Loading...
1985-11-12ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL NOVEMBER 12TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal 46840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422 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 466157-02-600971, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 46848, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, note "e" of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a PMI car wash and deli on property located on Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road, and being Parcel 466157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal 46851, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 12 x 60, plus addition, mobile home with a 14 x 60 mobile home on non -conforming property located on Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel 466156-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal 46852, at the request of George S. Mattison, seeking a variance of §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow permanently mounted free standing sign, 2 foot from the front property line on property located on Old Post Road, and being Parcel 466157-04-649374, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal 46855, at the request of 22 Associates, Ltd., seeking a variance of §421 & 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator that R-20 portion of property may not be used for parking, storage, access drives, setback and building coverage purposes; or, in the alternative, a use, and/or area variance is sought on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 466157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger. 6. Appeal 46856, at the request of 22 Associates, seeking a variance of §474 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator that 210 parking spaces are required, based on the Zoning Administrator's calculations, rather than 86 spaces as set forth in calculations in proposed site plan; or, in the alternative, a variance on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 466157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Appeal 46853, at the request of Bre-Del Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of commercial condos (non -retail business) on property located on St. Nicholas Road, and being Parcel 466259-03-148073 & 188070, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal 46854, at the request of 22 Associates seeking an interpretation of §422, HB -2A & GB (4), storage & sale of building materials, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. z ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 12TH, 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, November 12th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York, beginning at 7:00 P.M.. Members Present: Mr. Landolfi, Chairman Mr. Cortellino Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle Mr. Hirkala Others Present: 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 duly notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the Assessor's Office. Mr. Landolfi asked to entertain a motion on the Minutes of the October meeting. Mr. Caballero mad a motion that the Minutes be accepted as read. Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Landolfi stated, we will go through each appeal this evening, everyone will be given an opportunity to be heard. We do ask that when you come forward, please identify yourself for our records. Mr. Landolfi read the first appeal: Appeal 4840, at the request of Jack Davis, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422 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. Jack Davis, 4 Volino Drive, Pough, NY, 12601. Mr. Davis stated, we are right back where we started from because we were here and then you sent us back to the Planning Board so we had 3 engineers here that day. Ms. Young stated that we have.not received a site -plan. Mr. Landolfi stated,I-believe the girls have both notified you or your engineer or attorney or someone that we have to see something in front of us in order..., you are kind of asking for a carte blanche. Mr. Davis stated, we are not asking for a carte blanche. What I am asking for is an opinion as to whether the concept basically, anyway we are back to the Zoning Board and I don't know how we got back to the Zoning Board because we went to 2 Planning Board Page -2- meetings. November 12th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi stated, we would like to help you but you have to give us something so that we can help you. Mr. Davis stated, before we go and get the engineers and architects to draw up plans, is the concept within the.... Mr. Hirkala stated, can I point something out, you misunderstand the purpose. You requested here a Special Use Permit and this is a public hearing to the purpose of a Special Use Permit. If you are asking for a conceptual opinion it is a different story. How can we give you consideration as far as the Special Use Permit is concerned without seeing anything on paper. Mr. Davis stated, we came here with the engineers. There were 3 engineers and you sent back to the Planning Board and we went to the 2 Planning Board meetings, we had 2 meetings and all of a sudden I got this notice in the mail about the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Landolfi asked, what did your -3 engineers do for you? Mr. Davis answered, not to much yet. This meeting was not scheduled by the Planning Board or is this a normal thing. Mr. Landolfi answered, the normal procedure is you have been following the normal procedure but what is lacking is something for us to look at. Mr. Davis stated, basically the only reason that I was coming here tonight was to get a not a building permit but a conceptual .... I am not asking for a Special Use Permit because everything we have to do has to be approved by the Dept. of Transportation.... Mrs. Waddle stated, you are asking for a Special Use Permit. Even though you have to go to the Dept. of Transportation, you have to go to the County, you have to do certain things that you have to get a Special Use Permit first to use the property for what you intend to use it for. And what we have to see, we have to see some plans or a layout of what you intend to do with that property. Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think you really understand the Special Use Permit process. That is the problem here. The process is for us to look at this plan of yours and determine whether or not there are considerations and if there are to make those special considerations a part of your allowed use of the property. We can't do this without seeing something. Mr. Cortellino stated, the Special Use permit process is not to prevent you from using the property as you wish but to see if there are some considerations that should be tacked on for instance it could be a traffic problem, a safety concern, it still does not prevent you from using the property as you wish but now this would be a restriction for granting�so for the Special Use Permit we have to see the layout obviously. Mrs. Waddle stated, I would make a motion that we table this until our next meeting. Mr. Hirkala stated, there is a time limit on a Spcial Use Permit fact here so I am wondering if Mr. Davis would agree to waiving any; ime considerations for the Special Use Permit application and we can wait for his site plan to come in, he might not be r ready for a couple of months. Mrs. Waddle made a.motion to table this Appeal for 3 months. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. W Page -3- Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye November 12th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4848, at the request of Frank Vitiritti, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, note "e^ of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit a PMI car wash and deli on property located on Route 9 & Old Hopewell Road, and being Parcel 46157-02-610544, in the Town of Wappinger. Al Cappelli, Architect was present. Mr. Cappelli stated, I believe we have.beeri here"before, it has been passed on to the Planning Board for their comments. We have been to one of their meetings and now we are back here. Mr. Landolfi stated, at our last meeting I don't recall whether you were here, there was a concern about the cars that were parked there. Mr. Cappelli answered, yes. I don't know if they have been removed. I went back and told my client that evening that there was a concern about all of the junk cars. Mr. Landolfi stated, the last time I was by there it doesn't look like much was done and I think that was an obvious consideration. He has to make this deli,if we do grant it,kind of attractive for people to want to go in. Mrs. Waddle asked, are you proposing a gas station, a car wash, and a deli; Mr. Cappelli answered, the building itself will be converted into a deli, the pumps will remain and there will be a little attached car wash. Mrs. Waddle stated, that is 3 uses on one property. Mr. Cappelli stated, I don't know whether it was explained to you last time that that is a lease affair and the lease is in the process of running out. Mrs. Waddle asked, would you do anything about closing the entrance/exit on Old Hopewell Road: Mr. Cappelli answered, it was brought up here at the last meeting. It was also brought up at the Planning Board meeting and we had discussed it but we didn't come up with any solutions, I even spoke to Mr. Evangelista about it. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have a real problem right off the bat with your neighbors across the street. I have seen some very near misses. Mr. Hirkala stated, at the last meeting I brought up the fact that I saw almost a fist fight with somebody shooting from one to the other and almost killing somebody and I feel that part of the Special Use Permit would be that that exit would be angled, physically changed so that there is no possible way anybody can come into that property when they are traveling westbound from Hopewell Road or across there. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have really a problem with even an entrance over there, in fact I would like to see both of them closed because it is a very highly traveled road and I G Page -4- November 12th, 1985 think we have a very serious problem on that corner. Mr. Landolfi read the letter from the County. Mr. Landolfi stated, lets just take an obvious one that we all have a hang up with. Signs, I don't know whether in fact Mr. Vitiritti is going to be ending up, lets just say it is a go situation from our Board,lets take it that way first. Will there be, will he be the sole owner of the different....... Mr. Cappelli answered, yes he will. Mr. Landofli asked if he was familiar with the signage that is permitted for instance. In other words, if we did infact allow the uses that he is asking what type of signage for instance does he expect. Mr. Cappelli stated, we really haven't discussed signs yet, and I am sure he would have to meet the regulations and there wouldn't be, I know what your concern is, a sign for the car wash, a sign for the deli, multiple signs. As the members of the Board pointed out even without any further signs going up that is already a very dangerous intersection so we don't need additional signs to make it more dangerous. Number one, clean up the mess over there it is probably one of the biggest eyesores because of its location. If I really wanted this Special Use Permit I would have, he had a whole month to do something. I don't see any action taking place out there in a whole month first of all so I don't know how badly he wants us to say we are going to help you. Mr. Hirkala stated, the fact of the matter is that it is his tenant, the place is in violation, the property is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance presently. He has, he can in effect sue his tenant to clean up the place. Has he taken any legal action to go after his tenant because the property is in violation? Mr. Cappelli answered, no, not this past month. Mr. Landofli stated, you have already heard the safety factors, signs, the mess around the place. Now, we haven't really gotten into the multi use here. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think I have a problem with the whole thing because when you put your deli traffic your gasoline traffic and your car wash together you are going to have an even bigger safety problem on the corner. Mr. Caballero stated, I would like to see the way it is going to be set up for the egress of the traffic into Hopewell Road, is it going to be closed up or made in such a manner that Mike suggested that you can't turn only going up Old Hopewell Road. I would like to see the signage addressed, are you going to have one sign covering all the businesses that you are going to run there and most important that the violation that exists on the location be taken care of before I even consider it. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either in favor or against this appeal.. There was no one. Mr. Cortellino stated, before the motion is made, Carol made a remark and I agree and I don't know if we should address it now and I think this is really 3 uses on one piece of property regardless if it is leased or one owner. A deli and a gas pump I don't consider less incompatible it is like having a roller rink and a swim club on the same piece of property, just because I am servicing the public doesn't mean that it is one use, the use is not servicing the public the use is that particular business you are in so I don't know if we can address a Special Use Permit that is for a permitted Page -5- November 12th, 1985 use in a given area as 3 businesses are not a permitted use. Mr. Caballero stated, I will withdraw my attempted . motion to table this and I will consider a motion to deny the permit if you decide to make one. Mrs. Waddle stated, I will so move to deny the Special Use Permit. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi -aye Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cappelli asked, it is denied based on.3.uses then. Mrs. Waddle answered, 3 uses which is really not legal in that area. Mr. Landolfi stated, a Special Use is normally granted for something that is a permitted use in that area. What the Board has felt that those 3 things don't really come under the confines of a Special Use Permit which is permitted in that area. Mr. Cappelli asked, it is a combination of 3. If I was to have a gas station and a car wash or a gas station and a deli you certainly can deny me those uses because you have them right next door. Mrs. Waddle stated, that doesn't matter we can. Mr. Cappelli answered, okay. Mr. Landolfi stated, we have to weigh the cases as they are presented before us. If there is something else we have to take that elsewhere but right now we are deciding on this particular issue here, your case, and your case only. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: A _peal #851, at the request of Fred & Adrienne Tibbetts, seeking a variance of Article IV, §404.31 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to replace a 12 x 60 plus addition mobile home with a 14 x 60 mobile home on a non -conforming property located on Cooper Road, known as the Cooper Road Mobile Home Park, and being Parcel#6156-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger. Adrienne Tibbets, RR 1 Box 160K, Cold Spring, NY. Mrs. Tibbets stated, Mrs. Young denied me the permit. We have had it since September and when we started to move the new mobile home in there was a stop order_placed'on us. Mrs. Waddle asked who issued the permit. Mrs. Tibbets answered, Mr. Gunderud, September 11, 1984. The work order was stopped because according to the new Zoning Administrator there was no record of what kind of units we had on the property so we had to draw up new maps at which we complied with. We then proceeded with asking for another permit and it was denied because we were asking for a larger unit than was actually there.which was true but if you added the additions of the old trailer the square footage was less actually. Page -6- November 12th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle asked, do you live in this home that is proposed. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, no. Mrs. Waddle asked, do you own the trailer park. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, I own the trailer park. The old trailer was 60 x 12 which was 720 square feet and the addition was approximately 8 x 20.which was another 160 square feet that made a total of 880 square feet. The new unit, and we will not allow any additions what so ever anymore, is only 14 x 60 which gives you 840 square feet. Mr. Cortellino stated, on this building permit it says that you were supposed to submit a new site plan, have you done that? Mrs. Tibbetts answered, yes, and I think the Board has it. Ms. Young stated, the site plan was submitted to us on August 22nd, 1985. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I submitted the previous site plan but you wanted more detail on it so we had to go back and get some more detail. Mr. Cortellino stated, and there were some requirements to be met. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, he is talking')I believe about the way they are set up. The bases the way they are tied down and things like that, and the distance between each unit, I think that is what he is talking about. The last refusal of the permit was called by Ms. Young was given to us because the mobile home park shows that we were only allowed 13 trailers, units, and we have 14 so on that basis Ms. Young denied us the permit but I can prove to you and since we bought the property in 1978 we have always had the 14 units there. The units Ms. Young is talking about, there are 3 seperate deeded lots are on the first lot and here is a tax map for that and you can see that there has always been that many since 1964 on the one lot. There is even a sheet attached to it where.......... Mr. Landolfi stated, even though they may have been there they could have been, there is a density factor to consider and it is conceivable even if you had more than that you might have been in violation. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, it is non -conforming. Mr. Landolfi stated, but if a piece of property is non -conforming the concern is is that we cannot make it more non -conforming we have to try to get it into conformity. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I am not asking for more units, I am asking to replace. The other lot has one unit with a, what used to be a summer cottage, but that cottage was not there when we bought it so the total is 14 units and not 13 units in the whole park. Mrs. Waddle asked, have you been before the Zoning Board before. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, on a dispute with the tenants a couple of years ago. Mrs. Waddle stated, as I recall there was a case that this lady was here about the 13 trailers and I would like the Secretary to dig out those so we can review that case before we make a decision here because I think it may have some bearing on this case. Page -7- November 12th, 1985 Mrs. Tibbetts stated, also, the Board of Health has given the permit for 14 in the whole park. i Mrs. Waddle stated, they wouldn't know whether you were entitled to 13 or 14. Mr. Cortellino stated, she gave us this to show that there was always 14 but over here it says 13 and 4th was removed from the...... Mrs. Tibbets stated, that was a long time ago. 13 on this one lot and one in the back lot. Mr. Cortellino asked, that is a seperate lot. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, seperate deed. { Mr. Cortellino asked, the units are not together. Mrs Tibbetts answered no. Ms Young stated, the records in Tom Logan's office, and Tom Logan has assured me that only 13 trailers are allowed non -conforming status on that trailer park. Both parcels. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have a problem. You are saying that these lots are seperate lots. I would like to see tax numbers on each lot. Ms. Young stated, I have all the files from the Tax Assessor's office here and I would like to read a few of these. These are from the file and I have Tom Logan's files here to. I would like to first read a hand written note by Hans Gunderud to Pamela Farnsworth dated 6/18 but no year. It says: On 6/15 I told Mrs. T no building permits for Lot 10 unless you remove or agree to remove another mobile home since our records show 13 and you have 14. (She has removed the new 15th one) She would not agree, and I told her we would proceed with action against her to have it removed. To my knowledge there are no, or very few CO's or anything down there. That is from Hans. On June 21st Pamela Farnsworth sent a memo to the Town Board saying that she had spoken with Mrs. Tibbetts and had tried to explain the requirements to her and that again, only 13 trailers were permitted non -conforming status. I also have a letter dated February 22nd, 1971 and it is written by Joseph Ludwig, Zoning Administrator, and it is addressed to Sters Reality Corp. who was the former owner of Cooper Road and it says: This is in regard to the trailer park on Cooper Road in the Town of Wappinger which we inspected on February 18th, 1971. According to the Town Assessor's records your firm is the present owner of this property which is listed on Tax Map 468 as Lot 2, Lot 11. The records show that there were 13 house trailer on this parcel for the taxable year 1970. The records also show that your firm aquired the abutting property identified as Lot 10 in March of 1970. The inspection of your property revealed that 4 additional trailers have been added since our last check up. The area in which your property is located is classified as a RD -20 district. This designation permits trailer parks but specifies a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet per trailer. Because the park has been established prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1963 it is clssified as a legally non -conforming use of land. §416.02 of the Ordinance stipulates that a legally non -conforming use may not be enlarged, extended, or changed unless the change makes the use less non -conforming. The fact that there are now 17 trailers on your property results in a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and if not corrected is subject to penalties as provided in §530. The extra trailer should be removed, we shall expect prompt action in order to comply with the ordinance. Joseph Ludwig. So, in 1971 they were permitted 13 trailers. I also hav9 erial photographs from 1963 if you would like to see them, there were 13 trailers. Mrs. Waddle stated, this has been here before. I think we really need to get our records out to refresh our memory. Page -8- November 12th, 1985 Mrs. Tibbetts stated, my concern is this, that the 13 in this..,. on this particular lot, the one lot and then Sters Corporation bought the extra 2 lots and there was an extra unit back there that made it 14, but the original one has always been 13. Mr. Hirkala asked, when did Sters buy that extra lot? Mrs. Tibbetts stated, 1977. Mr. Landolf i stated, you could have been in violation all along, and the fact that you may have that number is insignificant at this time really. What is key here is per your footage what is really allowed over all here. Mr. Hirkala stated, it is legally non -conforming so what is allowed is what was there when Zoning came in effect, that is what is allowed. The Board reviewed the 1966 aerial maps. Mrs. Waddle stated, on one portion there are 12 trailers and there is a house and on the other two there are 2 trailers and that is across the street on a seperate lot. Now do we include the lot in the whole trailer park or since it is a seperate parcel with two trailers on it do we exclude that. Ms. Young stated, it has always been assessed for tax purposes as one with both grid numbers on it. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, the tax papers does not show that as one tax thing it shows it in three. There are three different tax numbers. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think what is important is what parcel of land were they talking about for the 13 trailers prior to 1971. If it is this one here and there are not supposed to be no more than 13 buildings on there that is what you get. Mrs. Tibbets stated, there was one trailer there but the total package of the park we were allowed 14 and its still at this date for 14 units, right now 13 but I am asking to re -instate the 14th number. There is plenty of space, there is no congestion. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not the point at all. You are saying re -instate the 14. The contention here is whether or not you were ever allowed the 14. The contention is that 1971 according to that letter you were allowed 13 not 14. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, we are allowed 13 in that one circle and 1 in the back. Mr. Hirkala stated, the back wasn't a part of that property in 1971 so you are allowed 13 over here in front, thats it. Mr. Cortellino stated, what you are saying is that that unit of one in that other lot was illegal formation of a trailer park. If it is a seperate lot it is an illegal formation. Mr. Hirkala asked, with new one or without the new one. Mrs. Waddle stated, well, she wants to replace one and with that one it is 13. Ms. Young stated, 14. Mr. Cortellino stated, it depends on how you wish to interpret it. If it is one trailer park you have to consider both lots. Page -9- November 12th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle stated, if the lady has seperate tax bills and seperate numbers and is being taxed seperately how can we consider it one trailer park. Mr. Hirkala stated, if thats the case she is in violation and we can't even consider it. Mr. Cortellino stated, one alternative that Mrs. Tibbetts won't like. We give her the trailer in this lot but the other two trailers in the other lot have to come off because there was never any permission granted to build a trailer park in this lot. That would be one interpretation. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, you can see on the tax map that in the second lot there was the one unit and when we took possession we tried to clean up the park quite a bit and we felt that instead of having that heavy congestion we pulled one on the back lot that made it two. Since 1963 this one unti has been..... Mr. Hirkala asked, when did you put the trailers on the back lot. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, I didn't put them there, one has been there since 1963 all along. The other one was located up front and we wanted to decongest it and put it in the back to make more room in the front to clean up the park. Mr. Hirkala stated, so the other one was in the back lot since 1963 before. Mrs. Tibbetts answered, exactly. Mr. Hirkala stated, now, that was not a part of the same parcel, it was added on later. Mrs. Tibbetts stated, they are still seperate parcels. Mr. Hirkala stated, you told me that they had bought that seperate parcel later, and you said maybe around 1977 you weren't sure. Mr. Cortellino stated, one other thought. Look at it this way. There was 14 and she was told there was 13 so she moved one over to the other lot and she is saying I have got room on the first lot. Mr. Hirkala stated, aside from that, I am trying to figure out whether any trailer were allowed on that back lot at all. Mrs. Waddle stated, we don't know that. We have to get the records out. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone there to speak either for or against this appeal. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to table Appeal X6851 until we get more information from our records. Mrs. Waddle stated that she seconded that motion and asked the secretary to get the records of when Mrs. Tibbetts was before the Zoning Board before. Mr. Landolfi stated, we are going to meet with the Assessor to clarify the whole tax structure relating to those units and then I think we can give you a more clarified position. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Page -10- November 12th, 1985 The motion was carried. It was asked that this appeal be placed on the January agenda since Mrs. Tibbetts would not be able to attend the December meeting. Mr. Landolfi read the next item: Appeal 4852, at the request of George S. Mattison, seeking a variance of §416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allowa permanently mounted free standing sign, 2 foot fromt he front property line on property located on Old Post Road, and being Parcel 46157-04-649374, in the Town of Wappinger. George S. Mattison, Old Post Road, W.F., N.Y. was present.. Mr. Mattison stated, basically I feel I have a unique situation here because my property has a 20 foot frontage on the Old Post Road and it goes back in 130 feet deep before it opens up and I intend to run a combination residence and hobby shop on this property and a sign 25 foot back down the driveway really wouldn't -do me very much good. Mr. Hirkala stated, first and formost I have a problem getting this and trying to make a decision. I have to see something more than this. Mr. Mattison stated that he had a copy of his site plan which shows a location of the sign relative to the property. Mr. Hirkala stated, are you aware of the new sign ordinance which specifically states that this sign will become part of the site plan application. When did you make applicat to the Planning Board. Mr. Mattison answered, October. 22nd. Mr. Hirkala stated, this sign should become part of the site plan. Ms. Young stated it is. Mr. Mattison stated, basically this is going to look somewhat like a real estate sign. The dimensions are 2 foot by 3 foot. No illumination. Something like a Century 21 sign. Mr. Hirkala asked, what is going to be 2 foot, the post? Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this appeal. Lucille Rankin - neighbor. Mrs. Rankin stated, I am not really worried much about the sign as I am the drainage problems coming in from his driveway. I have been in this house for 35 years and his driveway was considered a lane many years ago and it was a summer home which was only used for a summer home. I realize it is commercial property and thats no problem however, our land was always fenced in and my husband had taken the fence down so now we find since the fence is down that Mr. Mattison's property was over farther to the left whihc takes up quite a bit of my backyard and he is going to move over his driveway closer to my house in which right now because of like 6 different families have leved there since I have been there and naturally it is getting deeper and deeper of where the water settles so I am afraid now if he moves over a little bit more and the water gets so close to my house that it drains off onto Owen's property and towards my house, I am really concerned of the water problem and not the sign problem. So, he says that he understands because it does go like that and for them to take that off but Page -11- November 12th, 1985 then the draining would go down into this drain here so we are going to have a problem there. Then he said he would change it to gravel which again is, what is going to happen snow plow time. Mr. Landolfi stated, there will be many different agencies involved with the approval of this site so that will be a concern that will be passed on. Mr. Cortellino stated, more appropriate for you would be if permission was granted or not would be Planning Board meetings. There was a discussion on the Planning Board meetings. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak for or against.. Mr. Cortellino stated, historically everyone who comes before us says its so far back from the road no one knows that we are here. We asked the Town Board if the wish to review it. There is a committee now reviewing the thing I see no reason to grant the variance because we have denied, Mr. Railing is here, how many times did we deny you? innumerable times, why should we make an acception. Mrs. Waddle stated, on signs ofa certain size we are very strict, but where somebody has a problem that they are very far back from the road I think we should grant some type of relief, I am not saying it should be 2 feet from the entrance but maybe if they took it back 10 feet people could still see it from the road, but I think we have to work with the gentlemen to give him some kind of relief because he is way back. Mr. Hlrkala asked,, what would the effect be if we granted a variance for this particular parcel for a 2 foot setback on a sign and someday in the future this became all one parcel owned by somebody who wanted to develop in the HB -1 area, this parcel has a variance that goes with it for 2 foot then the variance no longer becomes needed if those 2 parcels become part of this one. Mrs. Waddle stated, I follow what you are saying but I think that road there has a very unique case because they are not on 9 per say, they are back from 9 and I think we have to grant them so relief because they have a very unique problem right along that road. Mr. Hirkala stated, I agree with you in that particular sense, but what I am saying is how do we handle that situation. Mrs. Waddle answered, I am not saying 2 feet, and we can always put this as the variance goes with the property owner if the property is sold the variance ceases. Mr. Caballero stated, I have a problem with granting any variance that close to the road anywhere. Mr. Mattison stated, maybe there is a misunderstanding here. I am not asking to be within 2 feet of the road. I am asking to be.......... Mr. Landolfi asked, what could you, perhaps, if the Board was willing to compromise somewhat. kw Mr. Mattison answered, basically you couldn't see it if it went back any further. Mr. Landolfi stated, you are asking for a 23 foot variance. Mr. Caballero stated, that is 100 %. Page -12- November 12th, 1985 -.1 Mr. Mattison stated, my commercial neighbor 100 yards down the road, the China Garden, ow has a sign half the size of this wall, and it is certainly within 25 feet of the highway. Mrs. Waddle stated, well, that has to come down. I am glad you brought that up. That is overdue to come down. Mr. Mattison asked, is there any restrictions as to the size of mailboxes? Mr. Cortellino answered, no. That is the suggestion that I was going to make. Mr. Hirkala asked if this was a retail business. Mr. Mattison answered, yes, it is a combination of residence and retail. Mr. Hirkala stated, I mean in the sense that, the reason why I am asking is because this particular sign right here doesn't tell me what it is. Mr. Mattison answered, it is a hobby shop. Mr. Hirkala stated, in other words people who would be coming would be looking for you. They know you are there. It wouldn't be a type of thing where somebody would be driving up the road would say, I would like to stop in there and see what he's got. Mr. Mattison answered, absolutely not. It is normally referral or I will give them directions on the telephone. But, I just wanted the sign to be big enough and in a location where somebody could, I mean more recognizable than a mailbox, but not a big neon thing. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to deny the requested variance. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - nay Mr. Landolfi stated that there would be a ten minute break. The break was called at 7:55 P.M.. The meeting was called back to order at 8:05 P.M.. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4855, at the request of 22 Associates, Ltd., seeking a variance of §421 & 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator that R-20 portion of property may not be used for parking, storage, access drives, setback and building coverage purposes; or, in the alternative, a use, and/or area variance is sought on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being parcel 46157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger. Robert Butts, Attorney; Lawrence Piazza, 22 Associates; 7g.r.Buchsbaum, Lloyd's; Jack Railing, Engineer. Page -13- November 12th, 1985 - Mr. Butts stated, we have 3 items on the agenda tonight and if I may, I would like + to just make some general remarks that really apply to all three and I may request that the Board take the items how the Board may wish to. We are totally flexible on that. In any event, the objective that we are trying to accomplish is the development of an outlet for Lloyd Home and Building Centers on a 5 acre parcel. The Northerly side of Osborne Hill Road and Route 9. We have been before the Planning Board, submitted a site plan application. I believe the Board has copies of our proposed site plan submitted in alte August. We have been before the Board several times, but the Board has not passed on it yet. I also have, if you wish to refer to it, copies of the site plan application that was submitted at that time.and done by Mr. Railing's firm. The problems that we encountered for the Planning Board basically were three fold and the Board has not passed on it yet because it was felt that these problems needed to be determined -or to be resolved. First of all, there is a question as to the characterization of the use of the property, the proposed use. We feel, and I think that you will agree with us when we show you the proposed, what we can about the proposed use, that its a retail space and as such it is subject to site plan approval before the Planning Board. But, the question has been raised as to whether this may not be retail but instead be building supplies business, which is something that would required a Special Use Permit that would have to be granted by your Board. And so, we have a basic quesiton about, of which procedure we are subject to and that interpretation is Appeal 4854 which appears under New Business. Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't know why that is of importance. If indeed, the Special Use Permit doesn't impact you at all because, as we mentioned earlier, it is just a review process, it says you have the right. In other words, if you did not need the Special Use Permit you would still have to go through the same procedures. If you need a Special Use Permit, it is just one more evening here, yes it is your right to go in there, we would look at this and see what restrictions we might require and pass it on to the Planning Board, but it doesn't impact you at all. Mr. Butts stated, well, there may be an impact in regard to parking, depending on how you characterize the use. The second question, and this appears from the plans that you have before you is that the zoning line passes through the site and the protion towards 9 of course being the HB -2A, the rear portion being R-20. The site plan is designed so that no portion of the buildings lies within the residential area. The building is entirely within the HB -2A portion but we do wish to utilize the portion of the rear lands for parking and possibly for a storage area, and possible future storage and the question was raised as to whether that had been permitted and I would like to address that later in more detail. The third item, which is 4856 relates to the number of parking spaces that is required and we have a difference of interpretation between the Zoning Administrator and our Engineer's. Mr. Cortellino asked, what do you mean by interpretation? I believe that Zoning Law says that if you have so much square footage you will have so many, anount of spaces. Is there an interpretation of that portion of the ordinance? Mr. Butts stated, no. The question, we agree wtih the ordinance, obviously, but the question is, is the space...., how do you count it. We feel the predominant use is residential or is retail rather but there are portions of the structure that are going to be used for storage of inventory for the retail trade. Mr. Cortellino stated, your dispute is the method that we use to calculate, you are interpreting it that the storage area doesn't count in working out the parking spaces. The law says that this is the square footage, this is the parking spaces. You are doing the interpretation. Page -14- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Butts answered, this is why we have come here, this is what we wish the Board to pass on and in the alternative we are requesting that a variance be granted. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I ask, would you like me to go into all of these items in more detail at once or would you like to take them one at a time. Mr. Landolfi stated, we will take the interpretation first. Appeal #854, at the request of 22 Associates seeking an interpretation of §422, HB -2A & GB (4), storage & sale of building materials, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Waddle asked, you say that it is a retail business. Mr. Butts answered, yes. Mrs. Waddle asked, what would you be selling int his retail business? Is this to the general public or also to contractors and such. Mr. Butts answered, it is to the general public but not to contractors. Mrs.Waddle asked, is it like a Channel or is it like a Grossman's or...... Mr. Buchsbaum answered, I think first of all we need to wipe out of our mind what was a Lloyd Lumber store of the past and talk about what is a Lloyd Home and Building Center that we are striving to put here. This, I think the best way to describe it is similar to a Channel operation which is close by, not like a Grossman but like a Channel because there is a distinct difference between them. I brought some pictures, and I would like to circulate them of one of our home building centers which happens to be in Yorktown Heights which kind of indicates what we have. Our balance of trade in this store should be 95% full consumer type business and possibly 5% or less of what might be somewhat come in in a little pick up truck who might be a remodler or something like that. As far as a contractor or construction company doing business with this store, I don't believe that would be a possibility because first of all we are going to retain our Fishkill location and the fact that we are enlarging that. We are acquiring extra acerage for that and thats what basically turns into a contractor or professional sales yard. We will not"dictate to the retail trade. The makeup of the customer ......in stores we have in Mt. Kisco, Hawthorne, Newburgh for instance, the makeup would be probably be a 40 to 50% female population shopper and a light amount of naturally light shoppers. We will carry in addition to the traditional things that you think of buying in a home and building center such as wall paneling, wall paper, linoleum, nails, 2 x 4's, we will be carring lamps, decorator lamps, tables, pictures, some baskets, we will be carring different home decorator items, I think some of them are seen in some of those pictures that we are selling, so the type of business that we are running here, we will be runnning here, running in our new Poughkeepsie store which is being built at the Rte 44 Plaza in Poughkeepsie, we just opened a new one on Saturday in North Haven, Conneticut that epitomizes what we are talking about its in a shopping center where are neighbors, J.C. Penny is strictly a retail store and not a lumber yard or a lumber company of any..... difficulty considering it that light. Mr. Caballero stated, you show a storage area here, if this was to be a strictly retail store why do you require outside storage. Mr. Buchsbaum answered, we require outside storage because certain items such as bark kw mulch, which is seasonal items which bark mulch, landscape timbers, things of that not only we used display and have some of those inside the store but you need back up stock because.......... Page -15- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Caballero stated, you have a warehouse right down in Fishkill, why not store over there? Mr. Buchsbaum answered, no, because that will not be a warehouse for this store.' That will be a contractor, professional sales yard and the inventories will not necessarily meld with one another because we are talking about different products. Mr. Caballero stated, then you will force me to interpret this as both the retail and the storage and building material warehouse. Mr. Buchsbaum stated, any business has to have inventory back up. Mr. Caballero asked, why not inside the building. Mr. Buchsbaum answered, we can't put it all inside the building and on a weekend in the summer time the people are doing landscaping work and so that you couldn't possibly have enough of those product within the building to satisfy the needs of the public and you must have a auxil7a4upply to back up the needs for those periods of time. In addition of which, we wouldn't, can't possibly have trucks running in and out of there everyday making these type of deliveries. We want to minimize the amount of traffic, commercial traffic coming in and out of the site and if we only brought enough to keep storing in the store we would be running trucks in and out of there all the time. We do need a certain amount of back up stock as Channel has back up stock outside the place, we are not talking.......... Mr. Caballero stated, I was just going to remind the Board, that we had to have them remove all that storage that they had outside in the parking lot -into the building which they were in violation of. Mr. Buchsbaum answered, okay, you are talking about a parking lot and that you are talking apparently something that was in violation. We are asking for specific things here. We are not looking to put it in, we don't want to be in violation, in other words, I don't want to say to you, It would-be easy to stand here and say that we could put everything inside the building and then later on try and inch out and inch out and then you have to j come back to us and say you are not doing it legally and properly. We don't operate that way and we don't want to operate that way, so we are coming and so to speak, bearring our soul before you or right off the reel and we are tellingyou exactly what we need in order to run the business and what the amounts of storage, type of products that { we are going to leave out there and that is right up front so, rather than try to come s in afterward and say, . Mr. Hirkala asked, we are talking about Appeal 4854, right, Appeal 4854 is whether or not storage or sale of building materials requires a Special Use Permit and not retail requiring only site plan approval, and I can't see why retail sales can't include building materials. It just it means that if you are using it, you are selling building materials in a retail sales area requires a Special Use Permit because there isn't a special consideration that is required, namely, fire access, evacuation of building in case of emergency, these are things that have to be considered say if you are selling any other kind of product. In my view, what we are looking at is the difference between retail, or there is no difference between retail and building supply, what we are looking at is that you are retailing building supplies, it is as simple as that. Mrs. Waddle stated, yes and no because it is not all building supplies. Its home decorating and light bulbs and things like that. Mr. Hirkala stated, there is a building supply factor here that has to be considered under a Special Use Permit considerations. Page -16- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Butts stated, many of the same products are sold in department stores.... Mr. Hirkala stated, fine, but they don't sell timbers, ...there is rows and rows of paint products.and rows and rows of lumber. Mr. Cabllero stated, an+t normally requires storage yard outside of the building. Mr. Butts stated, hardware stores sells paint products. Mrs. Waddle stated, we do have Channel that sells paint products and wood products in the same store. We have Grossmans who has paint supplies and wood in the same, we had Linge Lumber who had wood and paint in the same area. We have had these places, I don't know why this is all new news to everybody all of a sudden. We have Grand Union who sells paint on the shelves along with food. Mr. Hirkala stated,we are looking at a situation here where should it be a Special Use Permit or shouldn't it be.as far as the Zoning Ordinance is concerned. The Zoning Ordinance specifically states building supplies would be a Special Use Permit. It says it right there, now, is the Zoning Administrator right or wrong. She is right, now it is up to us, if they want to make a request for us to grant a variance from that particular thing, that is a different request. But, if we are looking at whether or not a Special Use Permit is required the ZOning Ordinance says, yes, it is. Mr. Piazza stated, I am confused on the fact that its both being classified a retail store and a lumber yard for construction storage. Mr. Caballero answered, which it is. My interpretation is that it is a retail store storing lumber and supplies, materials for building. Mr. Piazza answered, not for building a house, its -for like yourself coming into wanting to panel a particular room in you house coming to buy some paneling. Mr. Cortellino stated, that is the question, the interpretation, is paneling considered a building material or not. Mr. Piazza answered, it is a wall covering. Mr. Hirkala stated, it is still a building material. Mr. Butts stated, it would seem to me that the main consideration is not so much the type of goods that are being sold because the same types of goods are sold in all different types of facilities, but, the nature of the traffic that comes in there. Is it trucks, it is high volume? Mr. Caballero stated, you made 3 requests here. You asked for an interpretation, I think 2 of us are trying to tell you how we are going to interpret it and then you are fighting us back. You are going to have to go through this, what we interpret, and then go for a Special Use Permit. Mr. Butts answered, but we really, our main objective is to get these questions resolved so that we can do everything we have to do before the Town........ r Mr. Hirkala stated, I think what their main aim at this Appeal 4854 is to get it the heck out of the building materials and into the retail sales so they can walk away with the parking spaces that they want to walk away with. They have an appeal here for parking spaces. The parking spaces were predicated, I believe, Anna, did you predicate the parking spaces on the building. Page -17- November 12th, 1985 Ms. Young answered, the way that I determined it was the first floor is shown as retail, with an office and the lower floor is shown as a warehouse. So, according to the Ordinance, for the first floor, as 30,000 square feet, I divided by 150 square feet for each parking space, they need 200 spaces. Now, what they are claiming is that the first floor is indeed not all retail and that 75% -of the first floor should be counted as warehouse or storage, in other words they are counting their display area as storage and only 25% of the store is retail. Mr. Caballero stated, I still think we are jumping the gun here. We have to go back to our interpretation then we can analyze whether the parking spaces are necessary or enough or too little. My interpretation is that this building is, this project is both retail and storage and sales of building materials. Mr. Hirkala stated that he seconds that motion. Mr. Caballero stated, I will add to my motion that it is required a Special Use Permit. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Butts asked, as part of that appeal number we have requested in the alternative that a Special Use Permit be granted. Appeal 4854. Do you want to move on to Appeal #855. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: APpeal #855, at the request of 22 Associates, Ltd., seeking a variance of §421 & 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator that R-20 portion of property may not be used for parking, storage, access -drives, setback and building coverage purposes; or, in the alternative, a use and/or area variance is sought on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 446157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Butts stated, there are several items in this and it relates to the fact that the Zoning Line passes through the parcel. The parcel has split zoning and the front portion is HB -2A and the rear portion is R-20. The one issue that has come up about this is whether the building must be setback from the zoning line. Right now the way this plan is drawn the building lies right on the zoning line, the edge of the building and I submit that that needs and interpretation and it should be governed by the provision in the Zoning Law and the definitions. Mr. Cortellino stated, I don't think it needs an interpretation. I think the Zoning Ordinance is very clear about that. It says that the building will be set so far back from a residential zone with adequate screening and so forth. Your problem is your building may not fit the lot you have contemplating using, that is not our problem. A smaller building it would fit in. It is your problem that there is a residential zone from which you have to be setback a certain amount of distance. Mr. Butts states, the building setback line is defined, this is on §220 of the Zoning Ordinance on Page 4. A building setback line is referred to as a line indicating the minimum horizontal distance permitted between the outside line of the main building or any enclosed projection there6f, and the lot line or street right of way line. It is our position that the lot line is just what it says, the whole lot. We have one lot here not 2 lots and....... ... Page -18- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Cortellino asked, and how do you address that you have to have screening from the residential zone. Mr. Butts answered, we provide for it in the site plan. Mrs. Waddle asked, was this always one plot, the 5 acres with one plot or did you buy seperate acerage. Mr. Butts answered, no, it has always been one piece. Mr. Hirkala stated, in other words this, the title policy has this as one lot and the zoning line was drawn through it. Mr. Butts answered, that is correct. Mr. Piazza stated, there is no access if ever you want to build'on this residential piece, there is no way of doing it because there is no street access, it is a land locked piece of land. Ms. Young stated, page 16 in the Zoning Ordinance, lots in 2 or more districts of the municipalities, this is where the problem came in. I have trouble interpreting this myself because it is conflict with what Mr. Butts has just said. It reads, where a lot is divided by one ormore zoning districts the municipal boundry lines each portion of such lot and any building or land use established theron shall comply with the regulations.of the district in which it is located. Now, I don't know if that means from the zoning line because it falls entirely within that district or if it should be interpreted to the rear line cutting across the residential zone. Mr. Cortellino answered, I read that as saying in this case the HB area follows the HB code and the residential follows the residential code. Mr. Butts stated, we are following the exact language of the code. The building is within the HB area and our setbacks are in accordance with the definition of setbacks in that they are from the lot line. Mr. Hirkala asked, what about the intent of the code. Mr. Butts answered, I think that is the intent. I don't "think that the code ever intended to render a substantial portion of a persons property unuseable for any purpose what so ever, which is what this does. If you read that, and really the main orientation of the property, the only frontage that we have is on Route 9, heavily traveled thouroughfare, it is commercial property prodominant use of that property is commercial. We can only have one use on the property. we can't put a house on the back because it is not a seperate parcel. We can't subdivide the back because the rear area has no frontage on any street and to deprive the owners of their use of this property, really, I believe, is a taking, a unconstitutional taking of property, it renders that land worthless and we therefore feel that really we want to just use it for a very limited purpose. Mr. Hirkala stated, I dbn't think that we have the power to grant you the right to use the land:' Mr. Cortellino stated, rezoning is not our function. Mr. Butts stated, my understanding, and Jack Railing has had experience with this, is that in the past where a parcel has split zoning like this the rear portion was able to be used for parking and Jack is familiar with particular cases in this Town. Page -19- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Railing stated, the one that particularily comes in mind and the most recent one is in the PI -1A of Angel Hill, Parcel B. We utilized the area that is PI -1A for the building and parking but some of the parking is in the rear which crosses into the residential. Now, what the Planning Board did, as allowed in the Ordinance, asked for a little additional buffering with evergreen, etc... Mr. Hirkala stated, what do you mean'it is allowed in the ordinance. It is allowed in the ordinance for the Planning Board to allow commercial property, a commercial use on residential property. Mr. Railing answered, for parking, yes. Mr. Butts stated, we understood that that was acceptable to the Town and we just want to be treated the same way as the other citizens. Mr. Railing stated, I was just pointing out the situation when that occured. Mr. Hirkala stated, I think the Planning Board was wrong in that sense. Mr. Butts stated, in our application we again, we are seeking relief in the alternative, we are seeking an interpretation of the ordinance. In the alternative we are seeking a variance to permit that use that we show, being that it is a very limited use, limited to what we show on the site plan. We provide the required screening along the lot lines with our residential neighbors. It is a unique situation that faces us because of the fact that the zoning line passes through the Town, not due to any action of ours. Mrs. Waddle stated, it has not even been established whether they really need parking back there because, the next thing that we have to attack is whether we are going to give then 200 parking spaces or........ Mr. Hirkala stated, the site plan calls for storage on that property not parking. Mrs. Waddle stated, it is reserved for future. Mr. Hirkala stated, I make a motion that it is not in the perview of the Zoning Board of Appeals .............. Mrs. Waddle stated, I dbri't agree with you because I think we can grant relief there, that is what we are here for. Mr. Hirkala stated, that is a re -zoning. Mr. Cortellino stated, before you make your motion Mike, what I think is here, I agree with you is re -zoning. What they should do is ask the Town Board to review Route 9 and not put so many feet in from Route 9 but follow the existing lot lines, however jagged it may look to get away from the problem of putting a line unnecessarily though a property. The zoning line should not have gone through there. Mr. Caballero stated, I would like a point of order. These appeals for variances and interpretations cannont be mixed together. If you have an appeal and you want an interpretation that has to be a seperate appeal from a variance. You can't make a determination and in the same appeals go toward a varinace so, you should have on for the interpretation and another one seeking a variance if the interpretation went the wrong way. Number 2, I feel that I personally would like to see Lloyd Lumber come into this particular piece of property but there are alot of problems involved with this particular property because it is in those two zones. There must be an intelligent way to work this out. Page -20- November 12th, 1985 Mrs. Waddle asked, have you got enough room in the front without using this piece of property in the back at this point in time to put your parking in and to put in what you need in. Mr. Railing stated, the acerage in the HB -2A is 3.06 so that would make the acerage in the residential 1.94 plus or minus. Mrs. Waddle asked, can you contain everything up in this parcel until you people get these, get to the Town Board to see if they will rezone the back of this into this and then use this for future development and come before us again. Can you contain everything on that commercial property at this time. Mr. Railing answered, the only thing that is really in there that could cause us some problems are the 12 spaces that we do have in that area for the employee and some parking in the rear. Mrs. Waddle asked, how many spaces can you get on this front piece of property? Mr. Railing answered, I think you pretty much have got what is there. If you take the 12 away you are dealing with 74 which I think is in keeping within your needs. Mrs. Waddle asked, do you think you are going to have more than 74 people, except at Christmas time there at one time. Mr. Buchsbaum answered, Christmas time is not our busiest time of year, so certainly not a Christmas time. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we have to apply a little common sense in this that says, yeah, he has got a big building in there but you are not going to have 2,000 people running around in that building during the day. Mr. Hirkala answered, I think you have to apply the common sense factor that quite possibly this property is not suited for their needs unless the R-20 is utilized as commercial property. So, either the Town Board or we grant them the right to use that property commercially. Mr. Butts asked, if it is your opinion that this use is for building material, building supply, in other words it is storage, then we are under a much less restrictive parking requirement than we are under the retail use. Mr. Hirkala stated, this is retail purposes. It is retail of building supplies. Mr. Butts stated, with all do respect, I don't think you can have it both ways. Either we are under on standard or another. Mr. Cortellino asked, how do you define building materials? Would a faucet be a building material. I am asking you what you define as a building material. You dispute what we think is building materials. Mr. Hirkala stated, sir, I suggest that your interpretations area a sort of weighted for your particular purposes. Mr. Butts stated, no sir. It is the Board's interpretation. Mr. Cortellino stated, anything I put in a building to construct a building I consider building materials whether it is a wire, a copper pipe, paneling, sheetrock, faucet, linoleum, I consider that, what is a building, everything you see in here is building Page -21- November 12th, 1985 material. Wall switch, thermostat, those are all building materials to make the building, you need this. Mr. Hirkala asked, can I drive into this place and.walk out with 4 sheets of 5 inch plywood. Mr. Butts answered, I would imagine so. Mr. Hirkala stated, I could walk out of this place with enough material to put an addition on my house. Mr. Buchsbaum stated, not at one time. It could depend ont he length of material, this won't have long lengths of material. It is conceivable. Mr. Hirkala stated, now what you are trying to do is say it is not a wholesale contractors supply. Now I don't think the Zoning Ordinance specifies the difference between wholesale contractors supply or retail supply. What I am saying is that it is building materials. Mr. Butts stated,t he Zoning Ordinance does draw a distinction in terms of parking between the types.... Mr. Caballero stated, we have already made the interpretation on what is retail, with storage and building supply. As I see it here, you are looking to see if the parking spaces are according to what our Building Inspectors tell us they are or whether what you would like it to be. You only need 74 spaces, our .... Mr. Butts stated, according to our letter that is attached to one of the applications, Lloyd Lumber is of the opinion that they only need 82. Mr. Hirkala stated, I would like to talk to that subject also. I don't know why we have a Zoning Ordinance if we are going to constantly say it is wrong. They have, she says there are 200 parking spaces required, that might be to many. The Planning Board has the right to waive that 507. Ms. Young stated, so does the Zoning Board. Mr. Landolfi read the letter from the Dutchess County Dept. of Public Works. Mr. Butts-stated,-we-ar'e iegdesting that the Board grant a variance which is in the Boards's power. The hardship is that there is, if no use of that rear land is permitted they can't use it for anything which renders it useless. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak on Appeal 4855 either for or against. Barry S. Cohen, together with his sister & cousin own approximately 45 acres of land zoned as it has been for 20 plus years residential. Mr. Cohen stated, I gather I received notice of 2 of the appeals, 856 & 855 because some part of our parcel abuts the contemplated acerage in question. I cannot say that I shall speak tonight. I had hoped that it was totally unnecessary for me to do so, but, depending on the outcome and the decisions reached by the lady and you gentlemen I may try to put in my 45 acres worth. I am first learning what this is about. Mr. Hirkala stated, after we make a decision it may be to late. Page -22- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Cohen stated, as I indicated, my sister, my cousin and I have owned approximately 45 acres for more than 20 years now. We had tentative building plans reviewed with Mr. Joseph Ludwieg. The land has lain quietly fallow, zoned residential with density changes over the last 15 years or so. On October 3rd, 40 days ago we had the pleasant opportunity to conduct a very informal workshop with the Town Board, during which we discussed the fact that we are now prepared to move ahead with a hoped for condominium development utilizing a protion of the 45 acres and reserving approximately two thirds of it with its existing grand woodland with nature trails with a bird sanctuary, etc.. A very informal presentation was made on October 3rd with a tentative site plan and with a four page written piece of information. We are in the early stages but we are in serious motion. It is for those reasons that I thought it...... me to come up and listen to the plans of an abutting land owner who desires to sell to a new modern type of Lloyd's household supply outlet. I want to say that I never met the gentlemen from Llyoyd's before in my life, nor, I have I met the abutting landlord, land owner, and I have absolutely nothing what so ever against them. It would be my hope all could live pleasurably for after. It would be my -hope that we could buy lumber and lampshades and wall outlets from Lloyd's Lumber for as many as 300 condominium units, but I would like to have to cross the road to do the purchasing, and I would not at this juncture want to have to rely upon cypress and poplars that may take a few years to grow. In addition, and I say this also, tentatively, and without detriment to their plans if their plans otherwise make sense for all my neighbors as well as for our land. But, tentatively, in addition, when I got here tonight I was concerned'about the clanging of buzz saws on Saturday as general contractors ordered 4,000 board feet that had to be wripped up. I am told this is a retail operation. I was concerned about traffic on Saturday, on Sunday, on Thursday nights till 9. Part of their property is, and I gather since 1927, has been residential. So'.has the property for which I speak. One runs the risk that when you are put in the position questioning anothers use of the property the good old pot may call the kettle black and that is why I thought tonight I might not even have speak at,all. I don't want to call them black in order to have that tirade turned against me. We are seeking a residential density increase from what for the past few years has been 2 to the acre although it was 8 to the acre when we first purchased back in the rein of Joseph Ludwieg, and we will be working our way through the appropriate organizations, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Board, the new Town. Board, the old Town Board, the workshops, trying to achieve our goal, but our goal is residential and we plan a grand and splendid use of our acerage. I can't say that their intended use would spoil it. I don't want to say it would spoil -it, but I want to reserve, if I may, our right to see all of these plans by Mr. Railing, khich I have never seen, our right to measure how fast poplar and cypresses grow and when and whether. Our right to think about the size of the neon sign.on the west side of Route 9 because I note the Lloyd Lumber sign on the east side of Route 9, I have been seeing it off and on for 20 years, and therefore, yes, I thank you for the opportunity to speak, but I don't want to crucify or boil in oil or tar and feather my neighbor or a possible business. I would say this, that side of Route 9 has been quiet and dark. I came up it this very evening after night fall. There is no neon past the D'Agostino's for at least three quaters of a mile or a mile. It may be zoned Highway Commercial use but it hasn't been put to that use yet. It is residential nature, it has been the case for many decades now. And as I say, we may ask for further density, but we instead, we intend to be residential. I just think that if we ever get some occupants paying their taxes and helping the businessmen of the Town of Wappinger in the future I just would hate to think that they have to say to their families and guests, well you make a left turn 20 feet after the lumber yard. Thank you. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think we are all working, I think we would like to see Lloyd Lumber in the Town it is just how we are going to get there. Page -23- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Butts stated, I would like to, on behalf of 22 Associates, I would like to assure Mr. Cohen that he will be given every opportunity to review the site plans as they come up for hearings and we would like very much to work with him. No hearings have been held yet on the site plan. Mr. Hirkala stated, I see no, personally, I see no reason why the Lloyd Lumber Company cannot locate in the Town of Wappinger. But, what I have'a problem with is the same problem we have in some of the residential areas with this particular parcel of property. If that R-20 zone behind the HB -2A zone is in fact a redundant zone that should be HB -2A it is not our purview to make it HB -2A. If it is an R-20 zone and contiguous to another R-20 zone and it cannot be used because it is in different ownership its is not land locked, the only thing is if it is land locked it is the ownership. I believe from what I see on this particular plan, a plan that is to big for the HB -2A property. They have to have the R-20 to utilize this plan they have here. I would imagine that without that R-20 they would have no real use for this property and the sale probably wouldn't go through. Mr. Piazza stated, I own it. Mr. Hirkala stated, without that R-20 property this plan is not viable at all and I doubt if they would have enough room to do what they want to do anyway. I still feel firmly that it is not the purview of an appointed Board, not an elected Board, to say what land use policy will be in the Town. I think it is the purview of an elected Board to say what the land use policy will be in the Town of Wappinger. And in that context, I feel that thqt R-20 property should probably be in the hands of the elected Board to determine what its use will'be._ On that statement I think I stand in pretty good stand as far as the law is concerned in the State of New York. I will make a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeals cannot entertain any request to change the use of the property;"R-20 property and it should probably be in the hands of the Town Board. Mr. Cortellino stated, Mike, I thought your intention was that it would be denied and that this property should be reviewed by the Town Board for a zoning change from R-20. Deny the variance and turn it over to the Town Board, is that the motion. Mr. Hirkala answered, yes. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Mr. Butts stated, at this point we would withdraw our application for the variance. Appeal 4855. Mr. Piazza asked, would your move be a recommendation. Mr. Cortellino stated, I will amend that to include a recommendation. Mr. Hirkala stated, if he withdrew the application of Appeal 4855 that means that we don't even vote. Mr. Cortellino stated, we can make a recommendation to re -zone that particular piece of property. Mr. Landolfi stated, what they might do, for your information, is ask us to sit in with the Planning Board at a workshop and work something out that is going to be appropriate y� for all of us. I am sure that is the course of action that they will probably take. And we will certainly be willing to work with them. Page -24- November 12th 2985 Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #856, at the request of 22 Associates, seeking a variance of §474 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, review is sought of determination of Zoning Administrator that 210 parking spaces are required, based on the Zoning Administrator's calculations, rather than 86 spaces set forth in calculations in proposed site plan; or, in the alternative, a variance on property located on Route 9 & Osborne Hill Road, and being Parcel 46157-04-599136, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Butts stated, this is a technical point relating to the computation of the number of parking spaces required. I'd ask Jack Railing to speak to that. Mr. Railing stated, it ties in slightly with the previous questions of retail and wholesale storage etc.. The type of facility that we have is a significant amount of materials that inventory would have to be stored on sight and when we did our original projections knowing that numbers that were required by the ultimate occupant we pretty much based our calculations to arrive in an area of that range. Anna has calculated at the other end of the spectrum as one might expect she would using the worse case that being entirely retail, with the exception of downstairs. We do have a certain portion upstairs which is, -in our opinion, storage area, whether it be an area where you have plumbing supplies stored or sheetrock or whatever the case may be. Mrs. Waddle asked, is that seperated from the floor space, your retail floor space? Mr. Railing answered, in certain areas around the peripheral yes. Mr. Piazza stated, there is a section that is major storage where they would receive hardware, paints and stuff like that. Mr. Railing stated, I think the number that she talked to was the 210. Depending on the percentage that she were say to allot to this. storage, should we get to the range of 172 we could then have the Planning Board waive the 50% requirement which I saw in the meetings that we had with the Planning Board to be no problem to make that waiver. The problem is right now with the 210 we have the problem. Mr. Hirkala stated, what you are saying is taht you need 82 spaces for your particular uses. I have no problem with that, and you are probably right because I counted the spaces in front of Channels that were used and it fell in that ball park but what I've got a problem with is what happens in 10 years and that building is there and it is used for a different use, now we have to find room for parking spaces. What are you going to tell the guy to take the building down. Mr. Railing stated, the difference is this. If I come into the Planning Board with a site plan for retail it is based on the retail use. If I come in with a site plan for some other use such as a restaurant, which is very restrictive on 100 square feet for space I get it approved as a restaurant. I don't have to worry that the retail may be someday be a restaurant because it is a change in use and I have to come back to get that. And, if this changes from retail/wholesale to an office I have to come back to the Planning Board. Mrs. Waddle stated, I would like to make a motion that we send this to the Planning Board. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye Page -25- The motion was carried. November 12th, 1985 Mr. Landolfi stated that he would now close that appeal. Mr.Butts asked, may I just inquire now, is this going for the Planning Board for a Special Use Permit application. Appeal #854. Mr. Landolfi stated, we gave you an interpretation. One, meet with the Town Board and perhaps maybe we can go into further detail at that point. You are still going on to the Planning Board for the parking area. Mr. Hirkala stated, they did request it on 854, if it was found that they have to get a Special Use Permit a Special Use Permit is requested. Mr. Butts stated, if you would like I could submit a seperate document but I would like to have the referral made on that if we may without having to have an ektra appearance before the Board, because really we have requested it. Mr. Landolfi stated, the process is such anyway, say if you did want to start out tomorrow with the Special Use Process that calls for coming to our Board first and then go on to the Planning Board and then finally back to us with ultimate. Mr. Butts asked, may we continue, follow our proceeding with the Town Board, may we continue with the Special Permit application. Mr..Caballe"ro.6tated, the way this was all filed is giving you a problem. If you would have filed for seperate appeals, interpretation, seperate appeals for variance we could have gone one at a time. There is no Special Use Permit here. Mrs. Waddle stated, they asked for a Special Use Permit.right on 854. Mr..Caballero made a motion to refer this Special Use Permit, Appeal 4854 to the Planning Board Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal 4853, at the request of Bre-Del Enterprises, seeking a Special Use Permit of §422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of commercial condo (non -retail business) on property located on St. Nicholas Road, and being Parcel 446259-03-148073 & 188070, in the Town of Wappinger. Jack Railing, Dick Brescia, and Nick DeLucia were present. Mr. Railing stated, this is one of the least restrictive zones and a basic concept can I guess be shortly put is that it is a commercial condos for non -retail businesses, small businesses. Mr. Brescia stated, we came across this concept about 3 months ago. Primarily what we are trying to do is set up a commercial condo which lends towards the small business Page -26- November 12th, 1985 persons such as a small contractor. A contractor that works in garages, works out of his house, that cannot afford to go out and -buy a commercial site between buying it and site plan and engineering, they have to retain their business right within their garage. So this is what we are leaning towards in this concept. We are looking for a special variance due to the fact, Special Use Permit, trying to get numerous uses in this area. We are talking about in the neighborhood of 28 different sub- contractors or small........ Mr. Cottellino asked, Jack, let me ask you a question. Forget about what you wrote here about commercial condos, non -retail business. How would you define this operation, and don't tell me condos because that is the thing I am trying to avoid. Mr. Railing answered, it came up in the Planning Board. We had a very healthy discussion with the Planning Board and quite frankly, and I am not going to speak for them, but I am going to tell you my impressions, is that they were in favor of it. I think the Zoning Administrator, she is here, she can speak for herself relative to their concept. It is something that is needed and the reason that we feel that it requires a Special Use Permit is because of that area of the ordinance. Mid - Hudson Pollution Control operates water and sewer facilities. They have a 8 x 10 room that they operate out of. It is a service orientated business. They keep their equipment and trucks. They go out in the morning and come back at night and they have a girl there that sits there in the office. A perfect example of the type of people that we are looking for. They are not there all day other than you may have a girl there with a phone. It is the small businessman. Its the guy who can sometimes work out of his house, he gets in his truck, he is an alarm salesman, he has got a'little bit of equipment there, he takes the equipment puts it in his truck he goes out to your house and installs that alarm in your house and he comes back at night. He may have a girl there answering the phone or just an answering machine. Mrs. Waddle stated, I have a problem with the mixture of things. I don't have a problem if they are saying, we're putting up a commercial condo and it is going to be offices. In those offices, yeah, we are going to have doctors, lawyers, real estate man, this or that that works out of an office. I do have a problem when you say, we are going to have a businessman who is going to store stuff there and maybe have really a retail business because who is to stop them coming in and getting things. Mr. Hirkala stated, what we have to look at is this versus, this is AI property, what is AI property zoned? If you are asking for a right to sell commercial condos you have to stick within what is requried and what is allowed in an AI zone. Mrs. Waddle stated, I agree with Mike, and we have a home in South Carolina, condos are the thing down there. Commercial condos go very well. They put them in office parks but they stick to one concept. They will have doctors, lawyers, office type things in one condo. In another area they may have what you are speaking of for the small business man and this that and the other thing but they are not mixed and I think we are going run into a problem if we try to mix.because I think when you are talking about something you are either talking about offices, straight simple offices or your talking about a different type of business. Mr. Hirkala stated, I have no problem with the concept. I think the concept is great but I think the policing of this concept is going to kill us. Now, number one, how do we, you have got a number of units here that somebody is going to buy into. Now, how do we police what each one of those is going to be without a site plan approval on each one to make the determination whether or not a Special Use Permit is required, whether or not there are special considerations to be made by the fire companies because of different storage facilities. maybe a guy wants to go in there and store oxygen. If'you can come up with a way that we can police this without saying that you will do it for us then fine. Page -27- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Brescia sAL tated, this will be self contained. An association will be formed, Chairman of the Board and so forth right on down the line and each one of the members of the Board will be owners of a section of the building and these, there will be by-laws. Mr. Cortellino stated, it will be just like when we first went to the PUD, meaning that it has to be defined what we mean by a commercial condo and what will go in it and what won't go in and there may be other arrangements. There would be a concept made by whoever writes the ordinance or the different uses or what mixes are permitted, what cannot go in. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am in the refridgeration business, air conditioning, but if I'm in and the guy next door, I don't want a couple of 120 or 145 pound cylinders - R22 stuck in there when it is 95° out there and one of them might blow through the wall. Mr. Landolfi stated, I took_the liberty of Ualking with the Planning Board members and I think they were quite receptive as it is provided that, we have to kind of agree on some of the things that are going to go in there. Mr. Caballero asked, I can come in here and buy one of those condos and have 8 of my service trucks parked outside. Mr. Railing stated, we are here to find out how this Board is going to react to this. Whether we can get a Special Use Permit on it. Mr. Brescia stated, you must realize that the people going in this building are not leasing anything. They are purchasing. They own in which this is the reason for the association to protect and keep -the value up. But, as an example, No unlicensed vehicles will be parked outside. No heavy equipment can be parked outside, the only parking that you are going to have is for the parking for the people who work there or go in and out, that is it. Its not going to be looking like a junk yard. Mr. Caballero asked, how many per unit. Mr. Brescia answered, that will have to be determined by a site plan. Mr. Caballero stated, I like the concept but I would like to see what you have in front of you, specific here so that I can make a decision on that basis. Mr. Brescia stated, we have to come up with some sort of resolution in order to bring this all together. Mr. Railing asked, what you are saying is you have no problem with issuing a Special Use Permit on this but you want to see what ................ Mr. Cortellino stated, I have a hang.up with giving a Special Use Permit, again, I don't disagree with the concept. I think it is out of our hands, that it has to go to the Town to make a modification to cover this area. Mr. Hirkala stated, I am wondering if if can't be done within present law. But, what I am saying is a Special Use Permit purpose is for a use of a property that falls within a certain category but might have special consideration, for use. Now, such as, a gas station or a storage, or lumber storage, stuff like this. The fact of this being a condo doesn't fall into the category Special Use. Mr. Cortellino stated, if you have a commercial condo do you have more, not only more than one business on a piece of property you have more than one owner on a piece of property, that is why I say that it would have to be defined first and ............ Page -28- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Hirkala stated, Charlie just brought up the point of it being the difference between a partnership and an Association. What you are talking about here is if you are wrinting up an Association of members who belong to a group of owners as opposed to being a partnership with a Board .............. Mr.`Cortellino stated, you can have an association, you can have a County wide association of people interested in a particular thing. There would be more than one owner on a piece of property that way by an association. For a partnership of lets say there are 12 offices there then it is one business. Mr. Brescia stated, we are using the word condos which I may think is wrong in this concept. We should use the word co-ops and...... Mrs. Waddle asked, you are not going to sell each individual office? Mr. Brescia answered, yes. Mrs. Waddle asked, you are going to sell shares in it? Mr. Brescia answered, yes. It is a cop -op, but you will be selling shares for so many square foot andthen an association controlling what goes in. Mr. Hirkala stated, it would be a cooperative with a Board of Directors. Mr. Brescia answered, that is correct. Ms. Young stated, I think the only reason that the Special Use Permit came up during the Planning Board meeting was because that Mr. Brescia had mentioned that there might be some plumbing supplies, that type of small operation. Plumbing and electrical supplies because they would require Special Use Permits in that zone. Mr. Brescia stated, I think there was a problem here as to, lets say an electrical contractor is working out of there and he takes his truck in and he leaves the truck now they call that warehousing or do they call it supplies, what do they call it. In essence, in order for an electrical contractor to work he has to have material there that he can put on his trucks and go on the job. Mr. Hirkala stated, it says wholesale or storage business, not to include building, plumbing, electrical or similar contractors establishment. It doesn't say anything about retail and if it doesn't say it it doesn't belong there. That is the way that the ordinance reads, so, what you are looking at,'you are looking at a service business such as a plumber who has been operating out of a garage and now you want to make him legal in a co-op, it is not allowed in AI. If you get them to change that, fine. Mr. Brescia stated, as an example, lets take a guy that maintains lawns and he is working out of his garage. This is perfect for somebody like that. We are talking $75,000 per unit is what we are going to sell. That includes the land usage, engineering, and we also are going to handle the financing. I have, just as an example, I have a fellaw by the name of Dochay who is in maintaining lawns. He called me up and he says, he wants to buy a commercial piece of property and he wants to put a 5,000 square foot building up 2,000, whatever he needs, by the time he gets done he is talking a quarter of a million dollars, so, I just happened to mention this concept to him and I don't know how far down the road, he said he would take one in a minute. Mrs. Waddle stated, it is just has to come down to what we are going to allow them to put in over there. Page -29- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Brescia stated, are bottom line here is, if the concept is good, and you fell favorable towards this and we can work out something, to work it out, this is what we are looking at. Mr. Hirkala stated, I don't think the proper thing is for a Special Use Permit request. I think the request should probably point to the Town Board. Either that or come to us with uses for each one. Mr. Cortellino stated, my motion is that this goes to the Town Board to be added to the Zoning Ordinance, this concept of commercial co-op and with our recommendation that we approve of this concept, we think it would be useful for the Town to have this and for them to define what uses will be permitted within the commercial co-op and we won't restrict it to AI because someone else may want to put one up somewhere else, but what would be permitted within there. Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Send a letter to Roger Akley from the County. Mr. Railing stated, Hugh Greer has gotten a stipulated agreement with DEC which I provided Anna a copy of and I would like to be on the next meeting so that can be referred. Ms. Young stated, I have a copy of a contract. The contract was drawn up, I believe, who is the attorney for the DEC and has forwarded to Mr. Greer. The copy I have is not signed. I don't know the status of the case at this point. There was a discussion on the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Landolfi stated, we have been having problems with the Special Use Permit process, they come in to us and we take a quick look and it goes on to the Planning Board and then it comes back to us. One of the recommendations I would like us to think about, possibly, is, perhaps, since the Planning Board in most instances is doing, handling it 90% of the action related. I would almost like to recommend us to consider maybe giving them the entire process. The reason we got it back was because of the work load. Mr. Hirkala stated, my particular feeling is, I agree with you that the Zoning Board of Appeals should have some cross check, but, by the same token, we have to see a full site plan in order to be able to ..... Now, if we could find some way to allow a full site plan to go before the Planning Board and then have the Planning Board kick it to us for a minor look to see if we have any concerns and then go back, fine. Mrs. Waddle stated, I think the Zoning Board should have the last word on whether a Special Use Permit gets put into place or not. Many times on this Board a Special Use Permit has come before us the Planning Board said it was fine and do it and they looked at it, we haven't taken that recommendation because we have to take into consideration other things like the traffic patterns, neighborhood, etc., and all they have looked at is the site plan approval. I think we really need the expertise of both Boards. Page -30- November 12th, 1985 Mr. Hrikala stated, what I would like to see then is what is in the ordinance be strictly adhered to. The fact that any Special Use application has to come before us with all the proper information as if it is a site plan request. All Board members agreed. Mr. Cortellino made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Hirkala - aye The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino -aye Mrs. Waddle - aye The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals lb