1984-11-13ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
NOVEMBER 13TH, 1984 - 7:90 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal #761, at the Request of John W. Vorndran, seeking a
Special Use Permit of Article IV, Section 421, Paragraph 5, of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct a
Medical Office Building, located on All Angels Hill Road & Old All
Angels Hill Road, no Parcel # On the records, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #784, at the request of Dr. Tito Sorlini, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow an 25' rearyard setback when 40' is required on
property located on 12 Gary Place, being Parcel #6258-01-060684, in
the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #706, at the request of Larry Bowden, seeking a
renewal of a Special Use Permit for the Mid Hudson Christian Church
on property located on All Angels Hill Road, being Parcel #6257-02-
986805, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal #763, at the request of Peter & Lucille Barbatos,
seeking an interpretation of Section 422, Subscript f, "uses" of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
3. Appeal #778, at the request of William & Miao-Chen Chin,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.3 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to enlatge a non -conforming use on property
locatled on 6 Kent Road, being Parcel #6258-03-213123, in the Town
of Wappinger.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Appeal #783,(pending), at the request of Ronald Mackowiak,
(an aggrieved person) to discuss setbacks of a new structure on
adjoining property, being Parcel #6157-02-982779, in the Town of
Wappinger. Questions based on Sections 220, 411, and 421.
2. Merritt Seymour, discussion on a non -conforming lot and
the construction of a pole barn.
3. Mohamed Alfredi, discussion on a Speibial Use Permit for
the construction of a church.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINOER
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590
TEL. 297-6257
Memo To: Zoning Board Members
From: Linda Berberich, Secretary
Date: November 5th, 1984
Subject: Interpretations
On the November.13th, 1984 Zoning Board Agenda there is an
interpretation on the word "uses" that has been pending. This
interpretation is for Barbatos and D'Agostino, and the interpretation
is of Section 422, Subscript f, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance.
The Town Board has left this interpretation for the Zoning Board
to make a decision.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK 12590
TEL. 297-6257
Memo To: Zoning Board Members
From: Linda Berberich, Secretary
Date: November 5th, 1984
Subject: Additions to the Agenda
Dom D'Agostino's - Interpretation of the word "uses", Section 422,
Subscript f, of the Town of wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
M
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES NOVEMBER 13TH, 1984
Mr. Landolfi called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.. He then asked
for a roll call.
Members Present:
Mr. Landolfi Mr. Cortellino
Mr. Caballero Mrs. Waddle
Mr. Urciouli
Others Present:
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Mr. Landolfi asked if the abutting property owners had been notified.
Ms. Berberich replied that they had according to the records available
in the Assessor's office.
Mr. Landolfi briefly explained how the meeting would be run; everyone
will be given an opportunity to be heard, we will go through each
appeal, we will ask that you do come foward and identify yourself
for our records. Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal:
Appeal #761, at the request of John Vorndran, seeking a Special Use
Permit of Article IV, Section 421, Paragraph 5 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct a medical office building
located on All Angels Hill Road,and Old All Angels Hill Road, no
parcel # on the records, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Vorndran and Mr. Jack Railing were present.
Mr. Railing stated that Mr. Vorndran proposes to place a 3,000 sq. ft.
building on a parcel that he owns, the access for the property will
be off of the Old All Angels Hill Road. As stated, we have been before
the Planning Board, there have been changes made, basically relating
to the parking and the landscaping, other than that I believe they
have placed a recommendation before the board.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they have tenants available now, or is this
pretty much on speculation.
Mr. Vorndran replied that he has no tenants. We wanted to get this
done before we got involved in that.
Mr. Railing stated that the one thing that is important about this
site is its location, and that they do have very good access, the
availability to tie into the Old Angels Hill Road, rather than having
to come out onto the new road.
Mr. Landolfi asked about the type of structure, aren't you going to
be limited to the type of doctor you can have in there if you don't
have, are you just building a geberal type of building.
Page -2- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Railing replied that we have tried to make it, the building
itself will be set up for a doctor to receive patients and to deal
with them as such. We have tried to keep the building as residential
as possible. Mr. Railing presented the board with a preliminary
sketch.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many sq. feet.
Mr. Railing replied 3,000.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many parking spaces.
Mr. Railing replied that there are 12.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many offices with two stories.
Mr. Railing replied that the actual floor plans have not been laid out
yet, probably four.
Mr. Cortellino stated that the reason he asks, say five offices, and
lets say you get all doctors, there will be a secretary/nurse, thats
two people, that is twelve parking spaces, where are the people going
to park. I am not going by how many you legally required, I am
trying to visualize, will there be a parking situation.
Mr. Landolfi stated that that is correct, so obviously you have to
have adequate parking.
Mr. Railing stated that if you look at the site, you look to the
south, easternly portion, we have adequate area for expansion of
that parking area.
Mr. Cortellino stated that what he would like to see is a number
right now, depending on the offices. If you decide only two doctors
will be there it could be less, but two for every office and at
least two patience for every office. _
Mr. Railing stated that if they were short for room, they would be
concerned. We do have enough area for expansion without any problem.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like for that to be in the stip-
ulations.
Mr. Railing presented the board with a picture of the building they
were thinking about. It is more a contemporary type structure.
Another approach that we had, a ranch type.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks the ranch type would fit in better
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Page -3- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Landolfi asked the board if they had any further questions.
There were none.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone present to speak either for
or against thit appeal. There was noDone.
Mr. Landolfi announced that he would close this appeal.
Mr. Caballero made a motion that the Special Use Permit be granted
with the stipulation that there will be four parking spaces for
every office. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #784, at the request of Dr. Tito Sorlini, seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 422,,of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to allow a 25' rearyard setback when 40' is required on property
located on 12 Gary Place, being Parcel #6258-01-060684, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Mr. Sorlini was present.
Mr. Sorlini stated that he is requesting this variance because they
would like to expand the size of their kitchen. It is very small,
now we are in the position that they can afford to expand, and we
would like to bring the washer and dryer that are in the basement
and bring them into the kitchen area. The problem is the shape of
the lot, it is very wide -and not deep enough, this is the only way
we could do this.
Mr. Landolfi asked how many people are in the family.
Mr. Sorlini replied that there are now four but we do have relatives
coming and visiting often. There is an existing, enclosed deck, so
we are really asking to expand 8 feet.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they were going to enclose where the deck is
now, and you have a chimney, is it really necessary that you come
out further with another porch.
kw
Mr. Sorlini stated that they use the porch for a couple of dogs, that
is where they spend the winter. I feel, yes it is necessary.
Mrs. Waddle asked why they couldn't they come out with the porch and
Page -4- Minutes November 13th, 1984
block it off. You could put a door through to the porch from the
dining room. That would make you moreconforming then less conforming
and you have the room to do it, instead of coming straight out, you
could 'block the whole rear of the house off, and that would save
you seven feet there.
Mr. Sorlini stated that he never thought of that.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against
this appeal.
There was no one.
Mr. Landolfi announced that he would close this appeal.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion to grant a variance for the eight feet.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #706, at the request of Larry Bowden, seeking a renewal of
a Special Use Permit for the Mid Hudson Christian Church on property
located on All Angels Hill Road, being Parcel #6257F102-986805, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Larry Bowden was present.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they were ready to build.
Mr. Bowden stated they would be in probably three or four years.
Mrs. Waddle suggested that they come back when they are ready to
build for a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Bowden stated that the,�-way he understood this it was being done
for tax purposes. If we were to have a meeting or something or a
picnic, we thought we would need a SUP in order to do that.
Mrs. Waddle stated no. We gave you a SUP, and you were to start
AL construction in one year.
Mr. Cortellino explained what a Special Use Permit was for.
Mr. Bowden stated that it was never their intent to build for several
years.
Page -5- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mrs. Waddle stated that they don't have to apply for a SUP until you
are ready to build. We understood you were going to start construction
within a year.
No action was taken on this appeal.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #763, at the request of Peter & Lucille Barbatos, seeking an
interpretation of Section 422, Subscript f, "uses" of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jack Railing was present.
Mr. Landolfi stated for the benefit of the board, this is one we
presented to the Town Board, since there was a problem with the
distinctive interpretation.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thought they were going to get an
interpretation from the Attorney to the Town.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he knew they turned it over to the Town
Board.
Mr. Caballero stated they are leaving the decision up to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Mr. Railing stated that the building has been ordered. All aspects
have been taking care of as far as submissions, we are waiting for
final approval from DOT and Health Dept.. Other than that, the
Town Engineer has been satisfied with drainage and erosion control,
and the Irading plan has been applied for and that it is about to
be issued. This has gone on for quite some time.
Mr. Railing stated that there are some other facts that I would like
to briiig up tonight that were brought up at the Town Board meeting.
These were made by the original people that had been on the Zoning
committee. In particular, Mr. Mills indicated that in fact that the
way that that section 422 of the Ordinance was written for the very
purpose of flipping back. They did not want to have to restate over
and over in each division, that is why they used that flip method.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he does not recall that meaning that.
Mr. Caballero stated that basically he sees alot of properties out
there that have multiple uses.
Mrs. Waddle stated that if you refer to 422 of the Zoning Ordinance
you will see subscript e, and f.
Page -6- Minutes November 13th, 1984
It doesn't say anything about two business uses.
Mr. Cortellino stated that what it comes down to is to dind what is
a single use. If you choose to take the .....that a retail use means
selling retail as opposed to wholesale then you don't need a Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Caballero stated that in the Highway Business multiple use should
be permitted and the way some of the highway business is in that
general area they have three or four multiple uses per business.
Mr. Landolfi asked for the wishes of the Board.
Mr. Cab&llero stated that his oponion is that multiple uses should
be allowed in this zone.
Mr. Urciouli stated that he feels the same way.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he disagrees.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she feels that it depends on the size of the
property you are talking about.
Mr,. Caballero stated that you could limit it to a per acre use or a
two acre use.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many stores were they planning to put on this
property.
Mr. Railing stated that in reality, two.
Mrs. Waddle asked how big the piece of property is.
Mr. Railing replied that it is four tenths of an acre.
Mr. Railing stated that the building size will stay the same but there
may be a division down the center.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they had tenants for the building.
Mr. Railing replied that he has at least one which would probably
be a deli type.
Mr. Caballero-- stated that he thinks they should have some control of
the businesses that go in.those stores.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she doesn't think they can.
Page -7- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Cortellino stated that there are two footnotes, in paragraph
e and f, a concurs to general 'business and it says multiple attached
or detached uses shall be permitted, subject to SUP, f by implication
means only one retail use because it says two uses shall be permitted
in an HB zone where one said use is a business and the other one
could be a home.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks that with a SUP you could propably
put two businesses on that piece of property but no more than two
because four tenths of a acre is to X11 to contain much more than
that.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like to say that he disagrees.
Numer one, it is a . ' =-Jega�-ly non -conforming lot.
Mrs. Waddle.- asked that if they don't get two businesses are they
going to put up the same size building.
Mr. Railing replied yes. He has already gotten site plan approval,
subject to this interpretation he will go back and get two.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks it is silly that up on route 9
where we have six and seven acres and one business that people can
not make more use of their land up there. That is expensive property.
Mr. Caballero stated that he agreed.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion that their interpretation is that there
can be two businesses on this property. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Railing asked that since they were on the same line, could they
deal with D'Agostino's.
Ms. Berberich stated that it is on the additions to the agenda.
Mrs. Waddle stated they would take it.
Mr. Railing and Mr. Paggiotti.
Mr. Railing stated this is a similar case. They have a site plan
before the Planning Board know where he has the existing building,
there was on the original site plan plans for an additional building
Page -8- Minutes November 13th, 1984
that is approximately 10,400 sq. feet of additional building which
he would like to place a tenant.
Mrs. Waddle asked if it was attached to the building that is existing.
Mr. Railing stated that it is seperate by 20 feet.
Mr. Paggiotti stated that it would look similar in design, but they
will not have the greenhouse effect.
Ms. Berberich got the site plan for D'Agostino's.
Mrs. Waddle stated that strictly interpretation, I think we have to
look at that, yes he has seven acres, I think he would have room for
another building and a tenant but we have to take into consideration
that his operation,is using alot of his outside property for his
business, the trees and that, so even though he has seven acres,
how many of those acres are really used for one business at this
point.
Mr. Paggiotti stated that the present building is about 14,000 sq.
feet, we are using another acre and a half of nursery stock display
area for this, but we have more, sufficient parking to accomodate
both of these buildings.
Mrs. Waddle stated that when you are talking about how many uses you
can have on the seven acres, it is really not the whole seven acres.
Mr. Caballero -stated that he would like to see them come into us
and we look at the property and look at the acreage and make a decision
on how many businesses they are allowed in that particular parcel.
If it is a useable area, and the parking is available, why not give
them as many uses that are permissible within our minds on this board.
In this particular case, I don't see any problem in giving this man
three uses in that particular parcel.
Mr. Cortellino answered because there is an alternative solution,
which is to subdivide.
Mr. Caballero answered then put in six different driveways on Rte. 9.
Mrs. Waddle stated that he has his entrance and his exit, the whole
property is set up.
Mrs. Waddle made a motion that our interpretation is that D'Agostino's
is allowed three uses on this property. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Caballero.
Page -9- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #778, at the request of William & Miao-Chen Chin, seeking a'
variance of Article IV, Section 404.3 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance to enlarge a non -conforming use on property located
on 6 Kent Road, being Parcel #6258-03-213123, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mr. Chin and Mr. Rahemba were present.
Mr. Rahemba stated that when they were here at the last meeting,'
the Board asked for a financial statement showing that there is a
financial hardship on this property. He then presented the Board
with the financial statement. Mr. Chin has prepared an income and
expenses for the first year he owned this property showing there
is a loss of approximately $8,000.00, and that was with the income
of the five apartments that are there.
Mr. Landolfi asked what the footage of the fifth apartment is.
Mr. Rahemba stated that he thinks we are 25' less than we should.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she questions whether this is really a law
statement since there should be a negative cash flow and a tax advantage
to Mr. Chin on this apartment, which would be covered within his
income tax statement.
Mr. Cortellino stated he had another question. This is dated Sept.
30th, when did you purchase this property.
Mr. Rahemba stated that September 30th, 1984.
Mr. Cortellino went on to say that this is a self induced hardship.
At that time for instance, you examined the books, the value of the
property is based on income producing, the capitalization of the
building, and what not, was it showing a profit at that time. Why
is there a loss. There should have been a loss in August. If you
go out knowingly and buy something that you know is running at a loss,
why should I say you are having a financial hardship.
Mr. Chin stated that he didn't realize the repairs .
Mr. Landolfi asked if anyone looked at it relative to, when you purchased
it.
Page -10- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Chin stated that he didn't realize. The building is only a few
years old. He didn't realize it would need so much repair.
Mr. Caballero stated that he has a problem with it that basically
there is already 4 apartments there in a residential area.
Mrs. Waddle stated that the financial statement, like I said it is
a negative cash flow, if Mr. Chin is in the 40 to 50/ income tax
bracket, he had realized more than this on his income tax, so I
don't see where he is suffering any loss.
Mr. Caballero stated that I think we all agree with you that they
are not going to show a financial hardship in this case, or of the
Board, I would not see it as a financial hardship.
Mr. Rahemba stated that we...that it is going to be a loosing
proposition.
Mr. Chin stated that the repair is really the major cause for losses.
Put on a new roof, and alot of plumbing.
Mr. Caballero asked how many apartments or what size apartments are
each on this property know.
Mr. Rahemba stated that there is currently five there. I don't
have a break down of each individual, the only one I broke down is
the one I have there.
Mr. Caballero asked if it was a one bedroom apartment. Would bring
in Approximately how much rent a month.
Mr. Chin answered $325.00.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would still be in a negative cash flow
position if you add another $3,900.00 to this net loss.
Mr. Chin stated that he would not have to do any repair in the near
future.
Mr. Rahemba stated that if we don't have that it would make that an
even more financial hardship.
Mr. Landolfi announced he would close this appeal.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to deny the requested variance. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Urciouli.
The apartment is undersized, no financial hardship,
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
Page -11- Minutes November 13th, 1984
The motion was carried.
Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal:
Appeal #783, (pemding), at the request of Ronald Mackowiak, (an
aggrieved person) to discuss setbacks of a new structure on adjoining
property, being Parcel #6157-02-982779, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Ronald Machowiak was present.
Mr. Jack Railing was present representing Jeff Hunt Developers.
Mr. Landolfi emplained to Mr. Mackowiak, I had a lengthy discussion
with our Town Attorney, and basically what we have here is our
lawyer told us, as I understand what your objective or goal is
tonight is for perhaps to come before us and perhaps put a stop work
order in on the building at its current state.
Mr. Mackowiak stated he is requesting.a public hearing.
Mr. Landolfi went on to say that right, and then the following month
come back in and actually go through a public hearing,
Mr. Mackowiak stated that he understands that he is scheduled for a
public hearing on December 11th,
Mr. Landolfi went on to say, per out lawyer, at this time our board
cannot take any action against that particular building. The building
was given the okay by our Zoining Administrator, and our Building
Inspector, meaning they feel, as it stands it has met the specs per
say, meaning your alternatives could be a couple. One, if in fact
when it is over, or occupied even, or prior to its occupancy, you
can either sue the Town, bue the builder, or both.
Mr. Mackowiak stated that he is aware of that.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we cannot$- we are not in any position to stop
those gentlemen at this point, I guess that is the bottom line. I
don't want to waste your time, and I understand that you will be
coming back again, in which we will gladly allow you all the time you
like, but again, right today, we cannot stop any further building.
Mr. Mackowiak stated that he read Section 515.4 and I don't quite
agree with the perhaps the interpretation there either.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he has highest regards for out Town Attorney,
kw and I don't know whether any of us are in the position to, if you
will, even argue the case with him, believe me, we ran through it
several times, and we kept coming out with the same answers for that.
Page -12- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Cortellino stated that he would like to make a remark, we went
out there and I don't know how the decision was arrived at, I saw
no stakes, since the roads were muddy, I almost can't tell where
the road is, as opposed to the property, except for the brush, there
was so much equipment. Since we got a letter from the Zoning
Administrator saying that it is yp to the owner of that particular
lot how they are going to make the building, which way the building
is going to face, which determines were the sidelines are and were
back lines are and the front, in other words you have a piece of
property and you have.... you can't tell where the lines are and
by her letter to us tonight it says she doesn't know where they are.
Mr. Railing stated that I 'believe the decisions by the Zoning Admin-
istrator and Building Inspector are based on certified plot plan from
the office of Barger, Campbell, Gray and Railing endorsed by Mr.
Robert Campbell, licensed land surveyor.
Mr. Cortellino asked was the house changes at all in angle, direction,
location.
Mr. Railing asked as far as what.
Mr. Cortellino answered as far as what was signed off, and inspected.
Mr. Railing answered that the house I believe was inspected in the
field, based on the map of survey, from the foundation survey.
Mr. Caballero asked who the developer was on this piece of property.
Mr. Mackowiak answered Jeff Hunt Developers.
Mr. Landolfi stated that his property is next door.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Mackowiak if he has any basis in fact that the
house is not placed correctly.
Mr. Mackowiak answered yes he does, and in fact I would prefer to
bring it up at the Public Hearing due to my, protecting my own,
however I would like to bring up one point, this permit was originally
approved in, I believe it is November of 83 with a 40 foot dimension
to the rear of the lot, and this is nowhere near close to that
dimension. I have a big concern that the Town has not enforced the
Zoning Ordinance and they have not allowed, there should have been
no construction if there was a change to this building permit until
the point where it was resolved and determined wheter in fact it was
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he has spoken to the Building Inspector and
the Zoning Administrator.
Page -13- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Mackowiak answered that when the Building Inspector, I called
the Building Inspector the day the staked were originally placed on
September 26th, 1984, and I expressed my concern, I also spoke to
the Zoning Administrator. From the date I spoke to her on September
27th, it took approximately one month for her to come up with a
decision that in fact this is in accordance with the zoning, even
though it has been changed. I would question it at this time, why
were they allowed to continue building from the point where I had
a concern to the point where it was determined by the Zoning Adminis-
trator that in fact, they could continue with construction. In
other words, they were allowed to proceed with construction, they went
at it and they ram rodded this building.
lgrs. Waddle stated that she could not answer that question.
Mr. Mackowiak answered, well that is my concern. I have a big concern
about how this has been enforced, and I state it in that section that
I earlier quoted. It says that the Zoning Board does have the autho-
rity to act as a Zoning Administrator in this case and they can issue
any order that the Zoning Administrator can in fact issue,
Mrs. Waddle stated that we can issue a stop work order on that place.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we had some, we sent both Pam and the Building
Inspector out, when we first heard about it, and as far as there
interpretation, that house is situated per the plans, and I have....
Mr. Mackowiak stated that I have a petition that addresses this
concern, it is from all adjoining property owners to this property,
and it is made from the majority of the residence around Nancyaleen
Drive, where they are all concerned about this situation, and they
have respectfully requested that you require a stop work order be
placed, that at least the Certificate of Occupancy hot -be issued
until I am heard at the Public Hearing in December, and that you
would take the actions necessaFy to resolve this issue, and it is
a certified, notarized document.
Mr. Landolfi stated that we will enter that into the records.
Mr. Cortellino stated that he has two questions. One is, this is
obviously more than enough if I use my, so your lowest place is 24'
now ordinarily, first off, it is very unusual to see just one
drawing, or was this made up because of this hearing.
Mr. Railing answered no it was not, it was provided to the Zoning
Administrator originally as a foundation survey, the only thing that
Le has been added was the description of the yards.
Mr. Mackowiak asked if he could ask a simple question. I will ask
this question, and I might as well bring it out know, even though I
planned on bringing it out in the public hearing, the corner lot
Page -14- Minutes November 13th, 1984
definition clearly indicated that on a sideyard, on a side street,
which in this case ie Mina, you will have a sideyard. He clearly
indicates that it is the rearyard. That is my contention. How
can it be a rearyard when your definition clearly indicates there
shall be a sideyard on a side street, which in this case is Mina
since the front is on Nancyaliben Drive. It is a great reduction
of my property value. I feel that if I try to sell this house I
will not be able to, and I have a complete loss of privacy. He
is using the second part of the definition for his advantage.
Mrs. Waddle asked, so your contention is the 24'h feet.
Mr. Mackowiak stated that it should be 40 feet, as indicated on the
original 'building permit.
Mr. Landolfi stated that the corner lot has different ....
Mrs. Waddle stated that the house is on, is caddy -corner to, so.the
rear isn't really facing Mina.
Mr. Mackowiak stated that the rear to him was the rear.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Railing which one of the site plans was put
into the Planning Board.
Mr. Railing answered that none went to the Planning Board. They go
through the Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector. The sub-
division map went to the Planning Board.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was the first on that went to the Building
Administrator.
Mr. Mackowiak answered that that is the one that was approved of
November of last year.
Mrs. Waddle asked, by Hans on when.
Mr. Mackowiak answered on November of 83, and that is the one they..
this one was not approved until October 26th,. 1984.-.--
Mrs.
984.-.-
Mrs. Waddle asked when they started construction on the house,
Mr. Mackowiak answered on 9/26/83 and they were framing by 10/17 of
84.
Mr. Caballero asked so this house and foundation and framing is up..
%we Mr. Mackowiak went on to say that it -;is essentially half completed
they are to the point where they are doing electrical work and the,
Page -15- Minutes November 13th, 1984
framing, they are about ready to do the sheet rock.
Mr. Caballero asked, I thought this particular development was not
going to be issued any CO's until he has straightened out on a
couple of other cases we had before.
Mr. Landolfi answered that they have been straightened out. We
don't have any others.
Mr. Railing stated that this is not a -problem lot, I will open with
that. This particular building was placed on that lot is in compl-
iance with this ordinance 100%. This lot is bounded 'by three streets.
Mrs. Waddle stated that it is a problem to me anytime that a builder
submits a plan with a house on it to this office, and then goes and
puts something else on it, in its place, or turns it around. To me
that is a big problem.
Mr. Railing stated that I can get into the ordinance know and explain
exactly why this meets with the letter of the law in this particular
ordinance.
Mrs. Waddle stated that she is not questioning that it meets with the
letter of the law, I think the office upstairs should be informed
when you are going to change the direction of a house or anything
about that house when you have submitted a plan and that is what they
think is being built there, and then you come up with something
else. To me that is unethical.
Mr. Railing answered, again, without being hostile to the board, and
I understand your feelings on that, and you have expressed them to
me before, but the particular problem here does not relate to the
procedure that was followed but rather whether or not this particular
building, on this particular lot, is a legal location. In my opinion,
the Zoning Administrator's opinion, and the Building Inspector's
opinion it is a legal location. We understand it. They understand
it, they are here, they know how they feel.
Mrs. Waddle stated we have had so much of that. Not only from that
area, but diffetent areas in the Town where we thought that one thing
was going in and we drive by and there is something else.
Mr. Mackowiak stated that all I am asking is that construction be
stopped until I am heard in a Public Hearing.
Mrs. Waddle stated that Mr. Landolfi can order a stop work order until
this is straightened out.
Mr. Landolfi stated that he was told that I couldn't.
Page -16- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Cortellino stated that I can appreciate his feelings, but, the
thing is, I would say 90/ completed right :now, what purpose would
a stop order do if we can find that something is at fault, it makes
no difference if the Town says move it if it is 90/ completed or
100/ completed.
Mrs. Waddle stated that they are not going to say move it if it is
in within the specified ....
Mr. Cortellino answered no, what I am saying is that it makes no
difference at this point since it is so far gone, I can understand
your frustration that it wasn't stopped earlier,`but what difference
does it make now, you could almost move in the way it is now.
Mr. Waddle asked when the buyers are ready to move in.
Mr. Cortellino said that I would say no CO will be given.
Mr. Railing stated the first or second week in December.
Mrs. Waddle answered no. I would make a motion that we ask that the
CO not be issued until the matter comes before the Zoning Board in
the December meeting. Mr. Caballero seconded the motion.
Mr. Railing stated he would like to further the discussion.
Mr. Caballero said that he had a motion that he seconded.
Mrs. Waddle stated that you said the first or second week in December.
We meet the second week in December, so that is not going to hold
you up, if that is what your time table is.
Mr. Railing answered that I only have one problem, and then it is
very simple, I can argue this case tonight, I can argue it well,
I know the Ordinance, people within the Town know the Ordinance,
they feel the same as I do. I don't feel that without due process
that these individuals, the people that want to get in that particular
house should be penilized just because of the accusations made by
the person who happens to live next door who doesn't fully understand
the Ordinance.
Mr. Mackowiak asked how he knew he didn't fully understand the
ordinance.
Mr. Railing stated that that is a simple fact, that is my problem.
Mr. Caballero stated that he would like to hear Mr. Railings side
of the ordinance and then you have an opportunity to rebut.
Page -17- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Railing stated that the question is not what procedure was
followed, it is whether the building is in a legal position on that
lot. I don't think it is the Zoning Board of Appeals Business to
tell the Zoning Administrator or the Building Inspector whether they.
are doing their job right or wrong.
Mrs. Waddle told Mr. Railing that it is. If a citizen feels that
the Zoning Administrator hasn't done the job correctly they are
....to come in here and appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Landolfi stated that Mrs. Waddle made a motion and Mr. Caballero
seconded it, can I hear a vote on that.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Urciouli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi stated that this is what we are going to do. I am going
to call in Mr. Kessler to sit with Pam and the people concerned here
and we will get this straightened out before any CO is issued, at
least in fairness we can do that because we are not holding up the
house as far as the production of the house in any way. We are going,
before that CO is issued, we are going to make sure that everybody
acting accordingly here, and Jack, it is quite obvious there are
two sets of plans.
Mr. Railing stated that one is a proposed plot plan and one is a
foundation survey, nobody is hiding that fact. We haven't hid that
fact all along.
Mr. Landolfi stated that I would like them to go out and take another,
even if we have to call in an independent surveyor on that.
Mr. Cortellino stated that if I was to build a house, I would come
in and see the Building Inspector, give him my plans, he looks them
over and he signs it. When I go back, does that mean I can build
anywhere on my lot or do I have to build what I showed him, or what
I drew up for him.
Mr. Railing stated that as far as I understand that is between you
and the Building Inspector. Mr. Lapar approved the original plot
plans.
Mrs. Waddle asked who approved the second one.
Mr. Railing stated that the foundation location was accepted by the
Zoning Administrator.
Page -18- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mrs. Waddle asked if the Zoning Administrator out: to measure when
you put the foundation in, did she measure the point, what was the
outcome of that.
Mr. Keith Gordon stated that the Zoning Administrator and the
Building Inspectorwere both out before we -pouted and they said
it was okay.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the points were there, and you were in the
legal limit.
Mr. Gordon answered yes, that is what they said.
Mr. Railing stated that sometimes there is a modification made to
the preliminary plot plans.
Mrs. Waddle stated that I think this gentlemen is miffed because the
house is nearer to his property then he originally thought it was
goint to be, is that true.
Mr. Mackowiak answered that is true.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he agreed that they are still within the zoning.
Mr. Mackowiak answered n®, I do --_not.
Mrs. Waddle asked why not.
Mr. Mackowiak answered simply because it was stated that the inter-
pretation of the corner lot can be used for any means that you want
it to be used. The interpretation herei he is using that to his
advantage, and I am saying as a result of that. The rear of the house
should be behind the house, and he is using it to the side of the
house. In accordance, it says clearly, ......the definithion-:of the
corner lot clearly indicated that you shall have the sideyard on
the side street, it says you shall have the sideyard he has got the
rearyard there. If this is the sideyard per definition and this is
the front there is only one obvious place this rearyard should have
been, and it is right here.
Mr. Railing stated that the ordinance defines: the front lot line
incase of abutting on only one street the `, line seperating the
lot from the street. In the case of any other lot, the owner, and
I quote the owner may elect any lot line abutting a street as the
front lot line. We have elected this as indicated as the front lot
line it then goes on to day that the rear lot line is the line which
is generally opposite the front, which is this, which is what we
to have elected, that makes the others the side.
Page -19- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mr. Landolfi stated that here is the way we are going to leave this.
You are going to be on for the Public Hearing and I will make sure
out lawyer is here. He will be given all this information in
preparation I will have our Zoning Administrator and Building
Inspector, that is all we are going to say on that case.
Mr. Landolfi left at 8:30 P.M.
Mrs. Waddle read the next appeal:
Merritt Seymour, discussion on a non -conforming lot and the constr-
ution of a pole barn.
Mr. Seymour was present.
Mrs. Waddle read Mrs. Farnsworth's letter.
Mrs. Waddle stated to Mr. Seymour that he wants to tear down a
garage and a shed, but the barn you want to put up is bigger than
the garage and shed combined.
Mr. Seymour answered that there is a very smmll'difference.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he could bring it in to what the square footage
was of the barn and the shed before, and then you don't have a problem.
Mr. Seymour answered that he would like to build the one he asked
for. The garage that is there now is like 21 foot, the shed we took
down is about 14 foot square, so the footage is almost the same
thing, the buildings are in bad shape.
Mrs. Waddle asked the sq. footage of the barn he wants to put in.
1jr. Seymour answered 30 x 30. Would like to tear the two old ones
down that don't pay to fix and put up a decent one.
Mr. Cortellino stated that it would be 50/ bigger.
Mrs. Waddle explained that he was in a planned industry zone, and
he has two houses there.
Mr. Caballero stated that if he is going to make a change and going
to make it greater he is going to have to come in for a variance.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he filed and requested a variance.
It was decided that he would have to come in and fill out the necessary
forms and apply for a varianve.
Mrs. Waddle read the next appeal:
Page -20- Minutes November 13th, 1984
Mohamed Alfredi, discussion on a Special Use Permit for the construc-
tion of a church.
Mohamed Alfredi and Mr. Sharif were present.
Mr. Alfredi stated that he would like to have this information, there
is a piece of land on the corner of All Angels & Myers Corners Road,
where the pond is, theCounty, the Highway Department has taken some
of that land to expand the road. We are in the process of giving
a binder to buy this land and construct a church for our community
people. We haven't come into the complete site plan. We want to
build a church there, this is 433 acres, and also subdivide it and
have one or two lots for houses or divide it into half and have
permission for a nursery school in addition to the church.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the nursery school would be run in the church
as part of the church.
Mr. Alfredi answered it would be seperate.
Mr. Cortellino,stated that they could legally subdivide. You could
have as many half acres that you could get for the houses. You
would need a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Caballero made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M..
Respectfully submitted,
.C�
Linda Berberich, Secretary
Zoning �Board'of-Appeals
lb