Loading...
1984-12-11EM 11 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECEMBER 11TH, 1984 - 7:00 P.M. AGENDA TOWN HALL MILL STREET WAPP. FALLS, NY PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Appeal #783, at the request of Ronald Mackowiak, an appeal as an aggrieved person, seeking an interpretation of Article IV, Section 413.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for a house located on Nancyaleen & Mina Drives, being Parcel #6157-02-982769, in the Town of Wappinger. 2. Appeal #785, at the request of Ludwik Zabczynski, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 44' frontyard setback when 50' is required on property located on 8 Brothers Road, being Parcel #6258-04-797488, in the Town of Wappinger. 3. Appeal #786, at the request of William T. Gale, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.32 of the Town -of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an enclosed garage (to the side) and a deck to the rear of the house located on Robinson Lane, being Parcel #6459-03-039296, in the Town of Wappinger. 4. Appeal #787, at the request of Mr. & Mrs. Gaspare Sparacino, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 20' sideyard when 25' is required for the construction of a house located on Lake Oniad Drive, being Parcel #6257-01-364906, in the Town of Wappinger. 5. Appeal #788, at the request of Dr. Joseph DeTullio, seeking a Special Use Permit of Article IV, Section 220 & 42!}of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit him to have a Chiropractic office in his residence located on All Angels Hill Road, being Parcel #6257-02-863924, in the Town of Wappinger. 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 Date: November 30th, 1984 Subject: Addition to December 11th, 1984 meeting Mr. Landolfi would like to add a discussion on the meeting with the Town Board that is scheduled for December 13th, 1984 Thank you. lb ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER �V TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. NEW YORK 12590 TEL. 297-6257 Memo To: Zoning Board Members From: Linda Berberich Date: November 28th, 1984 Subject: Addition to the Agenda Please add the following: Mrs. Farnsworth to discuss an order to remedy for the Travers - Wendy Drive - construc3ting-a-porch without a building permit and placing a trailer on property without coming before the ZBA. 29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes December 11th, 1984 Town Hall Mill Street Wapp. Falls, NY LV The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, December 11th, 1984, at the meeting room of the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappinger Falls, New York. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 P.M.. Members Present: Joseph Landolfi, Chairman Carol Waddle George Urciouli Members Absent: Angel Caballero Charles Cortellino Mr. Landolfi asked if the abutting property owners had been notified. Ms. Berberich replied that they have been according to the records available in the Assessor's office. Mr. Landolfi briefly explained how the meeting would be run - each person -will be given an opportunity to be heard, we will go through each appeal. At the conclusion of the appeal we may or may not render a decision this evening. We do ask when you do come forward you identify yourself for the records. Mr. Landolfi then read the first appeal - Appeal #783, at the request of Ronald Mackowiak, an appeal as an aggrieved person, seeking an interpretation of Article IV, Section 413.3 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance for a house located on Nancyaleen & Mina Drives, being Parcel #6157-02-982769, in the Town of Wappinger. Ronald Mackowiak was present. Mr. Jack Railing, Ira Pergament - Attorney, Jeff Hunt, Keith Gordon were present. Mr. Mackowiak stated that I am appealitij the decision of the Zoning Administrator, who has allowed Jeff Hunt to change the location of a house from 40 foot, as per the approved building permit, to 24 foot as approved on 10/26/84 by the Zoning Administrator. I have basically three reasons why I am appealing this decision. The first being that the developer was allowed to revise the house location from more restrictive requirement to a less restrictive requirement. The ordinance contains numerous examples were just the opposite is required when conflicting standards exist, and I believe this is a case where you have conflicting standards, and-thatd a reason an interpretation why we are here tonight. When I purchased my house in Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes -2- December 11th, 1984 January 17th, I was aware of where the house was going to be located. I had my realators look at it a little bit and to be honest with you, if I would have known that the house is being built the way it has been placed on this lot, I wouldri-1t have 'bought my house. I would not have bought it. There is nothing I can do now, I am in the situation where somebody has come in and changed something and I am the one who is suffering £or it. I don't belive that the Zoning Administration, the Zoning Administrator's decision was in the 'best interest of the Town or the existing property owners. The only person to benifit from this decision was Jeff Hunt because he did not have move his offices, which are located on this lot, or he doesn't have to do as much site work because of this location. There's -also 'been a.-peri©d of time where the construction proceeded further than should have been allowed by the Zoning Administrator. On the permit that was approved on November 1st of 83, he was not supposed to proceed with framing until there was approval of the final foundation plat to my understanding. I have also got some information and I notified Mr. Versace on October 17th of 83 that the construction started on the framing prior to the approval of the Zoning Administrator which was on October 26th, and I feel that this should be brought to the attention of the Board because of the inforcement issue. I don't believe that this was properly inforced. My second concern is that there is a big lack of privacy resulting from the closeness of this house to mine, and because of the angle which the rear of this house has been placed opposing mine. This all could have been prevented, in my opinion, if the location had remained at 40 foot as the building permit originally showed back in November, and I can show you a few pictures here, I have prepared a few I would like to present to the Board. This is essentially off of my�=:deck and this is the house that I am looking at. That yellow line delineates the property line, and you can see, if I sit on my deck I am looking right at the other person,in his deck. This is the same thing a little further back. The property behind there on this side, eventually I plan on putting a swimming pool, you can see where his deck will be closer to the swimming pool then mine will be. This is the front view, it is not a very good one, but this is the corner of my house and this is approximately the property line. I can't give you the exact property lines because they have been disturbed about 6 times by Jeff Hunt, they are not established there, we have stakes, but they are no g-ood as far as I am concerned. This is a view from the back of the same area with the property line, I honestly don't know if the person that is going to be living in the green house has been notified or is aware of this fact, but if he has, I am not certain he'd be pleased with the way it is being placed either. I feel that if the Zoning Administrator's decision had been in the other direction saying that it should have been 40 foot, essentially I wouldn't have this situation now where I am going to have to pay this much for landscaping between the two lots. This is approximately the bill I have got. An estimate by Adams, I think they are a reputable landscaping firm. I have also got to establish the property line which means I am going to have to have the property line surveyed Zoning Board Minutes -3- December 11th, 1984 because they have been disturbed. Mrs. Waddle stated that she thinks this is a matter of choice. You don't necessarily have to do that. Mr. Mackowiak answered, well, I don't have any privacy. I_understand that, but::to::me i 1n_<lehad known that house was going to be like that I would not have not purchased that house. Mr. Landolfi stated that all the other homes are the same situation as far as the privacy. I have been in and out of there, believe me. I have difficulty finding any trees in that area, so I hear you. I am kindimg agreeing with alot of things you said. You knew what the privacy factor was when you moved in as far as.... Mr. Mackowiak answered that not really with the situation I have now. I honestly feel that thats how much my property is being devalued because of this decision. I would not have purchased the house if I had had the choice that I don't have. And essentially, the third reason that I am concerned is that I am sick and tired of this developer, and the way he has gone about with his actions. I can give you numerous examples. Mr. Landolfi stated that you don't have to. We are only here tonight to talk about one house, and the impact it may or may not have on ih your property only. Mr. Mackowia$ went on to say let me tell you where my interpretation comes from, I understand why you are saying this is alot of reasons thatT la have got problems with this developer. Let me just sight one, if it is alright with you. Mr. Landolfi asked if it was pertinent to this case. Mr. Mackowiak answered yes it is. As far as I am concerned, this is the vegr of the lot, the way, my lot, the way the developers left it. Mrs. Waddle asked what that had to do with the house being placed where it is. Mr. Mackowiak answered because of *herval:he offices next to it. What I am asking is, is this office going to be allowed to be there after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued on this house. Mrs. Waddle answered that they have to moue those offices. If somebody is going to buy that house obviously. Mr. Mackowiak asked, well, will he be required to move that, the trailers , is what I am asking. Zoning Board Minutes -4- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Waddle answered of course, if the house solid. Mr. Mackowiak stated that you can see the situation, and this is the constant stuff that I have put up with. Mr. Landolfi stated that this would have been, even if the house was given, lets say, the right place as you deemed it. Mr. Mackowiak asked that he just finished his presentation. The reason that I am appealing is because of the paragraph 413.3 which states there shall be a sideyard on a side street, and we have talked about this before. To me, Mina Drive in this case is the side street, therefore, this should be a sideyard, however, he has labeled it the rear yard. It also states in paragraph 210 of your Zoning Ordinance shall is mandatory, to my understanding of your Zoning Ordinance. Accordingly, then I don't feel that this house is in accordance with your Zoning Ordinance, and it is in a non-conformance situation, and that is why I have appealed this decision. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else here this evening to speak in favor of this appeal. Ronald Andreaola - Nancyaleen Drive. My question is why, which is similar to what Ron had asked, why was the original map changed from 40 feet to 20 feet. Is that allowable after a permit has been given. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that the orientation and the placement of houses do change on the lots following the getting of the permit. Mr. Mackowiak asked by 50 percent. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of this appeal. Jean Keys - Nancyaleen Drive. As far as her point as to that he was aware of the privacy and what not, I live right next door to Ron, but our houses are side by side, and we are not in each others way as far as I can't hear things going on in his house and he can't hear things going on in my house. Now the way these houses were set up originally, there house was this way, the other house was over here. Now that it is shifted this way, they can talk from window to window to each other. This is what he was interested in when he bought this home, so as far�as, he might not have put up the trees 'originally, his point is now that he would have to gain the privacy he thought he would have had by having the houses as they were originally were set up, so it is an eyesore on the block the way it is set up. The kaystHg houses are set up is terrible. Their bedrooms are right on that side of the house, the other houses bedrooms are right there, and like I said, they can talk to one another and I just don't think it is right. Zoning Board Minutes -5- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak in favor of this appeal. %- 601 There was no one. Mr. Landolfi stated that before we go into the next appeal, he asked Mrs. Farnsworth to take a minute and fill us in a little more on the sequences and...... Mrs. Farnsworth stated that he has described some of the sequence of events. I would feel more comfortable, if the Jeff Hunt folks described their questions or their approach to things then I can clarify questions that either side raised. Mrs. Waddle stated that she thought she would rather hear the Zoning Administrator give us background on the,....with all, behind moving a house after a building permit is issued and the building inspector thinks it is going in one place and it gets turned around and put in another. I'd like to know the rational behind that before we go in with Mr. Railing. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that on moving a house, one of the reasons for the initial plot plan, the preliminary plot plan, is to see, whether in fact, the house would fit, and in a case of a septic field and a well, whether they will be the correct distances apart, whether there are any drainage problems with the slope. During the process of building there majr be any one of several reasons why a building might be moved, and as long as it meets the setback requirements, the Zoning Administrator will sign it off. Now, the Zoning Administrator may approve of a plot plan where it has been shifted, but•the Engineer may reject it or the Highway Superintendent may reject it becuase... Mrs. Waddle asked if that was the problem in this case. Mrs. Farnsworth answered no. I am just giving the general back- ground. Mrs. Waddle asked there was no sewer or septic problem, there was no water problem. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that the problem was being able to provide, this is one of the reasons why I thought the Jeff Hunt folks should speak, I believe it was so the alteration could be made so that a deck could be place legally without having to seek a variance. When this was turned at 40 feet here the rearyard setback requirement is 40 feet and you can't put a deck on, and that would be one of the reasons and one of the reasons that I note on some of the plot plans that I sign off where there.is a question about, especially on a corner lot, as to whether or not there can be, whether or not a deck can fit. Zoning Board Minutes -6- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Waddle stated that it looks like to me that there is 40 feet4 to here. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that 40 foot rearyard requirement does not allow a deck. Mrs. Waddle asked so what has he got know. Mrs. Farnsworth answered so this is now, this was defined as a rearyard in terms of if it was defined as a rearyard than that would have to .. Mrs. Waddle asked if the effect on the neighborhood was taken into consideration. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that in the Zoning Ordinance it says that I am administering the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, and there are some specific guidelines as to what sideyards and rearyards should be and the basis for doing that, I feel that I have met those things, and you will find in many communities where the houses tend to curve around the, corner. Thecommunity concerned, the neighbor was concerned, he has the same sideyard this house has, at this time. Mr. Landolfi asked that in other words, what if he did put a deck on now. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that it is not proposed yet. Mrs. Waddle stated that Mr. Hunt didn't propose to put a deck on that house. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that he does have sliders here on the second floor. Mrs. Waddle answered that I don't care what he puts in. That is what the build6r puts in. This was the house. There was no deck, and nothing says that there has to be a deck, so why was that even taken into consideration. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that thsAid that because it had been a concern in the past. I also looked at that question, and it appeared, I don't know his full reasons for moving, he doesn't have to tell me his reasons for moving, nor does he have to tell the building inspector. As long as it meets the code requirements. Now, I am assuming that is the reason, he may tell me that it is an entirely different. Zoning Board Minutes -7- December 11th, 1984 Jack Railing - Barger, Campbell, Gray, & Railing, Engineers & Surveyors. Ira Pergament - Moran, Speigel,Pergament & Brown, Attornery's.; Mr. Railing stated that if he could start off by saying one thing. The original plot plan that was done by Richard G. Barger, whos office we purchase, did not designate that partictlar line as the rearline, it merely dimensioned it. The proposed house was 40 feet. There is another spot on that particular proposed plot plan which is also designated as 45 feet. That is just a point. The house was moved for whatever reason. In general, as Mrs. Farnsworth has said, we have had 'builders shift houses for various reasons. Mrs. Farnsworth asked Mr. Railing if he knew the reason the house was moved. Mr. Railing answered exactly, no. I believe it was because of the house that they were building and how they wanted to sit it on the lot and for grading purposes and also for the deck. Mr. Landoifit-askededhtkathey talk about the deck for a minute. The deck has been a sore subject with us on other homes. What if there was a deck to go on here.. Could you give us the dimensions please. Like a rough dimensions of a deck. Mr. Railing answered it could be 12 x 12. It varies with each individual purchaser of the house. Mr. Landolfi stated that he has to have something to go up 'because there is a drop there. Mrs. Waddle asked why. Because he put a window in as a builder, that he put a sliding glass door in that he didn't put windows in. Mr. Landolfi stated then put steps in, lets talk steps. How much room if, what is the minimum he can do and still be legal on that lot the way the house is situated, I guess is really my question. Mr. Mackowiak stated that he scaled it, and it is about eight feet, or it was eight feet before. Mr. Landolfi stated that what I meant was to be legal,. if you will, to meet our Zoning Laws, what can he really put on there right now. I know it is kind of close, because we have been out there. Jack, do you have any idea what the proposal is, what is Mr. Hunt proposing for this particular house in the way of either a deck, steps, or whatever. Do you have any idea. Mr. Railing answered that I do not know the exact dimensions. Mr. Landolfi stated no, forget dimensions, she is going to check out. There is a sliding glass door there, and obviously if I come Zoning Board Minutes -8- December 11th, 1984 along as a homeowner, I have got to get out some way because there is a drop there, do you know what the intentions are at this point. Mr. Pergament answered that ultimately for a deck. Mr. Railing stated that that did come into play during the setting of the house because knowing what has happened in the past, we have had some problems, and they wanted to avoid that. Thats quite that simple. Mr. Landolfi answered that personally, I think you may have added to the problem it appears. I am not talking about his problems, so much as I am the fact that, you know, that it appears you are going to be very limited as to what you can put on there, meaning now you have created a non -conforming lot out of a conforming lot. Mr. Pergament answered no, it is in conformance. Mrs. Waddle stated that unless somebody wants to put a deck on that is bigger than they think they can do. Mr. Landolfi stated that you don't have much room from, in other words.... Mr. Railing stated that this shows the side yards as we speak, it indicates in the left rear that there is sufficient, ample space. for a deck of reasonable size in that area. Mrs. Waddle stated that he has 22 feet here, right, there is 22 feet to your sideyard, there is 24 feet to his sideline, to me that is 46 feet, and that is a good distance between any house. Mr. Mackowiak stated that here is the comparision the way it was when I wanted to purchase it, or when I, just don't look at mine where it was before, it is plotted on there, that is the comparision to how it should have been. Mr. Pergament stated that there is no requirement that it is locked into place forever. Mr. Mackowiak stated that it concerns me when changes are made to things that other people may plan on. Mr. Landolfi asked Pam if she could tell him the accuracy of these numbers, are they, like it designates here. In other words, are there in fact 22 feet here, are there in fact 24. r uh Zoning Board Minutes -9- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Farnsworth stated that these are surveyors figures, to my knowledge they are surveyors figures. kw Mr. Landolfi asked has our guy gone out and in any way... Mrs. Farnsworth answered that we don't have a surveyor on our staff. This is the seal and the signature of a surveyor of the State of New York, which the professional designation, which means that he will stand 'behind this. Mr. Pergament stated that he also had the opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Kessler,asked him wether he was going to be here tonight. He told me he wasn't. Mr. Landolfi answered that he told me originally he was, I thought a while back. Mr. Pergament went on to say that he says that he recalls reviewing this with Mrs. Farnsworth prior to the prior meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals and discussing it with her, and at that time he told her that it was proper to issue the building permit and providing that they, that the house meets all the other requirements it is also proper to issue the Certificate of Occupancy, and I can quote him as to that. Mr. Mackowiak asked if he could respond to one statement that was made. They say they basically move the house because of a deck, I can name a couple instances right know where you have got... Mrs. Waddle stated that is why they wanted to move it, because we have had so many problems with decks out in that area. Mr. Mackowiak went on tosay that it is my understanding, eventually, probably a blanken variance will be isuued to these people after Jeff Hunt.... Mr. Landolfi stated that excuse me, I take exception to that. Mr. Mackowiak stated that this is just, you know, by various politicians that this has been discussed. Mr. Landolfi said that we can have people adhere to the letter of the law out there. There were some concessions in the earlier stages of that development, but I think since then, I think the Hunt people, and we've been on their case, they have been regulars in here. They have been irore regulars then some of the members of my Board. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that she had something to say. You've challenged a few things that I have said. I wanted to inform the Zoning Board that when I was acting Building Inspector in the month of August, I found one house that had sliders when they were inadequate Zoning Board Minutes -10- December 11th, 1984 rear yard for developing a deck, and I recommended to the developer that they create a window instead of sliders, and they did, so, being on top of this concern has been a matter of the office of Zoning Administration and Building Inspection. I have a list of other things to comment on. Mr. Mackowiak stated that the Zoning Administrator stated how that she had no authority to find out the reason it was moved or anything to that effect, she stated various purposes of the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and I would just like to state the fact that of course one of them is to preserve privacy and the value property in the town, and that is my basis for the appeal also. Mr. Landolfi asked Jeff Hunt, this house, could you tell me what the plans call for to finish off in a way of either a deck or steps or whatever. What are your plans. Keith Gordon answered that it is set up for a future deck but we don't have the problems that we had previously in the development. 3eff Hunt stated that it has enough setbacks for a deck but I don't believe that we put a deck on that one. Keith Gordon stated that we ourselves are not contracted to put the deck _ on. Mr. Landolfi stated that the buck ends with you right now as far as I am concerned, in other words, you must have.....I know the sliding, we know that, and we have been out there physically but, what are your plans to finish that off. You may have some idea. Jeff Hunt answered that we have to put the grading in there yet. ...across the door, the whole door. Thats what we told every single one of them and thats what the building inspector stated that he wanted. Their intention is to put a deck there in the future. The homeowner. We will have nothing to do with it. Mr. Landolfi asked if this was going to be another surprise to the homeowner I hope when he finds out that he or she may not be able to if...... Jeff Hunt stated that you could put a 20 x 20 deck on that house and have the proper setback. The biggest deck that we ever offer is 12 x 16 and it still there is extra room beyond that. Mr. Mackowiak asked if he could ask one last question. Was the property owner of the future property owner party to your decision on where the house was to be located. Jeff Hunt stated that none of them are. They never are. Zoning Board Minutes -11- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Mackowiak stated that he would just like to know whether he is happy with the was the house is. Mrs. Waddle answered that that is not really relavant. Mr. Mackowiak stated that he is the one that is buying it. Mrs. Waddle answered I know but, I understand that you are -involved with a very emotional issue because you are living right next door to it but, this has to be decided on the basis of fact, and all the riderick in the workd isn't going to help you, I am sorry. ?Ar. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak either in favor or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Pergament stated that he would just like to reiterate again as I said 'before the position of the Town Attorney Antthatcthe prmeeeding was proper on the part of the Zoning Administrator in issuing the building permit based upon this particular location and also, as I said, it conforms in other requirements as far as electrical codes, building codes, etc., and I have that it is proper to issue the Certificate of Occupancy, and that is the opinion of the Town Attorney. Mrs. Waddle stated that she respects the opinion of the Town Attorney, but, in a case like this where there has been many fauxpas, Fhally I say in that development. The reputation of the builder isn't being enhanced by another problem with homeowners, because they, don't have to be aware of it, but I think it would have been common courtesy to speak to the man next door and tell him why and what the plans were and I am not so sure that, if that homeowner doesn't want a deck, why all these glass doors are being put in in the first place, Jeff Hunt answered 'because they asked for it. We put windows in standard, and theppepple select the house out, if they want sliding glass doors, they ask for them at that time, and we put them in and in the future if they want a deck they put their own deck on. Some people want us to do the doors and the deck and we do that. Some people don't have the money for a deck now, so they ask for sliding doors, they pay for those, and they put a deck on in the future. That is why they are laid out like that. It is easier to put the doors in that way then put a window in and tear the window out, cut the siding all out, move the baseboard,and move some electrical, and everything else a year from now when they decide they have the money for the deck. It is easier for the homeowner, it is cheaper for the homeowner to have the slider put in, if they want a deck in the future now rather than tearing the house apart and start putting the slider in later. Zoning Board Minutes -12- December 11th, 1984 Mr.Urciouli had a comment. lis# -member several months ago you came in and told us that same thing about somebody else you were in for a variance on, that it was up to the homeowner to put on, provide his own deck. The following month we had the homeowners storming in here with the signed contracts of Jeff Hunt Developers for the deck. The only point I am trying to make is that we have heard that story before and got burned. Jeff Hunt stated that if you want, I will bring the contract in for you. Even so, it still has the setbacks, no matter what, for even the minimum size deck. It is way beyond that, and we have got at least 20 x 22 for a deck, and the biggest deck we ever built was 12 x 16 so no matter what we have enough setbacks for any deck you want to put on there. Mr. Landolfi asked Jeff if he had any idea when you might be able to, since..... Jeff Hunt answered that that stuff is all cleaned up and those trailers are moved. Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Mackowiak when those pictures were taken. Mr. Mackowiak answered that the situation is such that part of it has been cleaned up. Hdrbtill has two trailers there. Jeff Hunt answered that these two big ones are gone, and all the debris has been cleaned up. The only thing we have left is out two office trailers, which will be moved out just as soon as we get ready to grade that which will be in the next few days. We should be getting electrical set up for somewhere else, we can hook the trailers up to it. Not there, but on a different site altogether. Mr. Landolfi announced that they will know close this appeal. Mrs. Waddle stated that, Mr. Chairman, as you know this request is for an interpretation of Article IV, and I think that Article IV is well stated in the Zoning Ordinance, on a corner lot there should be provided a sideyard on a side street equal in depth to the required frontyard. A rearyard shall be provided on each corner lot, and the property owner shall elect the yard which is the rearyard, which, obviou�.Iyjlgeff Hunt Developers has done, and they are will withing the Zoning Ordinance. Evwnulhoaghmove.that to be the interpretation of this Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. vote: Lo Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mt. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Zoning Board Minutes -13- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #785, at the request of Ludwik Zabczynski, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 44 foot frontyard setback when 50 feet is required on property located on 8 Brothers Road, being Parcel #6258-04-797488, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. Zabczynski was present. Mr. Zabczynski stated that he is asking for allowance to let me put a carport in front of my house adjacent to my garage. That is going to change my frontyard from 50 feet, which is required by the Zoning Board to 44 feet, it is going to be shorter. The reason is I am trying to put the carport in front of my garage is that when I am parking cars in the garage during the winter time the snow is melting, concrete slab is absorbing the water which stay until summer time. It is giving me a terrible odor and smell all the time in the garage. Mr. Blaupunk stated that the water is not draining from his house. It is staying in the basement. The elevation of his property, which I am sure you are all aware of, you actually have a ravine behind his home or a Town storm drain which in bad weather does came up into his yard so there is no way to get rid of wh&t sits in his garage, so what he wants to do is to close and waterproof that part of his house off and make his cars outside of his home so that he doesn't have the water build up from the melting snow off of the cars and the continuous moisture problem in his basement from the leakage from the garage doors. That is what I understand. Mr. Landolfi asked how many cars he owns. Mr. Zabczynski answered just two. Mine and my wifes car. Mr. Landolfi asked how many are in the family. Mr. Zabczynski answered his sister and my son, which is three and a half years old, and another reason is that the garage is located just under three bedrooms, when I start the car in the morning at' 6 oclock... Mrs. Waddle stated that he should stick to the water problem. Mr. Landolfi asked that in a normal rain storm, thewater drains there over in that area, I know that there are problems and I know that our Superintendent of Highways has been notified of some of them, I don't know about every one. Mr. Zabczynski stated that the water, the wet surface of the concrete in the garage stay until summer, it is not drying up because, even I am opening the door and trying to ventilate the garage, it still Zoning Board Minutes -14- December 11th, 1984 stays because the water is coming from the other surface of the ground. I just want to prevent that at least during the winter time.. Mr. Landolfi asked how old the house is. Mr. Za'bczynski answered that the house was built in 1962. Mr. Blaupunk stated that this gentlemen has already spent severl hundred dollars trying to take the leaders of his pipe and push them away from that area where the moisture does build up by installing pipes and pushing it out, more or less his yard to put it out beyond, but it is still in the rainy weather or an icy weather as you know you get the clingers on the back of your car and you pull in and they drop off and they melt, and his wife, does not like the smell in the basement. The integrety of the structure in which he wants to build is substaintial enough that, it has my signatures on it, I drew the structureup for him and I think it inpertinent to the matter. Mrs. Waddle asked if there was enough room on the side of the house. Mr. Blaupunk answered that you have trees, you would have a septic system you would have to.... Mr. Landolfi asked where the septic system was relative to your... Mr.,Blaupunk showed the board on the map. Mrs. Waddle stated off the back yard. Okay, but what if the structure was over here. Mr. Blaupunk answered that just the grading alone would cost him at least 2,500 dollars for fill because if you put pipe in to get the leaders which are here and here, down and out to the side of his property, he has rather a large sideyard, and that sideyard slopes off, I would say, 2 and a half feet to the storm drain, and than that two and a half feet is all is up side of the house and then the yard levels off, so you are talking a large amount of fill. Mr. Landolfi stated that we are talking 6 feet a delta here so, no.. Mr. Blaupunk stated that actually four feet becuase it is an over- hang on the house, and the surveyor, when he measured it, measured to the garage doors and there is a two foot overhang already, so the number that is there from the survey, 60 some feet, 62 feet 3 inches, that number is not correct. That number is from the inside of the house, not the overhang. Mr. Zabczynski stated that he would like to explain one thing. Just to the dimensions, it means measurements we got today, from the existing edge of the road to the wall of the front house, it is 74 Zoning Board Minutes -15- December 11th, 1984 feet. now, existing this time, between the house and existing edge of the road is 74 feet. The 63 feet, is according to the surveyor map, which he gave me when I bought the house, that means the road is going to be widened. Mr. Blaupunk stated that like a lnadmark, like where the curb keys off for the water. Mr. Landolfi asked like a bench mark type of thing. Mr. Blaupunk answered yes, I would say the differnece in the numbers is, he is talking about the actual shoulder of the road, and you and I both know there is like a 5 or 10 foot variance upon that. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that the lot line usually starts approximately 10 foot from the pavement. Mr. Blaupunk added that as far as the structure goes, it would enhance. I live in the same neighborhood, I live right up the road, and I must say that it would enhance this neighborhood it would also give him what he wants and give it to him at a reasonable cost and I think today everybody is looking for that. My personal feelings are that if the man is willing to improve his home and improve the neighborhood. Mr. Urciouli asked what is going to stop the water from going under the garge door. Are you going to seal off.... Mr. Blaupunk stated that it is not going to be there, it is going to be filled. Mr. Urciouli asked what he was going to do inside the garage. Mr. Zabczynski answered that he just wants to use it like storage space or eventually a laundry, or something like that because I have not enough room for a laundry. Mr. Landolfi stated that the reason that we ask some of these questions, in the past we have allowed people something like this, and quess what, they don't even use the carport. Know they bring the cars out closer to the road and create hazards. In other words, they end up utilizing the garage, for god only knows what, and obviously everyone likes a little more room in their house, and I can under- stand that but say in fact that we did grant the approval here, we've had people in the past that now come out and park out closer even and not utilizing the carport for which it was intended. So now that creates an additional problem that, you know...... %ri Mr. Blaupunk stated that again, you are also talking about 44 feet to the road, and with the vehicles that he owns, you could park them back to back and still have 15 feet behind them. I think that in that situation even if he had 2 Lincolns you couldn't get them to Zoning Board Minutes -16- December 11th, 1984 touch the edge of the road bumper to bumper. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone here to speak. Irene Malinowski - Just didn't know what was planned so I came down to see exactly what the proposal is. I live across the street from them at #5 Brothers Road. Mr. Landolfi stated that the Zoning Law says that it has to be 50 feet, so he is asking for a 6 feet.... Mrs. Malinowski stated that I am questioning some of the measurements that' -are there. I live across the street, and my driveway is about 75 to 80 feet long. Now, his driveway is about half size of mine, and his has .... I realize also, that, I am not quite sure where they are measuring from. Should measure from the center of the road, shouldn't they? Mrs. Waddle answered no. Mr.Malimawwkiitkttddthat is in our deed,. The deed states that the property should be 75 feet from center road. We built our homes that way, and I built houses in that area. We measured from the center of the road, 75 feet, and built a house. If they are appealing because of some other reason, the house is planted there, this particular piece of property, there is room on the side to put a carport on the side, there is, there is room there. This will de- tract from the total neighborhood because it is a structure way out in front and there is another building that got through in that particular area, up around the back where a structure comes out quite a ways in the front. I think now, my concern is that it is going to deface the area, by putting the structure in'the front, Mrs. Malinowski stated that I think that particular piece of property is rather closer set to the road than some of the others, and so by doing that it is really going ......I also don't see how that is going to make any difference with the drainage problem that they seem to have in the garage, and it would seem to me that by putting some drainage tile or sump pump you would be able to take care of it. Mr. Malinowski stated that the garage floor in that particular situation, which way is it tapered, is it tapered out, because it you put,a concrete wall up, put a block wall in there, you create a sump within the house. Mr. Blaupunk stated that there is not problem with water in the house %we except for the cars. Mr. Malinowski stated that we all have that. Zoning Board Minutes -17- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Waddle asked you mean just the cars bringing in snow on them is the problem. Mr. Blaupunk answered that it builds up in the corner of the garage. Mrs. Waddle asked if they ever tried to take a broom and sweep it out. Mr. Zabczynski stated that it is frozen. Mr. Landolfi stated no. We mean when you drive in sir, say if it was snowing out tonight, you pull in the garage, before you close the door you sweep it out. Mr. Zabczynski stated that the concrete surface is absorbing the water. Mrs. Waddle asked if they had a dehumidifier in the garage. That would probably solve your problem very cheaply. Mr. Zabczynski stated that it is not going to dry the condrete because the level, the elevation of the concrete surface is to low, Iuthink. This house was 'built, the builder didn't concern about the water problem I am sure, you have water problem. Your house is much higher than mine. Mrs. Waddle stated that I am trying to get clear in my. mind. Are we talking about just cars bringing snow and slush from the street into your garage, or are we talking about a full blown problem with the Town's drainage in back of your house that gallons and gallons of water is coming into your house. Mr. Zabczynski stated that winter time it creates a proble4i. Mrs. Waddle asked, then what is the problem. Mr. Zabczysnki answered the cars coming from the outside with the snow and the ice and falling down.' Mrs. Waddle answered that everybody has that problem. Mr. Zabczynski stated that but I do not,thkisiis specific concrete surface over there, it is creating something, I don't know what. Mrs. Waddle stated that is what I am telling you, If you had a dehumidifier in there that would dry that you wouldn't have the problem. Mr. Landolfi stated that I don't think that is a unique problem, is what Mrs. Waddle is trying to point out to you sir,.... Zoning Board Minutes -18- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Urciouli suggested that if you put deck paint down the water won't sink into the concrete. Mr. Za'bczynski stated that other parts that I had mentioned before, it also that Iwould keep that car under the carport because of the noise. Mrs. Waddle stated that you knew that before you bought the house. It is not a hardship. Mr. Landolfi stated that there are hardships and there are hardships. You look very healthy, I don't think it is a major health problem. Mrs. Waddle stated that I think if you wanted to build a carport that you could find a place, you have enough on the side of the house even though it would be a little more costly. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion this variance be denied. Mr. Landolfi stated okay, but let me close the appeal first. He then asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against. There was no one. Mrs. Waddle then made a motion that this variance be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - absent Mrs. Farnsworth asked that other alternatives were available, is that your reason for denial. Mr. Landolfi answered that there is no hardship, and in fact, there is plenty of alternatives. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #786, at the request of William T. Gale, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 404.32 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow an enclosed garage (to the side) and a deck to the rear of the house located on Robinson Lane, being Parcel #6459- 03-039296, in the Town of Wappinger. William Gale was present. Mr. Gale stated that I am building a house on Robinson Lane, on a non -conforming lot. I am seeking a variance to build an enclosed garage. Due to the uniqueness of the lot, there is not ample room to drive in the rear, to the rear of the yard of the lot being that Zoning Board Minutes -19- December 11th, 1984 its narrow and non -conforming, you can see on the survey. Mrs. Waddle asked there is not enough room to drive to the rear of the lot. Mr. Gale answered that there is 6 feet of room on one side and 7 feet or a little more on -the other side. This corner .... Mrs. Waddle asked well what are the diemnsions here. Mr. Gale answered yes, I am sorry, if the garage was not there, yes, you could drive through there. Mrs. Waddle stated that well there isn't a garage yet, so you could drive to the rear and put a garage to the rear. Mr. Gale answered if you drove down hill and around over a septic area. Mrs. Waddle answered okay, thats what I wanted to establish. Mr. Landalfi asked Pam if there is a map with any dimensions on it. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that one of the reasons that a formal 2 foot contour plot plan was not required by the building inspector, which is his option according to the Zoning Ordinance, because this is rebuilding of a house that had to be torn down, therefore, no contour requirements are in here. I have been at the site and it does drop off in the back. Mr. Landolfi asked what would be the dimensions,,like for instance, your proposed deck for instance, can you give me some footage, or what your..... Mr. Gale responded that the building plans that were submitted showed a, this is not the way it is going to be, but it showed a 14 x 20 garage, which was to 'big for this site. Now, the one I am proposing is 12 x 18, which leaves 5 feet in the rear and 6 feet in the front corner of that garage to the side yard line, and the deck proposed is 12 x 12. Mrs. Waddle asked why can't the deck be moved to center. Mr. Gale answered that as this is situated the closest house is on this side so that to keep privacy it would be better for the neigh- bor. Mr. Landolfi asked that lot along side of you, is that another non- conforming to. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that oh­thi$.,side there is a large parcel. On this one is a developed lot. Zoning Board Minutes -20- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Landolfi answered okay, I was out there and wasn't sure which is. Mr. Gale stated that if you wanted to look at what was ...... (presented the board with some pictures) that is going around the house from the garage side. It happens to be made of cedar log and the garage proposed is -to have the same siding as the house as to look similar. The house dimensions are 28 wide and 30 deep which was existing. The uniqueness is in the lot itself that creates a hardship. ��,c i 31-orhood Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone to speak either for or against. Charles Jennings - live adjacent to Mr. Gale's house. The only, I have no objections to doing this, personal,I would like again, the privacy factor. I have an acre of land, the existing house that was there, the structure was torn down and 'built over the save size house of around the same size house. It is close to my property line, it is not 10 feet away, which to my knowledge it is supposed to be 10 feet away, Mrs. Farnsworth stated that it is an R-40 Zone, and if it is an accessory structure, I think it would be 10 foot, but it is not an accessory structure. Mrs. Waddle asked how far is your house from your property line. Mr. Jennings answered about 60 feet. Mr. Gale stated that I could tell you pretty good, because I use the electric cords and they are 25 feet. Its like 50 something feet. I don't want to take you time here, but you are concerned with the view of the deck here,"you can see the distances in the houses here. Mr. Jennings answered that my deck is right here, sticking out over here. He is saying that he is going to put it further away for privacy factor which I am in agreement with, because the house behind me here was put to close, and it is way out of line. In all fairness to everyone, and I have talkied to Mr. Gale about it that something be done with this property line, I don't know it is up to him, I talked to him about. If,fantfhet�she is denied or given the variance, I don't know, I -just wanted to say that I don't object to it, it is just that I want it done right. Mr. Gale stated that this is another thing. He wanted to have that recorded that if you are sure that if I wanted to put white pines in thats agreeable. Mr. Landolfi answered okay you are looking, you are concerned of some kind of buffer.whether it be evergreens or whatever. Zoning Board Minutes -21- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Gale stated to Mr. Jennings that the other thing, if I may, the view df -:your deck from where this deck will be, I don't see how I could even see. Mrs. Waddle stated that you could see that from the pictures that you are going to be over here and you are going to be way over here, and I dhihk you are not going to have a problem with view. If he gets the screening in there. ? . 20 feet, Mr. Jennings answered that is, like I said, I don't have any problem with that as long as the structure is finished the way it is. Another area that we discussed last night is in the back of his house, he built it up with fill, he put alot of fill in there, in the back of our property, with all the properties on Rose Lane, there is a swamp back there, there is alot of water build up back there. It has been in the summer time it dries up obviously, because of the hot weather and now, starting with winter and spring and after the snow melts the water will acumulate back there. My feeling is that there may be some water problems there. We discussed this, and that is an area, I am more concerned with that than -anything else. I put alot of money in back there and did alot of work and I don't want to have a problem with that. I don't have a water problem now, and I don't want to have one later. As far as building the garage up and the deck, I don't object to that as long as it is done right, in fairness to myself and ....I still want privacy. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak either in favor or against this appeal Dick Fulk - the builder for Mr. Gale. Mr. Fulk stated that he would like to point out the visual aspects of the house so you have an idea of what it is going to look like. On the end you are going to have all cedar, so you know it won't look like a shabby little garage. On that garage, the height of the garage, the roof itself, the way the house is tipped from the property line I think you are more like this here, the Deck on Tim's house will be here, the roof will be high enough on this garage almost to block that view already with a few trees. Mr. Gale stated that before we get to far ghead, I just wanted to be sure that what we agreed to, if there is any problem, you have got it recorded, and I will put whatever type of schrubs you want. I don't want to put 20 foot high trees in. Mr. Jennings answered, no, we discussed that last night and it will be very costing but then again, another concern of mine is that if in the event you decide to sell this house, to sell it to someone else, which you may do in the future, then that problem I still have with someone else, so I want it taken care of now, so that I don't have that problem with anyone else. Zoning Board Minutes -22- December 11th, 1984 Mr. Gale stated that there is one other thing, the front porch on kw this house, the existing house had a front porch on it and I don't want to have a problem with it later because both of these items have come up, and as a surprise to me they were on the prints here that were submitted but I want to be sure there is no problem with that, who do I work it out with. Mrs. Waddle stated that lets stick to this. You are in for a garage and a deck, and we can't address that this evening. We just have to address these two points. Mr. Landolfi announced that they will now close that appeal. Mr. Urciouli made a motion that the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Waddle but she would like Mr. Urciouli to add a stipulation that screening be planted along the property line with Mr. Jennings. Mr. Urciouli stated that with Carol's recommendations. Vote: Mr. Landoldi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - absent Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #787, at the request of Mr. & Mrs. Gaspare Sparacino, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to allow a 20 foot sideyard when 25 feet is required for the construction of a house located on Lake Oniad Drive, being Parcel #6257-01-364906, in the Town of Wappinger. Mr. & Mrs. Sparacino were present. Mr. Sparacino stated that he would like to put up a 48 foot raised ranch. (He presented the board with plans) Ilive now on that side all the way back, and the neighbor on the other side said, see there is a little square where it says cabin in the back, he sets behind, just about even with that, and that is approximately where 1 want to put the 48 foot raised ranch.. It has a hundred foot on the road as you can see. That shed that is on there, that is not used not even for storage. Mrs. Waddle asked if that is going to be torn down. Mr. Sparacino answered yes, I am going to take it down. Mr. Urciouli asked why they could't put a 43 foot raised ranch up. Mr. Sparacino answered that because around that whole area it would I Oq D Zoning Board Minutes -23- December 11th, 1984 really conform with the house, if we make it any smaller it would take away from the area. Mr. Landolfi stated that he is very familiar with that whole area. There was a discussion among the Board, Mrs. Farnsworth stated that she had a comment. In the R-40 Zone the width of the lot, the building should be 125 feet, there may be a hundred foot frontage, which is at an angle. The house, the lot as I scale it is between 90 and 95 feet, so it is in a sense a non -conforming lot in terms of the availability to place a house at the 125 width line. Mr. Landolfi stated so what you are saying.... Mrs. Farnsworth answered, so in other words this should be, if the lot were a conforming lot, it would be this wide so the bouse would fit of a 26 - 44, 26 - 48 feet. Now, you are talking about the standard size of houses could be narrower so that they .... conforming, but I thought I would bring to your attention, I think this is, if this 40 is accurate, and I am on this correct scale, then this lot is to narrow to .... Mrs. Waddle finished that it is a non -conforming lot. You have a plan that says 25 feet here and 20 feet here. Mr. Sparacino answered that he just erased that. When I first made the application, that 20 feet there, I figured if anything, if the neighbor needed the 25 feet I could bring it 5 feet over to mine, but he has no objections. Mrs. Waddle stated then that it is reAlly 5 feet. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that it is 5 feet in one direction or the other. Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anyone else to speak either in favor or against this appeal. There was no one. Mr. Landolfi announced that they would now close that appeal. Mrs. Waddle made a motion that this appeal be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - absent Mrs. Waddle - aye Zoning Board Minutes -24- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Waddle stated that the reason that it is granted is because it is a non -conforming lot and there is a land hardship that a house cannot be built on that property, and that is for those who are interested, thats for the record. Mr. Landolfi read the next appeal: Appeal #788, at the request of Dr. Joseph DeTullio, seeking a Special` Use Permit of Article IV, Section 220 & 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to permit him to have a chiropractic office in his residence located on All Angels Hill Road, being Parcel #6257- 02-863924, in the Town of Wappinger. Dr. Joseph DeTullio was present. Mr. Landolfi stated that as I understand, they haven't changed this part of our procedure. This still goes on to the ....... Mrs. Farnsworth stated okay, the first thing you do is to consider the use, and you may, I left my records upstairs, you may refer to Planning Board for an adivsory report, so I guess you could continue to do that. Mrs. Waddle asked if Dr. DrTullio if he would like to go into why he needs this Special Use Permit. Dr. DeTullio answered because we want to, we are living at the residence, so that is why the Special Use Permit, and we had a discussion at the last meeting because of the situation where we want to live at the same residence as the office. There was some problem there, and that is why we had to go for a Special Use Permit. The major use,i§ a residence and that is basically what it is. It is mainly for the residence and its incidental use for an office. Mr. Landolfi answered, okay, your main office, if I recall, is still going to be in Hopewell, this will be like a satellite office, limited practice. IIr, DeTullio answered that it will only consist of whatever the structure is there. There will be no expansion or anything like that. Mrs. Waddle made a motion to refer this Special Use Permit for their comments: The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - absent Mrs..Waddle - aye Zoning Board Minutes -25- December 11th, 1984 Dr. Heaney asked if he could make a comment. Dr. Heaney stated that I practiced in my home for twelve years prior to moving around the corner on All Angels Hill Road. I have no objections to him being there. My neighbors never had any objections to me being there, the entire road its become doctors row up there. I think it is a great idea and I don't, since we don't have any of the neighbors here objecting, I don't see where there should be any delay. Mr. Landolfi stated that we have procedures. Mrs. Waddle stated that as a courtesy to the Planning Board and since it is the first case that we have had that has come before us under the new regulations, we would feel more comfortable in sending it to the Planning Board for their comments. If they see anything that they would perhaps like to put a restriction on the Special Use Permit or add their experties to it, we would feel more comfortable with that, and that is why it is going to the Planning Board. Mr. DeTullio asked if this was a formality. Mr. Landolfi answered that is ri(§ht. Mrs. Farnsworth read the new SUP/Site Plan Law. She stated to Dr. DeTullio that she should receive, and I don't know whether I have received a plan from you as to where your activity will be and where the parking will be, and I think part of the problem is that this was initiated before this was passed. Mr. Landolfi asked what he was missing, he had all kinds of paperwork. Mrs. Fannsworth stated there was an interpretation. Appeal #791, Dr. Hannigan, seeking an interpretation of Section 421, #6, of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Waddle stated that I think that is a very quick one. He has a non -conforming use there now, and .... Mrs. Farnsworth stated that the portion that I believe:he.... Mrs. Waddle stated that One is a veterinayy hospital and the other one was supposed to have bben torn down. I think you better go back through your records and see what it was when we let him put the building up. Thats not supposed to be used for anything. He wanted to use it for storage for a while and it was supposed to be torn down. Mrs. Farnsworth answered, well, my point of bringing it to you or having him bring it to you is that this currently a professional use. It is an animal hospital that requires. 10 acres. On that 10 acres Zoning Board Minutes -26- December 11th, 1984 this is what located so,if he wanted to have a office of chiropractic there, is this another professional office use or is it infringe err' on this 10 acres. Mrs. Waddle stated thatl�he already has 2 uses because he has a home here also. Mrs. Farnsworth answered that this is a seperate-lot. Mrs. Waddle asked he cut that out seperately. Mrs. Farnswoth stated that he cut those out. Mr. Landolfi stated that he had, if I remember, and we better get the file obviously, but I think he got extra property so that he could in fact go with this, this is off the top of my head, because it did require 10 acres. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that this ii not in the application here. It may have been discussed at one point between Dr, -Hannigan and any one of the Board members, but this is not part of the request fmr an interpretation. Its the use of this for a chiropractor office when there are already is this on the 10 acres and I am saying, whats the interpretation. This requires 10 acres this is a professional lkw use, can this be used also as a professional use. And then I can debate it either way. Mrs. Waddle stated that it is 10 acres for an animal hosipital. An animal hos1hital and a chiropractic practice can hardly be the same thing.as far as I am concerned. Mr. Landolfi asked Pam, Help me how you can debate, I see, like for instance if he in -fact has the 10 acres for his veternarian type work, that 10 acres, help me... Mrs. Waddle asked if you had a veterinarian clinic and you have to have 10 acres, help me to understand why the building administrator, the previous building administrator, allowed that veterinarian hospital to go in a shopping center. Mrs. Farnsworth stated because the veterinarian h6spital inaa feside- ntial zone must have 10 acres. Mrs. Waddle stated that a veterinari&Ii-hospital in another zone is not even addressed in our Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Farnsworth stated that I think it may have been an interpretation of professional office use, but 10 acres is required for that in a residential zone. Mr. Landolfi answered which he has, okay he has satisfied that Zoning Board Minutes -27- ' December 11th, 1984 requirement, but now, I guess is, what you and he, I believe are looking for from us is...... Mrs. Farnsworth stated that I think he may have a valid question to say, Okay, I wanted to use this as a chiropractic office, well what if I wanted to use it as another portion, in of, lets say adminstration offices for the animal hospital, I would really be up creek-tto tell him ho. Mrs. Waddle stated that that was his old veterinarian office that was supposed to be torn down when he put the new one up and he said he wanted to use it for storage. Go back through the files Pam and pull that out. Mrs. Farnsworth stated th refer it back to me then. Mr. Urciouli asked you are talking about use then, so a veterinarian doctor is a doctor, so the chiropractor is a doctor, so it is the same use, just like retail. Mrs. Waddle stated that a veterinarian hospital inaresidential district, and it is a residential district, needs 10 acres under our Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Waddle stated that an animal hospital is also subject to a Special Use Permit in a residential district on top of your ten acres. Mr. Landolfi stated so it is a permitted use subject to a Special Use Permit. Mrs. Waddle stated that he had a Special Use Permit when he buildt the naimal hospital but that SpecmalSUse Permit doesn't extend to a chiroprattors office. Mr. Landolfi ahked Pam, why don't we refer it to you, and would you please go through that file and net out all the... Mr. Urciouli made a motion to refer this appeal to the Zoning Admin- istrator for an 4clarifitation. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Waddle. Vote: Mr. Landolfi 9 aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent The motion was carried. Mr. Cortellino - alpeent Mrs. Waddle - aye Mrs. Waddle stated that she would also like to see something in writing from the Town Attorney on this appeal. Zoning Board Minutes -28- December 11th, 1984 Mrs. Waddle made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciouli. Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye Mr. Caballero - absent Mr. Cortellino - aunt Mrs. Waddle - aye The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.. Respectfully submitted, r Ute% c�, Linda Berberich, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals NOTE:......... means an imcompleted statement.