1985-10-08ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
OCTOBER 8TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal 46827, 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
466157-02-903829, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 46830, at the request of R. John Hannigan, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §421, 1f1 Assessory Uses of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to permit a chiropractic office in his residence located on All Angels Hill Road,
and being Parcel 466258-04-697361, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 46834, at the request of AKHR Associates, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a
multiple use - 50% office and 50% retail on Parcels B & C located on Route 9, and
being Parcel 466157-02-566614, in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal 46846, at the request of Michael A. Schwall Sr., seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, §404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
remove an existing trailer with addition and replace with a 34' x 36' resident
structure on non -conforming property located on Front Street, and being Parcel
465956-12-949637, in the Town of Wappinger.
5. Appeal 46847, at the request of Robert Julian & Ann Mikelic, seeking a
variance of Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a
5 foot sideyard setback when 10 feet is required in a R-20 Zone to install a
swimming pool on property located on 38 Hamlet Court, and being Parcel 466157-02-
974975, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal 46849, at the request of Pat Vigna, 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 7 Schnabl Court, and being Parcel
466258-03-296180, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 46848, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, §442, Note E of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
permit a car wash and deli on property located on Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road,
and being Parcel 466157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 46823, at the request of Charles Coratti, requesting a rehearing.
3. Appeal 46835, 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 allow meat storage and processing plant on property located on Old Myers Corners
Road, and being Parcel 466258-04-535305, 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: September 25th, 1985
Subject: Addition to the October 8th Agenda
Please add the following:
Appeal X6850, at the requst of Russell Frederick, seeking an interpretation of
Article IV, §422 "fast food", of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
PLANNING BOARD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590
M
TEL. 297-6257
Memo To: Zoning Board Members
From: Planning Board
Date: September 19th, 1985
Subject: Workshop
As per the CZAC metating of September 4th, 1985, a workshop has been
scheduled for September 30th, 1985 at 8:00 P.M. for the Planning Board and
the Zoning Board to discuss the Special Use Permit process.
VF/lb
3
Anyone not able to attend, please contact Linda at 297-6257.
Thank you for your cooperation.
r
,-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
OCTOBER 8TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
MINUTES WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, October 8th,
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 Mr. Hirkala
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M..
Mr. Landolfi asked if all of the abutting property owners been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied, according to the records available in the Assessor's office.
Mr. Landolfi stated, what we will do this evening, we will go through each appeal, we
will give everyone an opportunity to be heard, we will then close the appeals, we may or
may not render a decisiont his evening, either way you will be notified. Before we get
into the first appeal, may I entertain a motion on the minutes of our September 10th and
24th meeting.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that the minutes be accepted.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the first Appeal:
Appeal #827, 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 #6157-02-903829, in the Town of
Wappinger.
James Sheedy was present.
Mr. Sheedy stated, this is to release some concerns, there are some of my neighbors here
tonight. This is a family operation. We have discussed this earlier, I have no intent
of running this operation other than my wife, we are both brokers, we are in a residential
area, which we realize that. We have the respect for our neighbors property and we
really don't intend to encroach on that at all. It will be a low key operation, it has been
a low key operation for awhile, I don't think anyone ever realized that I was operating
for the amount of time that I have been operating as a broker, and that is basically it.
Mr. Landolfi asked, are you aware of the recommendations fromt he Planning Board.
Mr. Sheedy answered, yes.
Mr. Landolfi stated, for the benefit of the people in the audiences, the Planning Board
had several concerns, one that there would be no parking on the street relative to the
business. Now, I understand what you have just addressed to the audience. I can go
• iPage -2- October 8th, 1985
out tomorrow and go by 15 real estate offices in the Town and I wouldn't be able to
count all the cars. So, I would certainly appreciate your consideration of this recommen-
dation.
Mr. Sheedy answered you have it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the second one. The Planning Board went on to say that they obviously
reserve the right to review the parking in the future in case there is such a problem, and
the last, since you have even indicated, it shall in fact remain as a family business.
Mr. Sheedy answered, absolutely, as I said it has been operating that way for a while and
it hasn't disturbed the neighborhood at all and there is no reason to change that.
Mr. Caballero asked, how long has it been operating.
Mr. Sheedy answered, I worked for another broker for almost 2 years, but basically I
worked out of my house. I have my own system in the house and it has been the last 6
months that I have been operating my business.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a question, not of you but in general which I would like
in the minutes. I don't know how we can enforce no parking by the gentlemens clients
when they are legally permitted to park in the street. Who is going to attend to it
say don't park in the street. I see violations, if I go in a shopping center where it
says fire lane, do not park, I can't get through the shopping center because of the
number of cars in the fire lane. The road is narrowed down.
Mr. Sheedy stated, we had discussed before a review of the situation if that ever came
up. I am sure the people in my neighborhood would inform the Town that there were a string
of cars.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what coule the Town do, that is my question.
Mr. Sheedy stated, if my neighbors next door have company they probably have more cars out
on the road than I ever would. There is no legal basis. I place a value on my privacy
my house to begin with and I do have respect for my neighbors privacy and their homes,
their investments.
Mr. Cortellino asked, how much acerage do you have.
Mr. Sheedy answered, I have an acre.
Mr. Cortellino stated, even if the Planning Board were to review it ... meaning in the future
the parking, if somehow business was so good that it became a problem.
Mr. Sheedy stated, here is another point in the situation. If I were to ever expand my
business I certainly would not do it at home. It is a difficult street to find, State
Troopers can't find it.
Mr. Hirkala asked, in that context, #3, it shall remain only a family business, would
you have any problems with agreeing to a limitation of the amount of people involved in
the business.
Mr. Sheedy answered, yes if we agreed on the number of people. I have four people in
kw my family.
Mr. Hirkala asked, and they are all involved in the business.
Mr. Sheedy answered, no, not now.
gage -3- October 8th, 1985
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason that I am asking is that it would set some sort of limitation
as to the amount of activity going on. You can say now if there is an expansion I certainly
wouldn't do it where I live, a year from now circumstances can shange.
Mr. Sheedy stated, I totally understand what you are saying because I see it. My family
is my immediate family, 4 people.
Mr. Hirkala asked, so in writing would you say limit it to your wife, yourself and your
two children.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you know your client is commercial or residential sales in real
estate.
Mr. Sheedy answered, it is probably 80% residentail and 20% commercial.
Mr. Caballero asked, do you meet them at their houses or do they come over to you.
Mr. Sheedy stated, as a matter of fact in the time span we are talking about I have probably
have had 2 clients at my house and they were just to drop off papers. It is a hard street
to find. Generally most of my customers come out of the city, Westchester and the city.
It is much more convenient to meet them at exit 13 off I-84 down at the Holiday Inn.
Mr. Caballero stated, then you show them the houses and they rarely come up to the house.
Mr. Sheedy stated, all of my preliminary work is done at the house.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to see the 3 expanded to the fact that it being the
immediate family.
Mr. Sheedy stated, that is fine, I have no objection to that.
Dick King - neighbor in the back.
We,we are about 33 people_ in the area who completely, totally disagree with what Jim
wants to do. This is the notice that went out and I added to the bottom saying that
we object to the issuance of this special permit and then I went around talking to
people in the area and they said, yes we object to, we don't want it in there at all.
To let you know what is going on, there are 4 properties that border Jim's property.
The lady to the right of Jim's property Joan D'Agostino says no. Connoly to the left
of Jim says no. And Selmo who borders on the left side says no, we on the back say no.
And then I was wondering who else in the area is saying no, well you go up and down the
street and over half the people here tonight are saying no. All of these people took
the time to come here to say that we don't want this, we just don't want it at all.
The other people who aren't here, and who have signed this they have said no. Everyone on
the street, there is not one person who has said yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a question. You have showed us a whole bunch of people who
have said no. It is an allowable use as an accessory to somebodys house. Nobody has
said why.
Mr. King answered, we don't need the traffic in there. Selko has a real estate office
on Henry and you can't get by there sometimes. That is a one lane traffic. You can
easily see 10 to 15 cars parked there. We don't want that. We don't want to see a
shingle hanging out somebodys house. It does nothing for property values and it just
adds to the traffic in the area. I would think that if there were one person who said
I don't care, go ahead, but that is not the case. Everyone there said no. It has to carry
a little bit.
'Page -4- October 8th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated, first of all, unfortunately, for you and your neighbors, it is a
permitted use in that area. That does not mean that we couldn't perhaps vote differently
or whatever. On a request for a Special Use Permit it is a little different from a
variance per say. One of the key differences is it is allowable by our zoning laws the
way they are written.
Mr. King stated, I understand that it is allowable but I also understand that when you send
out a legal notice like this you are wondering who is objecting to it.
Mr. Sheedy stated, your list is wonderful, but I am just looking at the list, if that is
the basis of your argument, I can shoot holes in it.
Mr. Landolfi stated, that is not the issue here tonight. There is one issue here tonight
in this case. Mr. Sheedy is requesting a Special Use Permit. It is up to our Board to
gather the facts to help us render a decision but I have to tell you it is not a popularity
thing. In other words, if you bring in 50 signatures and he brings 100 in we dont' go with
the 100. We do appreciate, we want to know, you brought up a concern. Your concern as
I understand it is more to do with the traffic..
Mr. King stated, I know it isn't a popularity thing but we are his bordering neighbors.
and we live there, Jim lives there. It isn't like it is a few streets away, we live there.
These are all people, and this list, they have said yes, I disagree with this, I don't
want a real estate office in this area and that is what that signature means. Now when
you say you are going to shoot holes, I don't understand that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I want to get to the meat of this thing. The meat quite honestly,
tha is why I asked the question, isn't how many signatures you have here, the meat is
that is up to the, the reason that you have the public hearing is for the neighbors
and Mr. Sheedy to come here and give us there concerns and if the concerns are valid
enough and extreme enough we can deny a Special Use Permit but they have to be extreme
and extreme isn't the amount of people, the extreme is the impact. You people have to
prove to us before we can legally do anything against Mr. Sheedy that there is a great
impact on your neighborhood and from what I see, all I see is a bunch of people who are
disagreeing with it but I don't see a great impact.
Mr. King stated, let me argue the impact. Everyone of the people here, when you pull
inot Henry Road from Myers Corners on a weekend or int he evening you will see cars
parked on both sides of that road.
Mr. Landolfi stated, it has nothing to do with him.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are not here to talk Selko, we are here to talk Sheedy.
Mr. King stated, I am trying to give you what the impact is. I am saying that the next
street over or if this goes through it will be the same situation.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it is difficult to argue by analagy. I go by awards reality and
I never see 2 cars there and that is a reality office. I am more accustomed to the agent
going to the clients home rather than the client going ... I don't even know where Liberty
Mutual is, they handle my account. I know that theya re in Poughkeepsie, they have a
Poughkeepsie number, but I don't know where they are located. I have never been there.
He has been to my house. It is a permitted use, for instance a day nursery is a permitted
use, it would be a steady traffic every day. He may have clients one day and nobody show
up the next day. A day nursery would have 15 cars dropping off kids twice a day, so
it is a permitted use and it has to be a very extreme set of circumstances over which we
have control.
gage -5-
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Landofli stated, in other words if you were able to convince us that there were going
to be x number of cars in there a day which would add greatly to the traffic problem
that could be ... you can't just say you expect it.
Mr. King stated, that is why I was drawing the analgy of 2 street away. Now, I expect
there to be a similar number of cars in front of Jims house as there is down the road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the conditions that have been put on this by the Planning Board and
the reason I requested a commitment from him to not put any more people on other than his
wife and kids is becuase I want to minimize the impact on the neighborhood, that is the
control we have over the whole operation. If the Planning Board reserves the right to
review the parking and if there is a problem with parking, you can come back into the
Planning Board and force him to come back in and he has to make other arrangements for
parking. It doesn't mean that he has to shut down, what it means is that he has to make
other arrangements for parking.
Mr. Sheedy stated, Dick, at anyone time of the weekend you probably have more cars
parked in front of your house from your neighbors next door than I will ever have.
Warren Maier - 5 Bell Air Lane.
Mr. Maier stated, the safety aspect. There are young children in that neighborhood
adjacent to Jim Sheedy's property. I am the third house down from Jim Sheedy. I happen
to have a handicapped daughter who has difficulty in walking. She needs either crutches
or full length braces. We feel it is a safety hazard from the stand point that it
generates more traffic than is usual for that road. Again, geeting back to the Selko
situation. Now, that should basically establish a precidence. I personally the last
3 weekends I have evaluated it and there were anywhere from 8 to 15 cars parked there at
any one time and also I am a licensed real estate salesmand. I don't work ar it now but
I have been for 25 years and someone that something about you go to the clients house, I
have never done that or very rarely done it in 25 years. What happens is sir the client
comes to your house, parks his or her vehicle and then is taken out by the real estate
people.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you misunderstoodwhat I said. I brought up the example of the real
estate office but when I was talking about going, the professional going to the client
house was about insurance.
Mr. Maier stated, this generally is not the practice in real estate.
Carol Hillard - 6 Bell Air Lane.
Mrs. Hillard asked, if you grant this variance, Special Use Permit to Mr. Sheedy, what
protection do we have that Mr. Sheedy is not going to have a great number of cars
parked in front of his house or if he should sell his house is this Special Use Permit
going to go along with it.
Mr. Landolf i answered no.
Mrs. Hillard asked, it just belongs to Mr. Sheedy.
Mr. Cortellino answered, no.
Mrs. Hillard asked, what protection do the homeowners have that this isn't going to grow.
Mr. Cortellino answered, the restriction on the number of employees. The Planning Board
reserving the right to review the parking and to determine if more off street parking
is required.
Page -6-
October 8th, 1985
Mrs. Hillard asked, is the thing that he is going to put in writing, is it a legal
document that can be enforced.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if he doesn't adhere to the Special Use Permit his violation the
Zoning Administrator can force him to come in for review.
Mr. Landolfi stated, if we do grant the Special Use Permit we would consider.
Mrs. Hillard asked, can a Special Use Permit be taken away from him once he had it.
Mr. Landolfi answered, by the courts it could. Not by our Board.
Mr. Sheedy stated, there are people on the street that have going businesses and are
working out of their houses, they either teach music on the side, one is an engineer,
and one actually had a business that ran a business on leave from IBM. There wasn't
a big disruption in the neighborhood and I don't intend to do that either. You now
my property, you know how I take care of it, you know how I value it. If anything, the
children that we are talking about come to my house to play. They are in my driveway
playing.
Chris Donnoly - 13 Bell Air Lane.
Mr. Donnoly stated, I live next door to Jim. Obviously, legally as you said we have
unless there is a ponponderance of evidence that this is going to in fact change the
status of the neighborhood then you would in fact grant this. What I have seen right
now there is no evidence to indicate that in fact there is that realistically. So,
what I have to talk to Jim, I talked to Jim about this, I didn't sign the petition. I
talked to Jim and I said Jim, I have got little kids, I live next door to you, am I
going to have stranger running accross my yard, are my kids going to be hassled, am I
going to have cars parked all over the street, I am asking you now Jim, am I going to
have that.
Mr. Sheedy asked him, what did I say.
Mr. Donnoly answered, you told me I wasn't going to have that.
Mr. Sheedy stated, you've got it.
Mr. Donnoly stated, thats what I wanted to know.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else..to speak.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we will now close this appeal.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to have included in the SUP item #3 as recommended by
the Planning Board expanded to include only members of the immediate family and I would
like to ask Mr. Sheedy to also as a .... of the permit to agree to that every effort will
be made to lessen the impact on neighbors.
Dean Kay asked the Board to define immediate family.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it is part of the minutes that he agreed to him, his wife and two sons
if they become active in the business.
Mr. Landolfi asked how long the driveway is.
Mr. Sheedy answered, at one end it is wide enough to hold 4 cars.
Page -7-
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Cortellino stated that Mr. Sheedy inform all clients to pull into the driveway, to
make every effort.
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit with his above mentioned
conditions.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Caballero stated, just for your information for the neighbors of James. We had a
case with a garage seeking a use permit and we turned them down, the Zoning Board of Appeals.'
The court overturned our decision and we have no restrictions what so ever, we lost all
of our power to put in parking restrictions, and restriction os hours of operation. So
in this case if this Board was to turn down Mr. Sheedy and he overturned it in court then
we have no restrictions what so ever and there is a very big chance that he could have
done that. I think the James will try to accomodate the neighbors and make it a better
situation than you think it might be.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4830, at the request of R. John Hannigan, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article
IV, §421, 1(1 Assessory uses, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a
chiropractic office in his residence located on All Angels Hill Road, and being Parcel
46258-04-697361, in the Town of Wappinger.
John Hannigan was present.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the major thing that the Planning Board had a concern about is the
screening around the parking area. Do you have a problem.with that.
Mr. Hannigan stated, it is going to be taken care of with schrubbery.
Mr. Landolfi asked that he explain what he plans on doing, footage, types.
Mr. Hannigan stated, one side of the property is fully lined by trees so there will
be minimum visability from that side, the uphill side. On the septic system which is
say, sand filtration system is high enough that you are not going to see but the roofs
of the automobiles that are in the parking area. The parking area will be behind that.
We will screen the downhill side with any schrubbery, plantation it needs to do that.
Mr. Landolfi asked about the size of the plantings.
Mr. Hannigan answered, I will put in what it takes to hide it so the people downhill are
not offended by this.
Ms. Young stated, according to the Zoning Ordinance there should be a 20 foot buffer
between the commercial and the residentail property. And, it is recommended in §415.222
it shall be of evergreen planting of such height, facing and arrangement as in the
judgement of the Planning Board will effectively screen the activity of the lot from
the neighboring residential area. I don't recall if the Planning Board specified what
type of plantings to go in there but Dr. Hannigan agreed to provide screening.
'Page -8-
Linda Kleinhess - downhill resident.
October 8th, 1985
+ Mrs. Kleinhess stated, from what you are saying I am glad to hear that the screening
has been considered as a problem -and evergreens are of course in my opinion what we need
otherwise we are going to have season converage and half season no coverage. Your are
uphill from me so they don't have to be as tall as they would be if you were looking the
other way but I would like to see some trees planted there to screen effectively because
the door to what seems to be the practice overlooks our living room and dining room and
our windows face the door so I would be concerned that the screening be of sufficient
height in the beginning.
Mr. Hirkala asked, will there be any further expansion on your part at this site.
Mr. Hannigan stated, no.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he will now close that appeal.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that the Special Use Permit be granted to John Hanningan with
the notation that the evergreen plantings will be of sufficient height and enough screening
in height and number to protect the downhill neighbor or the uphill neighbor from viewing
of the cars parked in the parking lot.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4834, at the request of AKHR Associates, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a multiple - 507 retail and
507 office on Parcels B & C located on Route 9, and being Parcel #6157-02-566614, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Jack Railing and James Klein were present.
Mr. Hirkala stated, Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to abstain from all
discussion and voting.
Mr. Railing stated, the application has been made to request the use of 507 retail and
507 office for this particular site. I don't know if you want me to go into the ordinance
of which allows this but basically speaking HB -2A allows for the uses in HB -1A which in
turn allows for any use in the GB district under subnote a in that schedule allows
multiple uses subject to prior issuance of a Special Use Permit. To go into the site
plan the Southern Dutchess Profession Building are three parcels 1 which is presently
approved by the Planning Board the other two which are also approved of course will be
modified subject to the decision tonight. Each parcel is approximately 2 acres in size,
I believe that the Board has the plans which they reviewed and I guess if there are any
questions relating to this we would like to split the uses on the buildings rather than
have one building all retail and one building all office with the 507 it worked much
better with the layout so that you don't have the mix of retail and office.
Mr. Cortellino stated, you said that you didn't want to go into it. I don't see the
particular reference. I don't see where multiple uses are permitted even under GB.
Mr. Railing stated, under GB in the left hand column in says see note a and note a is I
Page -9- October 8th, 1985
believe I read which states multiple attached or detached uses shall be permitted subject
to the prior issuance of a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Cortellino stated, frankly speaking I don't know what that means.
Mr. Railing stated, it shall be permitted subject to the prior issuance.
Mr. Cortellino stated, it says in my copy, multiple attached or detached uses shall be
permitted......
Mr. Railing stated, in other words before you can use the multiple use in these buildings
you first have to have a special use permit.
Louis Rompala - 15 Cayuga Drive.
Mr. Rompala stated, we were here a couple of weeks ago before the Planning Board and
maybe this problem isn't your concern, it is concerning the water, where are they going
to get the water from. I understand they have three buildings in there that each 90
different businesses. I heard on thing that one well and they are asking to drill 3
more or else they may connect into our water supply and we have had alot of problems,
in fact 2 years ago we had to have a well drilled and we had to pay money up front just
to have the well drilled and as I understand if they go deep enough and hit our water
supply what happens if we run dry, is there anyway that we have any recourse to protect
ourselves.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the fact that he went through the process that he did before the
Planning Board there is a check list of different agencies that have to review and okay
it and I would have to assume since it has gotten this far that it has all the necessary
approval to warrant the availability of the water, sewerage, etc.. Tonight we are here
just to discuss the uses within the building itself not so much the fact that, I guess
at this point I would hate to find out that there isn't enough water at this point but that
is not the perview of our Board at this time. Again, you are more than welcome to attend
the Planning Board meetings where they really get into all of the.
Mr. Rompala stated, we did attend a metting 2 weeks ago and we had a couple of problems
and Mr. Klein was very cooperative as far as I can see we are not going to have any
problem but apparently this is the wrong board.
Mr. Rompala asked Mr. Klein, I don't know what your plans are for water but....
Mr. Railing answered, the plans are for 3 wells, one for each of the 3 parcel. They
are 3 seperate and distinct parcels.
Mr. Rompala asked, do you know how deep your present well is.
Mr. Klein answered 100 feet, 40 gallons a minute.
Mrs. Rompala asked, I was just wondering about that buffer zone, if we are going to
get the 22 feet or the 25 feet.
Mr. Railing answered, that was a requirement of the Planning Board and we agreed.
Ms. Young stated, I would just like to say that I would like to see a sign schedule
before the Special Use Permit is granted since no signs are allowed to face a
residentail zone.
'Page -10- October 8th, 1985
Mr. Railing answered, I believe Mr. Klein has agreed to comply with the new sign
ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would now close the appeal.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that we grant a Special Use Permit on the AKHR Assoc.
property to put in 50% retail and 50% office on Parcels B & C on the property located on
Route 9 subject to adhereing strictly to our new sign ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. The uses in the building will have to conform.
Mr. Caballero stated, I amend my motion that the uses for the retail space and the uses
for office space would have to conform to our Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - abstained.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #846, at the request of Michael Schwall Sr., seeking a Special Use Permit of
Artilce IV, §404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to remove an existing
trailer with an addition and replace with a 34'x 36' resident structure on non -conforming
property located on Front Street, and being Parcel 45956-12-949637, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Michael Schwall.was present.
Mr. Landolfi stated, Mr. Schwall, I believe most of us have been done visiting the site
but would you just take a minute for the benefit of the audience.
Mr. Schwall stated, what I would like to do is remove a trailer and a building that is
attached to the trailer and put up a log cabin which will be used for residential,
and, that would better the neighborhood and beautify the area.
Mr. Cortellino asked, who would use the log cabin.
Mr. Schwall answered, for myself.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I have no objection if the owner or his representative would
use the log cabin.
Mr. Caballero asked, by that do I understand that there is a business there also.
Mr. Landolfi answered yes.
Mr. Landolfi read the letter from the Chelsea Yacht Club. (In the file)
Yvonne Tompkins - Market Street.
Mrs. Tompkins stated, I would like to see approval given to Mr. Schwall to carry out
his project as his property is right accross from my property and I think it is a
good thing.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would close this appeal.
:Page -11-
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Hirkala made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4847, at the request of Robert Julian & Ann Mikelic, seeking a variance of
Article IV, §421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 5 foot sideyard
setback when 10 feet is requiredin a R-20 zone to install a swimming pool on property
located on 38 Hamlet Court, and being Parcel 46157-02-974975, in the Town of Wappinger.
Robert Julian and Ann Mikelic were present.
Mr. Landolfi read a letter from Ritter & Hankin to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(Letter in File)
Dear Mr. Landolfi,
Please be advised that we are the attorneys who represent the owners and developers
of the Hamlet in the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess, and State of New York.
Our clients have received the legal notice with regard to the request of the above
named individuals seeking a five foot sideyard setback to install a swimming pool
on the property located on 38 Hamlet Court.
Attached hereto please find a copy of the declarations of covenants and restrictions
filed with the deeds to the property purchased by the above named applicants.
You will note that item 442 on page 2 establishes a minimum setback of thirty five
feet from the lot line and states that no building shall be erected within twenty five
feet from a building or a dwelling on an adjacent lot.
Further, item #6, page 3, requires that no building, structure or site layout shall
be erected, changed, altered, or modified upon any lot in the subdivision unless
architectural designs and schemes have been submitted and approved by the sponsor,
Cobrew Reality Corp..
Further, item #19, page 6 it deals specifically with digging or earth moving or
regrading and is specifically stated that none shall be permitted without first
obtaining the permission of the sponsor. Further, item #22 deals specifically with
the construction of a wall or fence and I am sure that the Town of Wappinger has a
requirement that any pools be surrounded by an enclosure, which would be in direct
opposition to the covenants and restrictions which were accepted by the Petitioner when
they accepted title to the property.
Please be further advised that when the Town of Wappinger approved the subdivision
there were numerous notes contained on the filed map and now on file with the
Duthcess County Clerks Office.
The notes in the bottom left had corner, a copy of which I have enclosed for your
review specifically refer to the setback requirements and more importantly, deals
specifically with above ground pools and in the ground pools. Items C & D refer to
the installation of pools, and Item C states in unequivocable language that no above
ground pools will be permitted.
Item D does allow an in ground pool or patio, however, it must be a minimum of
ten feet from any property line and fencing around such pool must be in accordance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
It is quite obvious from all of the attached that the actions of Robert Julian &
Ann Mikelic are in direct contradiction to the agreement mady by them when they
accepted title to this property.
page -12- October 8th, 1985
For these reasons, and on behalf of the sponsor and the adjoining homeowners in the
development, we would strongly urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to deny the present
application.
I would appreciate if this letter would be read into the minutes of the meeting to
be held on October 8th, 1985 at 7:00 P.M..
Thanking the Board in advanced for its cooperation and assistance in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Cobrew Reality Corp, by its attorneys,, Ritter & Hankin, Esqs., Todd S. Stall.
Mr. Julian stated, this is the first time that we have been aware of this. At the time
of purchase we were told no above ground pools only in ground pools permitted which are
on your lot plans there. We came here.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I have a note here from, I believe your neighbor.
Memo on file from Robert Andrillo.
Ms. Mickelic stated, they are obviously not aware of the landscaping plan by the
developer to grade that area and tree it. We have already installed evergreens that
grow well over 12 feet and spread in order to insure our privacy as well as protect
our neighbors. We don't particularily care to be observed either.
Mr. Hirkala asked, the plan shows for a pool and a deck. We have a variance request
for just a pool.
Mr. Julian stated, the deck was a future development.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you need a variance for the deck also.
Mr. Julian stated, if I can't get the deck, my main concern is the pool, but I can't put
the pool in without a 5 foot variance.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I believe what he is saying is that you somehow, and I believe
that you may have been represented by legal council, this is something you may have
signed and all the neighbors may have signed as well which is on file in the Dutchess
County Clerk's office.
Mr. Julian stated, we came here to check the restrictions on the pool.
(Redaing from the filed map) Item C - no above ground pools will be permitted.
D. Inground pool or patio may be installed, minimum of 10 feet from any property
line except in fron yard. Now, I am not an attorney but I came down just to check for
a pool and it says that.It is a very small sized lot and to put a pool 13 x 24 pool
in I need five foot according to Ne James Pool.
Mr. Hirkala asked, did you know that you wanted to put a pool in when you bought this.
Mr. Julian stated, I brought an above ground pool with me and then found out that I
could not use it.
Ms. Mickelic stated, we were told after the deal was already in progress that we could
not have anything but an in ground pool.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I think what you will have to do is, we cannot verify it, we
don't have your deed. He states item D in the covenant etc. stated that it has to be
10 feet. Now, when something like that comes, its a covenant and it gets carried on
forever and a day we can't override it, that is contract between you and the developer,
the operator.
'Page -13- October 8th, 1985
Ms. Mickelic asked, so what you are saying is that we would have to get permission
from then and still come back to you.
Mr. Cortellino answered, that is correct if what he states is correct.
What I suggest is that we don't decide tonight, table it, you read your deed, and its
Item D which you are referring to, this is a deed restriction.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you are going to have another problem as Mr. Hirkala pointed
out. If in fact you were granted to be able to go with the pool you are going to
need another variance for the deck the way I see your layout here so you might want
to be looking ahead a little and try to re -design the deck so you don't need a
variance.
Mr. Cortellino stated, we can't over ride the covenant.
Mr. Hirkala stated, also don't forget the fencing. If that is an inground pool it has to
be fenced and the fencing has to adhere to whatever deed restrictions you have in there.
Ms. Mickelic stated, the point is there might be some sort of the ordinance because of
]the way the land goes. We are not changing the grade of the land that is the whole
problem. The land goes down so the pool has to be installed so that is the reason for
the deck otherwise we would have an inground pool on the ground. I don't need a deck
but you need a deck because of the way the land goes and you are not going to change the.....'
Mr. Landolfi stated, you don't have a problem with the land. I saw the land, that is
not a problem, there is not a tremendous slope there.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to move to table this until it is determined what the
restrictions are. Determine what our powers are.
Mr. Caballero stated,I don't think our decision has anything to do with whatever that
agreement is with the developer, that is a legal item between them and the developer.
Our decision is based on our Zoning Ordinance whether we want to grant a 5 foot variance
or not. SO, the Board can make a decision if they want to grant a variance or not grant a
variance on this case.
Ms. Mickelic asked, so what we are talking about then as far as the Board is concerned
is the variance pertaining to the pool only and that we would have to if we got that far
we would have to come back for the variance about the deck.
Mr. Cortellino stated, what Mr. Caballero says that we could give you the variance and
the you fight it out.
Mr. Caballero asked, there is no other way of putting this size pool in that yard meeting
the sideyard setback.
Mr. Julian answered no.
Mr. Landolfi stated, there is another concern I have and I wasn't able to get our lawyer
before the meeting tonight. There is, we talked about I believe the night we were out
there. The Conservation part, can any footage be obtained from that and still be legal.
We are going to have a problem with every home in that area because everyone has the same
problem and I don't have the answers, -.but I will be very honest with you, I can see why
they would want these restrictions adhered to.
Ernie Prassel - Spook Hill Road.
Page -14-
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Prassel stated, I had spoke with my immediate neighbor regarding this because we
live directly accross from the Hamlet and if they did infact put in pools we can concur
with Mr. Landolfi's opinion it would look honky tonk and certainly being that they only
have about 35 feet of grass for each, to pack in a pool in there and you want one and
your neighbor wants one it is going to look rinky dink and honky tonk..I have a neighbor
of mine, a distant neighbor who for some unnone reason is selling his private residence
and moving in there in the Hamlet and he will be, I am sure you will see him confronting
you on the same thing because he wants a pool.
Mr. Julian stated, I could see that point of view which is my main reason for investing
in the schrubbery that I did. If you walked up Spook Hill Road and saw the furniture on
some of these other proerties sitting right on the road with wood piles and garbage piles
sitting there that should be covered up to. I own the property and I paid alot of money
for it, again, if I had none there was going to be this problem I would have kept on
driving.
Mr. Landolfi stated he would close this appeal.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he was a afraid of a precedent.
Mr. Caballero stated, I don't see there is any reason that you have to discuss this with
the lawyer, I am ready to make a motion.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that one is to deny the variance.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would take a ten minute break at 8:10 P.M..
The meeting was called back to order at 8:20 P.M..
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #849, at the request of Pat Vigna, seeking a variance of Article VI, §421 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 18 foot sideyard setback when 20 feet
is required on property located on 7 Schnabl Court, and being Parcel #6258-03-296180,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Pat Vigna was present.
Mr. Vigna stated, right now my wife and myself we have room there that we feel is unusable
it is a 8 x 30. What we want to do is widen the room by five feet. The way the house
is angled to the property line at one end of the house be over by two foot it is the other
end come back within the 20 foot sideline.
Mr. Hirkala asked, did you build the house.
Mr. Vigna answered, no someone built it for me, Pete Luckel.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the reason that I am asking that question is because on my map here
it shows 42 feet on the inside.
Page -15- October 8th, 1985
Sal Sheredos - Lot #11 -right next door.
Just to shed some light. First of all, in terms of the plan that Mr. Vigna has I see
being that I am the house that faces it I have no objection, I think it would fit right in
and there are alot of trees in that area. One of the things, alot of the things are
done when a builder goes in that we have nothing to say about.
Mr. Vigna stated, on the certified plot plan I have I drew in the extension in scale
to show actually that I am really within reason for asking. The total infringment is
only 30 square feet. We feel that the house is back far enough.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he would now close this appeal.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that a 2 foot variance be granted.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - nay
Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to go on record stating the fact that this particular
development has been a major problem and I just wish the word would get out.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 4848, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use Permit of
Article IV, §442, note "e" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a
car wash and deli on property located on Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road, and being
Parcel 446157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger.
Alfred Cappelli and Frank Vitiritti were present.
There was a question on the Article and §.
Mr. Cappelli stated, what he is proposing to do is abandon the repair business that is
presently in use there and put in a small deli type of operation and install, behind
the building, as indicated on the site plan, one bay automatic car wash.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think it is supposed to be 422, note e.
Mr. Landolfi asked if Mr. Vitritti would be the sole owner.
Mr. Cappelli answered, it is a corporation.
Mr. Landolfi stated, what I meant, I went out there yesterday and I really got some
wise guys answers from the guys out there.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, it is a corporation and I won 50% of the stock with my aunt.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we have had numerous complaints about that property right now. It
is a tremendous eye sore and I am going to recommend that while you are going through
the process someone look forward to removing some of those vehicles.
Page -16- October 8th, 1985
Mr. Vitiritti stated, I talked to the guy today. His lease expires at the end of
this month and I said either remove the vehicles or your lease ends the end of this
month. I said either or. He is running a towing business through there. He is
picking up cars that are wrecked and bringing them over there which he is not allowed
to do under the lease.
Mr. Landolfi asked, there won't be any cars.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, there won't be any there.
Mr. Caballero asked, is the gas station going to be owned by the same people who
operate the deli and car wash. The whole thing is going to be operated by the same
corporation?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala asked, explain to me the easements. Is it that you don't have enough
property to handle all the parking requirements.
Mr. Cappelli answered, that came part and parcel when they bought the property several
years ago. How that came to be I don't know. All easements go way back, that is something "<
that hasn't been aquired recently for this project.
Mr. Caballero asked, and the car wash is going to be right on the easement.
Mr. Cappelli answered, no, the easement is off to one side, I believe, that we are
talking about and this easement back here.....
Mr. Landolfi asked, how many people to do you propose to have working physically, daily?
Mr. Vitiritti answered, probably 2 inside the store and one outside with the car wash.
We plan to do alot of it ourselves.
Mr. Caballero asked how big the lot is.
Mr. Cappelli answered, a little over a half acre.
Mr. Landolfi asked Ms. Berberich to send this appeal to NYSDOT and the County for the
ingress and egress.
There was a discussion on the entrances and exits.
Mr. Hirkala stated the would have to make the the entrance/exit to Old Hopewell only a
right turn, no left turn. Force it to be a right by angling the road.
Mr. Vitiritti stated, we have been there almost 2 years now and last August, we have
done probably over 3 million gallons of gas the first year we were there and we are
doing one month we did 287,000 gallons and never really had a problem getting out.
Mr. Caballero stated, one of the problems that I have with car washes is the dropping
of water that comes out of a car wash and then gets onto the road. When winter comes
along I see this car wash here on Route 9, that gets pretty slick there. Are you
going to make some kind of drainage system to pick up all that water so that the cars
don't bring it out onto the major road.
Mr. Hrikala stated, not only that, when we get into it I am going to make a recommendation
also as far as the waste water coming off the car wash. It is going to the drainage
system. Everybody there is on wells.
- Page -17- October 8th, 1985
Mr. Cortellino asked, is the water use one time use.
Mr. Cappelli answered, it is a recirculating use. We are not taking water and then
dumping it, it is being recirculated.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to refer this appeal to the Planning Board
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #823, at the request of Charles Coratti, requesting a re -hearing.
Charles Coratti was present
Mr. Coratti stated, I am here on behalf of my sign over my building. I would like to
know exactly, Ms. Young was there a couple of days ago. We measured the sign and as
long as I can see that I am not going to get what I want I am trying to get organized
so that I can get the permanent CO and I would like to find out exactly what goes
with the sign.
Ms. Young stated, Mr. Coratti now has 56 foot frontage along the building and I believe
what he is requesting at this time is a compromise to allow a portion of the All Star
sign remain as well as a portion of the digital sign and by combining, and taking off
Water Conditioning and service center.
Mr. Cortellino asked, what you are saying is instead of each place having its own
sign you want a legal sign size but have different messages on there.
Mr. Coratti answered, no. What I want to do is I want All Star Water and Digital.
Take off the service center and take off the corporation.
Mr. Cortellino asked, both names would be up.
Mr. Coratti answered, exactly.
Mr. Cortellino stated, that is exactly what I said. Right now you have a multiplicity
of signs. I said you want to have one legal sign except divided up so that one
represents one organization and the other represents the other one. That would be a
directory and you are not a shopping center.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what he is talking about is leaving what is there and removing some
things to make it legal.
Mr. Cortellino asked, here is my question, and the Board has to decide. If you have
one piece of plywood, I will use the word plywood, if I put down Joe Blow at this end
and put put Charlie Blow at the other end do I have one sign or do I have two signs.
My contention is that you have 2 signs even though it is one physical piece of plywood.
What you are asking is let us interpret this as one piece of plywood as being one sign
for linear feet that you have the square feet and I am saying the printing on that sign
is what we are interpreting that is 2 signs. If it was even half the legal size
if you had optomotrist on the side and.... on that side its 2 signs. Just because they
` Page -18-
October 8th, 1985
are physically linked together thats my interpretation, I don't know what the Board
wants to do.
Mr. Coratti stated, the reason that I am asking for it is because I have a tenant there
and I would like to make a living. I would like to pay my taxes and my bills and if I
tell them to take the sign down he will say get lost I am going to go somewhere else.
Mr. Landolf i stated, make out the paperwork.
Mr. Caballero asked, how many signs are allowed on the property.
Ms. Young stated, there is one sign allowed affixed to the building. There are now two.
I believe Mr. Coratti is requesting the area for one legal sign combined.
Mr. Hirkala stated, my feeling is that what Charlie is saying is probably right.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you are here tonight to request a re -hearing. You have to convince
us that we should give you a re -hearing. I don't know whether you have done that yet.
Mr. Coratti stated, well I have been here 4 times. I am trying to convince you that I
have a problem. I was told that it was okay to put the signs there in the first place.
By Mr. Hans, whatever his name was, he told me that it was okay verbally and here I am
back again 4 times just to say, hey, look, I am willing to compromise. All I am trying to
say is lets compromise and see what we come up with.
Mr.
Caballero asked Ms. Young, how many signs are on the property now
and what is allowed
on
the property.
Ms.
Young replied, one is allowed there and there are now two.
Mr.
Caballero asked, how long is that building and under our new sign
ordinance how
many feet would be be allowed.
Ms.
Young answered, it would be 28 feet on the building.
Mr.
Caballero stated, the compromise as I see it is that you put one
sign on the building
to
the size it is supposed to be according to our zoning ordinance.
The old and new.
Mr.
Coratti stated, so in other words you are telling me I can just keep up one sign.
Mr.
Caballero answered, right.
Mr.
Coratti asked, but not with 2 names.
Mr.
Caballero answered, right.
Mr.
Coratti asked, just the one name.
Mr.
Caballero answered, right.
Mr.
Coratti asked, so in other words I have to perhaps maybe loose a
tenant because of
that.
Mr.
Caballero answered, right.
Mr.
Coratti asked, is that the way it is going to be then.
• Page -19-
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Caballero stated, I will deny it. I cannot speak for the rest of the Board.
Mr. Landolfi stated, you have the perogative to fill out the paperwork and get it
thorugh the mill so we can see what it looks like with dimensions, etc., and then we will
take it from there.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 46835, at the request of Friedrich & Andrew Metzger, seeking a Special Use Permit
of §404.3 & 404.33 of the Town of Wappigner Zoning Ordinance to allow meat storage
and processing plant on property located on Old Myers Corners Road and being Parcel
466258-04-535305, in the Town of Wappinger.
There was no one present.
Mr. Caballero stated, this is not the first time that they don't show up for the hearing.
Is there anybody to speak against it.
There was no one.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they got notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had.
Ms. Young stated, I spoke several times to their attorney and they told us they would have
the plans in here for the last meeting and we have not heard from then since then.
Mr. Caballero stated, I want to make a motion to deny this request for a Special Use Permit
since the parties that are requesting have not come in to give us information of what
they want to do there for the second or the third time. I make a motion that it be denied.
That means they have to pay new fees if they want to come in again.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal 46850, at the request of Russell Frederick, seeking an interpretation of
Article IV, §422 "fast food", of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Jack Railing, engineer, Russell Frederick, Applicant, and Robert Short, Attorney -
Ritter & Hankin were present.
Mr. Short stated, this is basically an interpretation hearing. I believe you have a
letter from Ms. Young, the Zoning Administrator. I would just like to address a few
things initially why we feel that her position is, why we oppose her positon and why
we are in support of the establishment of Fredericks Dairy Bar Restaurant. Mr. Fredericks
will also say a few words and also answer any questions that you may have and we have
several neighborhood residents here that are in favor also. Basically it is our position
that this is not a fast food restaurant under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. The
ZO specifies that a fast food restaurant would be one with the main purpose is off premise
consumption or consumption in automobiles of food. We believe if is Article IV,
§220. We have several disagreements with the fact that the Zoning Administrator had
classified this as a fast food restaurant. Basically the food which would be prepared
at Fredericks is not the type of fast food that one commonly associates with McDonalds_
or something. Mr. Fredericks does have a menu that he will submit to you later.
-Page -20-
October 8th, 1985
of the types of food that will be served. This is going to be food cooked to order,
its not pre-packaged food or food that you just pop into a microwave to heat up that
has already been cooked. It is basically catering to the customer and how the
customer would like the food prepared. The menu is not just consiting of pizza, hot
dogs and ice cream as alleged by the Zoning Administrator but as you will see later
it is quite a varied menu. Second, this is not a drive in type of fast food
restaurant were people pick up their food and leave. There is ample seating inside.
Mr. Frederick's will describe his plans for outside where there will be picinic tables
and other things to encourage people to eat their food on the premises. There is a
proposal to have an outside serving window which is not for the purpose for cars driving
up and picking up food and leaving like a typical fast food restaurant, this outside
window would be walk up where people would walk up, get their food and bring it to the
picnic benches which are proposed to be right outside the restaurant. It would be open
on a seasonal basis to serve customers on the premises wishing to use the picnic area.
The food would be consumed on the premises and not off the premises or in automobiles.
A couple more points. This restaurant has no affiliation with any major chain or
fast food type restaurants and also we will not be serving food in typical paper bags
or other type of carry out containers which would encourage consumption off the premises.
Mr. Frederick's also has a petition signed by approximately 230 neighborhood residents
who are in favor of this establishment of Frederick's Dairy Bar Restaurant. I would like
to turn the floor over to Mr. Fredericks. He can describe the nature of the business
operations which are proposed and answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cortellino asked, it was said that the food would not be in paper bags or paper plates.
The food that is brought out to the picnic tables would that be on china or....
Mr. Fredericks answered, paper plates.
Mr. Cortellino asked, there is nothing to prevent the person then from driving away.
Mr. Fredericks answered, it is not going to be like bags like you go to McDonalds where
they put everything in a bag and you go away with it.
Mr. Caballero stated, there is no reason why I can't walk in any restaurant in this Town
and ask for something and take it out whether it is Dairy Queen or if I go into Seacrest.
I can ask for something and put it in a bag and take it out.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I think we are looking at a situation here where.we have to determine
what is a fast food restaurant, how do we deal with it. Now, this talk about paper bags,
paper plates, is a buch of .....in my view. The fact that where or not it is going to
be eaten,in a automobile or not is another bunch of baloney. A window constitutes off
premise consumption as far as I am concerned because you walk to the window and walk
away with it down the road, you are not in an automobile so it is not a fast food
restaurant? That is rediculous.
Mr. Short stated, I believe the fast food restaurant definition mentions automobile
consumption.
Mr. Hirkala stated, fine, we are here to determine the intent of the ordinance.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I tried to interpret the questions and the answers given at the
Planning Board meeting at which they had a problem of interpreting the definition of
fast food and so on and that seemed to be, at least by their minutes a major hang up
they had with the whole thing.
Mr. Railing stated, there was one individual on the Planning Board which had a problem.
The other ones agreed at the time and this was two meetings ago that in fact what we
`Page -21-
October 8th, 1985
were planning based on the definitions in the ordinance that they had not a problem with
it. It wasn't until the following meeting when the Zoning Administrator on that very
day wrote a memo to the Planning Board that everything stopped. They were willing to go
ahead with it.
Mr. Fredericks stated, basically what I want the windows for, because that was a question
at the Board meeting, is, I am putting a pond in, it is going to be an acre and a half
pond. It is going to have a picinic area there so the people can bring their families,
sit at the picinic table and eat the food there. What this is going to be seasonal, I
am going to be open year round but the windows are seasonal and they are so you come
inwith your family you don't have to go into the restaurant, you can go up to the
window, take the food, you can look at the ducks, fish in the pond, I don't care, the
pond is there for the people to enjoy and the only time that during the winter this
pone, or the windows will be open is like if I have a fishing derby for the public or
a skating party or something like that, that will be the only time other than summer
months that these windows will be open.
Mr. Landolfi asked what the total acerage was.
Mr. Fredericks answered 13 acres. I have got a petition that may not mean much but
this first list is almost all the people who live right around that and you can see
by their address they are right along that road. Now, this is a sample menu.
Mr. Caballero stated, we are determining whether this is going to be a fast food or a
restaurant, whether the people would like to see a fast food or whatever is classified
there has nothing to do with it.
Mr. Railing stated, what this is saying is that these people have seen these plans,
they have been at the previous Planning Board meetings and what he is doing there.
Mr. Caballero asked, is that what is on this petition when they signed it that they said
they have been to the Planning Board meetings and agreed to what they saw on the plans and
so on.
Mr. Railing answered, not all of them.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have been to the Planning Board meetings and as far as my personal
view is concerned, not being a member of the Board, not being able to vote on it, I think
]it is a good idea but my hang up with this whole situation is the fast food concept.
Now, one of my hang ups is four tables, no counter.
Mr. Fredericks asked, who said 4 tables.
Mr. Hirkala answered, it say right here in the minutes.
Mr. Caballero stated, in all fairness to you, do you have a layout of what this
restaurant is going to look like.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the minutes of the September 9th specifically state that you said
4 tables.
Mr. Fredericks stated, it is around 20 tables.
Mr. Railing stated, there is no way that I would say 4 tables, the plans were not even
completed at that point.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would like to interpret it whether this is a fast food restaurant
Page -22-
October 8th, 1985
or a restaurant. If you present to me what you are going to do there I can make a
r determination then of how I interpret the Zoning Ordinance whether it is a fast food or
a restaurant. Do you have anything of that nature that I can see.
Mr. Railing answered, not with us.
Mr. Fredericks stated, we have inside rest rooms, we have seating area for about 20 people.
It is year round open. The windows are only seasonal.
Mr. Caballero stated, what I am saying to you, youa re being unfair to yourself by not
presenting this with what the layout looks like, what the table seating looks like. I
can interpret it to be a fast food restaurant like Dairy Queen or I can interpret it
to be a sit down restaurant with a window like Friendly's, now you are being unfair
to yourself by not presenting this properly.
Mr. Railing stated, the only thing I can think of referring to 4 tables is the 4 picnic
tables outside.
Mr. Fredericks stated, Jack's.office is doing the design work of the building and I
basically went to him with my plans, half of the building is being set aside for seating
area. If you look at the plan and you can ask Jack, I have got all the fields and
everything laid out for expansion so that I can run this restaurant to a bigger seating
area. We have offset everything just with that in mind. There is no drive up window.
Mr. Landolfi asked if any of the residents had any questions or concerns that they would
like to raise.
Donna Collins, it seems to me that his intention is for on premise consumption, I mean
he has gone through the effort of putting the pond in and make it a nice setting.
Vince Buffaleri - Stoneykill Road.
I don't know Mr. Fredericks, I just met him when the Planning Board application started
going through. I secured along with Mr. Chain, we secured the petitions for the
individuals on Stoneykill Road. Our primary concern is we want to see something family
orientated on that commercial property because something is going to go there sooner
or later and we don't want to see a service station or something like a disco. We
want to see something like this go in and we don't see any problem with it. It seems
like it would help the area and I think Mr. Caballero brought out a good point, what
is fast food. Now, I have gone to Rosies establishment and I can sit down with my wife
and have bacon and eggs in the morning or I can take an item out. I think it is a
very gray area, but I am sure you can come up with a decision on that.
Gary Collins, I am just in support with my wife and I think that he is going out of
his way to encourage on premise consumption and I think he is a very community minded
person.
Ms Young stated, I just want you all to know that I am not opposed to ice cream stores,
in fact my father built the Dairy Queen on Route 9. The question is, I think this is
an important decision because it will be setting a precident for development along
Route 9D in Neighborhood Business.
Mr. Short stated, what I ask is that the Board possible table this until we do have more
definite interior plans drawn up.
Mr. Railing stated, you have over 900 square feet of seating area and you can put alot
of tables in there. I apologize if I used the number 4, 1 don't believe I used it. It
Page -a3-
October 8th, 1985
may have been interpreted when I was talking about the picinic tables outside, I apologize
to the board and the Planning Board and the Secretary, but believe me, there are more
than 4 tables on the inside of this building.
Mr. Hirkala asked if there was going to be a counter in there. A sit down counter.
Mr. Fredericks answered, there is going to be tables.
Mr. Cortellino stated, there is one point that has not been brought out, I admit that it
is not in our Zoning Ordinance, it may resolve your problem, it won't resolve Angel's
because I agree with Angel that in any restaurant I can take out food. But, if you
stop to think in a restaurant you are seated and someone comes over to you. Any
restaurant a waitress or a waiter comes over and takes my order as opposed to a fast food
place I give them my order and I take it back to wherever I am going to consume it.
Mr. Caballero stated, I would like to interpret this as this restaurant is going to be
a restaurant not a fast food on the basis that he is going to have seating, sit down
tables inside the restaurant. The layout of the property thats looks as a quick drive in
quick drive out type of situation and his intent, in my mind, is an intent of setting up
a resaurant where people can come and sit down and have something to eat with their
families and enjoy the pond and so on. So, I would interpret that this would be a
restaurant and not a fast food operation.
Mr. Cortellino asked for hours of operation during the summer months.
Mr. Fredericks answered, 10:00 A.M. until 10 or 11 at night.
Mr. Cortellino stated, I understand all that is said, I understand what his intentions
are in the future, any businessman wants to expand, he has set it up, septic tank to the
left, the pond in the back, the pond still costs money to dig out but it is not as much
as putting in the building and fixtures. I can understand his point as the business
builds up he can expand and perhaps be one of the finest restaurants in Dutchess County
that would be an ultimate goal but right now the way I look at it from what was presented
it looks like a fast food place.
Mr. Hirkala asked Mr. Caballero, would you accept on my second part of the resolution
being that prior to final approval of the site plan the final floor plan will be
presented to the Planning Board and will reflect the fact that it is not a fast food
restaurant.
Mr. Caballero answered, yes. I will amend my resolution.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolf i - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolf i stated, we interpret as not a fast food at this time.
Mr. Hirkala stated to Mr. Railing, prior to site plan approval by the Planning Board
he has to satisfy the fact that its, in other words set the final floor plans to the
Planning Board prior to approval.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the last thing we have is a letter from Elaine Snowden to our
Page -24-
Board.
Mr. Landolfi read the memo.
October 8th, 1985
Mr. Caballero stated, I would just like to see the language of the Zoning Ordinance timed
up. One of them that Anna brought to our attention in reference to the decks and how
far they are supposed to be from the sideyard_setback. As I interpret that when I read
it I interpreted it the way Mr. Kessler interpreted it and the way that Anna interpreted
is that it is 5 foot from the sideyard is not considered part of the building.
Mr. Landolfi asked Ms. Berberich to see that the Zoning Board members get an invite to
the CZAC meetings.
Mr. Cortellino stated, the other things is the acerage of the Special Use Permits, if we
are going to have special use permits........
Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
A "J -a- JLt L", I C-',"
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Planning Board
lb