1982-02-11The rescheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Thurday, February 11th, 1982 beginning
at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
Members Absent:
Angel Caballero - appointed 2/8/82
George Urciuoli
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Robert Peters, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle then asked the secretary if all the abutting
property owners had been notified.
The secretary noted that the abutting property owners and
the appellants were notified according to the records available
in the Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle then asked for the roll call.
The roll was taken with Mr. Caballero and Mr. Urciuoli
being absent.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to explain
how the proceedings of the Zoning Board will operate tonight,
we will take the cases we have on the docket, we may or may not
make a decision this evening, when you come forward to speak
for or against a case we would like you to identify yourself,
your name and address to the secretary, and we will swear in witnesses.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 583, at the request of John & Mary Guido, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow for an extension of the time limit to remove a
12' by 60' mobile home from their property located on 15 Curry Road,
being parcel # 6157-01-494662, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-2-
February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Mary Guido of 13 Curry Road and Mrs. Darcel Hungerford,
her daughter, were present.
Mrs. Guido noted that she would like to have an extension
of time on the trailer, it is up for sale, daughter is trying to
sell it, has no place to go, has two children and she is self-
supporting.
Mrs. Waddle then asked how many extensions there had been
on this trailer.
Mr. Gunderud replied that the original variance was granted
in 1976, that was for the use of when Mrs. Guido's mother was
there, there were extensions granted for that use.
Mrs. Waddle noted for that use only and that no one else should
have moved into the trailer, was for the mother, shouldn't have been
anyone else in there, when that use ceased the trailer should have
been sold or removed from the property.
Mr. Gunderud noted that the variance was for the daughter and
son-in-law, the mother was living in the house.
Mrs. Waddle said to excuse her, misunderstood this.
Mr. Landolfi noted that Mrs. Guido was asking for a couple
of months and please help him to understand how a couple of months
would help when nothing has happened within the last year or so.
Mrs. Hungerford replied that she has been trying to sell it,
can't sell it especially right now as the ground is frozed and
no one wants to come in and move,it during the winter with the ground
frozen, and the last few months hadn't been able to move as she
had been having maritial problems, also was commuting to work in
Connecticut every day and by the time she got hodie4: hada to take care
of the kids, no time.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if they could enlighten the Board
as to the size of the house.
Mrs. Guido replied that her daughter, her husband and herself
occupied the house.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was another daughter.
Mrs. Guido replied yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mrs. Hungerford if she had been looking
for a place to live.
Mrs. Hungerford replied yes, she had, have not found anything
yet, desperately need the money from the sale of the trailer, need
that money to find a new place to live.
Mrs. Waddle then asked her what she had done to try to sell
the trailer.
Mrs. Hungerford replied that she had it advertised in the
paper, had a for sale sign on it for people who come down the
road, haven't had any luck so far.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he would make a motion that
the Board grant the two months and at the end of the two months
the trailer has to go, think we have been more than lienient
and sympathetic and wbdlmL-itnake!,-tha-,t-,-,aTmDtion.
Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Mr. Landolfi, Mr. Cortellino and Mrs. Waddle voted aye
and the motion was carried.
Mrs. Waddle then closed the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m.
Appeal ¢# 584, at the request of Grossman's, seeking a variance
of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit a free-standing sign of 42 square feet where 25 square feet
is the maximum size permitted, on their property located on Route 9,
being parcel #k 6157-02-607815, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Paul Shalk noted that he was representing the Grossman's
company and the address was 200 Union Street, Braintree, Massachusetts
and that they were requesting a sign to be put on our property
for several reasons, the main reason being the fact that this road into
our property is so far off of Route 9 and we have had trouble with
people coming down here, especially at night, when they hit this
road they have to stop all of a sudden to make the turn causing near
accidents several times and in other cases have had people go right
by the place and don't even see it.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she found that hard to believe as they
had been there for quite a while and it is very well known in the
Town, is the trailer still there.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- February 11th, 1982
It was noted that the trailer was not there.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the signs were still on the building.
Mr. Shalk replied yes.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he found no difficulty in locating
this, in fact can spot this and cannot find Datsun, have no trouble
and haven't heard of'other people having any difficulty.
Mr. Shalk noted that this was because of permanent residents
but they have had trucks go right by it who were trying to make
deliveries.
Mr. Cortellino commented that�he felt that this could be
handled by giving proper directions.
Mr. Shalk noted that they had no sign there now.
Mrs. Waddle then asked why they couldn't have a sign that
would stay within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Shalk replied that they probably could, the biggest problem
we would have with that is that we have so many letters in our
name, that is the main reason.
Mr. Landolfi then asked where the customers came from, Poughkeepsie,
Wappinger area, trying to relate getting the variance for the sign,
what would this do for them as most of the customers are from this area.
Mr. Shalk replied yes but as he had pointed out to Mr. Cortellino
we have truckers coming down this road, and at night have no sign
out there, asking for the variance as we have so many.letters in
our name.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she had a letter from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning which she would read.
"In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law
Section 239-1 and 249-m, the Dutchess County Department of Planning
has reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent inter -community
and county -wide considerations. Upon analysis, this Department makes
the following findings.
Subject property is located on the west side of Route 9, south of the
Myers Corners Road intersection. A variance is requested to allow a
free-standing sign -with an area of forty-two square feet. The Town
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- February 11th, 1982
Zoning ordinance limits a free-standing sign to a maximum area of
twenty-five square feeQ.
Applicant's property has over six hundred feet of frontage on
Route 9; the site is clearly visible to both the north and southbound
lanes of Route 9.
Recommendation
As this area of Route 9 develops, the roadway corridor design becomes
an important element in maintaining the visual quality of the Town's
landscape. Sign aesthetics are an important part of the design of
a roadway corridor. The quality of signs along major roadways reflects
the quality of the Town environment as a whole. Appropriate design of
the roadway corridor prevents an accumulation of signs that can hazardous-
ly distract motorists on the adjacent roadway.
Since the Town has established its standards for signs and since there
are no special circumstance: in this case that would nessitate a larger
sign, the Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this
variance be disapproved. Approval of this variance could set a precedent
for future requests of a similar nature.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its
decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures
enumerated in subject zoning action."
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Gunderud on the building itself
how much square footage there was.
Mr. Gunderud replied that he did not know.
Mr. Shalk noted that he did not know off hand but could
find out.
Mr. Cortellin then asked about a sign on the roof.
Mr. Gunderud replied that the ordinance does not permit
signs to project above the roof, this would also need a variance.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if they had to conform would they have
problems.
Mr. Shalk replied that they would but were sure they could
conform if they had to.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he was asking this in that many
companies have standard size signs, however, Mobil conformed to the
size requirements rather than their standard size.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was a motion on this.
Mr. Shalk then asked if he could have a copy of the letter
from the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
Mrs. Waddle gave Mr. Shalk a copy of the letter.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion that the request for a
variance be denied. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Landolfi and Mrs. Waddle voted aye and
the motion was carried.
Mrs. Waddle then closed the public hearing.
The public hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Appeal # 585, at the request of Joseph Zeller, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow for an extension of the time limit to remove
a vacant mobile home from his property located on Maloney Road, being
parcel # 6259-02-840815, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Joseph Zeller of Maloney Road was present.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would be willing to go for another
three months with no one living in the mobile hckme.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone living in
the mobile home.
Mr. Zeller replied on and off.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he was given three months did he
think he could get it off the property in that period of time.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- February 11th, 1982
Mr. Zeller replied that he doubted it, at this time.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this would bring him into May.
Mr. Zeller then noted that he had something else in mind, have
three car garage, it is a story and a half, it had been built in 1943
and moved out there from Poughkeepsie, bought the place in 1939,
moved out there during the war, had tenants on the place, a butcher,
were living in there, the garage is 25 feet by 45 feet and a story and
a half, with a seven foot ceiling, want to renovate and put his son,
in there.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was a different thing from the
trailer.
Mr. Zeller replied no, it is not.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he wanted people to live in the
trailer untilhe renovates the garage.
Mr. Zeller continued noting he did not know when he would get
rid of it, don't know.
,o Mrs. Waddle.noted that he has to get rid of it, it is just a matter
of time, has been in here twice, he had been given a year and nothing
has happened in that time, now will give one more extension, there
will be no more, if the Board says that it has to be off in three
months then it will be off in three months and there are no ifs, ans
or buts.
Mr. Zeller asked where he could go with it,,a to the end of the road.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he had made any attempts to sell the
mobile home.
Mr. Zeller replied that it had been in the papers, a neighbor
might want it this summer, he is getting married.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Zeller what he felt would be a
reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Zeller replied six months, but what difference would it make.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he keeps coming back for six months
and then another six months.
Mr. Zeller noted that there is an end to everything, lets put it
that way, have to wait to see first where he can get rid of it, only
place would be where it is allowed in a Town or a trailer park and
they are loaded, every time we put it in the paper we get calls but
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- February 11th, 1982
as soon as they know it has to be moved that is that, so where are
we going from there, can it be used as a storage place for building
materials, we are in the building trades.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this would require an interpretation,
has a residence and then use this as a storage building and also the
conversion of the garage, would have to check with Hans, this is
not allowed in this area.
Mr. Zeller then noted that there would be no change in the
building, would have to be a caretakers cottage.
Mrs. Waddle noted that a caretakers cottage is permitted without
kitchen facilities is allowed.
Mr. Zeller asked where they would eat.
Mr. Cortellino replied that a caretaker would take his meals
in the house, this is not permitted, would change the zoning.
Mr. Landolfi noted that we have to find a way to help, the
trailer has to go.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he had tried dealers who specilize
in second hand trailers.
Mr. Zeller noted that he had just heard about this recently.
It was noted that there is a dealer in Statsburg and Newburgh.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if he was given to June would that
be sufficient.
Mr. Zeller replied that he would try to sell it, at least, but
will not throw the boy (his son), out.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he must make a concerted effort to try to
find a buyer in the next few months.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to give Mr. Zeller until
the end of June. Mr. Cortellino seconded the motion.
Mr. Zeller replied that he would try.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-9- February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that he will have to try and do better,
and if he can't sell it he will have to bring in proof to show
that he made a concerted effort to get rid of the trailer, this
is the third time and it will be the last time.
Mr. Zeller replied that he hoped so.
Mr. Landolfi, Mr. Cortellino and Mrs. Waddle voted aye and
the motion was carried.
Mrs. Waddle then declared the hearing closed.
The public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m.
Appeal # 586, at the request of Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Pidoto,
seeking variances of Article IV, Section 422, NB District, paragraph
1 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to
the existing residence to be constructed at an 11 3/4 foot setback
where a 20 foot setback is required and to also allow a second dwelling
unit to be established on their property located on All Angels Hill
Road, being parcel # 6357-03-217020, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Joseph and Helen Pidoto of All Angels Hill Road were present.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they were asking for two variances,
are these related, are you adding on and then a second dwelling unit.
Mrs. Pidoto replied yes, for her parents.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that in that case she would read the
following from the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
"In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law, Sections
239-1 and 239-m, the Dutchess County Department of Planning has
reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent inter -community
and county -wide considerations. Upon analysis, this Department makes
the following findings.
Subject property is located on the north side of All Angels Hill Road,
west of the intersection of Route 82 and All Angels Hill Road. The
property is in a Neighborhood Business Zoning District; a single family
residential dwelling is the existing land use.
91
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- February 11th, 1982
Two variances are requested in this application. The first request
is a variance from the side yard requirement, from 20 feet to 11 3/4 feet.
✓ A variance is also requested to establish a second dwelling unit on the
site; the district regulations limit the property use to one dwelling
unit.
Recommendation
The establishment of a second dwelling unit, attached to the main
building, might be an appropriate use. A change of the allowable
number of dwelling units on the property, however, should be accomplished
through a zoning amendment, not by means of s variance. The zoning
amendment process allows for a comprehensive overview of the issue and
a subsequent change would apply to an entire zoning district or districts.
A variance, on the other hand, would apply to only one property. A change
of density, such as is the case in this instance, is a function of
the Town Board rather than a Zoning Board of Appeals. The Dutchess
County Department of Planning recommends that this variance application
for a second dwelling unit be disapproved.
With regard to the side yard variance, this Department recommends that
the decision be based upon local study of the facts in the case.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base
its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or
procedures enumeratedin the subject zoning action."
Mr. Pidoto asked what this means.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they disapprove of the second
dwelling unit, to go against the County it would require the
entire Board to override their recommendation.
Mr. Pidot asked what his recourse was.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board had not yet made a decision,
the recourse is to seek a rezoning, reappeal with other information
or go to a higher court.
Mrs. Waddle then asked why they wanted the variance.
Mrs. Pidoto replied that it was for her in-laws,live in Yonkers,
had written a letter, they, live in a high crime area, getting up in
age and in ill health, live on the third floor, it is either come live
with us or go into nursing home, want to make their last few years happy
ones.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if they were living with them, do they
need separate kitchen facilities.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Pidoto noted that was the least important thing.
The Board advised her that it was not as the second kitchen
is what constitutes the second dwelling, if there is no other kitchen
there is not a zoning problem.
Mr. Pidoto noted that he has three teenaged children, have
no room in our own home, there is no way for them to come through
the house, there is no doorway for them to come in.
The Board and the Pidotos discussed the proposed addition
with regard to the layout of the septic system and the existing
house.
Mrs. Waddle noted that if there was no second kitchen there
would not be a problem, have a door through the house.
Mrs. Pidoto noted the only way would be from the back porch,
it is a nursing home or us..
Mr. Landolfi noted that the zoning law is there, trying to
help.
Mrs. Pidoto commented that if anything it would be an improve-
ment to the area.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if they had thought about buying in
another area.
Mrs. Pidoto replied who can buy a house today, were lucky to get
this, money from daughter's instrance is helping us to build this,
really a hardship, it would cost us more to put them in a nursing+ home.
Mrs. Waddle then asked their ages.
Mr. Pidoto replied that his mother was 75 and his father was
Mrs. Waddle then commented that they would probably do most of
the cooking anyway.
Mrs. Pidoto replied that they were very self-sufficient, cap take
care of themselves.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-12- February 11th, 1982
She added that it is a problem where they are now, it takes
two of us to get them up and down the stairs, really are worried about
their welfare down there in Yonkers.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board is trying to help them, if
it didn't have kitchen facilities you don't have a problem, it is
the kitchen that constitutes the second dwelling unit, if you want
them up here that badly, please work with us as we are trying to
help.
The Board then discussed eliminating the kitchen and Mr. Cortellino
wanted to know if the size of the addition could be cut down if
there was no kitchen.
Mr. Fred Johnston then commented that it was none of his business
but is a portable kitchen such as a plug in or wheel in allowed.
The Board replied that this is not permitted.
The Board then suggested that the Pidotos discuss with
their builder other alternatives with regard to eliminating the
kitchen.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the building plans could be amended.
It was noted that even without the kitchen a variance would
stll-1 be neededb for the sideyard setback, 20 feet is the requirement.
Mrs. Waddle then suggested that this be tabled and suggested
that the Pidotos and their builder get in touch with Mr. Gunderud
about this.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi to table action on this
appeal until next month. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Landolfi, Mr. Cortellino, and Mrs. Waddle voted aye
and Mrs. Waddle noted that the motion was carried.
The public hearing was closed at 8:40 p.m.
Appeal ¢# 587, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow access through adjacent property to
applicant's property on Myers Corners Road, said access involving
parcels numbered 6258-03-350303 (Pizzagalli Development Company),
6258-03-369392 (Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company) and 6258-03-
376432 (Gordon & Mary Humeston), in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
a
Zoning Board of Appeals
-13-
February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that there were two variance requests
but the Board would handle these se aratel
P y.
Mr. Fred Johnston of Pizzagalli development was present and
noted that they were granted permission to exit from the project
under construction originally back up on Fenmore Drive, opposite it,
there was a problem on this, with the citizens being concerned, the
County did not seem to be concerned, there was a public hearing
at which time the local people made their feelings pretty well known
and we agreed to pursue another alternative at the suggestion of the
Planning Commission, so what we did was to acquire the land from
Mrs. Humeston to enable us to come much further down the road,
(Mr. Johnston then showed the Board the plan indicating the proposed
access), he noted where the drive had been approved and noted
that they agreed it was a dangerous situation, there is a hill,
it was not that good, so then the suggestion was to go down further
but the County said absolutely no, won't allow that, would allow only
further down which was not our property, so at an increase in expense
of $100,000 which included the cost of acquistion of the property and
the road we are going to comply with the wishes of the Town, however,
to do that we need two things, we need the variances, in order to
subdivide and the egress also is across the Central Hudson right-of-way,
think this is subject to interpretation and have talked to Hans
about it, but we are not arguing, seeking a variance, if this is
strict interpretation then every property that does not access on
a road is not in compliance, this is not our only entrance and exit
and there is a great deal of frontage along Myers Corners Road,
not our sole ammessbut going across a fifty foot strip of Central Hudson.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if they were purchasing about one-third
of an acre, logically why couldn't they get a lot which conforms.
Mr. Johnston replied that was the next issue but if the
Board wanted to discuss it now.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board was dealing with the
question of access along an easement, that is the next case
and then noted that she would read into the record a letter which
was received from the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
"The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject
referral within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article 12B,
Sections 239-1 and 239-m) and finds the decision in this matter
primarily involves matters of local concern.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-14- February 11th, 1982
The Dutchess County Department of Planning, therefore, recommends
the decision be based upon local study of the facts in the case.
+' The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base
its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or
procedures enumerated in subject zoning action."
Mr. Johnston then commented about the size of the lot and
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board would take that next.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against this.
Mr. Andrew Pope of Cady Lane asked if the concerned property was
the Central Hudson easement which is about fifty feet from Fenmore
Drive.
Mr. Johnston replied that it was about 250 feet from Fenmore Drive.
The Board then showed Mr. Pope the site plan with the entrance
shown.
Mr. Johnston added that the attempt of all of this was to get
it away from Fenmore Drive, that is why we are going through this,
noted there was a cut, know where the power poles are, we will be going
r✓ past that, the power poles are running back there, the road that
you see cut is being abandoned, this is what everybody agreed was
dangerous, forget about and do something else, that is why we went
further dmf and bought the land to be able to move the entrance.
Mr. Joseph Yacavelli of 15 Cady Lane then asked if this
was down where the farm was.
Mr. Johnston replied yes and then showed Mr. Yacavelli
the proposed entrance on the site plan.
Mr. Yacavelli asked if this would be left hand turn only
going out to All Angels, as they exit out of Pizzagalli will it
be left hand turn only.
Mr. Johnston replied no and indicated the turns on the
site plan, will be both left and right.
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion to grant the requested
variance. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion. Mrs. Waddle voted
aye along with Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Landolfi and noted that the
motion was carried.
Mrs. Waddle then closed the public hearing
The public hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- February 11th, 1982
Appeal # 588, at the request of Pizzagalli Development Company,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the subdivision of a lot that is 12,600
square feet where 20,000 square foot is required, proposed subdivision
of property of Mary Humeston, located on Myers Corners Road and being
parcel # 6258-03-376432, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Cortellino commented that as he had started to say before
he saw no reason to give a variance, when without no problem a
variance is not required, it may not be useful but you can run
parallel to Central Hudson's lines, unless you want to grow flowers
or give it to the employees for a vegetable garden the land is of no
value, there is plenty of land there A9 there was no problem in getting
one acre.
Mr. Johnston replied yes that is true, could have bought
the whole thing for about a uillim bticks, there are three or four
things going on here, first of all we are doing this at the behest
of the Town; secondly, the piece of property that was acquired establishes
a new all time record for property values in Wappinger at .29 acres
for residential land at $18,000, thirdly, Mr. Humeston
Mr. Cortellino then commented for land that was rezoned
from residential.
Mr. Johnston replied that it was not rezoned, it is residential
land, we are simply putting a road across it, we are not trying to get
it rezoned, we are not seeking to build any structures on it, any
houses, nothing, would agree if our intention was to acquire .29 acres
to try and build something then that would be trying to circumvent
what the Town is trying to do with h aore-zoning, trying to do something
different, not going to be anything here higher than the pavement,
plus Mr. Humeston, it was a long, tough battle really getting him
to agree to sell anything, he wasn't inclined to, it was his mother's
property, she owned it, it was a long, tough battle to acquire anything,
part of it was with the good result of the help of one of the Town
Board members who kind of interceded in our behalf, through his efforts
was able to make the deal go ahead, so maybe it would have taken an
extra twenty thousand dollars to buy another .21 acres, don't know,
bought what we had to buy to make it work, we didn't feel that it
would create a problem for the Town and we feel that we have come
up with a good solution.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-16- February 11th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino commented that it is not a problem from the view
point of what is the size of the lot, it is a problem from the
view point that whenever possible we try to find a solution where
a variance is not required, there is.plenty of land there, there
is no reason for the variance per se.
Mr. Johnston replied that they think there is, really do,
Mr. Cortellino remarked on cost, on that view.point, but it
is not a question that there is a building nearby that you can't
acquire the land or an insurmontable rock, this is just flat land
there is no reason other than the inconvience of battling just
to get the oneQthird.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she had a letter from the Dutchess
County Department of Planning which she would read for the record.
"The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject
referral within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article 12B,
Sections 239-1 and 239-m) and finds thldecision in this matter
primarily involves matters of local concern.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning, therefore, recommends
the decision be based upon local study of the facts in the case.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base
its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or
procedures enumerated in subject zoning action."
Mrs. Waddle noted that she believed there was a gentlemen who
wished to say something.
No one wished to be heard.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to grant the variance
and Mrs. Waddle seconded the motion, Mr. Cortellino voted nay,
abd Mrs. Waddle commented so ordered, carried.
Motion Was Carried
The hearing was closed at 8;50 p.m.
Appeal # 590, at the request of Marvin Joe Edwards, seeking an
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with premises
located on Route 9D, Article IV, Section 422, NB zone, permitted
accessory uses and believe that this is in accordance with the
post office in Hughsonville that is located in the Convenient Food
Market.
Mr. Joe Edwards, Spur Terrace in the Town of Newburgh, felt
that post office here, that interpretation should be that it is
done customarily as a use to the people who live in the area,
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- February 11th, 1982
there are better parking facilities, people that are handicapped
have no problem getting in here, place where it was the parking lot
was out on the road, a heavily travelled road, we have ample parking,
have 35 spaces in out lot and we -were wondering about an interpretation
where it would be permitted or a variance to have the post office.
Mrs. Waddle asked if it was not a permitted use in this area.
Mr. Gunderud replied that the interpretation is whether or not
it constitutes a second principal use on that lot and as stated
in my letter on the subject believe there is sufficient doubt on
my part as to whether that would be considered`a second use or
historically there are in the country there are many pdsthefticescin gas
stations and stores and so on` but whether that constitutes a
second pr,bncippl use or a cust6marily incidential use to a permitted
use, this is why Mr. Edwards was asked to seek an interpretation.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it even goes beyond that in this
case because of the residents of HughsonvilleAswkdghave to go
without a post office If it doesn't go in believe there are
300 box holders and maybe five to seven sdgg men b ng in to
do business on a daily basis with stamps and so on and so forth,
so even if it was a use it would be a hardship to the
neighborhood and on the post office itself.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he would have no qualms about that
but that we do have some problems in -that area and just wondering
if this would be opening up Pandora's box, granted do sympathize
with the people.
Mrs. Waddle replied that this is an extraordinary case,
can't liken it a real business situation as it is servicing the populace,
there is no other spot to put it, if not would have to be put on
the Town of Wappinger zip and would have to deliver to an additional
300 people.
Mr. Edwards noted that it is the same service that has been
provided to Hughsonville, just moving from one side of the street
to the other, been service for some 77 years.
Mrs. Waddle then commented that the only thing *he finds in
that area and would like to bring it to Hangm° attention, -is think that
it is very dangerous going in and getting out of that area especially
at rush hours and where the post office used to be you could pull in
and get into the stream of traffics, don't know what can be done but
do feel this is dangerous at rush hours.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- February 11th, 1982
Mr. Gunderud commented that perhaps it might be proper for
the Board to interpret that the use is not a second use but is
incidential and send them to the Planning Board for a review.
Mr. Landolfi then moved that the interpretation is that
this is an incidential use in this case and this be referred to
the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Cortellino then
seconded the motion and Mrs. Waddle voted aye.
Motion Was Carried
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she had an application for a Special
Use Permit from Mathew Edapparayile for Optimum Development.
Mr. Gunderud then asked about the other interpretation, Appeal
# 582, Ben Ciccone, Inc.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that Appeal # 592, at the request of
Ben Ciccone, Inc. for an interpretation in connection with premises
at New Hackensack and St. Nicholas Roads and believe that it is
to establi & a transportation terminal or storage business, correct.
Mr. Kenneth C. Russ of New Hackensack Road was present
and noted that he thinks that the problems is that Ciccone's business
does a fair amount of trucking, has some mtherel-hckdentia uses,
he is a contractor, talked to him today and the bulk of his business
is that he runs a lot of trucks, hauling and filling and stuff, the
question is the transportation terminal is permitted in AI, the
question is what is a contractor, he doesn't consider himself a
contractor, the same as Alexander, he is going to have trucks and a
building and some incidential equipment that would be .stored in a
building or in the yard which would be screened, so think it is
probably more of a question as to what his business is rather than
an interpretation of what is allowed, a transportation terminal is
kind of a vague statement in the ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that he had been thinking
about this one for a while, thinking about when the warehouse
came in and at that time couldn't picture a big terminal other than
Command Airways carrying, what was needed storage area, and other
thing there is plenty of land waiting like HB -2 along Old Route 9
where you put a warehouse.
Mr. Russ replied that this use is allowed only in a W zone,
there is not much of this left, he does not warehouse old pipe, he
is looking for a place to park equipment and have an office building
for himself and a shop.
Zoning Board of Appeals -19- February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then commented that she thought he Had that down
in the Bleachery.
Mr. Russ replied that he had no idea, he may be getting out,
he is looking for a new building, a new site, think it is much more
appropriate in an AI zone to have something like that than in GB, yet
in GB it is the only zone that permits contractors and all these
kinds of people to congregate and it is, not really a lot of this
around and available and he needs minimum of two acres and probably
more and it is not that easy to get a hold of, it is not permitted
in HB or NB or anything else, it does not move along as other uses
do, have to talk about it as the guy does not want to go to the
Planning Board and go through all this and then have someone vsk
what is a transportation terminal, think a transportation terminal
is like something you would see in New York City or out on Long Island
where you would see one hundred trucks coming in.every day loading and
unloading out of Kennedy, might have been the intent, don't know.
Mr. Cortellino commented that he would think that airport
industry, we have only one of those zones, would be better that
industiies related to air transportation and what not or air transporta-
tion support be in otherwise you will be using this up, perhaps
need more GB that is up to the Town Board but if you start using
up the airport industry you would have no place, still don't know
why Klein wanted to put a warehouse there, there was no need
for it at the time.
Mr. Russ replied that regardless of Mr. Klein's intent
this was permitted.
Mr. Gunderud then commented that when Mr. Ciccone came to him
and talked about his use, it bee&mw apparent that there is no real
sone in the whole Town that really fits his use, he doesn't sell
anything, the only other closest zone in the oxftnagroamtthat sounds
like his type of operation would be under wholesale and storage
business, wholesale or storage business.
Mr. Landolfi then remarkkdd that he tended to agree with
Mr. Cortellino, if it is AI for a particular purpose and then
you allow this to be eaten up.
Mr. Gunderud noted that in the AI zone they do allow wholesale
or storage businesses, his business sounds like a storage type of
business, he does store trucks, equipment, there.
Mr. Cortellino noted that when he thinks about storage it is
something that is going to be in there for awhi&e.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-20- February 11th, 1982
Mr. Russ noted that Hans had the same problem that he did,
have to realize that in AI it is wholesale or storage but not
to include building,plumbing, p g, electrical or similar establishments,
then go to GB it allows et -ora and sale of building material,
plumbing, and similar contractors establishments, but he doesn't
sell anything.
The Board then looked at Section 422 of the zoning ordinance
and the various uses permitted.
Mr. Russ then noted that to get around it Mr. Ciccone could lease
the space to himself, to dotit. He added that during the building
season the equipment is not there, really involves the storage
only during the winter.
Mr. Cortellino noted that it appeared that no one could agree
on just what storage means.
Mr. Gunderud noted that you could get around this by
referring, in a round about way, if you look at uses go to
OR zone, look at OR -10 list 4 $ncipal use but then if you look
at the accessory uses, number four says storage and maintenance of
motor vehicles and other equipment incidential to the permitted use
and this is exactly what he wants to do, it is conceivable that
you could deny or interpret that he doesn't have the right do do
this and someone else could come in `end build a permitted use and then
as an adjunct to his business could build a maintenance and storage
building as part of the use, so think that when they wrote the ordinance
this was allowed, unfortunately not as a principal use but rather
as an accessory use, don't think it would change the spirit of the
ordinance to interpret that you could have this.
Mr. Russ noted that as silly as it sounds he could go up there
and put up an office and leade space to Ciccone Enterprises and
then lease space to himself to do this.
Mr. Gunderud noted that this appeared to be a hardship to make
someone do this that way.
Mrs. Waddle added that it appeared he could go around the
back door and do it.
The Board noted that they would take a few lainutes and table this
and go onto the next item.
I
Zoning Board of Appeals -21-
February 11th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that Mr. Edapparayile was now present and
that he was asking for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Article IV,
Section 421, paragraph 5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to establish an office for a counseling service to be known as
"Optimum Development" and to be located on Route 9D, being parcel
# 6057-04-946394, in the Town of Wappinger.and that this would have
to be sent to the Planning Board.
The Board then discussed the location of'the property,
Mrs. Waddle asked the house would be used just as it was.
Mr. Edapparayile replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that this has to be sent to the
Planning Board for their review and then it comes back to the
Zoning Board, whouwould probably put restrictions on the parking,
etc., don't have to do anything tonight but will ask for a motion
to send it to the Planning Board.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi to refer this application
to the Planning Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino
and Mr. Landolfi, Mr. Cortellino and Mrs. Waddle voted aye.
Motion Was Carried
Mr. Edapparayile asked what would happen and it was explained
to him that the Planning Board would refer it to various agencies
for their reviews and when these come back the Planning Board would
send their recommendation back to the Zoning Board, it would be
on the March 1st Planning Board agenda and then a hearing would
be held by the Zoning Board on March 9th.
The Board then returned to the matter of the request of
Ben Ciccone for an interpretation.
Mr. Russ noted that in talking to Mr. Ciccone, what is primarily
stored there are ten wheelers, so on, pick ups„ etc., however, what
Mr. Cortellino is thinking about it hopefully out doing something
productive, look at the ordinance don't really see anywhere it is
clearly allowed, seils,a service, material you are talking about
are on the job site would not be stored here, maintain an office and
a service building with a tightly fenced secure area.
Mr. Cortellino noted that what? he. was willing, to coo, - hisLL inter-
prAt it�_y?on-would' be iif_ c:viryth-inc� wasK_under the roof_, including any
pipe which you say won't'be there, with nothing outside the building.
Zoning Board of Appeals -22- February 11th, 1982
Mr. Russ asked like what.
Mrs. Waddle noted that there wfduld have to be some outdoor
storage, can't be that strenuous.
Mr. Russ commented what would be alright, if we are talking about,
told Ben one the the problems he had was Alexander's place,
what you are talking about would be that there would be nothing of that
nature outside, even outside would have an opague fence, asked him
purposely if he knew what Dave's place looked like, nothing against
Dave but if you want no pipe, nothing outside, okay but you have
to be able to park trucks and stuff outside, if you are talking about
material and junk or whatever you want to call it, that is perfectly
acceptable and happen to agree with you.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was referring to odds and ends
like Lafko's tank, something like that.
Mr. Russ commented that he would agree 100 percent and he
purposely asked Mr. Ciccone that, thought this would come up,
asked him about this today and he advised that he did not stockpile
anything, don't store anything, will be nothing outside, wants to
put up a four or five thousand square foot building initially,
fence it in, have a yard, office and a service area, that is all,
and certainly think it is a reasonable request on the part of the
Town not to have broken pipe, know what you are talking about, no
outdoor storage of material would be a reasonable thing to ask him
to do.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that he wanted a clarification on what
they would interpret, because are you going to call it an extension
of a wholesale or storage business, or a transportation terminal,
a transportation terminal requires a Special Use Permit and a
wholesale or storage business does not.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it would be a wholesale or storage
bmsiness, the Planning Board would look at the site plan.
Mr. Cortellino then suggested usAg the words wholesale
or storage, that gives us the option, if you put in "fid" that
gets you into trouble.
f
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- February 13th, 1982
Mr. Gunderud noted that under this zone it is written
"wholesale or storage".
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion to interpret that the
Appellants's use shall be considered to be a wholesale or storage
use as permitted in the AI -2A zone. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Landolfi.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Landolfi and Mrs. Waddle vote aye.
Motion Was Carried
The secretary then asked if could ask a question about the
second Pizzagalli variance, the vote on it, that is no problem.
Mrs. Waddle replied no, not a problem.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to close the meeting. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Landolfi, Mr. Cortellino and Mrs. Waddle voted aye.
Motion Was Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs. etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoni Board of Appeals
br
UNAPPROVED