1984-01-10ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
JANUARY 10TH, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Appeal # 714, at the request of Denis & Anne Mc Mahon,
seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 421,
paragraph 4 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit
them to have a place of worship on their property located on
47 Widmer Road, being parcel # 6158-02-81590, in the Town of
Wappinger.
2. Appeal # 711, at the request of W.D. MacGeorge (MacGeorge
Automotive), seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV,
Section 422, paragraph NB, # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit him to operate an automotive repair business
on property located on the corner of Park Hill Drive and All Angels
Hill Road, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcels # 6357-03-190015
and 185004.
3. Appeal # 723, at the request of Dom D'Agostino's Nurseries,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a free standing sign with
an area of 90 square feet to be located on property on Route 9
and Smithtown Road, being parcel # 6156-02-666989, in the Town of
Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal # 718, at request of the Southland Corporation
(7 -Eleven Food Stores), seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 422
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance HB-lA Zone, to allow
a building to be constructed at a lesser setback than the 75 foot
requirement and to allow two uses, a 7 -Eleven Food Store and gasoline
pumps, on property located on the corner of Route 9 and Old Hopewelll
Road (former Shell Station site), being parcel # 6157-02-614569,
in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal # 715, at the request of the Southland Corporation
(7 -Eleven Food Stores), seeking a Special Use Permit for a 7 -Eleven
Food Store and gasoline sales on property located on the corner of
Route 9 and Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Inc.,
3. Appeal # 716, at the request of Gina Petroleum, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger
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.
,. 4. Appeal # 720, at the request of Gina Petroleum, seeking a
Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 404.31 and 430
for a one story, four 'bay car wash on property located on Route 376,
in the Town of Wappinger.
PAGE TWO
ter.
II UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
5. Appeal # 721, at the request of the Faith Bible Church,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow two uses - a church facility and income
property (a rented house), on property located on Myers Corners Road,
(n/f Wilder), consisting of approximately 7.3 acres, being parcel #
6258-03-393242, in the Town of Wappinger.
III NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal # 725, at the request of R.B. Knouse Enterprises,
seeking an amended Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section
422, paragraph NB # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to allow for an addition on property located on the corner of
Route 9 and Smithtown Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal # 724, at the request of Vincent Cappelletti,
seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 422,
paragraph NB # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to
allow for motor vehicle sales and rental on property located on the
corner of Route 376 and Maloney Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Zoning Board of Appeals -1- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Landolfi:
Appeal # 711, at the .request of W.D. MacGeorge (Mac George
Automotive), seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV,
Section 422, paragraph NB, # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit him to operate an automotive repair business
on property located on the corner of Park Hill Drive and All Angels
Hill Road, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcels # 6357-03-190015
and 185004. May I ask who is here this evening, sir.
Mr. Alfred Cappelli:
My name is Alfred Cappelli, I am the architect representing
Mr. Mac George, have some material, will present this so you have an
idea of what we are doing, believe you saw this before, we have been
through the Planning Board and gotten their recommendation.
The Board then looked at the site plan.
Mr. Landolfi:
They have been in before and are back now. Hans, on the question
on the letter from the Planning Board, have all those conditions
in the memo of December 20th been addressed, that would be my first
concern.
Mr. Cappelli:
A lot of these items cannot be put on the plans.
Mr. Landolfi:
I just want to be sure before any decision is rendered this
evening that
Mr. Cappelli:
We haven't satisfied the County Department of Transportation
for instance because I am still waiting for information from my
surveyor, the County advised me that there was a sight easement
and it was my understanding that they wanted shown on the plan, other than
Mr. Cortellino:
1MW Should we hold off on this, perhaps we should hold off on this.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- January 10th, 1984
Mrs. Russ:
Charlie, that is usually something that you make as a condition
of approval.
Mr. Gunderud:
You might want to firm up that hours of operation.
Mr. Cortellino:
Yes, what hours
Mr. Landolfi:
We did talk about it vaguely, what are the specific hours,
you know.
Mr. Cappelli:
I was hoping that Mr. Mac George would be here to answer that
but it could be whatever is acceptable to whatever neighbors and or
the Board, whatever makes sense we would abide by that, eight o'clock
in the evening, nine o'clock whatever.
Mr. Landolfi:
For the benefit of some of the residents that I believe are in
the audience, this is the hearing, you are more than welcome to
come up and take a look, a quick look if need be, just take a minute
and show them, Hans. Could you take a look at it and then go on back
to your seats so we can on with the meeting, okay.
Mr. Cortellino:
8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Urciuoli:
9:00 P.M.
Mr. Gunderud:
It is an NB zone Charlie, it is not a residential, it is an
*w- NB zone, a business zone
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Urciuoli:
You can't be there until two o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Cappelli:
Reasonable hours, think that 6:00 p.m. might be a little
too early, nine might be tto late, think seven or eight o'clock
would be agreeable.
Mr. Landolfi:
For the record I would like to enter in, there is a letter
from Mrs. Byron, 17 Park Hill Drive:
"I am writing in reference to the special permit being
sought by W.D. Mac George to operate an automotive repair business
on property located on the corner of Park Hill Drive and All Angels
Hill Road in the Town of Wappinger.
I live on Park Hill Drive and I love it because it looks nice
and is very quiet. I feel that an auto repair business would ruin
this neighborhood by creating much noise and changing the appearance,
�1Please, I urge you to vote against the special permit. Thank
you,
Betty -Ann, for our records please. Thank you. Before we get
onto the people at hand, is there any questions of the engineer
before we entertain comments from the floor.
Mr. Cappelli:
I would just like to say that one of the conditions that was
presented to us by this Board and the Planning Board was to make the
building look residential in character as possible and we presented,
I don't know if this Board has seen them and the Planning Board has
seen them, it looks better than the 7 -Eleven that is presently there.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay, may I ask who is here to speak in favor of this
Appeal, please come forward and identify yourself by your name,
other than the architect, may I ask who would like to speak against
this appeal, would you please come forward and identify yourself
F)r our records.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- January 10th, 1984
Mrs. Byron:
My name is Helen Byron, and I am one of the residents on Park
Hill Drive, and I just want to say one thing first, I only became
aware of this by a tiny, little article in the newspaper, the Southern
Dutchess News and it was two weeks ago and it was only last Monday
that I was able to start going around to the area residents to see
how they felt about it and I have a petition that I wrote up and they
all signed, have sixty signatures, people who are opposed to this
because it is right at the entrance to a residential area, I have a
map.
Mr. Landolfi:
I think we are familar, we have been out to look at it,
we are familar but will look at it.
Mrs. Byron:
The green lines are from where all the residents signed,
the black dot is where this place would be, it is right at the
entrance of a residential area, when you go up All Angels Hill Road
and make a left and come to Park Hill Drive, what you are going to see
is an auto repair shop, right in front of all colonial raised ranches,
its just kind of
Mr. Landolfi:
Let me address a couple of points before you go on, the first
point is by our current zoning laws, alright, this is a permitted
use in that neighborhood number one, first of all, with a special use
permit it is permissable number one, now, the reason you found out
like you did is by law the abutting properties, if you were an
abutting property owner you would have gotten a letter addressed
to you, okay, the rest has to be done with the legal notice, that
is a requirement by law, so that's why you had to look in the back
of the paper, we do not notify the whole town unfortunately, so
Mrs. Byron:
When the residents were notified though they were all opposed.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay, fine.
wl.. Mrs. Byron:
The ones that couldn't come, some of them did come but some of
Zoning Board of Appeals _5_
January 10th, 1984
them, the ones that couldn't.
Mr. Cortellino:
There is something that you may not be aware of that
Mr. Landolfi alluded to, there is two things that this Board
does, one is variances and the other is special use permits,
special use permits is a use that is permitted, the only thing that
we can do with a special use permit is review the situation as
far as safety, restrictions, hours of operation, no flashing lights,
this is an inherent right of the individual to conduct that business,
it is not like a variance where we are permitting him to get away
with the law, okay,
Mrs. Byron:
You are talking about safety, our little kids play all along
this road, how can an auto repair shop on a residential road is
not excatly safe, on 82 (Route 82) that is commercial and that
would be fine, on Park Hill Drive, no. That is what I have to say,
it would not really be a safe environment for kids growing up in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Landolfi:
Thank you very much, sir, would you please.
Mr. Nardelli:
My name is John Nardelli and I live on 2 Park Hill Drive,
I'd like to comment on going back to the original, okay, you're
talking or we're talking what it is zoned for now, okay, and what
he has a right to build, you have to determine whether everything is
safe or not, what my comment is was from the beginning at the two
or three other Planning Board variance that I attended, that fact
number one is that when I first moved there it was residential, okay,
I believe that it was rezoned for a business okay other than a repair
shop, okay that's how it turned into commercial, also believe that
on items one to five on what designates a neighborhood business, okay
this is six and seven, which would be repair shop or gasoline station,
I believe with that in mind the Board should be very careful and
considerate of what is built here, what you give permission for, what
permission you give to them to use that land, what manner they use that.
Mr. Co.rtellino:
That is zoned Neighborhood Business.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Nardelli:
Yes but in the transition it was zoned originally for another
occupant, okay, which was not a repair shop.
Mr. Cortellino:
It does not get zoned for a business, a zoning change may have
occured
Mr. Nardelli:
What I am voicing my argument on is that if Mac George had
bought this land originally and asked for to turn it over to commercial
property for what have you maybe we would have been able to stop
that back then, all I am asking for is consideration, okay, if it
is commercial property to be considerate of what is being built
there, what you have there, you are in an neighborhood zone, if
I am not mistaken from Route 52 on up through Billings, it is almost
a designated commercial line, you are going beyond that line, or it
was changed beyond that line in a westerly direction, I think you
should be very considerate on what kind of permit is issued, number
two, being near this type of business myself, it does and I have
voiced my opinion on this subject, with this business comes problems
or safety hazards, you have the travel, the extra cars in the area,
you have noise pollution, you may have air pollution, dealing with
automobile repair, you handle brakes which is asbestos, which is
known to cause cancer and I voice my opinion and that a business like
this should be kept in a commercial area, not in a residential area,
thank you.
Mr. Landolfi:
Thank you, anyone else to speak against this, yes sir.
Mr. Rosiak:
My name is Ed Rosiak and I live on Park Hill Drive, 23 Park.
Hill Drive, I am opposed to it, I am a safety engineer by profession
and some of the ideas mentioned such as as'--ct-s of brakes, they are
valid, along anywhere you have a certain amount of asbestos released
from brakes and in an auto repair business you have the additional
asbestos released this involves cleaning brakes, blowing our the drums,
and it is a fact that there is no safe limit for asbestos, it is not
that we can say some minimal measure is safe, there is no safe limit
in addition to that in the nature of an automobile repair business
Zonin Board of Appeals -7- January 10th, 1984
you are not talking about driving in good, brand new cars all done
properly, we are talking about bringing cars in that are malfunctioning,
cars that are apt to cause problems, the kinds of cars that we say
have to be repaired because they are unsafe, have to have inspections
for the purposes of safety, you bring in unsafe cars into an area
where we have children playing, the nature of the area is children
do play in the streets, around the streets, there are a lot of young
children in the area and it would seem to be highly inappropriate
to impose this within that type of environment, in addition at present
there is a nice line of large trees along All Angels, believe they
are maple, to put this garage in this area would have a very negative
aesthic affect .requiring the removal of those trees, in addition
to that I would like to leave you with these copies that condense
some of these same items and may be portray some additional information,
I regret that I didn't .realize how many members of the Board there
were and I don't have copies but I believe it was mentioned earlier
that you have a copier, thank you very much.
Mr. Landolfi:
Fine, thank you very much, one more gentleman.
Mr. Guarino:
My name is Jim Guarino, I live on All Angels Hill Road, directly
across the street from the proposed building, as I have stated
before, I am zoned residential directly across the street, I don't
know how that came to be or whatever but and next door to me is
zoned local business, there is some sort of a shop there, ceramics
or whatever, my problem with this is that according to the blue
print the driveway for that establishment is right across the street
from my driveway and I just feel that there will be some sort of
conflict with safety there, it is exactly, it didn't show on this
blueprint the telephone pole and the location of the driveway
but the last one when I was at a meeting here did show it and it is
right next to the telephone pole it was right across the street
from my driveway and I feel that with in and out of cars coming
back and forth like that will definitely be a safety hazard and I
did discuss this with him before about trying to move the driveway.
Mr. Landolfi:
Was that moved in a new place.
Awl Mr. Cappelli:
No, the location is the same, it is exactly across the
Zoning Board of Appeals -8-
January 10th, 1984
street, the County Department of Transportation didn't seem
to feel it was a problem.
Mr. Landolfi:
No, we have that a letter from the County Planning and they
took no exception to it.
Mr. Guarino:
No exception to a business being across from a residential
house like that.
Mr. Cappelli:
We are trying to get it as far away from Park Hill Drive
as possible.
Mr. Gunderud:
No, that is the Dutchess County Department of Public Works,
Aw at this point they haven't reviewed the plans, they will review
prior to the building permit.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay.
Mr. Cortellino:
You understand the process, it would go to the highway
department for review, to the Town Engineer for review, goes
to the County.
Mr. Landolfi:
So, there are others besides ours, ours would just be kinda
preliminary if you will.
Mr. Guarino:
Also, I am the only one I know who would be looking at
the building itself from my house, that I know of, from a resell
point of view don't think it would be very good, okay, if it was
*" another house that would be another thing, okay.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Lando i_ fi :
Fine, -,--_bank you very much. Sir?
'Ar. Xurtz:
My name is Chris Kurtz and I live on 12 Park Hill Drive,
and I tsan't give you like the three previous gentlemen who came up
here and talked to you any concrete reasons on asbestos, brakes
or anyt:hin like that why these people should not build, I am up
here because I moved into my house three months ago and the proposed
building that they are talking about if it was there three months
ago I never, the proposed building that they are putting on, I
bought three, four months ago, number one I would not have bought
if this was here or if I knew anything about it, I don't care if they
are going to put up Hollywood palm trees in front of the damn thing,
it is wrong, it is unsafe, number two hypothetically speaking if
there was no otherfarea within a ten, fifteen, twenty mile radius,
I commute to New York City every day, sixty miles, where these people
could not relocate this proposed automotive shop I suppose I could
possibly have a little bit of feeling for that and feel bad for
them but I don't because there is so much open space and possible
areas for them to build that why pick a residential space, let me
just finish, one more word, what we are talking about here is the
convenience of an owner of a business and the inconvenience of
many, many people and I think it is wrong and I will tell you this
right now before they build let me know because I will move the
hell out of there, I will go back to Westchester, I moved up here
because it was beautiful up here and I do not want to move.
Mr. Landolfi:
Fine, okay, thank you very much, Hans, you had a point.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well, the point I want to make to the gentleman who just
spoke is before he bought his property three months ago he could
have checked with the zoning office as to what was allowed.
Mr. Kurtz:
Six months ago, 'I guess I lied a little bit.
Mr. Gunderud:
Well, it was changed over a year ago.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10-
Mr. Landolfi:
Excuse us, excuse us.
Mr. Gunderud:
January 10th, 1984
It was changed over a year ago and as it had been said by the
Board, an NB zone does allow certain number of listed uses and
Mr. Kurtz:
A little more, as a living I am the travel and resorts
manager of the New York Daily News and what we do for a living
is to try to go out and find beautiful places and I have been doing
that and I don't want to sound a little bit, a little bit off to
the left here but that's what I do for a living and find places
that are beautiful and I came up here because I thought it was
unique and that's the way I thought it was planned to be and I
didn't think that my three year old son would be walking the street
and looking at wrecked up cars.
Mr. Gunderud:
You should have checked zoning.
Mr. Kurtz:
I didn't check zoning.
Mr. Landolfi:
Sir, one more last comment.
Mr. Nardelli:
I guess I could add, I guess the main issue here is safety,
okay, and one other thing, being in this business as I mentioned "before,
they have provisions for 18 to 20 vehicles, if I am correct, another
thing is All Angels is a semi busy, 82 is a large State Road, I also
believe and like I say I am a witness to this as I repair vehicles,
where is he going to road test his vehicles, on Park Hill Drive,
I am sure.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay, fine, anyone else, any further comments, sir.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Porach:
I just have a few questions, he touched on
Mr. Landolfi:
Sir, your name and address please.
Mr. Porach:
Vincent Porach, Boxwood Close, he just touched on something
as far as road testing , he said Park Hill Drive, am a little
concerned because across the street there is a pond okay, I am
afraid that there may be some volatile liquids, oils, whatever
the case may be, they might find their way into that pond, because
of convenience sake, okay, not as far as ruining the scenery or
anything but as far as a safety point of'view also because that
could become volatile and cause a big problem there, was just
wondering too if there has to be an environmental impact study
made on this particular site here.
Mr. Landolfi:
That one doesn't require anything, does it, think he has got
it in there.
Mr. Gunderud:
The short environmental assessment form.
Mr. Landolfi:
Not the full blown one, this doesn't require it, there is a
statement that they have to go through to check off certain
things, some of the ones that were mentioned this evening.
Mr. Porach:
I was curious as I was sitting here for the last thing where
this guy wants to get a church on his property and there was
an environmental impact study, just wondering why when there is
a garage being built it doesn't.
Mr. Gunderud:
It was reviewed, what he was referring to before, it was
reviewed by the environmental committee of the Town, this was also
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- January 10th, 1984
reviewed by the Environmental Committee, it is a process we go
through on site plans.
Mr. Landolfi:
There is a whole checklist sir of approvals that are
necessary, like for instance if we granted the special use
permit, fire company would even go out and check it, there are
all kinds of reviews, Board of Health, etc., a regular check list.
Mr. Porach:
When it comes down to your occupancy involved, when someone
is in violation of a particular thing, you don't have to go
through all hell to get it corrected because then who are you
going to talk to about it, who are you going to gets to get that
violation corrected, report to.
Mr. Landolfi:
That is why we have some people, the Zoning Administrator
here is on board and all you have to do is to call the Town Hall,
many cases, by the way, come before us because of people calling
in.
Mr. Porach:
Let me just ask if he was in violation of say a particular
flammable substance outside or a poison chemical, when we call up
okay, how long would it take to get that condition corrected, would
it take two or three months, you know before
Mir. Landolfi:
Sir, I don't think that's, it wouldn't
Mr. Porach:
I'd like to know because if this guy is going to build it
and have this there, I'd like to know how long it is going to
take if there is a violation.
Mr. Landolfi:
I would hope that he would understand, you know, his business
low obviously would be in some kind of jeopardy if he would go to that
extent.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Porach:
A"' I don't want to remind you what happened during the
Nixon era, alright, lets not get into that, there is enough noise
there already with the 7 -Eleven there, screeching tires, racing the
engines, the whole bit, I don't think we need anymore.
Mr. Landolfi:
Okay fine, thank you very much, is that it, yes sir.
Mr. Byron:
I am John Byron, I am representing my son who couldn't be
here this evening because he is in law school and he is taking
an exam tonight, one of the questions that I would like to note,
is Mac George the property owner or does he have a binder on the
property based on this variance, I don't think that anybody is
going to invest all this money depending on a variance being
given, is he the property owner.
Mr. Landolfi:
I believe he is, believe he is listed as the owner.
Mr. Byron:
He may have a binder on the property.
Mr. Cappelli:
It is wasn't it wouldn't becoming in under Mac George's
name, would be the owner of the property, it is not a variances,
he is permitted the use.
Mr. Landolfi:
Special Use Permit sir, that is entirely different from a
variance.
Mr. Byron:
There are five things listed there, that he needs a variance.
Mr. Landolfi:
low He doesn't need a variance sir, a special use permit sir,
that's what this is about, depending on the outcome here this
evening sir, he may or may not be granted the special use permit,
okay.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Byron:
Well to buy a piece of property like this and depend on the
Board to accept it, he is buying a pig in a poke, he bought that
property expecting to be able to pump a gas station only, on that
location right.
Mr. Landolfi:
Well he obviously must have, he or his lawyer, must have been
familar sir with what was say a permitted use.
Mr. Cortellino:
It is not a variance, it is a permitted use.
Mr. Byron:
It is not a neighbor hood use, there are exceptions, you
list six things here,,a variance or special permit, have a letter
from the Zoning Administrator stating that.
Mr. Landolfi:
A special use permit, sir.
Mr. Gunderud:
That letter may have been in regard to a variance on setback
from the corner.
Mr. Byron:
Have a letter from the Zoning Administrator, says variance.
Mr. Nardelli:
That categorizes gas stations and repair shops for
special permits, so this fellow went out and bought the land
before the fact and now he is asking for a special permit.
Mr. Landolfi:
I am not going to sit here and defend why he bought it or
when he bought it, I mean I think that you are entitled to go
out and buy a piece of property for whatever use.
There was then some discussion back and forth amongst those
present and Mr. Gunderud and the Board.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Cortellino:
I thick it is very clear, let me read what it says:
"The Neighborhood Business zoning district, which is what
this area is, allow motor vehicle sales and repair and service
in fully enclosed structures subject to special permit approval
procedure, and this is what this is,
Mr. Mac George is seeking such a special permit. This procass
requires a public hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals just so
these concerns can be aired and considered, this is what is
going on right now, this hearing will be held Tuesday, January 10,
1984. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. I would encourage you
to attend and express your feelings at that meeting."
The letter Mr. Cortellino was reading from was from
Pamela M. Farnsworth, Zoning Administrator, dated January 9, 1984
and was addressed to Mrs. Helen Byron, 17 Park Hill Drive, Hopewell
Junction, New York, 12533.
There was then another discussion amongst the residents of
this area with regard to an existing repair shop which they felt
"" had numerous violation and the Board advised the residents to
contact Mrs. Farnsworth and report this to her to be addressed.
Mr. Landolfi:
Is there anyone else here to speak, fine, we will close
Mr. Rosiak:
The paper that I gave you I used the term variance out of
my own ignorance.
Mr. Landolfi:
No problem sir, thank you very much. We will now close
that appeal, okay, what are the wishes of the Board.
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
During their deliberations the Board noted that if the
special use permit was granted that there would be a condition
that no road tests shall be conducted on Park Hill Drive and the
hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Caballero:
I make a motion that W.D. Mc George's special use permit
be tabled until the next full board meeting when there will be
five board members here to make a decision.
Mr. Urciuoli:
Second it.
Mr. Landolfi:
All in favor.
Mr. Caballero:
Aye.
Mr. Urciuoli:
Aye.
Mr. Cortellino:
Aye.
Mr. Landolfi:
Aye.
There was then a comment from the audience as to when the next
meeting would be and the Board advised that this had not yet
been determined. There was another comment as to what recourse
the residents would have if this special permit was granted and
the Board advised that they could accept the decision, they could
reappeal if they had other information which had not been considered
or they could file an action in the Supreme Court. There were then
some comments about existing violations and they were advised to
contact the Zoning office.
Mr. Nardelli:
Went to the Planning Board meeting and there were a number
of things
Mr. Landolfi:
We have that before us, have to meet these.
Zoning Board of Appeals --17-- January 10th, 1984
done.
Mr. Nardelli:
The Board would never grant a permit before this is
Mr. Cortellino:
No, the permit would be granted conditioned on those
and any other we may add to.
Mr. Landolfi:
We already have others that we are going to add sir, hours
of operation, etc., etc., fine. For Jon Adams here is what I am
going to do, am going to jump to unfinished business.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18-
January 10th, 1984
Appeal #k 716, at the request of Gina Petroleum, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 404.31 of the Town of Wappinger
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 #p 6259-04-840023, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Landolfi commented lets take that one first, he added
you had some new plans.
Mr. Rahemba and Mr. Lieberman were present.
Mr. Rahemba commented that these plans show removing the
existing building and putting up the four bay ca.rwash and putting,
moving the pumps way back, having canopies over the pumps and
having a little office and storage area in the back.
Mr. Landolfi commented that his first observation, he didn't
see footage denoted, like so, so he could determine, ahat would
we be talking about, in other words knowing what it was previously
and what the percent expansion, what would this be.
Mr. Rahemba replied that the previous building which is
existing now has about 1350 square feet that is the garage which
low is to your right, would be in that area.
Mr. Lieberman commented is that the original map, you asked
me for an artist's sketching, what would he do.
Mr. Landolfi _replied that he understood and appreciated
that.
Mr_. Lieberman noted that they figured it out and they were
only 300 square feet above the fifty percent with removing the
existing building.
Mr_. Adams, former Attorney to the Town, asked what is the
percentage is that of the total gross, five percent, ten percent.
Mr. Rahemba replied that the existing building has 1,350 square
feet, the four bay garage will have about 1,950 square feet,fifty
percent would put us 2,025 square feet, if you take one half
of 1,350 that 675, add it and it comes out to 2,025, the four_ bay
car wash is about 1,960, 70 by 28 building and then we are proposing
a building there that would be 15 by 25 building which would have
Zoning Board of Appeals -19- January 10th, 1984
375 square feet, so if you add them together it comes out to
Mr. Landolfi commented what is that other_ one, 70 by
Mr. Rahemba replied 28, you have plans already on this.
Mr. Landolfi commented okay, am with you.
Mr. Lieberman noted that we didn't change the size or
anything
Mr. Landolfi noted that he was with them, okay.
Mr. Rahemba then presented the Board with the original
plan, this goes back to 1971, this is the proposed carwash
each bay is 15 feet by 28 feet and you have a ten foot section
here, that is why we said it was 70 by 28, we have submitted plans
on that with the brick and the exterior, look it will be somthing
similar to this, (showed Board a .rendering), don't have a sketch
of what the small office would be.
Mr. Lieberman noted that they would like to conform to
the carwash.
Mr. Rahemba commented that he thought they were about 315,
310 square feet over the maximum percent we could go to, you
take one half of the 1,350 which is currently there, that brings
us up to 2025, cause it is 675 added to 1350, which comes out
to 2025 and this is 1960 plus 375, think that gives you 1323, about
310 over.
Mr. Lieberman noted that he would like to add that the
reason for the office and storage area was that you have to
have a bathroom for the employees, okay that is basically the
only place for the bathroom.
Mr. Rahemba added that what they were proposing was more safety
conscious by having the pumps back further on the .road and would
also be alleviating the necessity, the current building is so
close, this is going to move everything so much further back which
would conform to the area and look better than being on the road.
Zoning Board of Appeals -20-
January 10th, 1984
Mr. Caballero asked them what would they be doing with the
tree line on the two sides of the property to
Mr. Lieberman replied whatever the Town wishes him to do,
whether a tree line or whatever the Board wants, doesn't matter
to him ,ahat we put down.
Mr. Urciuoli asked if the tanks would be moved at all.
Mr. Lieberman replied that the tanks would be removed,
in the gasoline business after 16 years a tank is graded
D as dead, okay, it is not supposed to be in, left in
the ground for corrosion or leakage and most of the tanks have
reached that or passed it already.
Mr. Urciuoli commented then new ones would be installed.
Mr. Lieberman replied yes, under the new code.
Mr. Cortellino asked if they would be fiberglass.
Mr. Lieberman replied that they have new steel, they have
fiberglass, the new steel has a corrosive material that is sprayed
onto today, okay, there are pros and cons to using fiberglass,
think you would have that with the fire department, water tanks
that leaked, there are pros and cons that movement causes fiberglass
to leak, so you have two different schools of thought on that.
Mr. Landolfi noted that they had to talk on that one and the
next one would be the special use permit.
The secretary noted that nothing had been done on the special
use permit until the Board acts on the variance, then they would
have to refer it to the Planning Board and whatever plan is
submitted would be sent out for review and then the Planning Board
makes a recommendation and then it comes back to the Zoning Board
for a public hearing.
Mr. Caballero noted that he would be concerned about
protecting the surrounding residential area but that Mr. Lieberman
had indicating that he would be willing to buffer these areas.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that these items could be covered as
part of the Special Use Permit.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21-
January 10th, 1984
Mr. Lieberman noted that one of the adjoining property owners
had beautiful blue spruce trees, fifty to sixty feet high that
�' actually you couldn't see through and she took them down, her
garage is bigger than what's here, can see her house better
than you can see his service station, don't know why, the reason
she did that but that was the propoerty, on the road as you are
looking to the left.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone present to speak on
this appeal.
The secretary noted that the Board had had the public hearing
on this.
Mr. Landolfi commented that was .right, this is unfinished
business, if there are no further questions.
The Board and Mr. Adams then conferred with regard to
various sections of the ordinance and Mr. Adams advised that
the Board could really interpret any way they wanted. Mr. Adams noted
that there was latitude in there.
Following deliberations amongst the Board members, a
motion was made by Mr. Caballero, to approve the
variance, the proposed changes would make the property more
conforming by eliminating the repair of vehicles and enhancing
the property and eliminating some of the dangers of the
gas pumps being so close to the .road. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mrs. Waddle - absent
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
A ;motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr.
Urciuoli, that the application for a special use permit be
"referred to the Planning Board.
The motion was carried by those members present.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that he would proceed back to
the order of the agenda.
Zoning Board of Appeals -22- January 10th, 1984
Appeal # 723, at the request of Dom D'Agostino's Nurseries, Inc.,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a free standing sign
with an area of 90 square feet to be located on property on Route 9
and Smithtown Road, being parcel # 6156-02-666989, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Mr. Richard Santerelli then come before the Board and noted
that he was one of the owners, here to represent them and then
showed the Board a drawing of the sign that they proposed to put
up.
Mr. Landolfi noted that while the Board was looking at
the proposed sign that there was a letter from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning and he would read a few excerpts
from it.
"The location of this use on a four lane, heavily traveled
state roadway gives the use good exposure to potential customers."
He added that it also goes onto refer to what the Zoning
Ordinance calls for and he was sure they were aware of that and then
noted that it concludes as follows.
"In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department
of Planning recommends that this sign variance be disapproved.
This proposal would be contrary to Town Development policy as
expressed through the Town Zoning Ordinance. Increased signage
would have a negative impact on Route 9; it could lead to a
decrease in traffic safety. Approval in this case could set a
precedent for future applications of a similar nature."
Mr. Landolfi commented to Mr. Santerelli that he wasn't aware
if he knew that there had been problems with business along in
that area.
Mr. Santerelli noted that the only problem he had there
was that the Ship's Wheel Restaurant was right out there in front
and when you are coming north bound on Route 9, they have to
actually almost pass the store to see it, that is why we have the
sign a little larger, they are right almost on Route 9, and this
sign will be at least 40 feet back from the road and our building
now is 360 feet from the road.
Mr. Caballero asked if they weren't allowed three signs
on the property.
Mr. Santerelli replied he thought just one.
Zoning Board of Appeals -23-
January 10th, 1984
.Mr'. Gunderud noted that they were on a corner so they
could have another sign on the other road but that Smithtown Road
would not help him much.
Mr_. Santerelli noted that they also have that N.A.P.A. auto
supply on one side which is very close to the road and then the
Ship's Wheel, they are right by the road.
Mr. Gunderud noted that they are allowed one on the
building and the free standing sign.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the sign on the building would be
some 360 feet back, they put up a new building which is back
quite a bit further than the previous building had been.
Mr. Santerelli commented that plus this would be all
landscaped, it will be something that the Town will be proud of,
it will look beautiful, did the back section because we weren't
working there, took the building down, moved back, will have
a lot of landscaping, it will look good, that is his feeling.
Mr. Caballero commented that it is 30' by 3', how big a sign
do we allo,o.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he was over, three times over, 25 square
feet, he is asking for ninety.
Mr. Urciuoli commented that the minute you have a ninety square
foot sign up, everyone from across the street, all along the road,
it is a real problem.
Mr. Landolfi commented to Mr. Santerelli that he could note
that they have had problems with signs along here before.
Mr. Santerelli commented that he was just saying that he
is between the two buildings, it is rough, Lawrence (Farms) has
a big open space, which we had this, we are so far back off the
road, 360 feet is a lot of room.
Mr. Caballero noted that it is an awfully big sign, 90 feet.
Mr. Urciuoli then asked if there was a limitation on height.
Zoning Board of Appeals -24- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Gunderud noted that there is none.
Mr. Landolfi suggested that they might look into this, like
the Texaco type sign, what if you tried that, obviously don't
mean a ninety foot sign, but going up higher, something like
that.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that there was a restaurant there but
that it was not a very tall building.
Mr. Santerelli noted that it is tall if you are coming
up north.
Mr. Cortellino added that they have that little steeple
on it.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they had given any thought to possibly
conforming somewhat to our ordinance in going up with it.
Mr. Santerelli noted that there had been a sign there
sometime ago, think it was forty feet if he was not mistaken,
before the ordinance changed, we have been there seven or eight
years now.
Mr. Gunderud commented that the sign may be larger than
it is supposed to be, may have gotten a variance.
It was noted that it had orginally been called "Sparkling
Seasons Nursery".
Mr. Gunderud noted that a variance may have been granted
on that property and if there was a variance granted that size
could then stay, the forty feet if a variance was granted, what he
usually did if there was an existing sign he assumed that a variance
was granted or whatever, you could then put a new sign up that
would not exceed the existing sign.
Mr. Landolfi then suggested that Mr. Santerelli think
about going up higher, keep the existing sign but go up higher.
Mr. Urciuoli then suggested why didn't the Board take care
of this and then perhaps could talk about how Mr. Santerelli
might be helped.
Zoning Board of Appeals -25-
January 10th, 1984
Mr. Landolfi then asked if anyone wished to make a
motion.
Mr. Urciuoli then made a motion that the variance reouest
be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi noted that the request was denied, have a few
alternatives you can think about and he was sure Hans would be
available to work with you, sorry mean Pam, okay, alright.
Mr. Santerelli noted that he was trying to think of business
purposes for some simple, it is so far back from the road, that
is what he was talking about.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the only thing that he could
Mr. Santerelli noted that he had two buildings, one on each
side that are very large and when you come up north, south bound
is even the same thing because we have the auto supply, actually
this would help him quite a bit as they were putting a beautiful
building up, heavily landscaping the entire place.
Mr. Caballero noted that they have that problem with other
properties, furniture store put up a building and they have a sign
that is
Mr. Urciuoli asked how would the sign be, parallel to your
property, a single type thing.
Mr. Santerelli replied that same that is there.
Mr. Urciuoli then commented then that a portion of the
ninety feet would be behind the building (Ship.`s Wheel) anyway,
you would have to get right onto it if it were 25 square feet
or ninety feet, the building is going to hide it, the basic part
of the sign
Mr. Santerelli commented that with a smaller sign they
would miss it even more, trying to catch the eye as they are
coming down the road.
Zoning Board of Appeals -26- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Caballero noted that is a problem as you could have
a traffic accident.
Appeal # 718, at the request of the Southland Corporation
(7 -Eleven Food Stores), seeking a variance of Article IV, Section
422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance HB-lA Zone, to
allow a building to be constructed at a lesser setback than the
75 foot requirement and to allow two uses, a 7 -Eleven Food Store
and gasoline sales on property located on the corner of Route 9
and Hopewell Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. John E. Railing of Barger, Campbell Gray and Railing -
Engineers and Surveyors,,was present and noted that last month
they had talked about this and could recapitulate, basically what
we have asked for is a variance from the separation from Hopewell
Road from 75 to 40, the reason being to go back a little bit, is
the uniqueness of the site, the site is a non -conforming site in
size and location of the existing building, have stated in the
past that the building as it presently exists is not suitable
for the Southland Corporation and it also does not fit the site
as far as traffic flow for that particular site, we have also
referenced problems with the site in general relative to the rock
that exists in the area adjacent to the building which is unique
in itself and, therefore precludes us from putting it to the north,
not to include everything that we might have said but in general
that is what we have said and that is the .reason that we have
asked for the variance.
Mr. Caballero then asked if they had received the
recommendation from the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
The secretary noted that the Board had received an original
recommendation but that upon reading it the Board had felt that
there was some misunderstanding by the County and a letter was
sent from the Board asking that the Department of Planning
re-evaluate this, this was sent to them on December 15th but
there has not yet been a reply from them, if there was a problem
with overiding the County's previous recommendation, a four vote
would be required.
Mr. Railing commented that it has been some 25 days since
that letter was sent to the County Planning, so he called them today
and they advised him that they had not had the time to address
the particular letter that Mrs. Russ had sent, that was the answer,
it is a problem as we have been waiting some time on this.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-28- January 10th, 1984
Appeal # 721, at the request of the Faith Bible Church,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow two uses - a church facility
and income property ( a rented house), on property located on
Myers Corners Road, (n/f Wilder), consisting of approximately
7.3 acres, being parcel # 6258-03-393242, in the Town of Wappinger.
The secretary noted that at the last meeting the Board
had raised the question about subdividing the property and you
advised them that if there were any problems about obtaining
subdivision approval to come back and you would then consider
the variance request and Jack (John E. Railing, P.E. of Barger,
Campbell, Gray and Railing) is here tonight to explain what
the problem is.
Mr. Railing noted that he had submitted subdivision plans
and believed the secretary had these.
The secretary gave the Board with copies of the plan.
Mr. Railing noted that he would like to explain what
their problem was, we have been before the Planning Board and your
Board and received the special use permit, etc., etc., we originally
spoke of the parsonage being, looking from the road, on the right
side of the map, when he presented the map to his client, Mr. Warren,
who is here tonight, he indicated that in fact they never intended
the parsonage to be on thr right side but rather on the left side,
if you will let him use these words, it is a less than suitable
structure, in fact a structure which in fact is deteriorating
and may eventually be taken down, had drawn the subdivision
map up,.and i.t does work when you subdivide off the building
of the left, however, that is the parsonage which is exactly the
opposite of what he needs to do, assuming that is acceptable
with the parsonage being on the left we now have a problem with
the building on the right, you cannot subdivide that and meet the
zoning requirements for subdivision, it is impossible because
of the location. of the church, so that is our problem in fact so,
therefore, we have to come for that second use because it does
in fact exist, it is presently occupied and they do want to get
going on the church.
Mr. Landolfi then asked the Board members what they wished
to do.
Zoning Board of Appeals -27- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Landolfi noted that there may or may not be a problem.
Mr. Cortellino commented that we would need four votes to
override the County.
It was noted again that the Board had received a recommendation
but felt that some clarification was needed and referred it back
to the County and they have not yet responded to that request.
Mr. Caballero asked if the Board wanted to ask them to
wait another month again.
It was noted that this had been going on awhile, the request
had been submitted in October. It was noted that it was
submitted on October 27th and was before the Board for the first
time at their November meeting.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Caballero then made a motion that the requested
variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi then noted that the Special Use Permit then
has to be referred to the Planning Board, is there a motion.
A motion was then made by Mr. Caballero, seconded by
Mr. Cortellino, to refer the Special Use Permit application to
the Planning Board for their recommendation.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Zoning Board of Appeals -29- January 10th, 1984
Mr. Urciuoli then made a motion that the variance be
granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi then noted that he needed motions on the
items under "New Business" to refer them to the Planning Board.
Appeal # 725, at the request of R.B. Knouse Enterprises,
seeking an amended Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section
422, paragraph NB # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to allow for an addition on property located on the corner of
Route 9 and Smithtown Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
A motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mr. Caballero, to refer the application to the Planning Board.
.r
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Appeal # 724, at the request of Vincent Cappelletti,
seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV, Section 422,
paragraph NB # 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to
allow for motor vehicle sales and rental on property located on
the corner of Route 376 and Maloney Road, in the Town of Wappinger.
A motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, to refer the special
use permit application to the Planning Board. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Zoning Board of Appeals -30-
Vote:
�„ Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - absent
The motion was carried.
January 10th, 1984
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi noted that he had received a letter from
Elaine Snowden, Town Clerk in which the Town Board requested
that the Zoning Board possibly change their meeting night from
the second Tuesday to the first Tuesday of the month in order
that the secretary not have meetings back to back, the work load,
etc., what are the Board's feeling on this.
Following a brief discussion, it was determined that
the meeting night would remain the same, the second Tuesday
of each month, due to conflicts with any other nights.
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mr. Caballero, to adjourn.
The motion was unanimously carried by those members
present.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
(Mrs.) tty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Town Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
RON