1985-12-10ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 10TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TOWN HALL
MILL STREET
WAPP. FALLS, NY
1. Appeal 4857, at the request of Can Tekben, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 46 foot front setback
(nearest building corner to front line) while 75 foot setback is required fronting
a State Road on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel 446259-01-478772, in
the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal 4858, at the request of Matt Jordan, seeking a variance of §416.52 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a sign with a 2 foot front setback
(58 foot setback from west side of Route 9) while 25 feet is required, being 15 foot
in height while 10 feet maximum height is permitted on property located on Route 9,
and being Parcel 46157-02-597715, in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal 44860, at the request of Trudy Minotti, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow free standing sign
15 feet in height while 10 foot maximum is permitted on property located on Myers
Corners Road, known as the DeGarmo Hills Plaza, and being Parcel 46258-02-759569,
in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 4851, 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
#6156-02-852766, in the Town of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal 44859, at the request of William A. Kelley and Company, Inc., seeking
a Special Use Permit of Article IV, §422, note e, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance to permit retail and commercial office on property located on Route 9,
and being Parcel 46157-04-659168, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Discussion on format.
OR
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
DECEMBER 10TH, 1985 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
MINUTES WAPP. FALLS, NY
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday,
December 10th, 1985, at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York,
beginning at 7:00 P.M..
Members Present:
Mr. Landolfi, Chairman Mrs. Waddle
Mr. Hirkala
Others Present:
Ms. Linda Berberich, Secretary
Ms. Anna Angell Young, Zoning Administrator
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M..
Mr. Landolfi asked if all the abutting property owners had been notified?
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available in the
Assessor's Office.
Mr. Landolfi asked if he could entertain a motion on the minutes of the previous
meeting.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion that they be accepted.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we have 5 appeals before us this evening, we will go through each
appeal, we will give everyone the opportunity to be heard. All we ask that if you would
like to speak to please come forward and identify yourself with your name and address
for our records.
Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal:
Appeal #857, at the request of Can Tekben, seeking a variance of Article IV, §422 of
the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 46 foot front setback (nearest
building corner to front line) while 75 foot setback is required fronting a State Road
on property located on Route 376, and being Parcel 46259-01-478772, in the Town of
Wappinger.
John Tekben, 199 Cedar Ave., Poughkeepsie was present.
Mr. Tekben stated, first of all I attached a letter of apology to you. Again, I am
sorry to inconvenience you, it was unintentional. The original survey was based on
a survey prepared by Chazen. The front line was shown in a erroneous location, which
I had no idea. Since then I had the property surveyed and I found out that the front
line has moved toward the east of the property which actually reduces my acerage from
2.7 to 1.8 acres and also it forced me to reduce the square foot of the building. I
was proposed an original 2,100 I think I am proposing now 1,650 square feet right now.
` However, this movement of the property line did not move the building more closer to
the road, it only made a 4 foot difference in reference to the edge of the road to the
building. This is the only place that I can put the building, I purchased the property
Page -2- December 10th, 1985
already without doing all this of course so I had no choice and I have, there is no
problem with the ingree and egress of the property. I have the State's approval for
the entrance, that is preliminary approval, not final. So, I request this variance.
The State approved this with the previous Appeal #842.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the building could go back any further?
Mr. Tekben answered that unfortunately he is pushing it as far as possible.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the creek is behind you.
There was a discussion as to how much additional was being asked for. It was decided
it was another 8 feet on top of what was granted with Appeal #842.
Mrs. Waddle stated that what he is really asking for is another 8 feet because of the
error in the survey.
Mr. Landolfi stated that the Board would have to wait to get something back from the
State before they render a decision. It appears that the Board does not have a problem
if the State does not on that.
Mrs. Waddle stated, if the 3 of us are in agreement we can override.
There was a discussion on Mr. Tekben's time schedule and he stated that he would like
to go to the Planning Board with his plans and start and move toward construction. He
would like to start construction around March.
Mrs. Waddle stated, we could even grant a variance predicated on a favorable reaction
from the State or anything that the State tells him he has to put in. I would make a
motion like that to grant a variance predicated on a favorable reply from the State.
Mr. Hirkala stated that he would second that motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #858, at the request of Matt Jordan, seeking a variance of §416.52 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a sign with a 2 foot front setback (58 foot
setback from west side of Route 9) while 25 feet is required, being 15 foot in height
while 10 foot maximum height is permitted on property located on Route 9, and being
Parcel #6157-02-597715, in the Town of Wappinger.
Matt Jordan and Bob Ruin were present.
Mr. Jordan stated that, I took a few pictures that I thought might be easier for you
to see the problem. Looking at the front of the building from accross Route 9 and
half of the building can't even be seen because of the drop in the land, the land drops
down and if the sign were put where it should be according to your zoning it would
only be level with the road. Looking South on Route 9 the building can't even be
seen due to the trees, the building is hidden behind all the trees. I am a tree lover
myself and I would rather not cut any trees. This is a shot looking at Greenbaum &
Gilhooley's which is just south of me on Route 9 and his sign, he probably had the
Page -3- December 10th, 1985
same problem is less than 40 foot from Route 9.
Mr. Landolfi asked, you have been in business awhile .in the area, you are quite familiar
I am sure with our Zoning Laws.
Mr. Jordan answered, yes I am.
Mr. Landolfi asked, nothing is a surprise to you that, in other words, I think you
knew before you went in there what certain requirements were, is that correct?
Mr. Jordan answered, yes, I was well aware of your requirements.
Mr. Landolfi asked, if you in fact can present some form of hardship here other than
one that might of been self imposed then we can be of some help to you in some way.
Mr. Jordan stated, I did attach a letter which outlined the financial hardship. The
Real Estate business we all know is a business that relies upon people knowing where
you are at.
Mr. Landolfi asked, do you think you could substantiate that figure you gave us in
some way, shape or form?
Mr. Jordan stated, I am going by past.......
Mr. Landolfi stated, I would like to see the equation you used to arrive at that number.
Mr. Jordan answered, to be honest, it could be higher it could be lower.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I think you made a business decision to rent the building and you
are saying the building is really to large for you which is not a problem with the
Zoning Board. You made a business decision to go into the building which was to large
for you. You looked at the building, you could see from Route 9 just what that piece
of property was and how it would be viewed from the road, I don't think that the
Zoning Board can be responsible for your business decision.
Mr. Ruin stated, If we go by the Zoning Ordinance and now move back 25 feet from that
lot line, where are you going to be?
Mrs. Waddle answered, we didn't tell them to build that building there.
Mr. Landolfi stated, we are familiar with the building, the location and what was
before you before you got into that building so, what could you tell us that would be
help to us relative to a hardship?
Mr. Hirkala added, that you haven't created. That is an important point. A practical
approach is these pictures, to me, are worthless because they are obviously taken from
postions that would best suit your position and not a general statement. This one
here was taken from a low vantage point. I ride up and down Route 9 all day long.
This is not the view of your building from a vehicle on Route 9.
Mr. Jordan stated, I was only trying to show how low the building is.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is the concern that people will have difficulaty finding you in
any way?
Mr. Jordan answered, the ability to see the sign.
Page -4- December 10th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi stated, the type of service that you are offering there is I think is the
type that I am sure that the people would find even if you didn't have a sign, they
are coming to you for a service and I don't think they would have that much difficulty
in finding you.
Mr. Jordan asked, how about the other 30,00 driving by that are not seeking you out?
The real estate business you need to have that exposure. I really believed when I
rented the place, seeing that Gilhooley's sign was so close to the road that I would
have no problem with getting a variance.
Mr. Landolfi stated, that is another issue altogether.Tonight we are here to talk
about Matt Jordan and his request.
Mr. Hirkala stated, first of all, Gilhooley's sign, that sign has been grandfather into
that property for many years just like the entrance and exit off of Route 9.
Mr. Ruin asked, is the grandfathering now in the sign ordinance.
Ms. Young stated, all signs have to conform within 2 years.
Mr. Ruin stated, so that is not really what you call a grandfather clause, in other
words there is no grandfather clause.
Mrs. Waddle stated, that sign was given a variance many years ago before the Town
started taking a hard line on signs. When we saw the proliferation of signs along
Route 9 and we saw there had to be something done to stop it and this Board in the past
five or six years has taken a very hard approach to signs and I don't Joe will differ
with me that we have not granted a sign that was oversized, the only thing that we have
done on occasion is to grant setbacks on signs.
Mr. Ruin asked, can I ask you about the Poughkeepsie Savings Bank sign, is that a recent
request granted sign. It appears to be beyond your square footage.
Mrs. Waddle answered, if it is the Zoning Inspector will seek it out and make measurements
but I don't believe it is, they have not been in here. We have granted no signs larger
than what the Zoning Ordinance calls for.
Mr. Landolfi stated, I think you have an excellent reputation in the area and I think
again the people, my own opinion, have no difficulty in finding you.
Mrs. Waddle stated, the only thing that we can work on is the setback because that
building is back quite a distance from the road and there is a big easement along
there.
Mr. Jordan stated, the only reason that I ask for the extra height is because of the
drop and I think it will look better. I am concerned also with the appearance of the
sign. I am not asking for one foot larger than your 25 foot requirement is in fact
it is a foot less, it is 4 x 6, 24 square feet. I am not asking for size I am only
asking that the sign be seen. The one in the rear that we were asking to get a little
closer, due to the trees, and again, I don't want to cut trees. On Old Route 9 if we
were to put it 25 foot back from the road we would be right in the middle of these
tress.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I don't think you really get that much traffic on Old Route 9
that you really just need an identification sign.
Page -5-
December 10th, 1985
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak in favor or against this appeal.
Mr. Jordan stated, so we would like to reduce our request for the sign size in the
rear to 2 x 2J along with our request to put it closer to the road.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we don't have anything from the State on their recommendations but
what I would like to do is make a motion to table this for a further look and until we
get back from the State for the next meeting.
Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would know close that appeal.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #860, at the request of Trudy Minotti, seeking a variance of Article IV,
§416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow free standing sign 15 feet
in height while 10 foot maximum is permitted on property located on Myers Corners
Road, known as the DeGarmo Hills Plaza, and being Parcel 46258-02-759569, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Nancy Forest - Sign Language was present.
Mrs. Forest stated, my reason for requesting the additional 5 foot is to go back 25 feet
on the property, again, from the main road, Myers Corners Road. We slope down between
5 and 6 feet down that I am loosing. I would just like to make up that difference and
start my 10 feet from the actual road height otherwise, coming down the road the sign
is only going to begin approximately 4 feet from the road height. We have a 5 to 6 foot
slope going down. They have been there for a long time. It was not something that
they were aware of that the Ordinance was going to be amended. So, I really don't
think we are asking too much, I just want to start the 10 feet from the road heighth.
I have been finding since the ordinance came in effect that certain pieces of property,
especially if it is a plaza, do tend to run down hill so you loose anywheres from 5 to
10 feet.
Mr. Landolfi asked, is this going to be the only signage for the whole plaza.
Mrs. Forest answered for the entire plaza including the 10 stores. Its the only one
on the road. With 25 square feet you can't fit a directory.so that is why I do want
this to be visible because the new tenants are advertising that they are located in
the DeGarmo Hills Plaza so I can make sure the people passing know where that is.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against.
Leon & Virginia Maynard - 38 DeGarmo Hills Road.
Arthur Scriber - 3 DeGarmo Hills Road.
Fred Schubert - 7 DeGarmo Hills Road.
Mrs. Maynard stated, I really think that we are in a residential area and we don't need
3
any signs larger than 10 feet off the ground. The first tenant asked for one, there is
no reason to believe that another tenant will ask for one.
`Page -6- December 10th, 1985
Mrs. Waddle stated, this is just identifing the plaza.
Mrs. Maynard stated, I don't think there is any problem seeing a sign 10 feet off the
ground in that area, it is wide open, there is nothing hindering ones view.
Mr. Landolfi stated, they are allowed the signs on the building.
Mrs. Waddle stated, now they want to identify the plaza.
Mr. Landolfi stated, the reason I asked the question of the young lady is that I asked is
there going to be other signs and this is going to be the only sign identifing that
whole plaza.
Mr. Maynard stated, the only free-standing sign. Each individual business has a sign
on the facade?
Mr. Landolfi stated, that is permitted.
Mr. Maynard asked, what distance from Myers Corners Road?
Mrs. Forest answered, there is a 25 foot, actually 35 foot.
Mr. Maynard asked, do you know that that constitutes a traffic hazard for the parking lot
itself because it is free-standing in the middle of traffic in the parking lot. Also,
may I say, and you know the situation and the rest of the Board probably knows the
situation also, we have had no problem recognizing any business that is currently
located there because on the facade of the building is each individual business now that
should be sufficient for anybody passing on Myers Corners Road.
Mrs. Waddle asked, why did you decide to put the sign at the other end of the parking
lot?
Mrs. Forest answered, because they have had approval to add additional stores so when
the plaza is completed it will be centered.
Mrs. Waddle stated, at this point in time I don't like the sign where it is. I am not
saying it is a hazard, I think it is a rediculous location at this point in time. It
should be over by the entrance and exit._
Mr. Maynard stated, I would venture to say that at least
50% of the people
in the Town of
Wappinger, guess work, know where DeGarmo Hills Plaza is
right now.
Mrs. Forest stated, the area is growing. There are new tenants
coming in
that are not all
from this area. They would prefer to have a little more
being recognized.
You are
talking, you are a neighbor, you are around the corner, somebody
even 5 miles
from
your home may not be familiar with it because there isn't
a sign out there
that does say
DeGarmo Hills Plaza. We are not asking, I don't want you
to think that we
are putting
up this massive sign, we are going to only actually have,
that sign is going to look 10 feet high because the road
when you ride down the road
comes down 6 feet from the main
road.
Mr. Maynard asked, how far from Myers Corners Road is the
sign going to be
free-standing.
Mrs. Forest answered, if you look at the face of what is
there now this is
the entrance
and exit. The sign is not going there, the sign is going
all the way down
here where
the building ends at this time.
Mr. Maynard asked, what distance from Myers Corners Road?
Mrs. Forest answered, there is a 25 foot, actually 35 foot.
Mr. Maynard asked, do you know that that constitutes a traffic hazard for the parking lot
itself because it is free-standing in the middle of traffic in the parking lot. Also,
may I say, and you know the situation and the rest of the Board probably knows the
situation also, we have had no problem recognizing any business that is currently
located there because on the facade of the building is each individual business now that
should be sufficient for anybody passing on Myers Corners Road.
Mrs. Waddle asked, why did you decide to put the sign at the other end of the parking
lot?
Mrs. Forest answered, because they have had approval to add additional stores so when
the plaza is completed it will be centered.
Mrs. Waddle stated, at this point in time I don't like the sign where it is. I am not
saying it is a hazard, I think it is a rediculous location at this point in time. It
should be over by the entrance and exit._
Page -7- December 10th, 1985
Mrs. Forest stated, first of all there is curbing that was required to be put in here
on your original site plan. That would definitely be a hazard in putting a sign on
that corner. It is curbed on both sides with only about 3 feet in between each curb.
Mrs. Waddle asked, when is the rest of this going to be built?
Mrs. Forest answered, in the spring I believe is what it is scheduled for. We were
trying to even it out, in other words, if you are going to have 10 more stores it would
be more, it would look better if it were centered in the plaza by the road not all the
way down on one end. ANd that end by the gas station is not a good location for it
anyway. She had a sign up there, an old sign that had been, we had repaired and removed
it, trucks just kept hitting it.
Mr. Maynard stated, §416.70 - locations, very simply says - no signs shall be located
in the roadway, parking lot, or right of way.
Mrs. Forest stated, the other Board made it impossible for me to comply with you becasue
their Phase 1 approval was for the parking lot to be exactly where it is and I have
checked today. They only laid it down yesterday which is why I am not here for that also
this evening so the one Board said you can make this parking lot this big to accomodate
this many cars but it also makes it impossible for me to do as you asked to be 25 feet
back because I am in a parking lot. I would only be 3 foot into the parking lot.
Mr. Hirkala asked if he could make a recommendation. Until such time as the location
or the sign because of the parking lot situation I would like to kick it abck to the
Planning Board and have them resolve that situation.
Mrs. Forest stated, the variance are here and we are able to apply for a variance for
special reasons and that is why we are here. One for the height because of the drop and
the other because if they have a parking lot there that they were approved to have and
this Board wants me to be 25 feet back and I can't well then I have to apply for a
variance and it is up to the Board to make a decision if its, to me it is a practical
difficulty.
Mrs. Waddle asked, why would it be a practical difficulty when your stores are
identified in that plaza. It is not a practical difficulty.
Mrs. Forest stated, it is on top.
Mr. Hirkala stated, the easiest way to do it is take a parking space away and make an
island and put the sign right in the island.
Mrs. Forest answered, that is what I want to know, can we do that.
Mr. Hirkala stated, of course you can do it.
Mrs. Waddle stated, even so, it is not a practical difficulty because the land and use
is being use for what it is there for, they have sign identification on the building so
they have no practical difficulty.
Mr. Maynard asked, the height of the facade now carring the signs, can you quote
me the height of the facade. My suggestion would be you eliminate the hazard in the
parking lot, leave us resolve one point, everybody talks about the, and the
previous plaintiff, the drip, the drop in the land.
Page -8-
December 10th, 1985
Mr. Hirkala stated, first and foremost, we cannot tell them that they cannot have a
sign, one free-standing sign at 10 foot height.
Mr. Maynard stated, everybody is making a big issue in this drop in land form. There
may be a 5 foot difference between the parking lot and Myers Corners Road but it is not
a gradual thing which puts your sign out of site. A ten foot sign is equally visible
from Myers Corners Road as a 15 foot sign. A 15 foot sign could be.seen from the area
of the Old Parsons Homestead on the way to New Hackensack Fire Dept. of it could be seen
in the opposite direction from the rise in land there. You could see a 10 foot sign
equally well because this particular location is in a hollow. It is wide open. There is
no difficulty seeing a sign 10 foot high.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to be heard either for or against.
Mrs. Forest stated, I didn't mean my difficulty being the location of the sign I mean
my difficulty in being able to do as you say after they have already been told they
that is not a parking space. If I can tell them to move that parking space I would
just assume not go for a variance for the setback. The parking lot was poured
yesterday and I had no idea that that was additional and so it wasn't until yesterday
that I realized that I need to go 3 feet in the parking lot because from the addition
there are additional parking.
Mr. Hirkala stated, what I have a problem with is this. This map right here shows
the location of the sign, I haven't scaled it out or anything, proposed sign at the
edge of the parking lot. Now, if the parking lot is encroached on where the sign should
be then somebody put the parking lot in wrong. If the sign right here, as show on this
map, is at the edge of the parking lot and in its proper place then somebody put the
parking lot in wrong. If it is not in its parking place then soembody drew this map
wrong and if it is an approved map and it is wrong we have a problem.
Mrs. Waddle stated, that map says 1983. We do not have the most updated map to look at at
this point in time.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I make a motion we table this until we hear from the County and
send it back to the Planning Board with a request for an explanation or clarification
of sign location.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi stated that they would know close that appeal.
Mr. Landolfi then read the next appeal:
Appeal #859, at the request of William A. Kelley and Company, Inc., seeking a Special
Use Permit of Article IV, §422, note e, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to
permit retail and commercial office on property located on Route 9, and being
Parcel 46157-04-659168, in the Town of Wappinger.
Meyer & Marcia Matte - Design Studio; Jerome Kerner, Architect were present.
Mr. Matte stated, the Planning Board gave us some new suggestions and the Fire Dept.,
Ms. Young called us up and told us to eliminate the parking in front of the store and
Page -9-
December 10th, 1985
bring it out closer to the road so the fire trucks could get through. It seems as
though the Planning Board wanted alot less parking and alot less flowers.
Mr. Kerner stated, essentially the plan presented to the Planning Board was reviewed
and we incorporated their comments which was basically to decrease the parking in the
front, we had a double loaded bay parking in front and to introduce the landscaping
planting dividers parking in the read, that was incorporated. We have subsequently
decreased the amount of spaces, I believe 2 spaces, as we have noted here by the triple
asteriks, a decrease of spaces in lieu of landscape islands. We clarified the use of
the existing residential structure in the rear which would be converted to a storage
facility. Essentially, those are the main points. We have located improvements but
we have not given the design for improvements, the sign, exterior lighting, fencing
and so forth, we have noted the location fro each of the items.
Mr. Landolfi asked, what do you have in mind in the way of tenants.
Mr. Meyer answered, the downstairs will be occupied by the lighting store, my Design
Studio. The entire downstairs, 3,000 square feet will be storage, 5,000 will be
showroom and the upstairs will be offices, just offices, anyone who wants to rent,
doctor, Lawyer. There will be 8,00 square feet less the common area.
Mr. Kerner stated, so for an average suite we are 1,000 square feet, we are talking
about 8 offices.
Mr. Matte stated, we are hoping for less, maximum, we won't rent less than a thousand,
it doesn't pay, it is too expensive.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I looked at this earlier and I would like to make a comment, this
has been before the Planning Board?
Mr. Matte answered, yes.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I asked Anna to bring the map, the approved site plan map of DeCar.
I want to show the Board.something that is, I would like to officially from this Board
to be presented to the Planning Board. Another thing that lends itself to looking at
the whole area rather than just one sight. Here is Rte. 9 North, this site is right
next to it. We have an exit/entrance into DeCar, he has an approved lot back here with
a commercial flag lot whihc means another entrance and exit right here. This one here
is the next lot on the North side, next to that is Town -n- Country with an entrance
and exit on the other side of the building which puts like, I don't know what the
distance is but if you look at this here there is one, two, three, four, one right after
another, I don't know what we can do about that but that is a major problem.
Mr. Matte stated, the road is there now that cut out.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I think what Mr. Hirkala is saying is these are developed we are
going to have alot of congestion in and off of Route 9.
Mr. Hirkala stated, we are looking at a situation where we have got every lot has got a
driveway in and a driveway out on a high speed highway. That is a dangerous situation.
That is why I am bringing it up so it could be brought to the attention of the
Planning Board an perhaps in th process of the Special Use permit some discussion can
be initiated to maybe come up with an idea of what can be done with it.
Mrs. Waddle stated, I think at one point in time there was something and it was called
a feader road that was supposed to run in the back of all of those parcels.
-Page -10-
November 10th, 1985
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you look at the Town Development Plan you will find that
feader road on it.
Mr. Matte stated, well actually the variances we need.....
Mr. Landolfi stated, you don't need a varinace.
Mr. Hirkala stated, you need a Special use Permit.
Mr. Matte stated, the lot size is actually, it was a pre-existing lot but its, we need
200 feet of frontage and we only have ........
Mr. Hirkala stated, that is not a varinace, it is legally non -conforming.
Mr. Matte stated, so we don't have to ask for that?
Mr. Landolfi answered, no.
Mr. Hirkala stated, I have another question. This right-of-way where the driveway is,
is that deeded from the property next to it or something?
Mr. Matte answered, that is a good question. The ROW of Town -n- Country. I think
it is plit actually, I think it is 50/50.
Mr. Kerner stated, I have no actually seen the deed, the deed might not even specify
it just might specify the easement not who it goes to.
Mr. Hirkala stated, it looks like you are using that easement as a part of your
driveway into your property. It would be common to both pieces of property. Now,
Toen -n- Country alos has one up the road a bit, if that is going to be an easement that
Town -n- Country can use and they are going to have another on up here we are going to
end up with a problem with them later on. I think that should be clarified.
Mr. Kerner stated, we are expanding on the other side of the ROW, not the Town -n-
Country side. We are expanding our driveway to the South of the ROW.
Mr. Hirkala stated, if you have the right to expand 10 foot onto their property they
might very well have the right to expand 10 foot on yours. If that is the case, we
are sitting here with 20 foot driveway that you are using that they could very well
use if they want to and I would like that clarified prior to any kind of permit being
issued.
Mr. Kerner stated, respectfully, I would liketo submit here that I think you are bringing
up an issue that if there was any creditability to it would already been indicated on
this plan, for instance, if they had a ROW onto our property it would somehow have
been incorporated in the deed and it would have been picked up in the survey map.
Mr. Hirkala explained, the purpose of you being here is because of a Special Use Permit
is because of the use you want to put in here. Now the Special Use Permit process is
developed so that in case there are any conditions that should be put on this property
because some of those conditions create a hardship later as you are using the property.
That is what I am trying to do, I am looking forward and see if any conditions can be
created by vertue of this site plan, if we grant you a SUP, not if we, we probably will
grant you probably a SUP conditions could be set on that SUP that preclude any problems
occuring later and that could very well be a problem later.
Page -11- December 10th, 1985
Mrs. Waddle stated, I make a motion we send this to the Planning Board for their review
lith recommendations that Mr. Hirkala brought up.
. Hirkala seconded the motion.
. Young asked Mr. Matte, now that we have established that you are using the former
sidence as a storage, what do you plan on storing in that building?
. Matte answered, lighting fixtures.
. Young asked, so it is related to your Design Center.
. Matte answered, to my business, the boxes take a tremendous amount of space.
V te:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
e motion was carried.
Mts. Waddle made a motion to adjourn.
M . Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
motion was carried.
M . Landolfi stated, just in closing, I want to make it public that I appreciate the
s pport the Board has given me as Chairman this year. Not only the support, but I
f el I am proud that the Board I feel is certainly enhanced the position of the Town
ir many ways and in light of the problems that the other Board's have experienced, I
an quite proud that our Board has acted in the manner in which they have, and again,
I would like to repeat, I appreciate your support and I hope you continue to give the
s me support to whoever the new Chairperson may be.
meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
l Ao '
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals