mr. Caballero stated that they were asking for a 7 foot variance. Mr. Lim stated, we have consulted our neighbors. Mrs. Poltier - 21 Tor Road. Mrs. Poltier stated, we have absolutely no objection to the structure, we feel it will enhance the property and anything they will do will be tastefull. Mr. Caballero stated, I think this is a unique situation and I am going to make a motion that this variance be granted. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landofli - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Landolfi stated that they would now close this appeal.. Mr. Landolfi stated, Appeal 4837 and Appeal #841 are withdrawn. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #842, at the request of Can Tekben, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422, note "d" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 58 foot setback when 75 feet is required on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel X66259-01-478772, in the Town of Wappinger. John Tekben - 199 Cedar Avenue, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603. Mr. Tekben stated, at this period in time my wife owns a store, the Bookworm in Red Oaks Mills, it is a book exchange store. We are on a rental basis. We have run out of space it is very small and I saw this property and I had an option contract for the purchase with the real estate. It is 2.5 acres. It is long and narrow. As.a County Engineer I Page -9- September 10th, 1985 understand the requirement is 35 feet. There is more than adequate site distance. I applied to New York State DOT dor their opinion, and today, they have approved the location. The store hours right now are 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that is really when the traffic dies down. There will be no delivery trucks. Mr. Caballero asked, do you have problem with the DOT suggestions of what to do with the property, Mr. Tekben answered, not at all. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either in favor or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Hirkala asked, would there be any plan for further subdivision. Mr. Tekben answered no. It is really, it can't be subdivided because the uniqueness of the lot. This is the only portion that can be buildable. There is a state easement. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to grant the requested variance. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi then closed this appeal. 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 permit automobile sales and repair service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6158-04-623038, in the Town of Wappinger. Hugh Greer and Jack Railing were present. Mr. Landolfi stated, we have some correspondence here that I guess, could you perhaps enlighten us. Mr. Greer stated, the property that is in question here is owned by myself. It has nothing to do with Greer Toyota. Any building we put up has nothing to do with Greer Toyota. My brother, we are partners, but he has been in there for about 5 hours in 5 years. He read that in the paper and he was concerned. He wanted to make sure that Greer Toyota wasn't going to buy that property and put a building on there. I own that property in my own name, if I build on it, it has nothing to do with Greer Toyota. I happened to be 507 owner of Greer Toyota but this property has nothing to do with it. Mr. Landolfi stated, I believe, Mr. Greer, this is round two on this, haven't we gone through something like this before. Mr. Greer answered, yes, we wanted to put a addition on the building up there, the office and he came down here. Page -10- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Railing asked if they were talking of the present application. Mr. Greer answered, no, a few years ago. Mrs. Waddle asked, so then this one of Greer Toyota has nothing to do with this, but you are an officer of Greer Toyota. Mr. Greer answered, right. Mrs. Waddle stated, so it does, am I correct. Mr. Railing stated, that is a good question, he is a share holder. Mr. Greer stated, I am a 507 stock holder. Mrs. Waddle stated, then you own half of the business. Mr. Greer stated, I own half of the business. I am general manager and I operate..... Mr. Railing stated to Mr. Greer, the question is is do you take full responsibility for Greer Toyota, and I am not sure that you do. Mrs. Waddle asked, you suffer half responsibility for Greer Toyota. Mr. Greer answered, no. Anything that Greer Toyota does, do I suffer for it. Mrs. Waddle asked, are you responsible for it since you are a 507 share holder. Mr. Greer stated, I am general manager, I am involved with the operation of Greer Toyota anything that I do on my own is on my own. Mrs. Waddle stated, no, this is Greer Toyota. Mr. Railing stated, it is a good question and we have a property which an application has been made and the name is William H. Greer and I understand that you have something there from DEC relative to Greer Toyota and the question does become are they one in the same. Mr. Hirkala stated, the question in my mind is that this application made, its hard to tell.... that you are representing Greer Toyota and know it turn out that you are not representing Greer Toyota you are representing yourself and this is the confusing that I have in my mind and what I would like to see is a review of the minutes to see what exactly was said in the past. Mr. Railing stated, the original appplication did not reference, to my knowledge, Greer Toyota. Mr. Landolfi asked for the original application on East End Automotive. Mr. Hirkala stated, home mailing address c/o of Greer Toyota, Route 9. Mr. Railing stated, anytime that we stand before a Board we all know that he is general manager and therefore involved with Greer Toyota. We talk about automotive sales in the intent to tie them together and the name of the site plan is East End Automotive. Mrs. Waddle asked, you are Hugh Greer or William H. Mr. Railing stated, William H. Page -11- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, this was made in the name of Hugh. Mr. Railing stated, that is the name he goes by. We can amend that if you so desire. Mrs. Waddle stated, you received the correspondence from the NYS Dept. of Envionmental Conservation, you are on copy on this, so I have to assume that you are responsible for the actions of Greer Toyota. Mr. Railing stated, the corporation is. Mr. Greer stated, they are after Greer Toyota not William H. Greer. Mr. Hirkala stated, I seem to recall, and I can't be sure exactly what was said, but I seem to recall there being some things said here illuding to the fact that there would be a branch of Greer Toyota. Mr. Railing stated, lets talk about the DEC letter. The DEC letter basically states that they have met with representatives of Greer Toyota, they have come to agreement. The only thing that has to be done is the legal department of DEC has to draw it up so we can sign it. You are trying to get to the point where you are saying that there is a violation. Mr. Hirkala stated, I also would like to know, as I view this thing with him presented here as a branch of Greer Toyota. There was alot of discussion about the crowding of Greer Toyota and all the cars, and having to get rid of them, move the service department up to this property. This plan was presented to us as, even though it was called East End Automotive as an arm of Greer Toyota, it was starting out to be a service dept. for Greer Toyota and then possibly later putting a showroom on and adding car sales to it. That is how it was presented to us, if my recollection is correct. Now what we are hearing is that it is not an arm of Greer Toyota, it is completely seperate operation it will be completely seperate. Mr. Greer stated, it can not be an arm of Greer Toyota unless the stock holders of Greer Toyota agreed on it and they never agreed on it. My thinking is that the corporation is going to be disolved in is in the process of dissolution, and because of dissolution it is going to be sold and I am 99.9% saying that I am going to buy it and after I buy it I am going to need more room and then eventually down the road, somewhere down the road a year, maybe two, maybe three years, I am going to build a shop on this property and you are right I will probably service some of Greer Toyota cars on it. So eventually somewhere you are absolutely right, but as of today, it has nothing to do with Greer Toyota. Mrs. Waddle stated, there is absolutely nothing to illude to the fact that Mr. Greer said it was an extension of Greer Toyota. Mr. Hirkala stated that he must of heard it at a Planning Board meeting. Mrs. Waddle stated, being a principle of Greer Toyota I think he is still responsible under law that if they have a violation against them that he can't go off and..... Mr. Railing stated, my point is that they have agreed, Greer Toyota has agreed to obey that violation. Mrs. Waddle stated, we have nothing in writing. Ms. Young stated, the violation is still outstanding. Page -12- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, I will make a motion to table this until we get direct correspondence from the DEC that the violation has been cleared up. Mr. Greer stated, we have a letter on it. Mrs. Waddle stated, we don't have a letter on it. Ms. Young stated, this mail just came to me this afternoon, the violation is outstanding. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a letter from the DEC to the question dated September 9th, 1985. Mrs. Waddle stated, and today is the 10th. Mr. Greer asked if they have one from their attorney. Mrs Waddle answered, we don't have anything in front of us. Mr. Hirkala stated, Louis C. Evans, Senior Attorney, and he specifically states here, will be required to. Mrs. Waddle stated, it is still outstanding officially. Mr. Railing stated, I also call the attention to the Board that it is an alleged violation. There has been no judication against Mr. Greer and therefore is not a violation, he has agreed, at their offices, to take care of this particular situation. Mrs. Waddle stated, I make a motion to table this hearing until we have further information on this. Mr. Hirkala stated, prior to that motion, I would like to read into the record the letter from the DEC. I would like to have somebody read it in. It is dated September 9th, 1985 to Ms. Anna Young, Zoning Administrator, Town of Wappinger, Regarding Greer Toyota. Dear Mrs. Young, This letter will confirm our telephone conversation on September 6th regarding the above company. The Department of Enviornmental Conservation believes that Greer Toyota has violated Article 17 of the Enviornmental Conservation Law by discharging industrial pollutants without a permit. The Department and Greer Toyota have reached agreement on administrative settlement of the alleged violation which is to be inbodied in a written order on consent. The order has not been formally, not yet been formally executed. Under the terms of the order Greer Toyota will be required to pay civil penalty to the Department conducting technical investigation to determine whether there has been any enviornmental damage as a result of the discharge, conduct appropriate remediation if there has been any enviornmental damage. As I stated to you on the telephone, since there has been no formal ajudication the alleged violation is still outstanding officially, however, I believe that a formal order on consent will be executed in the near future. Please feel free to contact me again if you have any additional questions. Very truly yours, Louis A. Evans, Senior Attorney. That goes to your question of alleged. In their opinion, their senior attorney.... It is still outstanding officially. Mr. Railing stated, it is in my opinion how that letter reads is in a normal course of events of the DEC that they have an alleged violation, they go to the particular individual and say we think you are doing something wrong, we haven't gone to court, we haven't proved it. Do you want to just comply and take care of the situation, Mr. Greer said we will, they have a consent order agreed upon, it has to be typed up by the legal department and he is going to sign it immediately. Mrs. Waddle stated, and when we receive it we will be glad to act on it. Page -13- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Railing stated, all that I am saying is the Town Law states there has to be a violation, there is no violation, it is an alleged violation. Mrs. Waddle stated, Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor to table this appeal. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #843, 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 parallel to the outer wall of structure when only 1 sign is allowed on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6.157-04-617311, in the Town of Wappinger. Charles & Philip Coratti were present. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Coratti if he received the letter from Anna Young on August 28th. Ms. Young stated he was mailed a copy. Mr. Landolfi stated, let me read the letter. To the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding All Star Water Conditioning. On November 8th, 1982, Charles Coratti received Planning Board site plan approval to operate All Star. Proposed use as per site plan. Phase 1 - 1995 square foot storage. 1st floor - 1980 square feet office. Phase 2 - 2nd Floor 1980 square feet office space Apparently Mr. Coratti approached Hans Gunderud, Building Inspector/Zoning Administrator regarding permitted uses within the zone. Mr. Gunderud's reply to Mr. Coratti is enclosed. On January 11th, 1984 a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued to All Star for use as an office building. On or about June 18th, 1985 Dan Kriegsman and I inspected AllStar pursuant to Mr. Coratti's application for a final CO. Mr. Coratti explained to us that he was paying $100.00 a day to his bank since he lacked a final CO. On Jiue 20th, 1985 this office recommended that a final Certificate of Occupancy be issued to All Star pending approval for a sign located on front of building. All other conditions of the Planning Board have been met. On June 20th, 1985 a CO was issued by the Building Inspector, again subject to appeal for the sign. Very truly yours, ANna Angell Young. Mr. Coratti asked, the only issue now is the sign. Mr. Landolfi asked Ms. Young, can I assume from the letter that all those businesses that are in are in fact legal per our standards. Ms. Young stated, I believe there is a question is Mr. Coratti operating in a retail sales or professional offices. Mr. Coratti stated, there is no retail there. Ms. Young stated, because he was given permission to operate professional building. Page -14- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi asked, do you have any kind of stock there at all. Mr. Coratti answered, no. Mr. Landolfi asked, if I wanted to come down and get some salt or something like that you have that on your premises. Mr. Coratti answered, only very minor and thats only for emergency use. Philip Coratti stated, when I originally checked this out with Hans we went over what All Star Water Conditioning what type of operation it was. Did this business generate traffic to be considered retail sales and at the time he used the comparision that Culligan was down in Wappinger and that they were operating for 15 years and had a very small amount of traffic involved. Mr. Landolfi stated, let me give you the differences. It was in the Town of Poughkeepsie number 1 and number 2 they did in fact have salt there. They had a ton of it. Philip Coratti stated,basically what he was trying to figure out was was a water conditioning company a retail sales and my understanding was that the lot could only be used for one purpose and being that it would generate alot of traffic and that if this was considered office space then it owuldn't be alot of highway traffic alot of cars coming in and out and he rean some checks on it to see how many people would be coming in, how many people would be buying things,w ould they be leaving with parts. His conclusion was that All Star was not a retail business it was mainly an office. Mr. Landolfi asked, can I come down there and buy a water softener. Mr. Coratti answered, no, you can order one. Mrs. Waddle stated, you can go to a catalog store and order one also. Mr. Coratti stated, this is an office showroom. Mr. Caballero asked, are we speaking here in reference to retail or on a variance for a sign. Mrs. Waddle stated,a s the Chairman said, if someone wanted to come there and buy a water softener you have a display model, correct. Mr. Coratti answered, yes we do. Mrs. Waddle stated, and you sell them the water softener and you would deliver it to them. Mr. Coratti answered, right. Mrs. Waddle stated, that is retail business. Mr. Coratti stated, this was all resolved three years ago, why are you bringing this up now for. The only thing that we are here for now is the sign. Philip Coratti stated, the only reason that we went ahead with this building, or we would not have done it in the first place, was Hans Gunderud made a decision and sent me a letter saying that this was not considered a retail sales. Page -15- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Caballero asked, do you have that letter. Philip Coratti stated, on that we put the building up, now you can't just say well we changed our mind. We got a lifes investment into that. Otherwise the building would have never gone up. Mr. Caballero asked, is there just the water softener office in that building or is there a data processing office in that building.that sell data machines, computers. Mr. Coratti stated, they just deal operation. It is a service center. What they do is this is a field office to deliver work that they do throughout the Hudson Valley. Mr. Caballero asked, I can't walk in there and buy a computer from them. Mr. Coratti answered, no, you can order on I suppose. Mr. Caballero stated, this porperty is more than just an office space. There is retail on two sections there and there are two signs on the property. If it is all water supply there is only one sign, why is more than three or four signs on it. I don't care what Hans Gunderud said or did. What is in front of me is a variance for a sign. Mr. Coratti asked, is there a footage involved in signs. Mrs. Waddle answered yes, 25 square feet. Mr. Coratti stated, I thought it was 55. Mrs Waddle answered no. Mr. Coratti stated, there again, we were told 55 feet. Mrs. Waddle answered no you weren't. Nobody in this Town would tell you that you could have a sign 55 square. You can have a sign on the building and you are entitled to one sign outside the building, a free standing sign of 25 square feet. Mr. Caballero asked Ms. Young, do the signs on that property conform with our zoning ordinance. Ms. Young answered, no, there are two signs. Mrs. Waddle stated, there should be only one sign. Mrs. Waddle stated, I would make a motion that this variance be denied. There is to be only one sign of 25 square feet on the property. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #838, at the request of Francis Tornatore seeking an interpretation of Article IV, §422, HB -2A, note "f" of the Town of Wappinger- Zoning Ordinance. Francis Tornatore was present. Page -16- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Tornatore stated, I am here on behalf of my mother and father. Their property is, a third of it is commercial and the remaining acre is residential and it has an entrance on MacFarland Road.and its set inland so that is surrounded on commercial on three sides. Mr. Landolfi asked Mrs. Tornatore if she got the letter from the Planning Board. He then read the letter: Appeal #838, Francis Tornatore - Interpretation. At the August 12th, 1985 meeting of the Planning Board the above mentioned matter was discussed. The Planning Board's interpretation is that a commercial parcel may be used for commercial purpose, a residential parcel for a residential use but you cannot have both on the same parcel. Since this parcel is non -conforming in a HB -2A zone, eixt can be made on MacFarland Road for either residential or commercial use. Mrs. Tornatore stated, right now I have a buyer who is interested in building his home on the property and using the commercial piece for his business. Can I have the two uses on the one parcel. Mr. Caballero stated, we are here tonight to interpret Article 422 of the Zoning Ordinances, that is all we are here to do. How would she like us to interpret that. Mrs. Tornatore stated, for the two uses. Oliver Bonnerwith - It is sold to Smith and he is in the blacktop business on the other side of the river and he has, he wants to build a house on there. Now, because it is residential and the back part is one acre. He wants to build a house on the one acre and he does not want to operate the business from it, he just wants to park his trucks. He has three trucks that they used and they will not carry any blacktop on or off the property. What they do they pickup the blacktop at the plant they put it on the driveway and when they are done at night they drive their trucks back. That is all they want to do. Mrs. Waddle stated, if he wants to park his trucks he has to come in for a Special Use Permit. It is allowed with a Special Use Permit. Mr. Hirkala stated, if he wants to build a house and live in that house and park trucks in front of that house in an HB zone he is going to have to have a Special Use Permit from this Board which means that he is going to have to conform to our restrictions that we will place on him and he will have to go to the Plannng Board and get whatever restrictions that they want. Mrs. Tornatore asked, according to this isn't that two uses are permitted on each lot if the second use is a dwelling used by the owner. Mr. Hirkala stated, right, but now go to the HB zone. Mrs. Waddle stated, any use permitted in HB -1 and HB -1 is any use permitted in GB and in GB it has transportation terminal which would have to be, if he was parking his trucks it would have to be classified as a transportation terminal and that has to have a Special Use Permit, so he would have to come for a Special Use Permit. Then we have to determine whether there is snough room there for the trucks he wants to park, what he wants to there, there would be a whole check list. Mr. Caballero stated, you could apply for a Special Use permit but he may not be allowed to do what he wants to do there. Page -17- September 10th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, I think the interpretation is yes, you can have a residential use and the owner can live on the property and have a commercial use predicated on the district that he is in. Mr. Caballero stated, he has to come in for a Special Use Permit. Mrs. Tornatore stated, all that I want to know is that he can use this property for his home and business and he has to ... Mrs. Waddle stated, he has to conform to the rules of the district that the commercial property is in. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4839, at the request of Kevin Salaun, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, 116 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit automotive service on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 446157-04-680140, in the Town of Wappinger. Kevin Salaun was present. Mr. Salaun stated, I am seeking a Special Use Permit to build a structure on commercial property on Route 9. Next to the Backyard Fence Company. Mrs. Waddle stated, we are looking for a plot plan. Did you have an architect. Mrs. Waddle stated, I am going to make a motion that we refer this to the Planning Board but I am also going to say to you don't go to the Planning Board unless you have everything. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: APpeal 4840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, 116 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a Goodyear Service Building and attached mall on property located on Route 9, and being Parcel 446157-02- 600971, in the Town of Wappinger. Al Schmit, Engineer and Mr. Davis, Applicant were present. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 44844, at the request of Richard G. Barger, seeking an interpretation of §421, & §460.63 of the Town of Wappiager Zoning Ordinance. Ken Stenger, Attorney and Mr. Barger, applicant were present. Page -18- September 10th, 1985 Mr. Stenger stated, I am representing Mr. Barger with respect to an application of interpretation of the Zoning Administrator with respect to §411.5. Mr. Stenger stated, apparently it was an error by Mr. Barger filling this out. I realize that the Board cannot formally hear us tonight because of this, I wonder that if we were all here for 5 minutes can we on an informal basis. Mr. Hirkala stated that first we have to close the meeting. Mr. Stenger stated, if we withdraw this do we withdraw without prejudice for re-application. Mr. Landolfi stated, this appeal is withdrawn to be re-applied at a later date. Mr. Stenger stated, unfortunately I just got into this matter about four days ago. I understand the history or it. It was a mistake by Mr. DeSantis to come to this Board and ask for a variance had he sought legal advice he would have been told that was the wrong approach and he wouldn't have wasted the Boards time at the last agenda meeting. What we seek, what we attempted to seek tonight is an interpretation and an application and guidance from the Board on how extetrics should be applied in this situation. It is not an appeal of Mr. DeSantis's denial of the variance, and at this point the only thing that Mr. DeSantis could do on his particular application would be to apply for an Article 78 which would be meaningless and useless because he applied to you for the wrong relief in the context of the policy was faced so we have......... Mr. Hirkala made a motion to hold a meeting for the Special meeting of the Moccasin Hill vs MacGeorge on September 24th, 1985 at 7:00 P.M.. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4845, at the request of the Zoning Administrator seeking an interpretation of Article IV, §413.22 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Landolfi stated, I already told, for the benefit of the Board, Mr. Kessler that I would take exception to his interpretation. Ms. Young asked, can I ask why. Mr. Landolfi stated, whenever, when those homes were placed on those lots obvious consideration had to be given because it is in fact part of the main building even though they were added at a later date. There was a discussion. Ms. Young stated, up to this point, when a person brought in a plot plan with a deck shown on the house we would measure from the edge of the deck to the rear or sideyard. Now, according to definition, a setback line is a line indicating the minimum horizontal distance permitted between the outside line from the main building or any enclosed projection there of and the lot line street right of way. Again, when you go to building area it says the total of the area taken on a horizontal plain at the main grade level of principal building and all assessory building exclusive of uncovered porches, parafats, and terreaces, steps. Page -19- September 10th, 1985 ' Mrs. Waddle asked, how many of these are being built at ground level. Most of them are being put on either split levels or raised ranches which makes them up on the second story under which they can store or close in and make another room under that therefore, it would be considered part of the building. I think the interpretation of the Board if everybody agrees should be that a deck is part of the main structure when they are measuring for thier lot line. Ms. Young stated, if that be the case, could I suggest that possibly a recommendation is made to the CZAC to have that at least incleued in the definitions and to re -work that session. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to make a motion and to be part of the record that the word balconeys be construd to be deck under §413.22, page 25. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that we interpret the zoning ordinance to mean that a deck is part of the structure when measuring the lot line and in addition the definition of balconey for this purpose is also a deck, includes a deck. (§413.22, page 25) Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Hirkala made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolf i - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, Linda Berberich, Secretary Town of Wappinger Planning Board lb