1982-04-13The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, April 13th, 1982, beginning
at 8:02 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Charles A. Cortellino, Acting Chairman
Angel Caballero
Joseph E. Landolfi
Members Absent:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
G. George Urciuoli
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Robert Peters, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mr. Cortellino called the meeting to order and asked for the
roll call.
The roll call was taken with Mrs. Waddle and Mr. Urciuoli
being absent.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the abutting property owners
had been notified.
The secretary replied that the abutting property owners and
the appellants had been notified according to the records available
in the Assessor's office.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that for the people who were here
for the first time he would like to explain the procedure of the
board. He noted that the Board would go through all the cases,
hear each appeal, we may or may not arrive at a decision tonight,
after you have spoken you may leave, you will be notified what the
decision is or you may stay here and wait for the decision.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 597, at the request of Owen Peterson, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow an accessory structure with a ten foot setback
where a 75 foot setback is required, on property located on the corner
of Route 9 and Smithtown Road, being parcel # 6157-04-671026, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Im-
Zoning Board of Appeals
-2-
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Anthony T. Rowan, P.E. & L.S., was present and noted that
he was the engineer who had prepared the plans.
Mr. Cortellino then swore Mr. Rowan in.
Mr. Rowan noted that this lot was only 95 feet wide, and there is
no way even if we moved it to the backside of the property we can make
either the setback requirements for parking in front of the structure
or behind, we are putting it where there is an existing structure now,
we are going to tear down an old delapidated wooden, block garage
and we are putting in an open storage shed, have to have an open shed
for the material that will be stored there.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that he understood it, the
existing structure will be torn down and an open shed will be put
up.
Mr. Rowan replied yes, an open storage shed will replace it.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if the Board had received anything
from the County.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the Board had received a memo
from the Dutchess County Department of Planning, really they
haven't made any statement on it, ordinarily they could have
turned it down and then the Board would have needed a larger
vote on it. He then noted that he had a question for Mr. Gunderud,
looking at the map it looks like the property was subdivided and
a smaller lot was set up than normal, is that correct.
Mr. Gunderud replied that was undersized but that it was pre-
existing to zoning.
Mr. Cortellino then asked what would be the difference in height
between the old structure and the new structure.
Mr. Rowan replied that it might be about three feet higher.
Mr. Landolfi commented that it is quite a difference in setback.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Gunderud commented that in a way it is a technicality,
the setback in an HB zone is usually because the property is on
Route 91, this property is on a corner, and the setback is required
from both streets, Route 9 and Amithtown Road.
Mr. Rowan replied that they were far enough from Route 9
but there was no way they could meet the requirement from
Smithtown Road on this property, can't buy anymore property.
Mr. Cortellino asked if there was sufficient setback from Route 9.
Mr. Gunderud replied on this structure, yes.
Mr. Caballero then asked what would be stored here.
Mr. Rowan replied bottled gases, different gases, nitrious
oxide like a dentist uses, or small LP gas, possibly oxygen.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if they had an installation similar
to this.
Mr. Rowan replied yes, one in Peekskill and one in
Connecticut, have had no problems, been running these for over
twenty years.
Mr. Cortellino then asked about problems with vandalism.
Mr. Rowan replied that the structure will be completely
enclosed, a chain link fence all around the gas area.
Mr. Cortellino asked if they would have a caretaler at night.
Mr. Rowan replied that they would most likely will have some
sort of caretaking on the property, there is a house that is existing
on the property too, most likely have someone at night, the storage
shed area will be lit--adil—mighthlonggh-� -
Mr. Caballero asked if there were any residences near by.
Mr. Rowan replied the house on the property thats all, across
the street is the nursery, on the other side of 9 is a house and
the body shop.
Mr. Cortellino then asked him if he was aware of any laws on the
storage of gases.
0
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Rowan replied that he went through the whole book
before he even started on this project, have no regulations on
outside storage, have some regulations as far as what you.can store
next to one another but as far as any other regulations it is
more storage and use inside a building, that is why we are using the
open shed, all fire code regulations pertain to inside a building.
Mr. Gunderud commented that this is going through site plan
procedure simultaneously, going to all the agencies for review.
It was noted that this would be on the April 19th, 1982
Planning Board agenda subject to the variances.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he would have no hang ups, provided that
the necessary approvals are obtained.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would entertain a motion.
There was then a lady from the audience who asked if anyone
else could be heard.
Mr. Cortellino said of course.
Ms. Mary Weeks then came forward and noted that she lived
right next door to this, have land next to this property that he
is building on,4 have.a house, is residential, have five apartments
there, people are living there and don't know how safe this is,
how much tnt, how many pounds of explosives.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this is why it is referred to other
agencies and he had asked about this, refer to the fire department
approval, these other agencies will address this.
Ms. Weeks added that she still felt that the Board should be
aware that there are people living there, is this residential because
the reason she was asking was because the previous owner wanted to
sell this property at one time and said that you couldn't put a
restaurant there because of the residences and it might not be safe
for the people and don't understand how you can have something like
this right next door to residential property, can't see how bottled
gas, when you in a hospital can't smoke, don't do this and yet
have something like this in residential property.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Rowan noted that as far as a restaurant went, the problem
probably was that you could not get a large enough septic system
'.r on the property for a restaurant use.
Mr. Landolfi then added that in going through with site plan
approval there are many agencies that have to review this such as
the fire company will be involved, the Board of Health and so on,
we are only inquiring tonight on the actual variance for the footage
here, the site plan has to go through the Planning Board.
Ms. Weeks then asked why she had been asked to be here if
you are not concerned.
Mr. Cortellino replied that by law all abutting property owners
are notified of any action that is appearing before the Zoning Board.
Ms. Weeks replied but then she can't do anything about it
anyway as the Board will decide.
Mr. Cortellino replied that she could object to the ten foot
setback where a seventy-five foot setback is required, that is what
the Board is addressing and that is why Mr. Rowan pointed out
that it is not as if he was putting up a building closer than what
it was, it was a building that was already there, which he is
r►°
replacing.
Ms. Weeks then asked what would be put in the building.
Mr. Rowan replied it is not an enclosed building, it is a
concrete deck with a roof over it and decorative wall on the
Smithtown Road side, they will be storing the small, like people
who have barbecues, gas will have the spare tanks for that, and
they might have nitrious oxide for dentitts, that type of thing.
Ms. Weeks noted that she would leave it up to the Town,
sure you know what is safe for the people that live here, said
the building is not far from this.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that it would be on the April 19th
Planning Board agenda, that is an open meeting.
Mr. Cortellino added that this is where some of her concerns
would be properly addressed.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- April 13th, 1982
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to grant the requested variance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi voted aye.
Mrs. Waddle and Mr. Urciuoli were absent.
The motion was carried.
Appeal ## 598, at the request of Owen Peterson, seeking a
variance of Section 416.513 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit him to erect a 4' by 6' sign to project above
the roof line on property located on the corner of Route 9 and
Smithtown Road, being parcel # 6157-04-671026, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Anthony T. Rowan, P.E. & L.S., was present and the
sign would be placed on the existing one story block building.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if it would be a sandwich type
sign.
V
Mr. Rowan replied it would be a sandwich type with braces,
again on this lot there is no place to get the seventy-five foot set-
back for a free-standing sign.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if the sign would be illuminated.
Mr. Rowan replied interior illumination, no outside illumination.
Mr. Cortellino then asked what hours it would be on.
Mr. Rowan replied that they could have it set for no later than
ten o'clock, the normal operating hours are to six o'clock at night,
six to seven o'clock at night.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the County had a remark and believed
the Board had copies.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-7-
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that they had left up the decision to
the Zoning Board.
Mr. Caballero then asked if there was a three foot facia
on top of the glass.
Mr. Rowan replied it was two foot of block above the glass
and then the flat roof on top of that, the underside of the roof
pitches down in toward the glass, there is no sign on the building
itself.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone in the audience
who wished to be heard for or against this appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. Caballero,
to grant the requested variance.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi voted aye.
Mrs. Waddle and Mr. Urciuoli were absent.
The motion was carried.
Appeal # 600, at the request of Dennis M. Holt, seeking a
variance of Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a proposed
addition to his residence which is located on a private road known
as Schlichter Road, being parcel # 6156-02-954985, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Dennis M. Holt was present and was sworn in by
Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Holt noted that the purpose in his being here was that
the Town does not issue building permits on properties that have
private roads, so in order to get a building permit first have to get
IM
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- April 13th, 1982
a variance, there is an existing foundation attached to the
house at the present time and would like to add about ten feet on
to that foundation and put one possibly two rooms on top of it,
house is only a one bedroom house, recently had a son so we need
a little bit more room, it is either that or find another means
around the property.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there were no violations with
setbacks or anything.
Mr. Gunderud replied no.
Mr. Cortellino commented that it was then the formality
of it being on a private road.
Mr. Gunderud replied that this was correct.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone who wished
to be heard on this appeal.
No Dne present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8;23 p.m.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi that the requested variance
be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi voted aye.
Mrs. Waddle and Mr. Urciuoli were absent.
The motion was carried.
Appeal # 602, at the request of Stereo Magic, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 416.52 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for an additional free-standing temporary
sign to be located on their property located on the corner of
Route 9 and Myers Corners Road, being parcel # 6157-02-650897, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Scott Lerry was present and was then sworn in by
Mr. Cortellino.
RI
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino noted that the Board had received a
recommendation from the Dutchess County Department of Planning
and he would read the pertinent parts.
"The subject property is located at a key intersection in the Town.
The property, the building and the existing free-standing sign have
good sight distance to vehicles approaching the intersection from
all directions.
Allowing a proliferation of sigr)age will result in a deterioration of
the visual quality of the community. Excess signage could also
hazardously distract drivers of vehicles on adjacent roads.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that this sign variance be denied. 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 pro-
cedures enumerated in subject zoning action."
Mr. Cortellino then cmmmented that what this means if the
Board hears his case this evening, it might be better for him to be
tabled to get a full Board because with this recommendation it
would require a majority plus one vote to over -ride the County and
there are only three members present tonight. He added that he
could also give his testimony and the Board could table action
until the following month when the entire Board should be present.
Mr. Lerry noted that he would agree to do that and as far
as the testimony went it pertains to the Mobil Station, essentially
what has occured over -the past few months is that the Mobil Station
has gone from a full service to,self service operation and as a
result the increase in lights that they have over the islands, etc.,
coming up Route -9 from southbound does hide our signs, as you
are coming up you cannot see them, as you are coming up across
Myers Corners you cannot see them, when you are coming up from
Middlebush the only time you see them is if you are stopped at
the light and due to the fact that the store is located on a slight
incline down it is difficult to see the store much less the signs,
what we are trying to do is to use something fairly small to advertise
changes in sales, new divisions opening, that type of thing, just to
increase business.
Mr. Cortellino commented that Mr. Lerry had said two things,
which he wouldn't say are opposed to one another, initially started
off saying that you can't see the sign that identifies what the
building is.
Mr. Lerry replied because it is the same height as theirs.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino added that then Mr. Lerry went on to say
that what you want to do is to advertise the sales, that is two
different topics, one is so that people will know your building is
there, the other is so they will know sales are taking place.
Mr. Lerry added that he also wanted the building known
and that was why he was requesting the additional signage.
Mr. Landolfi then asked where most of the customers were
from.
Mr. Lerry replied that they were basically from the
Poughkeepsie and Wappinger areas.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he was trying to envision
why another sign should be permitted because if the people that
enter your store „ if most of them are also repeat customers and
satisfied with the service, feel they will find you, not sure
how this will help your business.
Mr. Lerry replied that he felt that it would draw new people,
those who are driving by, who did not know the store was there
because of the situation, the location.
Mr. Caballero then asked if Mr. Lerry didn't accomplish this
advertising.
Mr. Lerry replied that they try very hard, try a number of
different ways,,the radio, newspapers, Jaycee coupons,sponsoring
the yearbook for the PBA, try to take out ads for high school
plays, etc., do go as far as possible, but in today's economy
unfortunately have to do as much as possible to draw business
and what we have found is that, unfortunately, most of the people
if we get a phone call the last thing they ask for is where are we
located, if we tell them Chemical Bank and Mobil Station, they
recognize it but tell them Stereo Magic, they don't know Stereo Magic.
Mr. Caballero commented that he had directed a lot of people
to his house 'on Ervin Drive by telling them to turn at Stereo
Magic.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Gunderud if there was an ordinance
about lighting, what should be the illumination, the total level
of illumination.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-11-
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Gunderud replied not on signs, there are lighting requirements
in the zoning ordinance, lighting in general.
Mr. Cortellino commented that this Was what he meant, is the
Mobil Station too bright.
Mr. Gunderud replied that he didn't know off hand, there is
a specific number, .5 foot candles.
Mr. Landolfi then asked that Mr. Gunderud check the illumination
to see if there is a problem and if there isn't a problem, would have
trouble voting for another sign.and would move to table this until
Mr. Gunderud reports backs.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Mr. Joseph Tinelli noted that he lives on Myers Corners Road
and drives by here and sympathizes with what Mr. Lerry had said
and would like to add that it is worse since Waldbaums went in,
contributes to this, he is absolutely right, that store is in the
dark now, Waldbaums has made it montterous, don't even see his store,
these other lights you don't even see his entrance, these lights
blind you.
Mr. Caballero then asked if this sign was to advertise
the specials.
Mr. Lerry replied that he would like to make it a mobile sign
so it isn't offensive, something that we can take in for the weekends
or take out for the weekends, something that will bring notice to
where the store is located and was also hoping that.we could advertise
a special such as the computer division opening or anything along those
lines, we are running a contest between our stores, using special
prices, just to make the store more visible.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard.
Mr. Ernest Prassel of 15 Spook Hill Road commented that if there
are three signs there now, don't see what an additional sign will
achieve, look into better lighting, accent type lighting, would object
to additional signs.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:33 p.m.
A motion was then made by Mr: Cortellino, to table action
until next month and that Mr. Gunderud would report back to the
Board about the lighting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi voted aye.
Mrs. Waddle and Mr. Urciuoli were absent.
The motion was carried.
Appeal #k 603, at the request of June Eulie, seeking a
Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to operate Sparks Computerized Tune-ups on
property located on Old Route 9, adjacent to the Texaco Station,
being parcel ## 6157-02-619532, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Kenneth C. Russ of Richard G. Barger's office was present
and was sworn in by Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Russ then presented a copy of the site plan to the Board
and noted that Sparks is a franchise operated under Maaco, the
only function that this building serves, all they do here are
tune-ups and oil changes.
Mr. Russ then introduced Mr. Robert Hirsch who is a representative
of the franchise company.
Mr. Cortellino then swore Mr. Hirsch in.
Mr. Hirsch noted that he was representing Sparks Tune-ups,
the parent company.
Mr. Russ then commented that he thought it might be helpful,
if Mr. Hirsch explained exactly what they do.
Mr. Hirsch noted that it is strictly tune-up work and oil
changes, maintenance and service of the cars, not repair work or
garage type work, strictly a tune-up facility, tune-up all varieties
of cars, the third bay is used as an oil change bay.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-13-
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi then asked if the cars would be in and out or
would they be stored.
Mr. Hirsch replied that they would be in and out, it is a concept
where it is 45 minutes to a hour for a tune-up, there would not be
any over night cars left there.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if this would be done by
appointments.
Mr. Hirsch replied by appointments or if people come in.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if this would go to the Planning
Board for drainage, etc.
Mr. Russ replied that it had been to the Planning Board, there
was one, the Planning Board heloup on this as there is a pecularity
on the deed, some of us remember Chuck Alpert and when he sold,
Hans has a copy of the survey and the deed,the Planning Board
was a little concerned primarily on behalf of the applicant because
if you look at the survey, this was done by Alpert and nobody really
knew about it, when they sold the corner to Texaco they granted an
easement, triangularly shaped .like this to Texaco, it is not an
exclusionary easement, in other words these people and Texaco
have the right to park there, a's stupid as that sounds, then also
behind the Texaco building Alpert kept a 20 foot easement to park
cars, it is the side of a hill it doesn't make sense but thats what
they did and the Planning Board wanted to make sure that this wouldn't
create any problems for the applicant and wanted Jon to look at it
but we had gone over the plans and the oil would be contained in
a tank and then taken off site, nothing would be discharged outside,
there is only one bay to change oil, that is where you have the lift,
the other two -bays are dynamometer tune-up bays.
Mr. Landolfi asked how many people would be employed.
Mr. Hirsch replied that there would be three people and the
manager, six days a week, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday thru
Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there were any problems
with signs.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Russ noted that they had gone over this pretty
�41rr thoroughly with the Planning Board, the Board had been concerned
about the easement and we also went over this with the Conservation
Advisory Council on the erosion control plan on working the banks,
had a meeting with them last week and thought Mr. Hawksley was
going to be here tonight, had mentioned this to him as your Board
would be granting or not granting the Special Use Permit that
instead of referring their comments to the Planning Board they should
be referred to you.
Mr. Landolfi noted that since signs had been mentioned,
could they enlighten the Board as to what would be done.
Mr. Russ replied that he hadn't seen what their standard sign
is but that they are aware of the Town's requirements, if you look
at the site plan, am sure that they will probably have to come in
for a setback variance, if you put the sign back it would be behind
the building, the taking line of the State and our line it would
be back so far you might as well not bother it would be so far back,
so would probably come back for a variance on that, would like to
get the site cleared and get started and then make an exact determin-
ation, there is a lot of skrub and half dead trees and stuff, get
it cleaned up and see exactly what we might require, it is sort of
hidden by Old State Road, once you make the break you should be able
to see the building pretty well, don't know what we will do at this
point, it is sort of snuggled in between Texaco and Gumpert's old
rooming house.
Mr. Caballero then asked Mr. Gunderud if he was satisfied.
Mr. Gunderud replied that there was no problem as far as the
easement goes, was a little concerned about it during the site
plan review but after seeing that it goes with both properties
it should be no problem.
Mr. Russ commented that it was probably the more
things put in a deed, usually the purpose of granting
is for one party but this is for both, really is sort
senseless
an easement
of wierd.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- April 13th, 1982
k Mr. Peter Tomasic of Hopewell Road noted that he lived right
behind the Texaco Station and wanted to know what the legal limit
was from his property from where this would be built.
Mr. Gunderud noted that it was a thirty foot rearyard, as far
as the building went it would have to be at least 30 feet away and that
the plans shows it about 75 feet back.
Mr. Tomasic then indicated that in that case he had no objection.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if anyone else wished to be
heard.
Mr. Huang noted that he was a nieghbor, he had the rooming
house beside this, does this operation have a lot of noise.
Mr. Russ replied that everything is contained inside the building.
Mr. Hirsch noted that it is just a piece of euipment to analyse
an engine, put it up inside a building so there would not be anymore
noise.
Mr. Cortellino added that the only noise you might hear would
be the engine running or the dynamometer turning.
Mr. Huang commented what about in the future when this
is sold or transferred, this becomes a general garage, have junk cars
like Texaco, what happens.
Mr. Russ noted that this was a Special Use Permit for
this use only.
Mr. Landolfi added that if it was transferred or sold for
another use they would have to come back to the Board, the permit
would be for this use only.
Mr. Huang noted that he was concerned about a change.
The Board then again explained to Mr. Huang that the permit
would be issued for Sparks Tune-ups and any other change would require
that they come back to the Board.
Mr. Hirsch noted that -the hours would be eight in the morning
til.six at night, only noise would be contained inside the building,
would be the sound of an engine turning over.
Ln
Zoning Board of Appeals
-16-
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Huang then looked at the site plan and Mr. Gunderud
explained the location of the proposed building and driveway
with regard to Mr. Huang's property.
Mr. Russ noted that the traffic is spread out over the day,
the situation you have here is that the State of New York in its
infinite wisdom left us with what we have, there is no practical,
sensible way that we can derive access from Route 9, the most
sensible approach with this kind of thing is to get off the Old
State Road where you have some stacking area and if this was retail
it would be different, but with this kind of thing you can only
accomodate three at a time, normally these are done by appointment.
Mr. Huang commented that he felt that this driveway would
be a problem, would block him off.
Mr. Russ noted that this road is maintained by the
Town, this road goes to the property line the same as Mr. Huang,
also have the right of access to the pavement, the physical
pavement has nothing to do with what the Town or State may actually
own in any given case, don't own to the pavement.
Mr. Huang again commented that he would be blocked.
Mr. Russ replied that they have the right of access also,
have the same rights as access to a public road.
Mr. Huang then commented that this is a one acre zone
and that this is not a one acre lot, this business is industry,
this is against the zoning.
Mr. Cortellino replied that this was a Highway Business zone,
Mr. Huang was defining this as industry, but this is a permitted use
in the HB zone.
Mr. Landolfi added that this is a permitted use.
Mr. Huang then commented again about the driveway location
and the undersized lot.
Mr. Cortellino replied that this is a public road, these
people have the right to access, the road isn't built for those
who are theT7efirst, the road is built for everyone not just for
one individual..
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Huang then commented that this business would face Route 9
and that was where he felt that the building should face, don't
want to be blocked and is an undersized parcel.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that the State does not readily
give cuts on Route 9 and when you can obtain access from another
road they will seldom give a permit, they don't allow this.
Mr. Russ noted as a practical matter the entrance should come
off of Old Route 9, the Town road.
Mr. Huang commented that he was against this.
Mr. Russ noted that the fact is that this property has the right
to access off of Old Route 9, D.O.T. will not allow access on
Route 9 if you have access from somewhere else, would deny
access in the case, pn Datsun they gave entrance only on Route 9, you
have to exit on Old Route 9.
Mr. Huang then again commented about the lot being undersized.
Mr. Gunderud advised him that the Zoning Ordinance allows
undersized lots that were existing prior to zoning to be developed,
legally this can be done and the building does meet the setback
requirements.
Mr. Huang commented that he was against this, will block his
property, entrance should be off Route 9 and is only .8 acre lot.
The Board then again explained to Mr. Huang the policy regarding
cuts on Route 9 when other access is available and that this was
a legal lot as it existed prior to the adoption of the zoning
ordinance.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if anyone else present wished
to be heard.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m.
Mr. Landolfi then moved that the Special Use Permit granted
subject to the necessary approvals and conditions. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi voted aye.
Mrs. Waddle and Mr,.. Urciuoli were absent.
The motion was carried.
Appeal # 607, at the request of Sharon and Ronald Karlic,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for the sale of crops grown on the premises
located on Route 376, being parcel # 6358-01-375599, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Ronald Karlic-vas present and was sworn in by
Mr. Cortellino.
Mr. Gunderud then commented that he would like to point
out something for the Board, there is an interpretation that is
being sought by Mr. Karlic and the interpretation deals with the
same issue, as to whether
:- Mr. Cortellino commented two items.
Mr. Karlic commented it doesn't deal with the same issue.
Mr. Gunderud replied that he stands corrected.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was on for two items, one; the
interpretation and the other; the appeal, we are listening to the
appeal right now and that the Board had received something from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning of which he would read a
section.
"Subject property is located in a Planned Industry Zoning district on
Route 376. The Town Zoning Ordinance prohibits retail sales but allows
temporary stands for the sale and display of crpps grown on premises.
the applicant requests a variance to allow the permanent sale of crops
grown on the premises.
The Planned Indistry district is generally undeveloped; a single
family residential are is located west of this industrial zone. There
is a business zone on Route 376 in the Town of East Fishkill, approx-
Zoning Board of Appeals
-19-
one-half mile from the subject site.
April 13th, 1982
Mr. Karlic asked if this was across the creek, out where the
bridge comes from, he assumed that was what they were talking about.
Mr. Cortellino replied he believed so.
Mr. Karlic asked or is it North Atlantic, the Stringham
property.
Mr. Cortellino replied that the creek was the dividing line.
Mr. Karlic noted that they said East Fishkill, there are
three companies over there,,asking which one they are talking
about.
Mr. Cortellino replied that they were referring to a business
zone, they did not say which company, a business zone.
Mr. Landolfi added that the County was referring to a business
zone in an adjacent area.
Mr. Cortellino the continued read the County's recommendation.
"The primary issue in this application is whether or not the property
should be used for retail purposes. This application is a use variance,
that is, a request to allow a use not permitted within the zoning
district. In general, such requests are best handled through the
zoning amendment process with approval by the Town Board. The zoning
amendment process provides for a comprehensive review of district uses
and the area as a whole while a variance would apply only to a specific
property.
The property is unique, however, in its location in a Planned Industry
district and the proximity of power transmission lines.
In view of the above findings,, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that the decision in this matter should be based
on local study of the facts. Consideration should be given to the fact
that the construction of greenhouses and sale of products sold on
premises is proposed in this application. This type of use can expand
over the years into a substantial retail operation."
Zoning Board of Appeals -20- April 3th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Karlic if he wished to sell
the produce that he would raise, is that correct.
Mr. Karlic replied yes, produce and flowers.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Karlic how large was his property.
Mr. Karlic replied he was having it resurveyed, 1.8 to about
2' acres.
Mr. Cortellino then asked him how much he expected to raise.
Mr. Karlic replied initially a couple hundred thousand heads
of lettuce.
Mr. Cortellino asked if there would be greenhouses.
Mr. Karlic replied yes sir.
Mr. Landolfi then asked what roughly would be the range
of year to sell them.
Mr. Karlic replied twelve months of the year.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there were any plans showing where
the greenhouses would be located.
Mr. Karlic replied not at this time because any, discussed this
with the attorney and he and I agreed that any additional funds we
would put into the property without a definition of whether or not
we could have retail sales would be a waste of time, any site plan
without being able to sell retail would 'not be feasible because
we have to come back again after we get this approval, we can sell
retail, to make a site plan and come back and get a Special Use
Permit, we have to come back again.
Mr. Landolfi asked him if his objective was to only sell
the products that he raises.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Karlic replied that there 35 products he could raise,
sell only what we grow, definitely.
Mr. Landolfi asked if he would be trucking anything in.
Mr. Karlic replied that there would be no need to, this process
will probably evolve into about 125 products, will be a full gambit
of produce line.
Mr. Landolfi noted that Mr. Karlic was aware why he was asking
the question as in the past we have seen all kinds of goodies being
sold over there.
Mr. Karlic replied sure.
Mr. Landolfi commented that Mr. Karlic was now saying that
wouldn't be done any longer if they were granted the variance.
Mr. Karlic replied that he was going to grow basically what
he sells, generally speaking over a period of time hope to be
able to grow over 125 crops, think at that time we would be growing
more crops than Adams, the point here being that this is a new
technology, it is being done in Europe and now Cornell is doing work
on the same process and there are plants being built in New York City
and one being built outside of Syracuse, it is a very feasible way
of growing produce and basically, initially it will be confined to
our particular property and whether or not we can put one or two
greenhouses in depends upon when we sit down and make a definite
site plan, because right now we have a question about the deed because
our deed is a very, very, old deed and am now in the process of having
a problem with Consolidated Edison because the deed is so antiquated
that one definition is that we go to the middle of the pond which no
longer exists, but now we go to the middle of the stream which now
exists, we have to define this particular problem, that is why
can't tell you how much acreage we have, really the amount of acreage
in relationship to what we can produce is no problem because
according to the Zoning Ordinance we are permitted to use 25 or 30
percent of the land and only intend to use 6,000 square feet, two
acres is 80,000 square feet, and our house only sits on 1,400,
basic problem here is whether or not, you know, the question being
is that we are permitted to put greenhouses by law, have been before
the Planning Board (Zoning Board) originally, Town Board and now
back to the Planning Board, basically nobody really wants to handle
the problem, agree that the situation on this strip of road is really
super unique because it is so blasted chopped up between Consolidated
Edison owning one section, who doesn't want to do anything except
put new power lines in, which they have done, and then Central Hudson,
Zoning Board of Appeals -22- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board was not here tonight to
talk about them, should stick to this case.
Mr. Karlic replied okay.
Mr. Landolfi noted that Mr. Karlic was entitled to his opinion
about those Board; not wanting to help him, their hands are somewhat
tied too.
Mr. Karlic commented that they referred him back to the Zoning
Board, that is why he is back here, told me to come back to you.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Karlic if didn't the Town Board
denied his zoning change.
Mr. Karlic replied that the Town Board denied a commercial
zoning board change.
Mr. Gunderud noted that the Town Board denied a request
for a zoning change.
Mr. Cortellino asked what was the zone change requested, commercial?
Mr. Karlic replied that it was Highway Business.
Mr. Cortellino commented that they denied this.
Mr. Gunderud added that it was from Planned Industry to Highway
Business.
Mr. Karlic noted that they said it was spot zoning.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that the indication from the
Town Board was essentially that they did not approve of the sales.
Mr. Karlic replied no, according to the letter he received was
that it was against the law to spot zone his little particular piece
of property, they informed him that they would have to go to a public
hearing to rezone from Sprout Creek to Diddell Road or down
to Beneway's property, this would be a more feasible approach, but
just to give me one little piece is against the law, this is what
they said, it is illegal, when he approached this problem then came
up with the greenhouse approach and came back and discussed the fact
that he is permitted retail sales there by the way, am permitted to
sell retail by your law, in your zoning ordinance.
Mr. Gunderud commented that no retail sales shall be permitted
except as, on temporary stands.
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Karlic noted that he was permitted retail sales with a
limited basis.
Mr. Landolfi noted that this was not what Mr. Karlic was
talking about.
Mr. Karlic replied well obviously because the business will
function, he hopes, if it does go through twelve months of the year,
there is no business that can function six months of the year,
this is a unique situation, it has never been done around here,
as far as growing produce twelve months of the year.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how large he anticipated the greenhouse
to be.
Mr. Karlic replied that the greenhouse would 3,200 square feet,
whether or not we could one or two on depending on once we get a
site plan, put in stakes and find out the area and find out what we
have, might not be able to put in more than one or two, depends on
what happens when we sit down, and then the retail sales would not
be done in the greenhouse by the way, couldn't sell out of the greenhouse.
Mr. Cortellino asked where he would sell.
Mr. Karlic replied that they would sell underneath the garage,
would have to sell underneath the garage, couldn't sell from the
greenhouse.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was trying to figure out where
he was going to raise the produce he would be selling.
Mr. Karlic replied right in the greenhouse, it is a very
unique process.
Mr. Cortellino asked what was unique about it.
Mr. Karlic replied that you don't use soil, hydroponic.
Mr. Cortellino noted that hydroponic were not unique, unique
perhaps in this area.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if there was anyone in the
audience wished to be heard for or against this appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals -24- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Joseph Tinelli of 324 Myers Corners Road noted that he
was a neighbor of the Karlics, would only ask the Board to consider
the word progress because that is synonymous with Wappingers Falls,
**MO` Mr. Karlic is attempting to bring in a brand new industry that is
going to improve how we grow things in the United States, not sure
the gentlemen on the Board are aware of this, but what he said is
true, he can grow heads of lettuce and bushels of tomatoes that
are farmed in the conventional way of farming, cannot do.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that he was not interested in
a sales pitch, does he have an objection or is he for.
Mr. Tinelli replied that he was for it but he would like the
Board to understand.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was not interested in hearing about
hydroponics, am familiar with it, don't want a sales pitch,
vote on facts, whether it is detrimental and whether you have no
objection on how it impacts you as a citizen, don't wish an explanation
of the process, am concerned with the neighborhood and things like
that.
Mr. Tinelli replied that it effects, him great as a citizen, that
is why he is here.
Mr. Landolfi commented that the Board was here to discuss the
variance, the variance has to do with whether or not he can sell or
not, how he grows the produce is really immaterial and that is what
Mr. Cortellino was trying to point out, if you get to the facts
that would be helpful but if.you keep going on about tomatoes and
oranges.
Mr. Tinelli noted that he had no objections and was in favor
of the variance being granted, it is that simple.
Mr. Karlic then commented that about the surrounding area,
a couple of years ago he did submit a petition from the people in
the area in favor of it.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would entertain a motion,
number one tj table it and also to request our attorney to look
into this in further detail.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if he could suggest that he appear
before our next meeting to go over this whole case as have a lot of
legal questions, think that only he can answer.
Zoning Board of Appeals -25- April 13th, 1982
The secretary was then asked to write to Mr. Adams and request
that he meet with the Board at 7:30 p.m. on May 11th, 1982.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to table this appeal until
the May 11th meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that he believed that there was a lady
in the back who wished to be heard.
Virginia Sabatelli of 330 Myers Corners Road noted that she
was also a neighbor of the Karlics and would like to add that we
have no objection to what he wants to do and as a matter of fact
we have found it somewhat of a convenience.
Mr. Cortellino then asked for a vote on the motion.
Mrs. Waddle - absent Mr. Caballero'- aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m.
Appeal # 608, at the request of Christine Arimento, seeking a
variance of Artivle IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction of a 22' by 24' attached
garage to be located within 20 feet of their frontyard setback where
35 foot is required, on property located on the corner of Heather
Court and Flintrock Road, being parcel # 6256-02-613781, in the
Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Cortellino read the legal notice.
Mr. Kenneth Arimento was present and was sworn in by Mr.
Cortellino.
Mr. Arimento noted that he wanted to get the garage, would like
to get it, it is a raised ranch, the house and the garage would just
attach onto it and overhang four feet to one side, nothing new to the
neighborhood, there are other houses in the neighborhood that have
the same type of construction, it will all tie in, the same color,
the same roof, the same everything and when it is finished everything
will match, the reason we would like this, am getting a draft coming
under the doors in the winter in the garage, every year the pipes
freeze and in the Springtime get water coming in under the garage,
feel if he puts the two car garage attached onto it that will put
it in a different position rather than having it underneath, plus
have two cars now and only have a one car garage.
Zoning Board of Appeals -26- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi asked Mr. Arimento how long he had lived there.
Mr. Arimento replied five years, it will be six in July.
Mr. Landolfi then asked how large his family was.
Mr. Arimento replied that there was his wife and two kids.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Arimento how many cars he had
when he bought the house.
Mr. Arimento replied one.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he wasn't sure how adding the
garage would stop the water problem.
Mr. Arimento replied that by the way it is pitched, the water
comes down the side in the Springtime, you might have seen the sand
bags that are there, it comes under there and goes under the garage
door, but in the Summertime where the driveway drops, have no problem,
it is lower than the garage in the summer, in the spring it lifts
and get water back in there, have had two to three inches of water,
four or five times there, have had pipes freeze and one of them
broke in the wall and the bedrooms upstairs are cold from it, and
the car that is put in in the winter time is the one he uses for
work and start that thing up in the morning in the garage and
upstaris are the bedrooms w#h those fumes, odors, would like to get
rid of this.
Mr. Gunderud noted that he was out there and he did measure the
setback and it appears that there is, was a plot plan that said that
the house was setback 42 feet from the sideyard but measured it
today because Mr. Arimento felt that it Was further away than that
and it is feel at least 48 feet rather than 42 feet, the variance would
be only a difference of nine feet for the variance.
Mr. Cortellino asked if there was anyone present who wished to
be heard for or against.
No one wished to be heard.
A motion was then Made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. Caballero,
to grant the requested variance.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - absent Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - absent
Zoning Board of Appeals
The motion was carried.
-27- April 13th, 1982
The hearing was closed at 9:20 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS:
Appeal # 601, at the request of Ronald Karlic, seeking an
interpretation of "temporary stand".
Mr. Landolfi noted that he would also like to address
this with Jon Adams, could the Board do that.
The Board indicated that they would like to do this if it was
agreeable to Mr. Karlic.
Mr. Karlic replied that the interpretation of a temporary stand
does not apply to his property.
The Board indicated that they realized that and would hear
Mr. Karlic if he wished to be heard.
Mr. Karlic commented that he had a copy of Mr. Gunderud's letter,
what he is saying hereabout 1 to 4 times a year depending on what
kind of farm uses were established, what I am asking about, talking
about temporary stands, now Hans is right to say about the time element
and I am referring to it as a temporary shelter, now is it the time
element, temporary stand is a very loose word, stand means to me a
building or a shelter.
Mr. Cortellino replied no, that the first interpretation.
Mr. Karlic then asked what a stand means.
Mr. Cortellino replied that to him, depending on the size of the
farm, depending on the acreage involved, would think of it as
a low cost, perhaps not structure, hate to use the word fish cart
but think of a long table, that would be a temporary stand and it
would not_be there for more than a week or two, temproary stand as
it pertains to a farmer, the farmer puts in one crop in the old
style, like pumpkins, puts all his pumpkins out.
Mr. Karlic then noted that today a farmer is growing from
approximately April through November on a continuous cycle.
Mr. Cortellino commented that this would not be a temporary
stand from April to November.
Zoning Board of Appeals -28- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Karlic noted that what he was saying is that crops can be
grown on the premises and a farmer needs to grow eights months of the
year to make a living, obviously have to sell his crops eight months
of year to be viable source of .income.
Mr. Cortellino noted that Mr. Karlic was seeking an interpretation
and Mr. Cortellino interprets is that under the old style of farming
it was perhaps a one or two unit crop, if he is farming commercially
like truck farms in New Jersey, those get packed and shipped somewhere,
they are not being sold each week at a temporary stand, a temporary
stand is just what it means, one or two weeks at the most.
Mr. Karlic commented that his point was that it is a unique
situation because you do not have many farms left in the Town of
Wappinger, maybe one or two, so that you take into consideration
that a person was farming in the old-style as you said on the ground
okay whether or not it was corn or tomatoes, he could be picking
tomatoes from June til October, would be able to sell until his
crop peters out, just bringing up this point.
Mr. Cortellino replied that Mr. Karlic was presuming that
he could sell until the crop peters out.
Mr. Karlic then said that the Board was referring to the mode
or container that you would sell from.
Mr. Cortellino replied no, he was referring to the time
period.
Mr. Landolfi noted that like with the pumpkins, have them,
sell them, that is it, one week maybe.
Mr. Karlic noted that field crops covers more than pumpkins.
Mr. Cortellino commented that then it wouldn't come under
temporary stands if it is eight months.
Mr. Karlic then noted that perhaps then what he was looking for
was a definition of field and garden crops growing on the premises.
Mr. Landolfi replied that he had asked for the definition of
a temporary stand, if he is asking for something else, fine, you
go through the secretary and we will be glad to entertain this at
the next meeting, here for temporary stand.
8
Zoning Board of Appeals -29- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Karlic commented that then you are saying that a temporary
stand is for the sale of a particular crop.
Mr. Cortellino replied not of one crop, it is a time period,
one or two weeks at the most and then it is gone.
Mr. Karlic then asked if he had two crops.
Mr. Cortellino replied he could have it a couple of times a year,
you can't have it continuous, what does temporary mean to you.
Mr. Karlic replied that what he gathers is that a temporary
display of field or garden crops grown on the premises and he reads
in here nothing in the relationship to the fact that they can be
grown continuously.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that if you could grow from
January lst through December 31st, what is a temporary stand.
Mr. Karlic replied you could if they are grown on the premises.
Mr. Cortellino then noted that it was the Board's interpretation
that it would not be 365 days a year, a temporary stand would be one
in operation for one to two weeks, three to four times a year, not
a continuous operation of eight or nine months.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board had an interpretation and felt
that this should be closed.
Appeal # 604, at the request of Ernest & Flo Prassel, seeking
an interpretation of "fur bearing" animals (farm use).
Mr. Ernest Prassel of 15 Spook Hill Road noted that the issue on
interpretation of fur bearing animals as it pertains to raising of
rabbits for home meat consumption, where Mr. Gunderud has taken
an interpretation from the zoning ordinance as he sees it that because
rabbits have fur they would then be called fur bearing animals, with
rabbit production as we are using it, the fur value is of no value
at all, either to us or anyone else, the rabbits are really treated
as a livestock commodity, they, know of no one who is raising rabbits
for fur, the type of rabbit we have is a meat producing animal
like chickens or something like that, it is a farm type animal, know of
no one who is raising rabbits for fur so how the fur producing thing,
just because an animal has fur would affect what we are trying to do
by providing some meat for the table, have trouble understanding the
interpretation.
Zoning Board of Appeals -30- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Prassel how many rabbit were
on the property.
Mr. Prassel replied that they had to cut down, Mr. Gunderud
had been nice enough to extend the pet allowance to about
eight rabbits which is where we are at now, however, to sustain the
meat production for our family we need about twelve to fifteen
rabbits and he would not go that far on account of this interpretation.
Mrs. Prassel then commented why classify rabbits as fur bearing
animals, other animals have fur even dogs and cats, maybe something
like minks was what they were thinking about, getting a lot of
money for this type of fur bearing animal.
Mr. Cortellino noted that as far as he was concerned he was not
thinking about from the fur thing, thinking about it as a category
that it was selected as, as a distinction.
Mrs. Prassel noted that she would be glad to give him a fur
to see what he could do with it, have a friend that is a taxidermist,
but says you can keep the rabbit skins.
Mr. Prassel noted that these would be commercial fur bearing,
these are not the kind of rabbits we have, these have no fur value at all.
Mr. Caballero then commented that they were basically raising
the rabbits for meat consumption.
Mrs. Prassel replied yes, also for pets as her daughter
was involved with 4-H, the children know and understand that when the
rabbits have babies, the babies are not their pets anymore, the
babies are used for food, as far as we are concerned it is just meat
for the table, Mrs. Prassel then commented about their financial
affairs and that they use the rabbits for food.
The Board noted that it was not necessary for them to
look at the hospital bills, etc., that she had with her.
Mr. Cortellino then asked what !about the goats. `
Mr. Prassel replied that they don't have these anymore.
Zoning Board of Appeals -31- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked them what they did have.
Mrs. Prassel noted that they had chickens to supply eggs,
to supply our food, it is the fur bearing thing that is a problem.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that his letter indicated what
had been there, some were prior to zoning, would be legally non-
conforming, since 1980 Special Use Permits are required for farm
uses.
Mrs. Prassel replied that they were for their own use,
the kids have as pets.
Mr. Gunderud noted that one of his problems was the number
of animals they had on the property which was in excess of what
was there when they moved on in 1979 and the other problem he had
and it comes up fairly often as there are many people in the Town
who have rabbits and previous zoning administrators in the past
have ruled that rabbits do fall under fur bearing and other than
if a person had a few rabbits for pets like one or two, have
allowed that type of use but have never had an interpretation
of the fur bearing aspect, whether rabbits would fall under that.
Mr. Cortellino noted that it would be his interpretation
that rabbits do fall under fur bearing, not saying you have
to sell the fur, but it is a fur bearing animal.
Mr. Prassel then asked about cats and dogs.
Mr. Gunderud commented that dogs and cats fall under another
section, domestic household pets.
Mr. Prassel then noted that he felt that the founding fathers
when they used this terminology were really thinking about fur bearing
for sale of the furs su:oh as mink, foxes, etc.
The Board then had a brief discussion of the intent and felt
that rabbits were fur bearing and came under this definition,not
neccesarily opposing but feel these are fur bearing.
Mr. Prassel then asked what about excluding some from the
fur bearing, feel there is a difference, fur bearing, fur raising,
think they are talking about raising these for commercial purposes.
Zoning Board of Appeals -32- April 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino noted that the purpose of the Zoning ordinance is
to limit and keep down the number of animals in the home.
Mr. Cortellino, Mr. Caballero and Mr. Landolfi then commented
that it was their interpretation that rabbits would be "fur bearing"
animals.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this was the Board's interpretation.
Mr. Gunderud noted that the Prassels might then wish to seek
a variance.
Mrs. Prassel then asked what this means, can have what you
said and then no more.
Mr. Gunderud replied that as far as rabbits go they would have
to get rid of all the rabbits unless they got a variance.
Mrs. Prassel then noted that then everyone that has them in Wappinger
as pets would have to get rid of them, if she has to get rid of hers
think everyone should have to get rid of them.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he was sure that there were many
in the Town but that the Board was addressing this case tonight,
have to look at these one at a time.
Mr. Cortellino noted that violations are addressed as they
come before the Board, it is not the function of the Board to
look at every back yard, this is function of the Zoning Administrator,
Board addresses what comes before them.
Mrs. Prassel then commented again about the number of people who
do have rabbits as pets.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the interpretation was that
these are fur bearing animals.
The Board then discussed with Mr. Gunderud that people
talk to him and do not understand that the Board makes the decision,
feel that sometimes, people are confused about what they are told
and what the Board does.
Mr. Gunderud noted that when there is a question, a somewhat
vague area, he suggests that people come in for interpretations.
He added that he had checked with the Town Attorney and that they
would not make.people get rid of things, such as the rabbits in this
�Ir► case until the Board has made a decision, the Board has now made this
Zoning Board of Appeals -33- April 13th, 1982
interpretation and it is Town wide and forever after will tell .
people that they will have to get rid of the rabbits, this is not
vvi*w: permitted, interpretation has been made and these will have to go,
may need another interpretation if people say that they would be
household pets.
Appeal # 606, at the request of Hans R. Gunderud, Zoning Admin-
istrator, seeking an interpretation of the term "foster home".
With regard to this matter, the Board noted that they
would wait to talk to the Town Attorney before making a decision
and would address this when the Board meets with Mr. Adams on
May 11th, 1982.
A motion was then made by Mr. Caballero, seconded by Mr. Landolfi,
to adjourn.
br
Motion Was Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoni Board of Appeals