1983-12-13The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called
to order on Tuesday, December 13th, 1983, beginning at 7:05 p.m.,
at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Angel Caballero
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
Members Absent:
G. George Urciuoli
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Joseph Tinnelli, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle asked for the roll call.
The roll call was taken with Mr. Urciuoli being absent.
Mrs. Waddle then asked the secretary if all the abutting
property owners had been notified.
4%W The secretary replied tha the appellants and abutting property
owners had been notified accong to the records available in the
Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to tell those present
a little 'bit about how the Board will operate, we will go through.
each case and everybody will have an opportunity to speak for or against
the appeal, when the appeal is closed the Board will deliberate up
here, at that time we ask that there be no interference from the audience,
we may or may not render a decision this evening based on the
information received.
Zoning Board of Appeals -1- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Appeal # 714, at the request of Denis & Anne Mc Mahon, seeking
a Special Use Permit for a chapel on their property located
on Widmer Road, in the Town of Wappinger. Okay, this is for a chapel,
right.
Mr. Venezia:
That's correct. I would first like to thank the Board for
granting the adjournment from the last hearing, I contacted the
secretary for the Board, indicating that I had another court matter
that I could not adjourn and I appreciated the accommodation. I
think the first item that I have to bring to the Board's attention
is a clarification of how long the particular situation has existed,
this chapel was in existence and functioning as a chapel in June of
1978, there are various items that I have
Mrs. Waddle:
That doesn't make it legal sir.
Mr. Venezia:
No, but the reason that I am bringing this up is that in order
to consider this particular matter and whether or not even an
application is appropriate and should be considered, the applicable
law has to be brought to everyone's attention, including the Board,
and the particular ordinance under which the matter is now being
submitted was adopted on March 10th, 1980 and I think since it was
in existence prior to March 10th, 1980 there the question as to
the prior law being the one that is applicable under the circumstances
and not the present law.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, no. We are working under the present zoning law, he is
coming in for a special permit under the present zoning law and that
is the law we shall be using.
Mr. Venezia:
If the use were permitted, or the situation were permitted prior
to March 10th, 1980, than no application is required so that our
being here is really academic in that sense.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Your being here, you're right is academic because the property
already has one permitted use and that is that of a home, Mr. Mc Mahon,
I don't believe is an ordained minister or priest, he has this
private chapel in his home, it is as far as we know, is there a
priest or
Mr. Venezia:
There are but before I get into that, I still feel that for
the purpose of clarification
Mr. Cortellino:
How long have you been living on that property.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
About 12 years, maybe.
Mrs. Waddle:
I don't know.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I don't, I am sorry, think
Mr. Cortellino:
Say, since 1971,
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Yes, about that.
Mr. Cortellino:
So, the primary use was a residence, am I correct.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3-
Mr. Mc Mahon:
When I first moved in, yes.
Mr. Cortellino:
December 13th, 1983
You never applied to this Board for any other use.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
For anything, no sir, not for anything.
Mr. Cortellino:
Therefore, you were saying that he was legally non -conforming,
if you wish to use the argument that he was in it before 1983, okay,
it was residential, a primary use, there are homes which have
chapels for their private use, not public use.
Mr. Venezia:
And the reverse is triie also but before
Mr. Cortellino:
But according to our zoning ordinance, it may sound odd, if
you have a house you can't build a church on that property, if you
build a church then you can have a house, it may seem off but
that is the way it works, so he had a house first on the property.
Mr. Venezia:
But in any event before getting into that particular area,
which I am prepared to address, that for a point of clarification
I am establishing, unless there is contradictory evidence, that the
use was as of June 1978 of this particular chapel and that is
important for certain factors which I intend to bring to your attention.
Mr. Cortellino:
Excuse me again, if it was in use before this new ordinance
which you are saying is not applicable under, since he did not make
any formal application or whatnot, as far as we are concerned it
was not in use, it is only in use when we become aware of it.
Mr. Venezia:
I don't believe that is the law.
zoning Board of Appeals -4- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
Well, then we disagree.
Mr. Venezia:
We may disagree on many matters but
Mr. Landolfi:
No, go ahead Hans.
Mr. Gunderud:
I think that what we would have to do is to look at the
1960 zoning ordinance and see what the requirements were, I
haven't really reviewed the 1960 zoning ordinance to see whether
a chapel, a public chapel could be established on a property
without a special use permit.
Mrs. Waddle:
Well, when the zoning ordinance came into being at that
low time non -conforming uses were given a certain amount of time
to come into conformity.
Mr. Gunderud:
No, he is talking about something that was established in
1978, that was long after the 1963 zoning ordinance was established.
Mrs. Waddle:
That's correct.
Mr. Venezia:
But if the 1963 zoning is the one that was applicable
through, at least to 1980, then that law I think would have to be
considered, any ordinance cannot be retroactive to affect uses
that existed prior to the ordinance.
Mr. Gunderud:
If the use was legally established, however, no building permit
was ever taken out to convert a garage to a chapel, so then a question
comes in whether any use was ever legally established there because
a building permit was required from 1960 on any kind of conversion
of that type.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
That may be but we get into the issue of multiple uses
and accessory uses, definition of lots and the purpose of what a
lot can be used for and all of this would be
Mr. Gunderud:
I can get a copy of the 1960 ordinance and solve the problem.
Mr. Venezia:
applicable under that ordinance, now before you leave I am
just making a suggestion to this Board, I don't have a copy of
that particular ordinance, I imagine there are very few left,
there are some, I would like to make a request that I be provided
a copy so that I can act intelligently in this matter and if it
seems more appropriate rather than getting into the other issues
that the matter be tabled until the next hearing.
Mrs. Waddle:
You know, I don't think that is appropriate.
Mr. Gunderud:
I think that it would be very easy to look in the schedule of
uses of the 1960 ordinance and determine whether it was a permitted
use or not.
Mrs. Waddle:
Would you go and get the ordinance. I reAlly.don't think
it has any bearing on this because we are working under this
ordinance and this is what he is making his application.
Mr. Gunderud:
But if he had established in 1.978 then he might be non -conforming
under the 1980
Mrs. Waddle:
How would the Town.know that.
Mr. Gunderud:
f Prbably woul"I. have !--o take his testimony, he said he did it.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
I have documentary proof that it was in existence, in fact
I have a marriage certificate of parties who were married in the
chapel on May 23rd, 1979.
Mrs. Waddle:
I really don't think that is applicable because I have had
a wedding in my home also.
Mr. Venezia:
That may be, but this was a religious use of that particular
chapel on May 23rd, 1979 as indicated in a particular marriage
certificate, I have a photograph of the chapel as existing for
several years, this is what it looks like, I don't know if you
have seen the inside, in addition to which there are, I don't
think it is disputed that the chapel has been operating as a chapel
since 1978 and again it is a matter where
Mr. Cortellino:
The dispute is whether it was legally
Mrs. Waddle:
The dispute really is that -it is`..a home and; therefore, it is
the principal permitted use and having a chapel and a house, a home
there are two separate uses, okay and it is privately owned.
Mr. Venezia:
I intend to address all of that but since we have the prior
ordinance I think that clarification would be for everyone's
benefit.
Mr. Landolfi:
Hans, your point was that they would have needed then a building
permit to do what they did, right.
Mr. Gunderud:
Oh yeah.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Mr. Landolfi:
-7- December 13th, 1983
Right, so, therefore, did you apply for a building permit.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well, under this ordinance, Section 421, the Zoning Ordinance
of the Town of Wappinger adopted 1963, paragraph 4 states that
"Churches, other places of worship and cemeteries" are permitted
uses with special use permits, the same as it is under our present
zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Waddle:
So there is no difference, so he would have had to come in and apply.,
Mr. Venezia:
Ican" tagree with that 100 percent because I haven't had the
..., opportunity to have seen the prior ordinance and gone into it in
detail and obviuosly tonight is not the night to do that, I
think for any of us. However, if I can proceed as far as the present
application, there is a presumption being made that the principal
use is that of a residence with a secondary use being that of a
religious function, it is our contention that as of June 1978
on a formal basis, and prior to that on an informal basis, that
the primary function of that lot was religious and as an accessory
to that, the structure in which the Mc Mahons are residing was
incidential for the maintenance and continuation of that particular
religious use.
feet.
Mr. Cortellino:
May I ask a question. What is the size of the chapel, square
Mr. Venezia:
1,200 squarc feet.
Mr. Cnrtellino:
What is the size of the house, square feet.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8-
December 13th, 1983
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Thirty by thirty-five feet, roughly.
Mr. Gunderud:
It must be larger than that.
Mrs. Waddle:
Its got to be larger than that.
Mr. Gunderud:
The house, the house.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
You mean the ground floor, there is a second floor.
Mr. Cortellino:
What is the living area.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Well, that is what I am saying, there is a second floor,
or something, how you do that I don't know.
Mrs. Waddle:
Do you reside on the.same floor that the chapel is.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Yes.
Mrs. Waddle:
You do.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Gunderud:
The chapel is a separate structure.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Oh yes, it is outside, it is separate, yes I am sorry, it is
in the barn.
Mr. Landolfi:
You don't live in the barn.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No sir, no sir.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay, have a.'few questions.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am sorry, I thought you meant do I reside in the same level,
ground level.
Mr. Cortellino:
What I am trying to determine was what was the total square
foot on the chapel and what is the total square foot of the living
area.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am truly sorry, I don't know, I can tell the chapel is 30
by 40
Mrs. Waddle:
How large a congregation attends this chapel.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
About thirty people.
Em
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
It is a formal congregation.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Formal, all of the same except for a few strays once in awhile,
I am sorry I don't know what the question is.
Mr. Venezia:
How many attend.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
How many attend, there were approximately forty I think, thirty
or forty -there the last time.
Mr. Venezia:
On a weekly basis.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
And it varies, you know up and down a bit.
Mr. Cortellino:
Hans, we have a minimum footage for living area, right, 900.
Mr. Gunderud:
1,200.
Mr. Cortellino:
And the chapel is 1,200, therefore, most likely what the gentlemen
refers to as an accessory use is larger square footage than the
primary use.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
AMW There are a number of cases that I intend to cite to this
Board in regard to the interpretation of accessory use for religious
purposes and it has been held in the Court of Appeals of the
State of New York that a parish house, a convent, a parochial school,
recreational facilities, accessory parkinq areas are all incidential
and necessary for the use of religious. purposes,:,I.shaue-.
other cases which I intend to cite to the Board.
Mrs. Waddle:
That is true but that doesn't apply to Mr..Mc.Mahon.
Mr. Landolfi:
I don't think that is relative to our case here.
Mrs. Waddle:
We agree with that but those are accessory uses,but I don't
think it is applicable in this case.
Mr. Venezia:
I am bringing to the Board's attention, quite a bit here that
I would like to put into the record, one of which is the fact that
there is a not for profit corporation, Maria Regina Chapel, Incorporated,
it was incorporated on June 16th, 1982, in the State of Deleware and
licensed in the State of New York and this, the primary purpose of
this corporation is the religious function as -presently existing
on the Mc Mahon property, this is an indication of the primary use,
in addition to that there have been from 1978 to the present time
the maintenance of vestments, altar wine, bread, candles, chapel
mail for the clergy at the structure which is also used as a
residence for the Mc Mahon family, clerical work.
Mr. Cortellino:
You keep referring to 1978 as though you are making a point,
and for my clarification I don't understand the point, we have
determined that there was no legal being as far as we are concerned,
are you implying that I can go out and do something illegal for
ten years and when I get found out I can use that as an argument that
I have been doing something.
zoning Board of Appeals -12- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
There are two assumptions which you are making, one assumption
being that what was done before was illegal and I cannot agree
with the Board that what was done before was illegal, the other
aspect of this, my point in bringing up 1978 is the applicable
statute and it is the feeling of the Board that the applicable
statute in any event is that enacted in May of 1980 and I can't
agree with the Board in that regard, in that if the use were
existing prior to March, rather of 1980, prior to March 10th, 1980,
that the prior ordinance is the one that would be applicable.
Mrs. Waddle:
But is doesn't matter because the ordinance is the same
in both cases, may I have the ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino:
If it was legally in use before the new ordinance then
Mr. Venezia:
I can't assume that it wasn't legally in use, if I can continue,
there's clerical work involved in baptisms, marriage certificates, the
telephone use for planning and carrying out religious activities are
all from the structure which is also used as the residence for
the Mc Mahons, the reception point for religious functions such as
receptions for the baptisms and the weddings are there, that structure
which is also the residence, storing, accounting for sacred vessels,
vestments and various religious paraphernalia is in the structure
which is also used as the residence, there is caring for, decorations
for the chapel, such as plants, that is done at the structure which
is also used as a residence, on a weekly basis there is choir
activity, there are religious education classes including library
useage which is used, which is conducted at the structure which is
also used as the residence, the clergy that visit and I can recite
for the Board a number of clergy that visit on a regular basis,
there is a Reverand William Jenkins, there is a Reverand Daniel L.
Dolan, and there is a Reverand Clarence Kelley and the reason I
am citing these are that they are also authors in a particular
publication called t"he"Roman Catholic" and all of which have
articles in Volume # 4 of this particular publication, they stay
at the structure.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Landolfi:
I am not sure that this information is relative to what
we are trying to get the facts here, so we can make a decision,
I am not sure that this type of information is all impertinent to
the issue here.
Mrs. Waddle:
The issue isrthere is a home there already, which is
a permitted use.
Mr. Venezia:
If I may disagree and I think this is very important
because I don't want words put into my mouth or Mr. Mc Mahon's
mouth, we don't agree that this is a home,
Mrs. Waddle:
He lives there, doesn't he.
Mr. Venezia:
Yes but this is not necessarily primarily a home, Mr. Mc Mahon's
function is to care for this chapel.
Mrs. Waddle:
Is it his property, does he own the property.
Mr. Venezia:
The Board is confusing.
Mrs. Waddle:
Does he own the property.
Mr. Venezia:
I am not being cross examined, please.
Mrs. Waddle:
I am asking you a question, does he own the property.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
Whether he owns the property or not shows on the part of this
Board a lack of knowledge as to the significance of ownership as
opposed to useage, the ownership of property does not determine
the useage.
Mrs. Waddle:
If he doesn't own the property then he should not be in
here for a special use permit, the owner of the property should
be, how does he own the property.
Mr. Venezia:
Mr. Mc Mahon can have two functions, one of which is
owner and the other one of which is a religious function for that
chapel, the conducting of religious services on that property
and the insuring of the preservation of the property and those
activities incidental to any religious group are within the
Mrs. Waddle:
Does he own the property.
Mr. Venezia:
I have already answeered the question and I feel that you
are badgering me.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, you haven't answered the question.
Mr. Venezia:
I have answered the question that in addition to being the owner,
he serves other functions.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank you.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Now you have said it, you never said it.
Mr. Venezia:
I answered it three times, I beg to differ. Now let me proceed
as far as the confusion which is plaguing this Board at this
particular point, the confusion is, the confusion is, this is
a public hearing and I would like to have my say, sir. The confusion
is that you are confusing ownership with useage and the two are
not synonymous and the case law in this State which is interpreted
that religious freedoms within the State, have made it clear that
accessory and incidental uses for religious purposes are permitted
and they do not require special permits, now you are stating that
this man's, that thatrhourel*s primarily a residence, we are
contending that it is not primarily a residence, it is for the
purpose of the e`stablighment and the continuation of a particular
religious chapel located at their property and the primary use
of the property is one of religious. Now I would like to read
into the record case law that I have researched for tonight,
and I am citing from, at this particular point, Community Synagogue
versus Bates, One New York Second Forty-five, One Fifty-four New York
Sub -second fifteen, One Thirty-six Northeast second, four, eighty-eight,
a 1956 case, and it states quote "A church is more -than merely
an edefice affording people the opportunity to worship God, strictly
religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice,
and all churches recognize that the area of their responsibility
is broader than the leading the congregation in prayer, churches have
always developed social groups for adults and youth where the
fellowship of the congregation is strengthened with the result that
the parent church is strengthened, to limit a church to merely being
a house of prayer and sacrifice would in a large degree be depriving
the church of the opportunity of enlarging, perpetuating and
strengthening itself and the congregation.", alright, consistent
with that view Unitarian Universilist Church versus Shorten,
Sixty-three, miscellaneous second, nine seventy-eight also
at Three fourteen New York, sub -second sixty six holds that
consistent with the view that activity related to the purpose of
religious organization is a religious use the concept has been held
to include the church itself, a parish house, a convent, a parochial
school, recreational facilities and accessory parking areas. In a 1952
case which was decided in the Court of Appeals of the State of
New York , the highest court in the State, involving an application
for Faith In Today Incorporated, this was an organization in conducting
televised religious services and operating a religious correspondence
shool requiring a building in a residential district and remodelled it
into an office and studio, it was equipped with postage meters, addresso-
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- December 13th, 1983
graphs, off -set press, and a further application was made for
a print shop storage room, bible classrooms, kitchen and dining
room and it was held by the Court of Appeals that these were
uses which were permitted as a religious functi-on and part and
incident.al to the functioning of that particular religious group.
It has also been held that where the proposed erection of a church
creates a conflict between the Village's constitutional duty not
to infringe on religious freedom and to protect the public health,
safety and welfare, the Village should meet both requirements if
possible, this is American Friends of Society of St. Pious, Inc.
versus Scwab, and there are a number of other cases that hold
similarly that the policy of New York State is to encourage and
permit religious uses wherever possible, I have recited a number
of uses of the structure which also serves as a residence for
Mr. Mc Mahon and I have done so without the benefit of Mr. Mc Mahon
testifying and if there is to be any dispute as to those particular
facts I would ask that the Board give me the opportunity of
having Mr. Mc Mahon testify for the purpose of the record as to the
useage of 47 Widmer Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
If I knew what the problem was perhaps I could answer them.
Mrs. Russ:
This is not a public hearing, it hasn't been advertised,
or anything, this is just their first time before the Board, there
has been no notice that has gone into the paper that this is a
public hearing and we haven't scheduled a public hearing.
Mrs. Waddle:
It did go to the Planning Board, right.
Mrs. Russ:
Yes and the the Planning Board said that based on Jon Adams'
letter on the uses that they could not make a recommendation at
this time.
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Caballero:
Mr. Mc Mahon, when you purchased the home was the garage,
carriage house, or barn, a chapel at that time.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No sir, to my knowledge no.
Mr. Caballero:
Approximately what year was the chapel
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I reckon it was approximately a year or two later, then I gave
in when these people were after me to change it.
Mr. Caballero:
To make it a chapel.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
... Yes sir and I would just like to throw that one out because
I think, I don't really know, everything but the point is that these
people came after me and said please would you make your barn
into a chapel, can we put a chapel in your barn and I tell you it
was approximately at this time of year when, I was saying no, go away
and leave me alone, basically that was my response to them, may
I just complete this one, because this one to me is the killer,
its what sent me down the tubes, basically it was approximately
this time of year and I picked up a book and all it said was in
the barn, you know the time of year right, he was born in the barn,
this particular one, I have it home, I can bring it and show you,
and so the whole thing was about our Lord being born in the barn
so I finally said phooey take it, to the people, I said let's
do it, you know, so that's when I gave in and that's really why
I gave in, now that's where I am.
Mrs. Waddle:
But then you didn't follow through with the legalities of
it.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18-
Mr. Venezia:
I dispute that
Mrs. Waddle:
December 13th, 1983
Just a moment, you should have come in to the Town Board
for a building permit and let them issue a certificate of
occupancy, now what bothers me at this point with.' those people
congregating in that barn, is there has been no fire inspection,
there has been no C.O.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Oh yes, oh yes, I am sorry.
Mrs. Waddle:
Oh yes?
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Oh yes, oh yes indeed.
Mrs. Waddle:
By who.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Oh yes indeed, I have had a number of people from New York
City and
Mrs. Waddle:
I mean by our fire inspectors, by the Town fire inspectors,
there are thirty to forty
Mr. Mc Mahon:
If I didn't I should have because I've got, let me tell you
why I am saying that, please just make sure that you understand,
I am not trying to snow you, I've got those you know (made sounds
to imitate a fire extinguisher) you know, extinguishers, huh, I have
them on
Zoning Board of Appeals -19- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
That is a good precaution but we don't know what building
materials were used in there
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I'll tell you exactly
Mrs. Waddle:
But, the fire department doesn't know
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I'll tell them too.
Mrs. Waddle:
and they're the ones that if anything happens would have
and do you a service.
Mr. Venezia:
.. May I state for the record that I have a letter from the
Zoning Administrator, I don't know if the gentlemen is present in
.the room. -or not, Mr. Gunderud,
Mrs. Waddle:
That's Mr. Gunderud.
Mr. Venezia:
okay, and according to your correspondence of November 14th-,# 1983
as I read this the items that must be considered are two additional
parking spaces, and the parcel in fact is 17 acres and there is
plenty of area for two additional parking spaces, and the issue as
to whether or not there are one use or two uses and that is my under-
standing of the letter of November 14th, 1983.
Mr. Gunderud:
You missed one important point where it says that the driveway
is a very dangerous exiting point onto Widmer Road.
Mr. Venezia:
Well again that item is something which could be considered as
far as and engineer's, perhaps modification of the entry and exit,
Zoning Board of Appeals -20- December 13, 1983
however, we are not talking about safety of the structure itself,
and we are not talking about for the structure itself conforming to
the building and zoning codes other than the possible, the possibility
of dual uses on the lot and the driveway, I am sorry I should have
mentioned also the parking, if we can clarify the issues for toftight.
Mrs. Waddle:
The issue is not the letter.
Mr. Venezia:
The issue is whether or not the structure is a safe structure
which has just been raised and I think it has been looked at
previously.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, that was an aside to people gathering in there without
a building permit or having the proper people look at the place
which is a safety issue, which we�are concerned with, but it certainly
has no bearing on whether the special use permit is going to be
granted or not.
Mr. Gunderud:
Mr. Mc Mahon was served with an order to remedy and letters
to cease his operation.
Mrs. Waddle:
Do you have copies of those letters, sir.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am sorry,
Mrs. Waddle:
Do you have copies of those letters.
Mr. Gunderud:
To stop the operation, to cease.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21-
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am sorry, I never heard that.
Mrs. Waddle:
I think you did.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No.
Mr. Gunderud:
December 13th, 1983
Mr. Tinelli and I made a site inspection to your house
and we both sat in your porch room and spoke to you about that
the facilities would be closed if within the next week you did not
get yourself down here and make an application.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I am sorry, but I did follow what you said, right.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well, you made an application for approval, yes.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Yes, they did say that and I did, I was told.
Mrs. Waddle:
Do you have that corresponse.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No, it was, he was just saying
Mr. Venezia:
I don't think it was a letter directed to a particular
violation, it was a letter directed, directing that you, in your
opinion, that Mr. Mc Mahon should go before the Planning Board
and the Zoning Board of Appeals to clarify the issues which have
been raised.
Zoning Board of Appeals -22- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Gunderud:
14.. There was an order to remedy that the use was an illegal
use on the property and that he should cease and desist or
if he wanted to seek administrative relief he could come in to
Mr. Venezia:
Which he is doing, which he is doing.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
That is what I am doing.
Mr. Venezia:
That is what he is doing now at the present time.
Mr. Gunderud:
My office recognized that it was an illegal use based
on our research and based on our files.
Mr. Venezia:
That is your opinion for the purpose of further clarification
at the appropriate administrative levels, however, if the issue
is raised as to whether or not this is a safe structure, you have
been in the structure, you have not been in the chapel itself.
Mr. Gunderud:
No.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
No, he's not a Catholic.
Mr. Venezia:
Well, if that's a concern you know we would invite you
to take a look at the structure itself.
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Cortellino:
Excuse me please, I have been waiting patiently.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Could I, may I just say one thing and then I'll
Mr. Landolfi:
Is it relative to what in fact the uses are, sir.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
There are three doors in that building, that I'll guarantee
you that in a matter of seconds everybody would be out.
Mrs. Waddle:
I don't doubt you for a second but there are procedures which
should be followed.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
I understand, I'am just trying to tell you that all of this
was done, whether it was done properly, in the proper fashion or
not, it may not have been but it was done, you see what I mean,
the difference, you understand.
US.
Mrs. Waddle:
And you understand that is not relative to the case before
Mr. Landolfi:
Not related at all, sir, okay.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Not true in this case, sir and I'll
Mr. Cortellino:
Way back when we referred to the fire inspection and when
the Chairperson
Zoning Board of Appeals -24- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
Well that was an aside of the safety of the people
using this place until we can decide whether this is legal
Mr. Cortellino:
The proper procedures, we have a policy where when a site is
being approved on a matter, it goes to the Town Engineer, it goes
to the Town Superintendent of Highways, it goes to local fire
and all these things are put in place, I am not questioning
whether it is safe or unsafe, its just that in our formal manner
we need this paperwork, environmental council reviews these things
and without these reviews you haven't done your job, no matter how
safe it is.
Mr. Venezia:
One of the items you mentioned, the Conservation Advisory
Council, there was a. letter of October 23rd, 1983 to the Town of
Wappinger Planning Board indicating that the application was
discussed and we agreed that the plan is acceptable, as far
as the other items, if the Town would like to inspect for
safety reasons nobody has an objection and in fact we invite it
and we encourage it and we would like to see such inspection.
Mr. Gunderud:
We can't make the inspection until Mr. Mc Mahon makes an
application, and he was reluctant to make an application for
a building permit or for a special use permit.
Mr. Venezia:
We have the application for a building permit as part of this
entire process
Mr. Gunderud:
Now we do.
Mr. Venezia:
So, you certainly have the jurisdiction to inspect and I
don't think there is an objection to that, that goes as to another
collateral issue, we still have a number of legal issues at hand
and this was placed on tonight's agenda and
Zoning Board of Appeals -25- December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle:
It is not a public hearing, it has not been advertised.
Mr. Venezia:
So, what is the function then for tonight if it is not a
public hearing, is it a work session, considered a work session.
Mrs. Waddle:
We can consider it a work session, we have not got a recommenda-
tion from the Planning Board, they refused to make a recommendation
based on correspondence from our Town Attorney who feels that this
is not
way
Mr. Venezia:
The Town Attorney has interpreted the facts in a particular
Mrs. Waddle:
As you are free to also.
Mr. Venezia:
Evidently though he didn't have the information which I am
presenting tonight, in any event if it is not a public hearing,
then is it a work session and will a public hearing be scheduled.
Mrs. Waddle:
That is what we have to decide tonight because this Board
does not really have to hear this if they, a special use permit,
they can deny it prior to holding a public hearing, based on that
there would be two principal permitted uses, the place of worship
and the existing one -family dwelling. However I do not like to
do business that way and I would like to give everybody a chance to
speak so if the Board is in agreement I will schedule a public
hearing on this.
Mr. Caballero:
I make a motion that a public hearing be scheduled.
Mr. Landolfi:
Second.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Mrs. Waddle:
�..
All in favor, aye.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
Mr. Caballero:
Aye.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
-26-
December 13th, 1983
What does that mean, what you just said, please.
Mrs. Waddle:
It means that it will be advertised in the newspaper, and all
"MP your neighbors will be notified and everybody will have a chance
to stand up and speak.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
And is this, are back where we were like, is that the idea,
you know.
Mrs. Waddle:
We are at ground zero right now but I would recommend that the
Zoning Inspector before, this is awful because it really bothers
me that people are gathering, that many people are gathering in a
place that hasn't been inspected or even looked at by the local
fire department and I would hesitate to have them gathering there
until this is settled.
Zoning Board of Appeals -27- December 13th, 1983
on
Mr. Landolfi:
There are admitted infractions, obviously have been going
Mrs. Waddle:
And nothing has happened.
Mr. Landolfi:
It might be beneficial for you sir if you couldn't point out
clear to you the infractions that are going on on a weekly, how
many times your congregation meets but you just have to cite some
of the more obvious ones, there may be others, you know.
Mr. Venezia:
Would someone like to come out tommorrow.
Mrs. Waddle:
you know, thats a problem
Mr. Venezia:
If it is such a concern, we will be available tommorrow.
Mrs. Waddle:
They have been very lucky that with thirty to forty people
gathering there, thank God they haven't had a fire or anything like
that.
Mr. Venezia:
We can state that for this structure, thank God we haven't
had a fire here, the point is that I am offering
Mr. Landolfi:
They aren't even related sir,
Zoning Board of Appeals -28- December 13th, 1983
Mr. Venezia:
I am offering for the fire inspector and the Building Inspector
to come out tommorrow morning
Mr. Landolfi:
You are now but he has been in existence since 1978, you are
missing the whole point, it has been five years that he's been
operating.
Mr. Venezia:
It may have been five years and it is a safe operation.
Mrs. Waddle:
Thank God.
Mr. Venezia:
So if it is a matter confirming this and inviting
"W Mrs. Waddle:
You know, as far as this gentlemen's insurance is concerned,
if anything happens.
Mr. Venezia:
What don't I want to do.
Mr. Landolfi:
It appears that you don't want to conform to some of our
Town regulations, that's all we are trying to get you to do, okay,
that's all we are trying to do.
Mr. Venezia:
You have already received a letter from your attorney stating
that in his opinion there are two uses and it is not possible in
any event, I have read his letter and he says it is not to grant
this permit, it is not possible in any event, so I don't know what
we can attempt to conform to, we have a situation where a segment of
Zoning Board of Appeals -29-
December 13th, 1983
the community is being benefitted by a particular religious function
"' although you may disagree by shaking your head no , it is our
contention that a segment of society is being benefitted and that
public policy of the State of New York is to foster religious
activity which we are trying to do and we are inviting your Town
officials to go out and inspect the facility for safety and
as far as complying with anything else, there is nothing else
that we can comply with except to cease the religious activities
which we are not prepared to do.
Mrs. Waddle:
Hans, has the fire department inspected.
Mr. Gunderud:
No. Have they, is that what you are asking.
Mrs. Waddle:
You can have that done, I would again issue an order, cease
and desist until this matter is cleared up.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
Until what, mam, to do what.
Mrs. Waddle:
To have nobody there, to not hold services until this is
cleared up.
Mr. Mc Mahon:
If you bring the check in, checkor, checkees, you know, you
bring them in tonight, fine.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, we will bring them at our convenience and when Hans can
get there, he will set up an appointment with you and he will be
out there but I think until this is cleared up.
Zoning Board of Appeals -30-
Mr. Venezia:
Are you issuing an order right now?
Mrs. Waddle:
Hans will issue the order.
Mr. Venezia:
December 13th, 1983
I would like to make a request on the record also that
I be provided a transcript of tonight's proceeding and I would like
it before Sunday.
Mrs. Waddle:
No, you won't get it before Sunday
Mr. Venezia:
Okay, I am placing on the record
Mrs. Waddle:
This is not a public hearing so I don't know if we have to
issue anything.
Mr. Cortellino:
And if we don't vote on the minutes it is not public
information.
Mr. Venezia:
I am making a request on the record and I am noting that this
is being tape recorded as I am assuming my voice is along with
all the other Board members' voices, I am making a specific request
that I be provided a transcript of the proceedings tonight prior
to Sunday which is the next scheduled religious function and that
to fail to do so would infringe upon those individuals rights,
religious rights and freedoms, which they have grown accustomed to
and looked forward to especially the Christmas season and that
there is no reason at this particular point to direct such an
order, to refuse this transcript to counsel for the benefit of
Mr. Mc Mahon other than an attempt to stifle that religious freedom
which is quite obviously being attempted to be preserved tonight.
Mr. Cortellino:
That is the feeling that you have sir.
Zoning Board of Appeals -31-
Mrs. Waddle: (to Mr. Cortellino)
Don't even bother.
Mr. Venezia:
This is my statement for the record.
Mr. Cortellino:
No, that is your feeling.
Mr. Venezia:
I am stating for the record
Mrs. Waddle: (to Mr. Cortellino)
Don't say any mere.
Mr. Venezia
December 13th, 1983
I would like to state for the record my name and address;
the name is Peter Venezia, the address is the Gilbert Street
Professional Building, 70 Gilbert Street, Monroe, New York,
I am handing to your secretary a card for her convenience,
thank you.
Mrs. Waddle:
A public hearing will be set for next month on this and
I want our Town Attorney here, whatever one we have at that time,
but if they are wise they will bring in the one that is working
on this case.
on
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 13th, 1983
Appeal # 716, at the request of Ginal Petroleum, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger
°r Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an expansion of a legally non -conforming
use greater than the fifty percent permitted by the Zoning Ordinance,
in connection with premises located on Route 376, being parcel #
6259-04-840023, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she believed this was tabled pending
receipt of further information.
The secretary commented that the Board wanted to see a
rendering of what the building would look like.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone here from Gina Petroleum
this evening, no, okay, will close that appeal, table it until
they come in.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that it be tabled. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
4OW Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Later in the evening Mr. Lieberman appeared and Mrs. Waddle
asked for a motion to reopen Appeal # 720.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to reopen Appeal # 720. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vo to :
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle remarked to Mr. Lieberman that he wasn't here
*- earlier we did call for you, this is a continuation of the request
of Gina Petroleum to allow for an expansion of a legally non -conforming
use, we asked that they bring in some drawings of what they were
going to put up.
Mr. Ra`viemba, Mr. Lieberman's attorney asked if this was
720 or 716.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she was sorry, it is 716, you are
right.
Mr. Rahemba presented drawings to the Board and noted that
he would also like to present to the Board, have a letter from the
Town of East Fishkill Zoning Inspector, Mr. Nordlund, we already
have a carwash very similar to this in the Town of East Fishkill
and we went to their Planning Board and everything else and here
is a letter from him as to the operation of that in regards to
noise and traffic and stuff like that and just for reference
purposes.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she thought he would want his
original back.
Mr. Rahemba replied yes, I have another copy, do you need
five or four.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board had enough.
Mr. Rahemba noted that the one point he would like to point
out which may be misconceiving is that the tie in is going to be
from the back end of the now existing building, which is the building
to your right.
Mrs. Waddle commented this is going to be the side.
Mr. Rahemba replied no, that is the back, they are going to be
side by side, they are not going to be side by side evenly, in other
words you are going to have the existing station towards the front,
it is closer to the road, this one is going to be setback so that
the front of the carwash will be even with the rear of the existing
building, want to get enough distance between the front of the
building and the road, but they will be tied in with the facade
as they are by the overhang there to make them look as one but
both will be actually side by side.
Mrs. Waddle commented about the Special Use Permit.
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 13th, 1983
Mr. Rahemba replied that with regard to the Special Use Permit,
lm. they ask that it be tabled, when we originally submitted it thought
that we would have everything completed by last time and
Mrs. Waddle noted that she didn't see how they could handle
one without the other.
Mr. Rahemba replied that they couldn't.
Mrs. Waddle replied that we can't, will have to table both
of them.
Mr. Rahemba commented that they could table the special use
permit, he will resubmit it if it is approved.
Mrs. Waddle commented how could she do that, we don't
The secretary noted that the Board just accepts the application
for the special use permit and then refers it to the Planning Board,
if they don't get the variance they would not be able to apply for
the special use permit.
Mr. Rahemba commented that let him put it this way, we would not
want the special use permit for those premises if we can't have the
expansion.
Mrs. Waddle noted that but if you don't get the special
use permit you don't need the variance.
Mr. Gunderud noted no, it comes under the section of the ordinance
which says for the expansion of a -use, it is the use, that is what
he is in for, need that approval first.
Mr. Rahemba noted that was what he understood, if we are doing
it backwards, let me know, the way that he looks at it is if they
can't expand we are not going to convert the existing building into
a carwash so we need the permission from the Board, first of all
to expand to what we want to do here and if that is not approved then
we wouldn't want the, we are not.going to go and get a special use
permit and make the garage a car wash, that is the way he looks at
it, if he has to get the special use permit first then he'll do that
first, however, the Board wants to proceed.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how much greater than the fifty percent
is this.
Zoning Board of Appeals December 13th, 1983
Mr. Gunderud replied that he didn't really know, didn't
«— think he had reviewed the final plans, the existing facility is
1,200 square feet.
The Board, Mr. Gunderud, Mr. Rahemba and Mr. Lieberman
then discussed various dimensions. Mr. Gunderud noted that
they came up with 2,016 for the carwash, and 1,350 for the gas
station.
Mr. Landolfi noted that this was a considerable expansion.
Mr. Rahemba noted that the reason they have four bays is
because of the erTuipment you have to put out for two
Mr. Cortellino noted that it would cost you just as much.
Mr. Gunderud noted that it would be 149 percent.
Mrs. Waddle commented to Mr. Lieberman that he constructed
a three bay carwash in East Fishkill, now
Mr. Lieberman replied that the reason that was done was because
there was no more property to build on.
Mrs. Waddle commented that they were asking for 150 percent.
Mr. Rahemba commented that there was 2.6 acres there, it is
not like we are going it on an acre, the land
Mr. Landolfi asked what was the approximate square footage
of the one in East Fishkill.
Mr. Lieberman replied that it was 55' by 29', each bay is roughly
15' by 28' or 29', the bay was 29' down in Fishkill (East Fishkill).
Mr. Rahemba noted that three bays would be 1,595, probably
about 100 percent.
Mr. Cortellino noted that two bays would be about 100 percent.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if they would rather have the carwash
there rather than the gas station, the four bay carwash instead of
a gas station.
Zoning .Board of Appeals December 13th, 1983
Mr. Lieberman noted that he would not avant to lose the
+- permit to pump gasoline, if the Board recommended he would be more
than glad to take down the building and move the gas pumps to
set requirements back that the zoning requires, see right now
it is an awkward position, think the gasoiine pumps are too close
to the road any way, I.1he right way of doing it
Mrs. Waddle cowmen ed then we have just the one use again
and you have a new building.
Mr. Lieberman commented that they could reposition it
on the property, take down the existing building and we would
put new storage in and move the gas pumps to the required setbacks
that the Town recxuires,
Mr. Rahemba commented that see we weren't thinking about
converting the existing building, it is too close to the road,
it is not feasible and it would be
Mr. Lieberman commented that anything can be done, its the
point, "chat's it going to take to do it, the end result is its
only money, okay, not that money isn't a question here but you
know the service station was built, God only knows when, okay,
INW and when you back a car out of a bay you are practically on the
street any-way,it is a hard building to work out.
Mrs. Waddle commented but you are willing to work with us,
Mr. Landolfi commented that might be the answer_.
Mrs. Waddle added she thought it probably would.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he didn't think they could pass on
this plan as you have it here, it is not even
Mr. Lieberman noted that he did not even think of knocking
the building down until Mrs. Waddle suggested it, the building is
really useless, it is not feasible to make money out of.
Mr. Rahemba added probably by moving it back as you suggested,
you would probably get a better view of facing and overall
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 13th, 1983
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was a time limit, are we working
on a time limit on this.
Mr. Lieberman replied that he was working on a bid with a company
for'eRuipment, you know but that is really nothing
Mr. Rahembas commented think what they are talking about
Mrs. Waddle asked could we ask you to come in next month
with a plan that shows this.
Mr. Liberman asked if an artist's sketch would be alright.
Mrs. Waddle replied sure, an artist's rendition would be fine,
okay,
Mr. Lieberman .replied that was no problem.
Mrs. Waddle noted that we would then table it.
Mr. Caballero then made a motion to table it. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Aw
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Ur_ciuoli - absent
Mrs. Waddle noted that it was tabled and said thank you very
much for being so cooperative,
Mr. Lieberman said okay and thank you, do you want to keep
that.
Mrs. Waddle said yes, we do appreciate that.
Mr. Lieberman added the only thing is you have the rest of
my plans.
The Board noted he could have them.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any further business
to come before this Board, we will not take up the Special Use
Permit at this time.
Zoning Board ofAppeals D.cember 13th, 1983
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi,. seconded by,
Mr. Cabdllero,to table -action on the Special Use Permit
application.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any other business to
come before the Board.
Mr. George Brannen of Route 376 then came before the Board
and asked if he could ask a question, on this particular application
as he recalled the zoning ordinance on an expansion of a non -conforming
use should be granted for a less non -conforming use, in other
words, it is to bring it into conformity, not to make it worse.
Mrs. Waddle replied right.
Mr. Brannen added that based on that he didn't understand
how, if there is something else in the zoning ordinance, this
is obviously a more non-c®nforming, not less non -conforming.
Mrs. W ddle replied not necessarily.
Mr. Cortellino added that is a matter of opinion, there are
other stations that have this, can name two that are on Route 9,
the Mobil station on Route 9 and the one on New Hackensack Road,
they pump gas and they have a carwash, okay, so one is tied in
with the other, what we are doing is making it more conforming
by removing that building, so we have brought the footage down
less than the fifty percent he is entitled to due an illegally (legally)
non -conforming structure.
Mrs. Waddle added still having one use on the property.
Mr. Cortellino added that it was a matter of interpretation.
Mrs. Waddle then asked the secretary to get a reading from
the Town Attorney whether it is a non -conforming use or not. She
then noted that the Board meets on the second Tuesday of the month,
it is always the second Tuesday of the month, we will get a reading
from the Town Attorney on this.
0
Zoning Board of Appeals
December 13th, 1983
The secretary then asked the Board if she could get a
public stenographer for the Mac Mahon public hearing, will
probably be necessary for court or whatever.
The Board directed the secretary to contact a public
stenographer toliandle, the Mac Mahon public hearing.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if she could have a motion
to adjourn.
A motion was made by Mr. Caballero, to adjourn. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
The motion was carried by those present.
Mrs. Waddle then wished that everybody have a happy
holiday.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
L_ 6c
(Mrs. ),,#-6tty-'/Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoni4//Board of Appeals
br