1983-05-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, May 10th, 1983, beginning
at 8:05 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
Members Absent:
Angel Caballero
G. George Urciuoli
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Inspector
Betty—Ann Russ, Secretary
Joseph Tinelli, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Mrs. Waddle asked the secretary if the abutting property owners
had been notified.
The secretary replied that the abutting property owners
and the appellants had been notified according to the records
available in the Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle then asked for a roll call.
The roll was taken with Mr. Caballero and Mr. Urciuoli
being absent.
Mrs. Waddle:
I would like to welcome you all to the Zoning Board this evening
and I will tell you a little bit how the Zoning Board will operate,
we will hear each case, everyone will have an opportunity to speak,
the Board will deliberate up here at which time we ask that there
be no audience participation and we may or may not render a decision
this evening, I ask that when you come forwards that you give your
name and address to the secretary and speak loud enough so everyone
may hear, ask that we maintain decorum and please if you have to speak
keep it down, these are public hearings and everybody would like to
hear. I am going to take some of the business out of order tonight
so we can get some of you out of here fairly quickly.
Zoning Board of Appeals (2) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 665, at the request of Raymond Menconeri, we have
no decision from the Planning Board at this time as the Conservation
Council would like to see a wetland boundary on the plan so I would
ask that this be tabled til our next meeting, may I have a motion
on that.
Mr. Landolfi:
I make that motion to that effect.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Cortellino:
Second.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye
The motion was carried.
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 666, at the request of Dean Macgeorge, seeking a
Special Use Permit, to operate a motor vehicle repair and service
business on property located on Route 82 near All Angels Hill Road,
again the Planning Board cannot give us a recommendation as the
Zoning Board of Appeals (3) May 10th, 1983
Conservation Advisory Council has not come in with their plan
yet, may I have a motion on this.
Mr. Cortellino:
So moved.
Mr. Landolfi:
Second.
Mrs. Waddle:
That is tabled til our next meeting.
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 655, at the request of Stephen Ossenkop, seeking a
Special Use Permit, to establish a campground for seasonal residence
only, on property located on Robinson Lane, consisting of 140 acres,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle:
At last night's meeting the Town Board issued a clarification
of the Zoning Ordinance and the Board has indicated that a campground
is in the recreational use and, therefore, the application for a
Special Use Permit should be directed to the Town Board, I will,
therefore, entertain a motion to send this application for a Special
Use Permit to the Town Board.
Mr. Cortellino:
So Moved.
Mr. Landolfi:
Second:
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye
Zoning Board of Appeals (4) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
.. Aye
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye
Mrs. Waddle:
So carried.
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 674, at the request of the Randolph School, seeking
an amended Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 421,
paragraph 4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit
them to construct additions to the existing building located on
Route 9D, being parcel # 6157-01-216814, in the Town of Wappinger,
may I have a motion that this be sent to the Planning Board.
Mr. Landolfi:
I make a motion that this be sent to the Planning Board.
Mr. Cortellino:
Second.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye
Mr. Carotellino:
Aye
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, so moved.
Zoning Board of Appeals (5) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Gentlemen, I believe there are some chairs along the wall if you
would like to put them up in front here.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 667, at the request of Martin J. Stenger, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the issuance of a building permit
for a 26 foot wide house which will have a 30 foot frontyard
setback and 30 foot rearyard setback where 50 feet and 40 feet
respectively are required, on property located on Harbor Hill Road,
being parcel # 6259-04-752304, in the Town of Wappinger.
Is there anyone here to speak for this variance.
Mr. Gunderud:
Carol, Mr. Stenger, I didn't know whether he would arrive or
not, but he is apparently in Florida, and when he came in with the
.. variance I told him that, he asked whether he would have to appear
for the hearing and I said to him that I didn't think he would as
it seemed to be fairly cut and dried as far as what he was seeking
and if the Board then had any further information that they might
need from him they might have to table the request and then contact
him by letter but I thought we could procced with the hearing.
Mrs. Waddle:
Will he be back for next month's meeting.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well, he has no real plans of coming back up or it would have
to be a special trip as far as I understand it to come to the hearing
and it is a fairlyjas I said a cut and dried appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals (6) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
This has to do with when he got changed from the R-20 to the
R-40.
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes.
Mr. Landolfi:
So that's
Mr. Gunderud:
There are probably some people here who might want to speak.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against
this variance, yes sir.
Gentlemen from the audience:
I'd like to speak
Mrs. Waddle:
Would you come up and identify yourself, give your address.
My name is Roger Miller and I live at 40 Hackensack Heights
Road, live on the property adjacent, one of the properties adjacent
to the lot he wants to build on, the first thing I would like to
comment on is obviously it is a considerable variance he is looking
for, we are talking about he is supposed to have fifty feet in the
front and forty in the back, he is coming in with 30 and 30, we are
talking about 1/3rd short in the amount of property that he needs,
secondly, Mr.'Stenger when he bought the property, went into it with
his eyes open, think there is a tendency to feel well he's stuck
with a piece of property that does him no good now that he lives here
no longer, when he bought the property there was already zoning
in our area, he bought it because it was adjacent to the house I live
Zoning Board of Appeals (7) May 10th, 1983
in which is where he used to live, and he paid I believe a nominal,
low amount, I don't know what but he had use of it for a good ten years
ma- for a garden and whatever else he used it for, it is not like he
was a poor soul who bought a lot and now gets no value out of it,
another thing is I think it would be a very unique lot in our area,
would change the appearance of the neighborhood, I think that anywhere
else I've seen houses built that close to the road, if there are any
that are that far off the mark, are in front of fields and on
developed land, this would be bordered on all sides by streets or
other houses and think that it would most definitely change the
character of the neighborhood and the other thing I would like to
comment on, the land is on quite an angle, it is on an incline,
am concerned that the septic system would present a problem, it
would certainly come very close to my house where he wants to
place it, do you have a map, am the adjacent house on Hackensack.
. Mrs. Waddle:
Which one, right here.
Mr. Miller then came before the Board to indicate where
he was located.
Mr. Miller:
I'am here, my house is like here, okay, wants to put the
septic right here, this land note how it tapers as it comes close
to my property, that septic is going to come very close to the
property line and it is also sloped down, coming down at quite
an angle, think that is most of what I wanted to say.
Mr. Cortellino:
When did Mr. Stenger buy this lot.
Mr. Miller:
Approximately eight or nine years ago.
Mr. Cortellino:
It was still under R-20 at that time.
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes, it was R7-20.
Zoning Board of Appeals (8) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
.- On this print I have, I see a seal there, so this is a copy of
perhaps of a subdivision.
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes, a copy of the subdivision map.
Mr. Cortellino:
So that was approved by the Planning Board.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well it predated Planning Board approval, I believe, Betty—Ann,
was this predated Planning Board.
Mrs. Russ:
I think it was sometime in the fifties when zoning was not
yet in effect and there was not a Planning Board until after
zoning went in.
Mr. Cortellino:
map.
So this lot was created, this was shown as a lot on this
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes definitely, this is the original lot, it hasn't been changed
since the original subdivision, it was an approved lot.
Mr. Miller:
It was an approved lot.
Mr. Gunderud:
It was.
Mr. Miller:
But its time has expired, no longer has approval.
Zoning Board of Appeals (9) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
No, has not expired, that is the reason I was asking for the
dates.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you, is there anyone else who would like to speak,
would you come forward and identify yourself.
Mr. Bob Elliott:
My name is Bob Elliott and I am also an adjacent landowner
of the property that Mr. Stenger wants to build on abuts mine and
he bought this property I think about nine years ago and as I recall
this was an approved lot about fifteen or twenty years ago when
the Mac Ghees cut that parcel up and I was under the impression
that it lost its approval a few years back, I am almost positive
that when he bought it he knew that it was not an appro-ed building
lot at that time.
Mr. Gunderud:
May I clarify that.
Mrs. Waddle:
It was until 1980.
Mr. Gunderud:
I think the approval he is referring to is the Board of
Health approval, the Board of Health has a policy that if the
approval on a lot is over five years old they require a new
approval for Board of Health requirements, for the septic system
and the well, so the Board of Health approval did expire but not
the subdivision of the lot.
Mr. Elliott:
Okay, at the time he bought it, he bought it as I understood
to enhance his property that he sold last year, he indicated that
he would be willing to sell me part of it, at the time I wasn't
Zoning Board of Appeals (10) May 10th, 1983
interested, if he does put a house up there he is going to be
right in my back yard, he is going to deprive me of my privacy
IWA- because he is not going to have a backyard, his septic system is
also going to be flowing towards my property because the way the
septic and wells are setup in that development, the well goes in
the front of the house and the septic in the rear, that is the
only way it can go and if it does it is going to go on that rear
property and it is going to flow down towards mine and Mr. Miller's
property, now that's all hard pan in there so I would at least make
a request here that he do an environmental study before you approve
that lot.
Mr. Cortellino:
You weren't here at the time, neither was I, was that Health
Department approval, obviously for the other lots.
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes, this one did have Health Department approval at the time
that the total subdivision was approved.
Mr. Cortellino:
All it would require is another submission by Mr. Stenger to
have it approved.
Mr. Gunderud:
There is no guarantee that it would be approved by the Board
of Health.
Mr. Cortellino:
I realize that, my only other comment is I don't like this map
because both gentlemen have brought up the drainage and I can't read
contour lines on this map.
Mr. Gunderud:
They are there, those big dark dotted lines.
Mrs. Waddle:
I think I would like to see this tabled until we can get a hold
of the Health Department and find put what is really going on in
;Ilw this point in time and would entertain.
Zoning Board of Appeals (11) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Elliott:
The only other thing that I would like to say is that as far
as I understand it Mr. Stenger isn't requesting approval to build
a home to live in, he is requesting approval to
Mrs. Waddle:
That has no bearing on the case.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this, yes sir.
Mr. Donald Hubbard:
My name is Donald Hubbard and I live on 1 Harbor Hill which is
directly across the street from where they want to build, can I
see that for a moment, the reason, I just moved into my house about
a month ago, just bought that piece of property there and the reason
I bought it was because of the zoning laws in that area and if this
is allowed to go ahead I would see that it is more or less going
against the zoning laws o4 however, you want to put it, and also
it would.
Mr. Cortellino:
Agsinst what zoning law in particular.
Mr. Hubbard:
Well, the fifty feet in front and the thirty in the back.
Mrs. Waddle:
You have to understand that this gentleman had this property
before the zoning was changed over in that area, which was done in
1980, so he had the property going back nine years.
Mr. Cortellino:
And it is an approved lot.
Zoning Board of Appeals (12) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hubbard:
Okay, also it just changes the whole perpective of the
neighborhood, it just wouldn't look right with that house there,
would be right in this guy's backyard, you know, I am just against
having him build there.
Mr. Landolfi:
What did you expect sir, you know for the owner to do
with that lot.
Mr. Hubbard:
I don't know, maybe like the other gentleman was saying
he knew about these circumstances that were coming about so
you know maybe he should have acted at that time until waiting
until now, so I am just against it that's all.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes sir.
Mr. Miller:
I would just like to reiterate something, think this will
solve the point, we have mentioned that he owned the property
before the zoning was changed, he also owned it at that time with
the intention of only using it for gardening and his other extra
Mrs. Waddle:
No, wait a minute, no matter what he intended to use that
property only he can answer that, he still has that piece of property,
it was an approved lot, he was fine up until 1980, until 1980 so
we cannot speculate on what he was going to do with that property.
Mr. Miller:
Fine, but it is 1983 the zoning is in effect now.
Mrs. Waddle:
Put yourself in his place, if you had a lot that you had for
twenty years and then you decided that you wanted to build on it
and then the zoning was changed.
Zoning Board of Appeals (13) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Miller:
So he waits three _years, at this point he changed it, he is
out of the neighborhood now, for the people who live there now.
Mrs. Waddle:
He still owns the property sir.
Mr. Cortellino:
You can't deny him the use of his property.
Mr. Miller:
You can enforce the zoning laws though.
Mrs. Waddle:
We can go to the Board of Health and we can get their take
on this piece of property as far as the sewerage is concerned
and we will take what they have to say under consideration,
we will also take what you have to say under consideration and we
will try to reach an equitable solution for everybody involved.
Mr. Miller:
I do hear a lot of concerns with you about put yours if in
his position, put yourself in our position too, he is putting an
eyesore on that corner.
Mrs. Waddle:
Well, we have to protect the whole Town, and all the residents
in it. May I have a motion that we table this.
Mr. Landolfi:
I make a motion.
Mr. Gunderud:
Believe someone else wants to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals (14) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Jean Christensen:
-■- I have just one more thing to say if you don't mind, I am
Jean Christensen and I have lots on Hackensack Heights, you keep
referring to an approved building lot, do you mean approved by
whom and when, just to set your records straight, we have lived there,
our house has been there for twenty—six years and they were supposedly
approved lots, they were laid out at that time when we got ours, so
what period of time are you speaking of an approved building lot.
Mrs. Waddle:
This is going back some twenty years, isn't it.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well again, I think the lots themselves are approved in the
fact that they were created lots prior to our Planning Board.
Mrs. Christensen:
My point is that was a long time ago, what was considered
a suitable building lot at that period of time can't be compared
with what is an approved lot now.
Mr. Cortellino:
That is why the Board of Health is being addressed.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you. May I have a motion that this be tabled and that
the Board of Health be contacted for their opinions on this piece
of property.
Mr. Landolfi:
Yes, I will make that motion.
Mr. Cortellino:
Second.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Zoning Board of Appeals (15) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, so carried.
A gentlemen from the audience then asked if they would be
notified.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, you will not be notified but the Zoning Board meets the
second Tuesday of every month and we will continue it at our next
meeting, we should have some words of wisdom, from the Health
Department then, so that will be the second Tuesday in June.
I declare Appeal 667 closed.
The hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 669, at the request of Stanley Zablochi, seeking
a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 421, paragraph
5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, for a medical clinic
to be located on property on Widmer Road, being parcel # 6158---02-
735535, in the Town of Wappinger. Is there anyone here to speak
for this variance.
Mr. Joel Hanig:
Good evening, my name is Joel Hanig and my law firm is Ritter
and Hankin, the address is 319 Main Mall, Poughkeepsie, New York
and I am representing the applicant, Stanley Zablocki, in effect
this appeal is for a continuation of a Special Use Permit which
had been previously issued by the Board on June 12th, 1979, and I
believe that there was some concern by the Board as to whether or
not under the old zoning ordinance the Special Use Permit that had been
Zoning Board of Appeals (16) May 10th, 1983
granted had any particular expiration date since the zoning ordinance
Iftw that was in effect did not contain a self limiting date as the
new ordinance does do,which says that any special use permit not
implemented during one year automatically lapses, in any event
I believe that the Board felt that it was more prudent to come
in now before the Board for a new hearing for an application extending
the old special use permit or granting a special use permit, whatever
the case may be, in any event the special use permit that was previously
granted as far as I can see the only change would be that in conformance
with the new ord=nance, the parking, the minimum parking required would
be 19 spaces whereby under the old ordinance I am not sure that there
was such a requirement, they had provided for 42 but now I think that
the Board must set a minimum number or parking spaces in setting
any type of approval on the special use permit, I note that within
the zone even though the category that it is called for is a medical
clinic in effect this is not really, one might say a clinic, what is
being asked for is actually a professional building for doctors
offices, not sure whether there are some people in the audience
who have some concern as to whether it went by clinic, are we talking
about a hospital with an emergency room or something like that, this
is not what we are doing, we are only speaking about a professional
office for doctors.
Mr. Landolfi:
I am sure there is some doubt and for the benefit of the
people who are here, maybe you could clarify, say specifically
the difference in your
Mr. Hanig:
Unfortunately, the zoning ordinances all the time aren't
as definite and certain as they could be and this particular zoning
ordinance simply talks medical clinic and I guess that is an all
encompassing thing but what is really intended here is for a professional
office for I guess four doctors suites and that is the application
that is being made for the special use permit, it is an allowed use
in that zone with a special use permit under this ordinance and as it
was under the last ordinance and very simply so as to clarify the
authority this application is being made now for either a renewal
or a reissue or whatever you want to call it as would be allowed
under the zoning ordinance, as far as the site plan itself I would
Zoning Board of Appeals (17) May 10th, 1983
expect that this Board would probably after, if it does grant
an approval, you would like to have a new site plan submitted to
the Zoning Administrator for his review just to see that it does
comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance as far as the
site plan goes and I know that there is going to have to be shown on
here the area that is going to be a road dedication cause there is
always a ten foot strip that the Town of Wappinger wants along the
public highway and the access in and out of the site which is shown
on the old map but in effect we are here tonight simply asking the
Board to re—review this and to so call make everything legal so that
we can now know what the rights of the landowner are as far as
time limitations on how long does he have now to go forward and to
implement the use of the property for this special use permit.
Mr. Landolfi:
What are his specific plans in terms of scheduling and so on.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, specifically once the special use parmit now starts
running again he can now go back and solicit doctors who want to
establish their offices there so we can see what building requirements
there are going to be for the particular structure to go up, obviousl
different types of medical fields have different requirements for
structure and he can't really ascertain exactly what his interior
requirements are until he knows who his tenants are going to be,
whether they are dentists who are going to require underground
plumbing underneath the floors or whether they are going to be
x—rays, radiologists that require special wiring within the walls
or anything like that, Stan, may be you can answer that question, do
you want to come up, I believe the Board knows Mr. Zablocki, he's
been before the Board before, Stan, the Board would like to know
if you have formulated any special building plans for this particular
lot at this time.
Mr. Zablocki:
Well, like Mr. Hanig just mentioned, this is the direction we
would like to go, to begin with the special use permit so we can
know which direction as far as, well
Zoning Board of Appeals (18) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
I think it is very hard to go into an actual development
phase until he knows that he can do it, that we can start on the
property, obviously the last time he was not ready to go, he
wasn't quite ready to go.
Mrs. Waddle:
Well, usually when somebody comes in and asks for a special
use permit they usually have a pretty good idea of what they
are going to be putting up and who is going to be going into
it.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, the building, it will be the exact building that has
been proposed before to this Board.
A gentlemen from the audience commented that it was turned
down before.
Mrs. Waddle:
Sir, you will have a chance to speak.
Mr. Gunderud:
May I point out that in the prior approval that was done in
1979, there are specific requirements and restrictions on the use
of the building and they certainly would all be in effect at this
time, point nine was the use of the building to be constructed
is restricted to four medical offices only, so that should answer
your question whether it would be a clinic or not and also, point
fifteen is that the medical clinic shall be be utilized for any
inpatient care and/or residence type care centers such as nursing
homes or rehabilitation clinics, so all of those points, the total
fifteen points are binding on the applicant.
Mr. Landolfi:
That is why I asked t.. -ie question, I was curious as to
what changes you might propose.
Mr. Zablocki:
", There are no changes, no changes.
Zoning Board of Appeals (19) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
Then you had a lot of time to know what doctors would be
in there since the lawyer stated that you couldn't put up the building
unless if you knew what services were going to be provided and you
came up with a building before.
Mr. Hanig:
Well no, I think the shell can go in, think it can go in.
Mr. Cortellino:
The shell is four offices.
Mr. Hanig:
Yeah, the shell is four offices, it is just the interior
layout which is going to be very difficult without knowing the
space that each particular physician requires, the shell can go
up, it is the interior framing which really cannot be done until
there is actually a tenancy established.
Mr. Cortellino:
That's the foundation even.
Mr. Hanig:
Oh, I think the foundation can go, think the entire structure
can go except for some interior layout.
Mr. Cortellino:
What about the underground plumbing you refer to.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, that is really something that's within.
Mr. Cortellino:
What about lead for shielding.
Zoning Board of Appeals (20) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
�.• That's again, that's shielding that is going to go into
the walls is there is a radiologist.
Mr. Cortellino:
What's the cost of lead.
Mr. Hanig:
Excuse me.
Mr. Cortellino:
What's the cost of lead in a wall.
Mr. Zablocki:
That's if there is an x—ray unit, that's done in the inside
of the building.
Mr. Cortellino:
What's the cost of lead in a wall.
Mr. Zablocki:
Excuse me.
Mr. Gunderud:
Usually there is no additional structural requirements as
far as the flooring goes for lead shielding, I have had several
doctor's offices where they have added lead.
Mr. Zablocki:
Just a certain area, which is usually designed by the people
who install the x—ray units.
Mr. Gunderud:
A doctor's office is designed with a hundred pound per square
foot floor load, which is like a house is only designed for forty
pounds, so they are designed right from the start, the building
has to be built that way.
Zoning Board of Appeals (21) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
Who is your architect Mr. Zablocki.
Mr. Zablocki:
We have
Mr. Hanig:
John Lawrence.
Mr. Cortellino:
This says Lawrence Engineering, I don't know if that was a site
plan provider or an architect for the building.
Mr. Hanig:
Well no I think the firm, the firm that Mr. Lawrence is
associated with, he was the one who did the site plan, Lawrence
Engineering, but he is now associated with a White Plains firm,
its Roth, Rothcoff and some other names which I think Mr. Zablocki
°`- has spoken to already about being the site engineer for the plans.
Mr. Cortellino:
They are architects.
Mr. Hanig:
They are professional engineers including architects, they
do all
Mr. Cortellino:
Architects are one of their professions.
Mr. Hanig:
Yes it is.
Zoning Board of Appeals (22) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
Obviously before the building permit can be issued, Mr. Gunderud
would have to receive a full set of plans for his review.
Mr. Landolfi:
I have no further questions:
Mrs. Waddle:
Charlie, do you have any further questions.
Mr. Cortellino:
Yes, I have a question. What is the distance between the
edge of the building and I can't make it out, Mc Cann (sic Mahon),
its not written that way, can read that, not Mc Mahon.
Mr. Hanig:
The scale on this is
Mr. Cortellino:
1" = 30'.
Mr. Hanig:
1" = 301, roughly I would say it is about
Mr. Cortellino:
Fifty feet.
Mr. Hanig:
No, quite a bit more, am looking at maybe ninety feet, at least
ninety feet or more, think with a ruler it would probably be more
than ninety feet.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you.
Zoning Board of Appeals (23) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
Yes, it is at least three inches if not more.
Mr. Zablocki:
Explain about the parking.
Mr. Hanig:
Yeah, the ordinance now requires a minimum of nineteen spaces,
think the Board would have to set a minimum number of parking
spaces.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there anyone else here to speak for this variance,
anyone here to speak against this variance, yes sir, would you come
forward and identify yourself please.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am sorry, I am not really the best one to speak but I will
O speak, my name is Dennis Mc Mahon, I happen to be one of the
neighbors to this site, okay, and I hope I pronounced it right,
called the right shot, now there are a number of things that are
driving me wacky on this site and I will name a couple for you, okay,
first of all I thought I heard a question asked about how far would
the site be from the dividing line between this property and my own,
okay, I thought I heard the answer of ninety feet, I am not sure
now, correct me if I am wrong, but let me tell you when I drive
by that place it doesn't seem to be to me to be more than 200 feet
left to right on the road, am only making a guess cause that's me
just driving by.
Mrs. Waddle:
It is 250 in the front and 256.89 in the back.
Mr. Mahon:
Left to right, along the road.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, wide, along the road.
Zoning Board of Appeals (24) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Mc Mahon:
650.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, 250.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Oh, okay, because if they move ninety feet away on my side
and some distance similar on the other side okay, they surely
are going to leave a minuscule, it looks like the Empire State
building will be the only thing that contain all the things that
I have heard mentioned in the past, but that's only a minor item
to me, I know that my property, there is a descendant, a drop if you
will from that property to mine, it almost, that property I will say
a plateau style property and then it drops down to mine and the drop
has to be in my estimation, okay I can stand down there and I'd
have to be you know five guys on top of me in order to see level
with the ground, do you see what I am saying, now currently right
in that land there is approximately one foot of water, what I am
saying now is in that area there is approximately a foot of water,
a small pond, okay, due to the weather, okay, and that water does
not just sink down into the ground at all, that water has to wait
until the sun comes out and over the times it will and meantime
I mean weeks before that water percipitates if you will, huh, my
point again, if those people decide to put something in the way of
a septic tank style activity in their area they would almost have to
go down fifty feet to come down below, you understand,my ground with
that runoff otherwise that runoff is going to shoot, you know, it
is going to come off the top of that area there and it is going
to shoot off into space on my ground, you know what I am saying,
okay, so there's an item that bothers me quite a bit, there are other
items that bother me, I will tell you another one, we have New
Hackensack Road which is a block or two away, huh, and we have doctors
up and down that road, go down on Route 9, just around the corner,
and we got practically speaking a small hospital down there, I hope
you folks know where I am talking about because I am in trouble when
we get to naming places, okay
Mrs. Waddle:
For the benefit of the audience, he is talking about Medicus
on Route 9.
Zoning Board of Appeals (25) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Mc Mahon:
..• Thank you, because you see to come into a neighborhood where
the people have purposefully spent their entire lives to get a
nice home, etc. and so forth and I mean spent everything that they
had to get it and then to have something built there that has
great question, I say and it has great question I will speak to
that too in a minute if I may or have to but the point is that
it is totally unnecessary because there's what I consider a rather
restricted, narrow, restricted area in a living neighborhood, huh,
and you can go a block away and the doctor can get anything he
wants, so the doctor can get a place, the doctor can get a building,
the doctor can get an access, the point is that if we are looking to
provide doctors with what they need, gosh, we can provide that so
readily in our neighborhoods that we don't have to do it right
between where I eat breakfast and somebody else is brushing their
teeth, I don't think that, pardon me for saying things that way,
I don't know how else to say them, but I am saying we are neighbors,
we are neighborhoods, we are neighbors, and it's not to me the proper
thing to have a bunch of quote, unquote, doctors there, okay, I have
another item that bothers me, namely I have a tremendous doubt as to
the type of doctors and what some people call doctors and what they
are going to use them for, and it's a doubt, very, very, powerful,
strong doubt, brought it up the last time that we heard these folks
• chatting about what they wanted to build there, okay, and I will tell
you my fear, if they come in with a bunch of nuts and start training
those nuts, we don't need that okay, pardon me again.
Mrs. Waddle:
Can you clarify yourself, sir.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Yes, I think I can, there are a lot of people who have a lot
of problems today and we know that, and they take it like this
way (gesturing), pop it, or take it this way (gesturing) and insert
it and there are other ways I am sure I don't even know about but
we all know in general that these problems exist, we are fighting
to maintain our own families and we have problems that way too
some of us, so the point I am making is look take those men, those
doctors and those people, take them out into the country, far away
from me, that's my appeal, I think, I will say amen and period
on that one if you understand kind of what I mean, if I have to say
more I kind of would make it better.
Zoning Board of Appeals (26) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
That is sufficient, we catch your drift.
Mr. Landolfi:
Believe we understood, thank you very much.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
You want to call somebody else because I am not finished yet.
Mr. Landolfi:
You're not.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am really not the pro, honest, I should let the others
Mrs. Waddle:
How much longer have you got to go.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Well, I'll tell you, I'd stay here until I can beat these
guys to death.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, that's not the point of the whole thing.
Mr. Landolfi:
Excuse me, could you get to the point, we are familar with
Wappingers Falls, the area, we know where the doctors live,
so far what you have told us, we know all these things, tell us
things we don't know so we can help you..
Zoning Board of Appeals (27) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Mc Mahon:
w..
So why didn't you say no to him then.
Mr. Landolfi:
So we can help you.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Tell him no and that helps me but I will tell you one
other thing.
Mr. Landolfi:
Give us facts.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Facts, I'll give you facts.
Mrs. Waddle:
One more and then we will give somebody else a chance.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Thank you, there is one more, a few years back we went
through this same thing, with this particular place, for this
particular item and after all of the research, studying, etc., the
answer came negative to these people, the answer was negative,
no, the answer was positive, are you saying, the answer was positive.
Mr. Gunderud:
Yes, it was approved.
Mr. Landolfi:
Yes, it was approved.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
It was approved.
...
Mrs. Waddle:
It was approved for four doctors offices.
Zoning Board of Appeals (28) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
Sir, we are looking for facts now, am asking again for some
facts otherwise we have a lot of busy people here who would like
to talk.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
May I come back again after I rest.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, why don't you sit down. Is there anybody else that would
like to speak against this variance, yes sir, would you come forward
and identify yourself, please.
Mr. Ganci:
My name is Paul Ganci and I am speaking for my parents,
Mr. and Mrs Ganci, they live next door, I guess it is the western
side of the property, is that a map there, I hadn't seen that
before, can I.
Mrs. Waddle:
This just shows the one parcel.
Mr. Cortellino:
Your parents live next to Mr. Mahon.
Mr. Ganci:
The other side.
Mr. Cortellino:
East.
Mr. Ganci:
Is it east, its west, I am okay.
Mr. Cortellino:
Yeah, right, west.
Zoning Board of Appeals (29) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Ganci:
I had submitted a letter to the Board indicating first
opposition to the request for the special Permit and I guess
it was indicative of our position several years ago, I guess it was
1979 when this came up for discussion but I have to say after
listening to the discussion from Mr. Zablocki I am even a little
more concerned about the petition than I indicated in my correspondence,
basically I guess under the Zoning Ordinance as a property owner
he has a right to request a Special use permit, the Board has
a responsibility to review that and set appropriate standards and
really I find it very difficult to see how we can set standards
for something that really he has no definitive plans for other than
quote, unquote, a doctor's office, I believe that to the extent that
you can have quite a variation in doctors offices anywhere from
I guess a veterinarian to a dentist to all kinds of forms of medicine,
so I would think that those special use permits would have to
recognize the general type of use and set the standards accordingly
so I submit to you that perhaps it would be appropriate prior to
submitting a special use permit to which we could address or you
could address standards, that it is incumbent on Mr. Zablocki
to come in with definitive plans as to what and how he is going
to use the property and what specific purposes, and it almost
sounds like and what he is looking for is permission to put up a
low speculative building and at this point with the hope that he will
be able to go out and entice some tenants to come into that building
to the extent that he does and the building that he puts up and the
standards we set conforms I guess we are okay to the extent that he
doesn't, conceivably we haven't set the right standards or by the
same token nobody may ever move into that thing and what we end up
with is an eyesore but I don't want to take a lot of your time
because I think that this is a new fact that has come up that I was
not aware of, I thought that actually based on the last time that
we met here that he actually had definitive plans, detailed plans
that could be reviewed for standards but I think that I made my
feeling on the matter clear in the correspondence which I trust
you received a copy of but basically the use does conflict with the
general use of the neighborhood, I do believe that there is sufficient
types of property in commercial areas that have adequate facilities,
water, sewer, highway, to supply this need to the Town, its certainly,
I don't think it is arguable here that it is a hardship, think
that Mr. Zablocki bought the property fully knowing that it was
residential in nature, he would have to apply for a special use
permit and again I would suggest that if in fact some permit was
granted that it be granted subject to the conditions outlined and
I think that they were outlined in 1979 and I was under the impression
., that in 1979 and I hadn't seen the conditions but I was under the
impression at least my notes indicated at that time that that permit
was granted for a one year period but I don't have a copy of that
but that was what I had indicated, I think that the residents had
Zoning Board of Appeals (30) May 10th, 1983
had requested, so I guess in summary
Mr. Cortellino:
For the information of the Board that was for a year.
Mrs. Waddle:
That's why he is back.
Mr. Landolfi:
Item number seven on the list of, item number 7.
Mr. Ganci:
So that is really not germaine to the subject.
Mr. Landolfi:
On the June 11th, 1979 correspondence, Hans, the conditions
that were used.
Mr. Gunderud:
Eleven you said.
Mr. Landolfi:
Seven.
Mr. Ganci:
If the facility remains vacant for any twelve month period
the special use permit would be cancelled.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yeah.
Mr. Ganci:
But I guess that is academic because you already ruled that
it wasn't so, so I guess in general to the extent that there is
on the basis that there really is incompatability here for all the
reasons I gave and more particular now to the extend that when there're
really aren't any specific plans, I would ask you to not grant
the special use permit, if in fact it is granted, I would certainly
request that you grant it subject to the conditions that were
Zoning Board of Appeals (31) May 10th, 1983
previously outlined including specifying at least a one year
period so we don't end up with this problem again, thank you.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you very much, sir.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, Mme., would you like to come forward and identify
yourself.
Mrs. Jensen:
My name is Tenna Jensen, I live on Widmer Road diagonally
across from this property, my one main concern is the traffic,
if it is given and there are four doctors, I have seen doctors'
offices were the appointments are back to back and now where I
live on my driveway there is a blind curve coming around, I live on
the road and I have a hard time getting out of my driveway, people
that are just going to this office for whatever they are going for,
they are going to have a worse time, I personally think that it is
a road that is very heavily travelled now because of the development
further down and you would be more prone to accidents on Widmer
I%W Road, think this is one thing that we don't need, we have enough
traffic and enough problems on that particular road because of that
curve, of which the Town cannot straighten it out anymore, that's
all.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you. Yes sir.
Mr. Clausen:
My name is Robert Clausen and I live on Widmer Road
directly across from this property, due to what Mr. Mc Mahon
and Mr. Ganci and Mrs. Jensen said and I know you are familar
with Wappingers and I know you are familar with the area and you
want to hear facts and so on and so forth, I won't go into much
detail except that it is a residential area, lets keep it a residential
area, if he gets in there I want to go into a business, a couple
of neighbors of mine will go into a business, we are going to lose
the identity of a residential area, I say that it should not be
granted.
Zoning Board of Appeals (32) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you.
Mr. Gunderud:
I want to clarify something, earlier when you said item
seven was something about a one year, that was a condition that
Mr. Ganci submitted on his letter, that wasn't a condition of the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Landolfi:
But think we used it, though.
Mr. Gunderud:
You did use it but it was item eleven on the final
and it was worded in a different way.
Mr. Landolfi:
We felt it was a suitable condition to use.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you, Hans. Under Section 430 of Special Use Permits
in the Town Zoning Ordinance, Section 432.3 does say "Operations
in connection with any special use will not be more objectionable
to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination
or other characteristics, than would be the operations of any permited
use not requiring a special permit.", to me that means that there is
going to be parking lights, if there is going to be a lot of traffic,
if there is going to be nighttime hours.
Mr. Cortellino:
I have another problem, Mrs. Waddle.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals (33) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
I have a problem that without a definite plan I cannot even
think of the environmental impact, for instance if there is x—ray
machines that means there is x—ray developing, there are organics
for instance I will point our hydra and
the developer, I have no idea since I don't know if there will be
a doctor using an x—ray machine and developing it, what that impact
is, there is a septic tank that means it is going into the ground,
have no idea as to the traffic, because as I believe Mrs. Jensen
said I have gone to doctors' offices were I have had to wait two
hours and I meet a whole new gang of people.
Mrs. Waddle:
Would you like to make a motion Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Cortellino:
Yes, without further information I move that the variance
be denied, the special permit be denied.
Mr. Hanig:
May I speak further.
Mrs. Waddle:
The hearing has been closed and the Board is deliberating at
this point in time.
like
Mr. Hanig:
I didn't hear any motion to close the hearing and I would
Mr. Cortellino:
I made a motion for the special permit to be denied.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, I didn't hear a motion for the hearing to be closed
and I feel there are certain things that should be addressed.
Zoning Board of Appeals (34) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Fine, fine, if you would like to approach the Board again.
Mr. Hanig:
First, with regard to the zoning ordinance that is before this
Board, obviously the Town Board at any point in time could have changed
the zoning ordinance to eliminate special use permits from this
particular zone for the particular use that has been proposed,
in my experience with zoning ordinances that where a particular
zone allows a particular use within the ordinance subject to the
granting of a special use permit that the Zoning Board does not have
the perogative to just deny the special use permit but
Mrs. Waddle:
But the Zoning Board does have the perogative to deny
the Special Use Permit.
Mr. Hanig:
But does have the perogative to establish conditions upon
the use of the property.
Mrs. Waddle:
No sir, we have the perogative of denying a special use
permit.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, I would submit that I have been up to the Court of Appeals
on that on my own Zoning Board.
Mrs. Waddle:
Well, you may be there again.
Mr. Hanig:
And this has been a situation that the Court of Appeals
has addressed in the past.
Zoning Board of Appeals (35) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Fine.
Mr. Landolfi:
That is a different township, not familar.
Mr. Hanig:
That may very well be.
Mr. Landolfi:
Quite familar with the ones
Mr. Hanig:
May very well be, the second thing too is that obviously the
special use permit was granted in the past and so far no one has
come forward to state how there has been any change on Widmer Road
and the characteristics of Widmer Road between 1979 and the present.
..- Mrs. Waddle:
There hasn't because nothing has ever been built.
Mr. Hanig:
That's correct, when the last special use permit was granted
and when the special use permit is now being applied for and if
there has not been any substantial change in the characteristics of
Widmer Road from 1979 to now, I am going to submit to the Board that
this Board cannot show any change of circumstances such that would
warrant the denial of a special use permit where the same has
been previously granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Cortellino:
You are making an assumption, sir.
VOW
Zoning Board of Appeals (36) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
Well, I haven't heard any, sir, and I have listened to the
testimony.
Mr. Cortellino:
Well, I will tell you what my assumption, the assumption
you made which I think you might be in error, in that time, since
that permit was granted I may have acquired information, it may not
have come up here by the residents but I have that information, I
may not have known when he came before that development contains
organic compounds of the structure which are
carcinogenics, I did not know that at that time, I know that now,
okay, that's one concern I have, there is going to be more traffic
on that road, that wasn't the situation that that particular lot
may not have changed but circumstances about that area might have
changed that causes a change in my way of thinking.
Mr. Hanig:
Well sir, are you submitting your testimony before this
Board
Mr. Cortellino:
No, I am pointing out, if you heard my motion, instead of
saying no motion was heard, I said that without further information
I move that the special permit be denied because I am concerned
about a doctor doing development of x—rays in that area, okay, that
was part of my motion, I did not get any information, he could not
tell me who or what will be done in that area and, therefore, I
cannot make a studied judgement of what controls I must put on that
special permit other than saying that the lights must go on at
nine o'clock which I am not worried about, I am worried about
chemicals, for one thing , okay.
Mr. Hanig:
Well do you have any engineering reports that you are going
to call our attention to, that would say that a doctor's office
is inherently dangerous to a neighborhood.
Mr. Cortellino:
I'll turn out a report that organic compounds are carcingenics,
would you like that.
Zoning Board of Appeals (37) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
You have to give us the information, we are not going to
go out and get it, okay, you have it reversed.
Mrs. Waddle:
The burden is on you, not on us.
Mr. Hanig:
If the Board can tell me what information they would like
I wouldn't oppose the Board tabling this application until the
next meeting and we will provide the Board with whatever information
the Board
Mr. Cortellino:
I would like to know what doctors and what they will be
practicing in that building.
Mr. Landolfi:
Specifics, sir.
Mr. Hanig:
You mean you would like us to go and get the tenants before
we make the application to the Board, that is impossible.
Mr. Cortellino:
Then I can't make a decision.
Mr. Landolfi:
I can't make it either.
Mrs. Waddle:
No.
Zoning Board of Appeals (38) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
A professional building is built and then generally the
tenants are obtained for the building.
Mr. Gunderud:
Aren't you being a little far—fetched.
Mr. Cortellino:
I want to see an environmental
Mr. Hanig:
Well sir, then you can go ahead and deny this because I submit
that this is totally
Mr. Cortellino:
And I wish to get my remarks into the record, okay, from the
submission of this plot plan I, you may have noticed that when
other people testified, I kept studiously referring to this,
the contours lines are quite blurry, it looks like you may be on
the high ground, Mr. Mc Mahon said he was worried about flow, I
really without an adjoining contour line I can't tell which way
the water is going to flow, that is another concern of mine, your
septic tank borders on Mr. Mc Mahon's property.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, water doesn't flow from a septic tank, sir, it is absorbed
in the ground, the Board of Health would not approve any septic
system if there was a flow from one's property onto another
resulting from that.
Mr. Cortellino:
The sludge stays in the tank, water flows out of the tank.
Mr. Hanig:
If there is any problem, the Board of Health requires
Mr. Cortellino:
Also, the pipes leading to it.
Zoning Board of Appeals (39) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
I would submit that review of septic plans again is not the
function of this Board but is the function of the Department of
Health.
Mr. Cortellino:
Right.
Mr. Hanig:
And if the Board is going to concern itself with septic
plans you are going beyond the authority that you have.
Mr. Cortellino:
I am not concerned about septic plans, I am concerned about
flow of water.
Mr. Hanig:
Well, the natural topography flows water from one lot
to another lot, there is nothing, if you want the lot bermed
to prevent flow of water, obviously that's a consideration that
you have, you may want to speak to the Town Engineer about that
but I don't think that is a proper perogative of the Board.
Mrs. Waddle:
It isn't, it isn't but I am going to stop you here because I
think based on the location, the nature and intensity of the
operations, the size of the site and the location of the streets
that will empty onto this site, my opinion is that it is not in
the best harmony of that residential neighborhood at this point in
time, now again I will entertain a motion from the Board.
Mr. Landolfi:
There is a motion, I am seconding it.
Mrs. Waddle:
There is a motion on the floor to deny this special use
permit and it was seconded.
Zoning Board of Appeals (40) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Hanig:
Then I would ask the Board to detail how the neighborhood
has changed since the last special use permit was approved and
what changes there are that mandate the denial of the special use
permit now where it had been previously granted by the Board.
Mrs. Waddle:
May I have a motion on this, I mean a vote, I am sorry,
all in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, the special use permit is denied. Appeal # 669 is
closed.
The matter was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Appeal # 670, at the request of Rino Furlani, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the construction of a machine shop
with a 53 foot setback where 75 feetis required on property
located on the corner of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9, being
parcel # 6157-02-580887, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle:
Who is here to speak for this appeal, sir.
Mr. Synnett:
My name is Don Synnett and I know Mr. Furlani, we had done
business with him here in the Village, he has a machine shop here,
we have no complaints on the area, he took a dead spot and run
low down and cleaned it up and he made it very presentable and the
neighbors in the area, we had no complaints from them and I think
on this parcel of land that is on the intersection out there on
Route 9 and Middlebush Road has been a run down area through there
Zoning Board of Appeals (41) May 10th, 1983
which I think you will see that Mr. Furlani has the right to put
up this machine shop there that it will be presentable and something
Iftow that the Town will be proud of and also he is goosing up the taxes
a little bit for the Town.
Mrs. Waddle:
I don't have anything to show me what kind of a building he
is going to put up.
Mr. Furlani:
I got a print.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, but there is nothing on here, I want to know what kind
of a building you are going to put up, sir.
Mr. Furlani:
A cement block building.
Mr. Synnett:
A cement block building, he is going to add on to this.
Mrs. Waddle:
Don, usually when they come before us they have some
kind of a drawing showing what kind of a building is going to be
put up.
Mr. Gunderud:
I have another drawing upstairs that I will bring down for
the Board.
Mr. Cortellino:
I have a question, why is it coming forward since you are
putting up the main building, attaching it to a small garage,
putting up a large building and like the restriction is that
small garage.
Zoning Board of Appeals (42) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
I"- Can't that be moved back, but can't that existing garage
be moved back.
Mr. Cortellino:
Or taken out.
Mr. Furlani:
No, I don't want to take it out, is a new garage, I want to
use it, it is the same type construction, block, plus it will be on
the back you won't even see it.
Mr. Cortellino:
Yeah, but that's what's causing the violation, if that building
wasn't there or if it was incorporated into the main building, you
wouldn't need a variance.
Mrs. Waddle:
How much room is there between the garage and the trailer, now.
Mr. Furlani:
I would say about fifteen feet.
Mrs. Waddle:
That's all.
Mr. Cortellino:
My concern here is it isn't a fault of the plot itself,
some feature on that preventing you from using the land, it is
just your desire notto move or take down that building.
Mrs. Waddle:
What is it, a regular two car garage.
Zoning Board of Appeals (43) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Synnett:
It is a regular two car garage.
Mrs. Waddle:
Then it can be moved back.
Mr. Synnett:
No, you can't, it is cement block, brand new.
Mrs. Waddle:
The whole garage is cement block.
Mr. Synnett:
Yes.
Mr. Furlani:
I want to use it for storage.
Mr. Synnett:
He wants to use it for storage, has parts, so he is just
going to add onto that because it would be a shame to just rip
down a new garage just for that, that's a lot of money involved
in there, the materials and the time.
Mr. Furlani:
Plus, it would only be only two cars, me and my boy.
Mr. Synnett:
There will be nobody else there, but just him and his son,
that's all.
Zoning Board of Appeals (44) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
�.- Understand that, but it really doesn't meet conditions for
granting a variance, that's my interpretation.
Mrs. Waddle:
What would happen if you put the, if you put the building on
the property this way as long as you are going to use the building
for an office, so that it would fay out onto Old Route 9, you
would have enough room then, right.
Mr. Furlani:
No, because there is a water well there.
Mr. Synnett:
The well is right in the front there.
Mrs. Waddle:
Where is the well.
Mr. Synnett:
Right in the front.
Mrs. Waddle:
Right here, so if you broughit it out here.
Mr. Synnett:
It would be covering the well.
Mrs. Waddle:
How would you be covering the well.
Mr. Synnett:
That's where it is located, in front of the
Mr. Furlani:
AW Right in the middle here, see.
Zoning Board of Appeals (45) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Right in the middle of the lawn.
Mr. Furlani:
Yeah.
Mr. Synnett:
Actually right there, there is only one other house on the
opposite side which he has no objection to and in the back was
Mr. Furlani:
Back on Middlebush road, see these are back only ten feet,
fifteen from the road.
Mrs. Waddle:
Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak for or
against this variance. I declare Appeal # 670 closed.
The hearing was closed at 9:06 p.m.
Mr. Landolfi:
I'll make a motion that the variance be granted:
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye. Opposed.
Mr. Cortellino:
Nay.
Zoning Board of Appeals (46) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
So carried, the variance is granted.
Mrs. Russ:
Carol, you do not have enough votes, have to have a three
vote, it is a five member board.
Mrs. Waddle:
Oh, we have to have three, I am sorry, we'll have to continue,
we will have to table this until we have at least one more board
member here the next time, you won't have to come back, they
can read the minutes but a decision will not be forthcoming
until that time.
Mr. Landolfi:
The second Tuesday of the month.
Mrs. Waddle:
W.► Appeal # 671, at the request of John & Eileen Fusaro, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 8 — Accessory Uses
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for one pony
on a lot of 1.6 acres where four acres is required or two acres
for each animal is required, on property located on 71 Losee Road,
being parcel # 6157-02-808797, in the Town of Wappinger. Is there
anyone here to speak for this variance. Yes sir, would you come
forward and identify yourself.
Mr. Fusaro:
My name is John Fusaro and I live on 71 Losee Road, first
of all, around the property is, on the south side isopen, there is
a wood lot, across the street is a wood lot and behind us is a wooded
lot and 1.6 acres is sufficient for one small pony, I believe and
there are a lot of places with less than that that have animals on
them.
Zoning Board of Appeals (47)
okay.
Mr. Landolfi:
How long have you lived there, Mr. Fusaro.
Mr. Fusaro:
Since December of 1979 sir.
Mr. Landolfi:
May 10th, 1983
December of 1979, can I ask you when you got your pony.
Mr. Fusaro:
We don't have a pony, sir.
Mr. Landolfi:
You are goint to get one.
Mr. Fusaro:
I would like to get one and we don't want any problems.
Mr. Landolfi:
That's what I thought, I was out looking and I didn't see one,
Mr. Fusaro:
I don't want any problems that's why. None of the neighbors
seem to object.
Mr. Landolfi:
That's not a concern of mine as much as the fact that
we could be setting a precedent or whatever.
Mr. Fusaro:
Well there is another little item, I was negotiating with
Mr. Zywotchenko for another acre and a half next door, he is
going to subdivide it, I have put $100 binder on the property,
already and then I found out from this gentleman that you needed
four acres, this would give me three acres, with this other acre
and a half that I am buying, I can't go another acre pricewise.
Zoning Board of Appeals (48) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Three acres wouldn't bother me, 1.6 bothers me, with the
storage of manure, which would be fairly close to either one of
your neighbors, 1.6 acres is cutting it a little close.
Mr. Landolfi:
We have had similar situations where we have
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there anyone else here to speak for or against this
variance.
Mrs. Fusaro:
I am for it.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there anyone against it. I would entertain a motion
that it be granted contingent on his buying that other property
to bring his holdings up to three acres, he would have three
acres then, would entertain a motion to let him have the pony
if he comes up with the three acres, one pond, small pony.
Mr. Landolfi:
I will make a motion to that effect that contingent on the
purchase of the other acre and half, otherwise we would have a
problem.
Mrs. Waddle:
Second.
Mr. Cortellino:
I second.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Zoning Board of Appeals (49) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, okay it is granted contingent upon your buying that
other piece of property, then you can have the pony.
Mr. Fusaro:
Thank you.
Mrs. Waddle:
I declare Appeal # 671 closed.
The hearing was closed at 9:11 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 672, at the request of Greystone House, Inc.,
INVI seeking an interpretation of Section 421, paragraph 5 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Is there anyone here from Greystone
House.
Mr. Kelley:
My name is Marc Kelley and I am executive director of
Greystone House, Inc.
Mrs. Waddle:
And you're seeking an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kelley:
That's correct.
Mrs. Waddle:
Okay, we will take your other appeal next.
Zoning Board of Appeals (50) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Gunderud:
Carol, I am not sure, did I give you a copy of Jon Adams'
letter.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, I do have a copy of that.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
May I see Mr. Adams' letter, I spoke to him today.
Mr. Kelley:
This is our attorney, Mr. Mc Gowan.
Mrs. Waddle:
Well this is really not in the realm of public
Mr. Landolfi:
What I recommend that since we have two members who are
not present, I recommend that we discuss this with our attorney,
there are many questions that I am sure I have, and I am sure
other members have.
Mrs. Waddle:
I am sure there are a lot of people here who do have
something to say so we will listen to what they have to say,
we are not going to act on this tonight but we will be glad to
listen to everybody this evening.
Mr. Kelley:
Can we make a responsrto Mr. Adams' letter.
Mrs. Waddle:
Oh surely, for the record yes.
NO-
Zoning Board of Appeals (51) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Mc Gowan:
The principal reason why I am here, Mr. Adams is citing the
mental hygiene law, and I think when he did he is speaking of
31:36 which is limited to facilities of 14 beds or less, so we
don't fall into that category, we are a larger facility, this
particular section of the mental hygiene law is quite limited,
I think in my discussions with Mr. Adams today giving him more
facts about what the particular situation is, he now understands
and appreciates that point but the statue is very clear that it does
not apply to a facility as large as this one, and I can cite the
statue, I have the statue.
Mrs. Waddle:
Fine, I wish you would do that for us.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
He speaks of a community residential facility and that
is defined in the statues as 41:34 as he says.
Mrs. Waddle:
Sir, could you speak loud enough so everyone could hear you.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
Sure and that says "Community residential facility for the
disabled means a supportive living facility with four to fourteen
residents, where a supervised living facility subject to license
_ mental health or the office of mental retardation and
developmental disablities which provides a residence for up to
fourteen mentally disabled persons, including residential treatment
facilities for children and juveniles", we are simply larger than
that, this is a specific statue designed and Mr. Kelley knows
the mental health ar® far better than I, for the home type situation
where it would be in different circumstances.
Mrs. Waddle:
A group home are you talking about, yes.
Mr. Kelley:
This statue refers to group homes, it is my understanding
Zoning Board of Appeals (52) May 10th, 1983
that for programs of over fourteen beds we would fall under
local zoning and, therefore, that is why we made our presentation.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
I think that was merely because Mr. Adams, we did speak to
him today, was unaware of all the details of this particular
application, the other issue of a legal nature, if you could call
it of a legal nature, what is the definition of charitable, we
provided a letter on that subject which I think is referenced to
any dictionary will establish the same point that Greystone
House is a charitable institution and, therefore, a permitted use
under the ordinance, both of those are preliminary to prior
to receiving approval.
Mrs. Waddle:
We are not going to act on the request for an interpretation
at this point since the other Board members are not hear and I
would ask that that appeal be tabled.
Mr. Landolfi:
I would make that motion.
Mr. Cortellino:
Second.
Mrs. Waddle:
All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, we will go into the next appeal which is Appeal # 668,
at the request of greystone House, Inc., seeking a Special Use Permit
0
Zoning Board of Appeals (53) May 10th, 1983
pursuant to Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 5 of the Town of
,"M, Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to utilize buildings and
land to be used for residential program for Dutchess County mentally
retarded individuals on property located off Wheeler Hill Road, being
parcel # 6057-03-487186, consisting of 90+ acres, in the Town of
Wappinger, I think probably if you would start to tell us a little
bit about what you plan to do there, what Greystone House is and
we will take it from there, okay.
Mr. Kelley:
Greystone House, Inc., is a not for profit corporation.
Mrs. Waddle:
Ard please speak loud enough so everyone can hear, we have a lot
of interested people.
Mr. Kelley:
It is a 501C3 corporation, under the Internal Revenue Law,
it is a charitable institution, defined as a charitable institution,
our purpose clause states that we are, our sole purpose is to provide
residential treatment programs for the mentally retarded, the
developmentally disabled, that is our sole purpose clause, no other
group is included in that, our plans are to provide a residential
treatment program for physically disabled and mentally retarded
and physically disabled, mentally retarded being a dual diagnosis
there, for a maximum of forty Dutchess County clients, both male
and female, all over the age of 18, presently in the Augustinian
Novitiate on Wheeler Hill Road, these clients would all attend
day programs outside the facility during the daytime, they would,
our primary responsibility is to provide overnight, residential
treatment for them which includes the services, as I told the
neighbors, of psychological nursing, medical, nutrition, recreation,
social services and family counselling.
Mrs. Waddle:
Sir, are you located anywhere else in Dutchess County
with homes.
Ea
Zoning Board of Appeals (54) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Kelley:
Yes we are, we presently operate an intermediate care facility
in Hyde Park, New York under the statute of 41:34, under fourteen
beds, we have been in, we originated in Dutchess County in 1979,
we operated our programs in Hyde Park.
Mr. Cortellino:
I don't know since I am not informed, you said intermediate
care, that is different from what you would be providing at the
Augustinian Novitiate.
Mr. Kelley:
No, it is a Medicaid funded program and the title of the
program is Intermediate Care Facility.
Mr. Cortellino:
Oh okay, it would be the same type.
Mr. Kelley:
Exactly the same, the design is different in that it is a larger
facility and it is for what is classified for people who are not
capable of self preservation, meaning they cannot exit a building
under two minutes by themselves so they must live in a fireproof
building and presently there is only one building in Dutchess
County for the mentally retarded that is fireproof and that is
Wassaic, so most of these, a lot of these clients presently are in
nursing homes in Connecticut.
Mrs. Waddle:
What about Hudson River.
Mr. Kelley:
That is not for the mentally retarded, that is for the
mentally ill, okay, mentally retarded people are not admitted
to Hudson River, that is for normal intelligence for people
who are mentally ill, these people have below IQ, they are not
mentally ill, they are mentally retarded, I think that is one of
the reasons why I sent you that separate letter.
Zoning Board of Appeals (55) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
There is something about this letter that bothers me
though, I must be frank, it says some clients would come from
Wassaic, some from home, and others would come from programs
out of state.
Mr. Kelley:
That is why I referred to the people who are now in wheelchairs
who could not live anywhere but Wassaic in the County, their parents
choose to find other facilities not wanting to put them into Wassaic,
so they are now in one place called Woodmere, which is in Connecticut,
it is a nursing home, these are young adults in their early twenties,
who are forced to live in nursing homes because there are no fireproofed
buildings they could live in this County other than Wassaic.
Mrs. Waddle:
But they are Dutchess County residents.
Mr. Kelley:
They all have Dutchess County Medicaid, they are all Dutchess
County residents, okay, one of the things that I did tell the
neighbors when I spoke to them that I will tell you, that this
program is a concept program that I have been working on for
two years now, it has been approved by New York State Office of
Mental Retardation, it has been approved by the Dutchess County
Department of Mental Hygiene, Dr. Glaff and Dr. Glaff is very adament
about cnly admitting clients into these type programs who have
Dutchess County residency, he has veto power over all our admissions,
and he has had all our programs and he maintains that for this
program as well, and he has verified the justification on this
program based on what is called the Dutchess County Local Governmental
Plan for Mental Hygiene Services, which includes mental retardation,
and this program description has been in there for two years, as
a County need, alright, not just something that say Greystone would
like to do, we first got this concept plan from that local governmental
plan, in terms of the program itself I can answer any particular
question you have but I would just like to allude a little bit to
number five of one the special use permits, I would like to make a
Zoning Board of Appeals (56) May 10th, 1983
statement that, two things, we, the building does predate zoning,
the cornerstone is 1959, it has been used as a novitiate, it is
presently being occupied by the Augustinian order, and then when
it, it is my understanding from the owners of the building, the
property, that in its heyday I'll use that term, that there were
forty Augustinian novitiates in residence, they were not related
and, therefore, we feel that the use is, obviously they are not
retarded clients, the residential use for the number of people would
be the same and they are not related.
Mrs. Waddle:
I don't think that we have a problem with the number of
people.
Mr. Kelley:
Is there a particular question that you would like to ask.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, not at this time but perhaps there are some other people
that would like to speak and I am really going to open it up so,
AM,, we will take it in an orderly progression but you don't necessarily
have to address all the questions to this Board, if there are questions
you would like to ask the gentlemen, I will entertain that. Who would
like to speak on this issue. Yes sir, would you identify yourself
please and come forward.
Mr. Hannon:
I am Denny Hannon and I live on Wheeler Hill Road and I would
like to speak in opposition to any variance of special use permit,
first.a general matter that you have no control over as a Board,
and I have no control over as an individual but I think think it
is worth a minute or two of conversation, Mr. Kelley has indicated
that these potential clients for the facility cannot be housed
adequately in the County, I would point out that he is quite right
in indicating that Hudson River is for the mentally ill and Wassaic
is for this kind of client if it were possible to house them
there, we have space available in both facilities for severly
mentally retarded people, now this is a different kind of client
Zoning Board of Appeals (57) May 10th, 1983
that Mr. Kelley is talking about are people who need close supervision,
during the off campus part of the program and certainly as indicated
by the State requirement for a non wooden building during the night,
the evening, the morning when they are there, these are not people
who are being prepared to become part of the viable community,
these unfortunate individuals will have to be probably in perpetuity,
for the duration of their lives, taken care of in the manner that
Mr. Kelley describes, I suggest that while Wassaic is a possible
facility while there is room, while they are staff that we are
paying for as New York State taxpayers, then it is a duplication
of taxpayers' service to provide that kind of facility that
Mr. Kelley suggests, I also indicate that while he is quite right
that currently Hudson River State is not the kind of facility
to take care of these people, if mental hospitals throughout the
State are being considered for prisons, I certainly think that they
can be considered to house the kind of unfortunate client that
Mr. Kelley is talking about, I believe that as a general consideration
over which obviously we don't have direct control except that we are
all taxpayers of this State and certainly as a school person I am
very conscious of the fact that we are being restricted in the amount
of money available for all kinds of social services in the State,
secondly, I object because I see any variance or the grant of a
special use as an intrusion upon the zoning that was previously
granted to this area, the two acre zoning, you know as well as I
that if a non conforming use is next to my property, my deed
restrictions are the first to go, in other words I can be taken
into court and I could go into court and get a release from deed
restrictions, secondly, if enough non conforming uses or variance
occur I can seek, I can seek legal satisfaction to avoid the zoning,
you remember the Niemcyk case in back, the matter of the garage which
is a non conforming use, I don't remember exactly what the decision
was but the result was that Mr. Niemcyk was ordered to cease and
desist from that non conforming use, he was not given permission
to do that, at the meeting that Mr. Kelley held at the novitiate
this winter, Mr. Niemcyk told me personally that he certainly would
get his variance in the future if there was a non conforming use
for the novitiate, so I would suggest that we have a domino potential
here, we had to fight
Mrs. Waddle:
Let me stop you there, no there is no domino potential
in the Zoning Board of Appeals because each case is considered
separately and just because there is a variance in one neighborhood
Zoning Board of Appeals (58) May 10th, 1983
doesn't necessarily mean that somebody else if going to get a
variance.
Mr. Hannon:
This is within hundreds of yards of the two situations,
they are within hundreds of yards of each other, and I respectfully
suggest that while there is no precedential requirement that you
must grant a variance because someone else got one I would suggest
that the potential is there, also Mr. Kelley indicated at that
meeting that there was no need for a non conforming use for his
organization 'since the Novitiate itself was an non conforming use,
that is obviously wrong, when the land was donated to the Augustinian
fathers this was long before we had zoning in the Town of Wappingers,
remember a professor from Columbia saying, I hate to go back thirty
years, saying that zoning is something that takes place twenty years
after planning should have taken place but it is our line of defense.
Mrs. Waddle:
I think you also have to realize that this is not a non
conforming issue, this is a permitted use in this type, in a
neighborhood, and this is a special use permit.
Mr. Hannon:
Mr. Kelley did say that they were on firmground in seeking
any relief because the present use and past use of the Novitiate
and Ijust want to make clear and I am sure you understand that
better than I being in this official capacity that I want you
to make sure that you remember that the Novitiate never had to have
any kind of special permit or non conforming use, okay, thank you.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you., is there anyone else.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
My name is Helen Fuimarello and I live on Wheeler Hill Road
and I live very close to the Novitiate, there are several questions
Zoning Board of Appeals (59) May 10th, 1983
that I have here, number ono at the last meeting, at the first
meeting it was not clear, Mark, whether, how many acres you were
going to buy, first you were supposed to buy the whole parcel,
then there was talk about buying part of the Novitiate.
Mr. Kelley:
I never said that we were going to purchase the property,
I said we were going to lease it.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
Lease the property, all of it or part of it.
Mr. Kelley:
We made two proposals, said that at both meetings, we made
a proposal of lease thirty acres and the main buildings and we made
another proposal to lease the entire property.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
And which is it going to be.
Mr. Kelley:
WP have not heard from their attorney, which one, we are going
on the assumption at this point that we are going to lease the
entire property.
Mrs. Waddle:
When will you know that, sir.
Mr. Kelley:
I can't answer until the attorney responds. The assumption
is and the application is based on the entire property, we have
heard nothing to the contrary about that at this point, we have
been dealing with a real estate agent.
Zoning Board of Appeals (60) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
I missed the number and the other alternative was the house,
the main house and thirty acres.
Mr. Kelley:
The main buildings and thirty acres.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
I am not too sure if you know how the property is situated,
the main house is practically in the center, so to speak, away
from the roads and there is quite a bit of privacy and I don't
think that we doubt that, I might add first here that I am not
against the program at all, I am absolutely not, I just feel you
are taking one of the nicest residential areas of the Town of
Wappinger and putting in a facility that I don't think really
belongs there, when you say that you do need a fireproof building
I can understand and appreciate that, there are quite a few on the
market, number one there are several buildings on the Bennett
College complex that are fireproof and are dormotory style and certainly
would fit within your program that you mentioned, Wassaic does have
a lot of separate building that could be used possibly for this, you
wouldn't have to go to the expensive money, I believe that if a
special, I don't know whether it is an amendment or not, could
be made to Hudson River State, the State, for the use of the
buildings there, there is right now I guess some talk going on
about actually using some of the "buildings for veterns, for nursing
homes, if that's the case then certainly some of the buildings
which are, could be used for your facility, the other thing I want to know
is if you lease it, do you plan to build extra buildings on there.
Mr. Kelley:
No.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
We weren't aware of that and you would use the same sewerage
system there.
Zoning Board of Appeals (61) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Kelley:
That is correct.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
Does that run to the river or do they have a plant.
Mr. Kelley:
They have a large field, an extremely large field.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
And before you have approximately 40 students, I do remember
when it was close to 40 students there at the Novitiate, you
would have 40 plus now people, if you had at tops 40 patients,
you have to have live in help, how many.
Mr. Kelley:
No, I pointed that out before that there would be shifts,
they would not live in.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
No one would stay there at all.
Mr. Kelley:
That's correct.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
Last but not least, we received letters that were addressed
to the commissioner of the Office of Mental Retardation in Albany,
and these were sent by Assemblyman Saland and Assemblyman Warren,
are you aware of these letters.
Mrs. Waddle:
Yes, I am.
Zoning Board of Appeals (62) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Fuimarello:
,,ftw„ Okay, I spoke to several of the neighbors, some of the neighbors
could not be here tonight, they had other commitments, a few of the
neighbors I will admit are apathetic about it, they just feel there
is nothing they could do to stop it, and I also might add that we
have very few neighbors down there, it is not a development, it is
not heavily populated, it is just a handful of neighbors, when I
spoke to the residents, the insinuation here was that they were giving
blanket approval, Assemblyman Saland and Assemblyman Warren were
giving blanket approval for the facility to go to Wheeler Hill, number
one they were never told that it was going to be Wheeler Hill and
when I spoke to Assemblyman Saland he was a bit distressed because
it was never stated where the facility was going to go, he approves
of the program which he did write in support of the program, both
Assemblymen did, but never in the letter did you mention where it
was going to go and that made a big difference, so I really felt
that it was not quite proper to send the letters out to the neighbors
and to the residents of Wheeler Hill with that thought in mind,
that's all I have to say about that, cause everybody thought that
you had, that Assemblyman Saland and Assemblyman Warren approved
of the facility going to the Novitiate.
Mr. Kelley:
In the original letter that I sent to both of them I
identified two of the neighbors who had spoken to me in support
of the program, I did not say Wheeler Hill Road to my recollection,
I don't have the letter in front of me right now but also it is my
understanding that most of the contact that was made to that office
on our behalf not only from ourselves but some of the parents
wasn't made directly to Mr. Warren and Mr. Saland, in fact, they
didn't even necessarily, their staff wrote the letters, as you are
well aware it is a standard practice, it was, I can't justify
the intent, the intent is not what you allude to, my intent was
to show that there was a need for this kind of program in the County
and that based on that need and the fear of the dollars going out
of the County, which was also brought up in the intent of getting
that type of involvement at the meeting, that is why I contacted
those people and that is why those letters were included to the
neighbors.
Zoning Board of Appeals (63) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Fuimarello:
Okay, I spoke to Assemblyman Saland, he read me the letter,
it did not say Wheeler Hill Road, it did say that about the attorneys,
the attorneys, I spoke to both attorneys, you never spoke to Carl
Wolfson ever.
Mr. Kelley:
That is not true, I spoke to Carl Wolfson at the meeting.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
At the meeting, that isn't what you said in your letter,
I read the letter that you sent to the Assemblymen and this is
why
Mr. Kelley:
I don't also think it is very fair of you to discuss
Mr. Wolfson or Mr. Rosen when they are not present.
Mrs. Fuimarello:
Mr. Wolfson asked me to make a statement, Mr. Rosen did say
that he supports the program if it is kept within the guidelines,
I didn't finish my conversation but Mr. Wolfson did state that he
did not speak to you about this, that he would have approved of the
project going at Wheeler Hill, he discussed it with you but he did
not approve it but that is not what you said in the letter to
Mr. Saland and Mr. Warren, I really feel that while being a residential
section as we are, I think that careful consideration should be given
before this is approved and some of the questions that were raised
here this evening be addressed.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you, is there anyone else here to speak, yes sir.
Zoning Board of Appeals (64) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Marks:
My name is Art Marks and I am from, a member of the board
of Greystone House, I don't think that I could leave this meeting without
speaking to this subject, it always amazes me, I've been in, I am seventy years
old, I have been in human services since I was old enough to work, I have no
axe to grind, none of my family has any difficulties, they are all perfectly
as we call normal, sometimes I wonder what normal is, when I attend some of these
meetings and hear people speak, I can understand or I could understand tf
this was going to be detrimental to the people who live on Wheeler Hill Road, I
can understand but this has been a novitiate, the novitiate is large, there
is ninety acres or thirty acres, whichever plan that we have and these children,
or these adults, they are really adults with the minds of children, will not
trouble any of these people, I see no reason why it would interfer with the values
of their land, the Novitiate does not want to sell that property, when they
made the agreement with us they said that they would rent it for ten years, if I
am wrong, correct me, and the end of Which time situation changing they were to
again take up residence in the Augustinitn'mission, now it seems strange to me,
we had Willowbrook as I an sure Vou will all recall, sure you read about Willowbrook
and the judge at that time issued a decree to the State of New York and said to the
State of New York you will take these people out of these developmental centers
and you will put them out in the community in residences and that is exactly what
we are trying to do, it is true we could probably take as someone pointed out
here, these children or these adults again, and place them in Hudson River
in a building there or we could place them in Wassaic in a building there
but this is not the intent or was not the intent of the decree of the judge,
these people are supposed to be placed out in the community.
Mrs. Waddle:
Sir, I may be a little dense but how are these people if they are
so severally mentally retarded going to be assimilated into the community.
Mr. Marks:
I didn't mean that they v►uld be assimilated into the community,
I think that Mr.
Mrs. Waddle:
Then why place them in the community.
Mr. Kelley:
There are various degrees of assimilation, a person who might be 80 or 90
years old might be in the community and might be senile and if they are assimilated
into the community for whatever degree of ability they have to partake in
community activities, just because somebody is severally retarded or in a wheelchair
does not mean that they would not enjoy riding a horse or wouldn't enjoy going
to the Y swimming or couldn't do a prevocational program and earn a few dollars
a week, it certainly does mean that they can't go out on their own and wheel their
wheelchair down Wheeler Hill Road and go into Town and go to a movie by themselves,
obviously they need the type of supervision that we are going to provide
Zoning Board of Appeals (65) May 10th, 1983
but it doesn't preclude them from having to spend their lives rotting in
Hudson River or rotting in Wassaic, which is, I use the term loosely
(applause from the audience), I think there are some others whose, I don't
mean to take the floor, Wassaic wouldn't be deinstitutionalizing people
if they weren't mandated to do it, there are Federal precedents that were
set, they are only reimbursed for a certain amount of clients they have,
and any number of clients that they have over that are not getting paid for,
the judges have said get them out, they don't belong here, they belong outside
of this institution and so that's what they are doing, they are trying to relocate
Dutchess County people back into the community for whatever, whether they are
mildly retarded or whether they are profoundly retarded, okay, the concept
is that they can benefit from the community and, therefore, they should live
here, that is only some of the people, the other people are children of parents
who have kept their kids in their houses all their lives and now that they
are 21 and out of the educational system, their choices are nothing, their
choices are I spent my entire life with these kids, I've kept them home, I've
kept them from putting them in Wassaic and now That is my choice, the kid is
21, he is out of the education program, there is nothing for him, either I
take care of him for the rest of my life or the kid goes to Wassaic, now that is
the choice as far as I am concerned, the other point is that it is not appropriate
to put somebody that is mentally retarded into Hudson River, I assure you that
if it was cost effective to rehabilitate those buildings at Wassaic or Hudson
River, they would have done it, it is not cost effective to do it, it would cost
a lot more money than it would cost us to renovate the buildings in Wheeler
Hill Road and I have also heard, I have been all around this County, I have been in
Stanford, I have been in Pine Plains, I have been in Hyde Park and I hear the
same thing, why next to me, take them out into the Country or take them into
the middle of Poughkeepsie where they need urban redevelopment, the point is that
they belong in the community, whether it is Wheeler Hill Road or someplace else,
I spent two years looking at what we call code C fireproof buildings and this
one that I found is the most cost effective and the most appropriate and it
is on a hundred, I made a mistake, we found on the tax map it is not 90
acres, it is on 107 acres and it is smack dab in the middle of the 107 acres,
you cannot see a neighbor, the neighbors cannot see you because of the hill
on the side of it, anytime the clients leave grounds they are going in either
one of our vans or one of our buses, or one of rehabs buses, they are not going to
go wandering down Wheeler Hill Road alone, they are going to be supervised
24 hours a day, in fact probably better than they are being supervised right
now because of the nature of this type of program, we have a good reputation
in this County, you probably don't know us down here but if you ask people in
Hyde Park, we have a very fine reputation in terms of the type of program
we provide, okay, I have to apologize to the neighbors, if Helen and the other
neighbors took offense to my letters, I though I had explained to you what
the intent was, I brought up at the meeting that there was a funding issue,
that in this year's budget we were in jeopardy of loosing some money because
Governor Cuomo had said he wants the money going to New York City for
new programs to be developed he is right smack dab in the budget, he said
priority should be given to New York City, alright, I was very afraid of that
because last year we had this money and it was allocated to our program, if
we didn't get the program opened by April 1st we were going to loose the money,
so that is why I went to Mr. Saland, that is why I went to Assemblyman Warren,
and that is exactly what I told the neighbors what I was doing, it was for that
thing, to get them to secure the money for us, to try and help us protect
the money that had been allocated last year for us, to keep it this year
A because these people in Dutcheas County have just as much right to that money as
Zoning Board of Appeals (66) May 10th, 1983
as the people in New York City did, and it was our new governor who was paying
q.. off the people in New York City, the political cronies, whatever it was, was
moving the money back down there and that is * intent in the two letters
and that was what I thought they were addressing their letters to Mr. Slezak.
Mrs. Fuimarello-
Marc, we are not against the program.
There was then some comments back and forth amongst the audience.
Mrs. Waddle:
Okay, just a moment please, I don't think the neighbors per se are
against the program but I, as you must realize, this is a very emotional issue,
that is a very beautiful neighborhood, I think that they are afraid of their
property values because if they go to sell their homes, if they said well we
live next to a novitiate, it sounds a lot better than we, there is an institution
down the road that is caring for mentally retarded children, when they go to
sell their homes, so you have to realize their side of it too, I think they
are trying very hard to go along with your side of it and work out a solution
but I think that you have to be a little compassionate also from their point
of view, they have in*ested a lot up in that area, okay, I am sure we will
all come to an equitable solution.
Mr. Marks:
I am sure we will and I want to compliment the Board from what I
heard here tonight, I think you are forthright, I think you aaka decisions
and think that you have a heart because you let that person have their
pony, thank you for listening.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you.
A women from the audience:
To the neighbors, please don't fear our children, we live with them
and there is nothing to fear.
Mrs. Waddle:
I don't think even that is, don't think that is the crux of the
whole thing, I don't think anybody fears physically handicapped or retarded
children, our hearts go out to them and I just think that that is not the
pre)blem here.
Zoning Board of Appeals (67) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Kelley:
But there was an assumption here that they would be better served
at Hudson River or Wassaic, that came up several times tonight.
A women from the audience:
I would suggest that anyone that thinks that Hudson River or
Wassaic is such a wonderful place for our children, I would advise them to
spend their vacation there and then let us know if they feel that this is
such a wonderful place for our children to live.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you. Yes sir.
Mr. Hannon:
May I make one more comment.
Mrs. Waddle:
One *pre and then I am going to close this.
Mr. Hannon:
The assumption that living at the Novitiate is living in the community
I think is quite an assumption, I think that is not logical, that was made
by the gentleman on the Board.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you. May I have a motion that we table this special use
permit.
Mr. Landolfi:
I will make that motion.
Mrs. Waddle:
Charlie.
Mr. Cortellino:
I didi*.t know if you wanted to turn this over to the lawyer. Okay, I will
second.
Zoning Board of Appeals (68) May 10th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
.... All in favor.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye, this appeal is tabled. We will continue it at our next meeting
which is the second Tuesday in June.
Mr. Kelley:
Is that a public haring.
Mrs. Waddle:
It is a public meeting, we will not have another hearing on this, it
is a public meeting.
Mr. Gunderud:
There will be a public hearing on this when it is returned from the
Planning Board if the interpretation
Mrs. Waddle:
After the interpretation.
Mr. Cortellino:
Next month we will not take comments from the audience, the two members
who are absent tonight will review the minutes and come to their decision from
reading of the minutes.
Mrs. Waddle:
We have to come up first of all, with an interpretation which the
Board will issue at their next meeting.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
Of the word "charitable".
Zoning Board of Appeals (69) May 10th, 1983
Mr. Gunderud:
Whether it is a facility for the insane or mentally retarded
Mrs. Waddle:
Retarded or just what it is out there, we have to come to some
understanding and then we have to review the special use permit and send it
to the Planning Board for their comments and then after the Planning Board gets
finished with it, they send it back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
action again and that would be a public hearing, so that would be sometime
in July. The secretary will let you know.
Mr. Mc Gowan:
Then you will not refer it to the Planning Board until your next
meeting when you will make that decision.
Mrs. Waddle:
When we have a full board, to give the other members a chance, have to act
on it within 45 days so we will have to act on it at the next meeting.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is there any other business to come before the Board. May I have a motion
that we adjourn.
Mr. Landolfi:
So move.
Mr. Cortellino:
Second, aye.
Mrs. Waddle:
Aye.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
rs.) Bot-Anr�Russ, Secretary
ZlBid
of Appeals
br