1982-07-13The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, July 13th, 1982, beginning
at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Angel Caballero
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
G. George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
None
Other Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Robert Peters, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Chairperson Waddle then said Good Evening and noted that
she would like to welcome those present to the meeting of the
Zoning Board of Appeals and that the procedure of the Board would
be to hear each appeal, ask those in favorito speak and those against
an appeal to speak, after the discussion is ended the Board will
then discuss the case up here at which time I will ask that there
be no participation from the audience and we may or may not render
a decision this evening.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if all the abutting property owners
had been notified.
The secretary replied 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 a roll call.
The roll call was then taken with all members being present.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to mention that
all witnesses.: giving testimony this evening will be sworn in,
so it will be sworn testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ## 619, at the request of Richard Masotti, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a second dwelling in a house located
in a single-family district for use by the owners parents only, on
property located on 16 Boxwood Close, being parcel # 6358-01-079918,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-2- July 13th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Richard Masotti of 16 Boxwood Close was present and
was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Masotti noted that he was not familar with the
procedure, what he was looking for - is a variance permit to
convert my house to accomodate my mother and father, who are, my
father who is 70 and my mother is 64, they are living on fixed
incomes now, they will not be able to afford where they are living,
someone has to take care of them, that is what everything is based
on.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he wished to build a complete
apartment, including a kitchen.
Mr. Masotti replied yes, wanted a kitchen down there.
Mr. Cortellino asked why they couldn't just have living
quarters, why did they have to have a kitchen.
Mr. Masotti replied that he thought it would be difficult,
want to keep as two separate dwellings, privacy for them and privacy
for our family.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Masotti if he was married.
Mr. Masotti replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle then asked him if he had a family and how many
were in the family.
Mr. Masotti replied yes, himself, his wife and two children.
Mr. Landolfi asked how long he had lived there.
Mr. Masotti replied 2� years.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the parents were currently living
in the house or in an apartment.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Masotti replied that they are living in an apartment
in Westchester County.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they had looked at apartments up here.
Mr. Masotti replied on a fixed income no, what we have seen
in this area is quite high for their income, my father is on disability
and social security, which speaks for itself.
Mrs. Waddle commrnted yes it does, the only problem„ we do have
a problem in the Town of Wappinger, where the property is zoned
for single-family dwellings, we do realize as economic times get
harder and more families have to live together sort of as in bygone
days, the Town seems to be running into this problem more and more,
and we have had a lot of cases before the Zoning Board of Appeals
which at this time we think they really belong before the Town
Board so that the Town Board can do something to give some relief
to the residents of the Town and in the past even though all cases
are based on individual merit, the Board has not looked kindly
upon converting single-family dwellings into multiple family
dwellings, we would rather have the Town Board come to some
resolution on this.
Mr. Masotti asked if there was any reason on this.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it is simply because in effect
we are spot rezoning the Town every month and we just don't feel
that is the way to go about it, we think that the Town Board
should come up with some solution on this,matter.
Mr. Cortellino added that there are very narrow areas on
which this Board can address, okay, your petition is not one of
them, which is unfortunate, your proper redress is to the Town Board
to ask for them to change the zoning to amend it for that purpose.
Mrs. Waddle added to amend the zoning ordinance, this Board
would rather see that done then periodically spot zoning the Town
with double family dwellings and yours is not the only case that has
been before us, we see more and more of this in the past couple of
years, couldn't speak for the rest of the Board, gentlemen.
The other members indicated that they were in agreement
with Mrs. Waddle's statement.
IR
ER
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Urciuoli commented that he thought Mr. Masotti's
concept was good, that you could do that, that you would have the
financial ability and the room to do that but in a sense our hands
are tied, like Carol says we spot rezone the whole Town which is
not the right way to go about it, what we would like to see is
the Town Board redo the zoning so that can accept this, you wouldn't
even have to come before us, would have multiple family dwellings
with Building Inspector's approval would be accepted and that would
be the end of it.
Mr. Masotti noted that he didn't know much about this, the
legalities, would he be able to go before the Board that they
were speaking about.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Zoning Board has made recommendations
to the Town Board to look into this matter, have to remind you
also that you did buy into a single-family area and this can have
an affect on the rest of your neighborhood also, you have an apartment
in your house and then someone else wants to put a family in their
house and all of a sudden we have what is maybe a whole area of
one house apartment complexes, it is a difficult situation, we have
great empathy for people who are in this situation but I dont
feel and I think I speak for the rest of the Board, that we should
be addressing this, thing the Town Board should provide relief
for the people of this Town in situations like this.
The Board then suggested that Mr. Masotti check with the
secretary about getting on the Town Board's agenda.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else who wished
to be heard on this appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi, to deny the
appeal for a variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the appeal was denied and advised
Mr. Masotti to go to the Town Board.
The hearing was closed at 8:07 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- July 13th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented that she suggested that Mr. Masotti
take that recourse (going to the Town Board) and if many people do
that and the Zoning Board has recommended it to the Town Board
also, maybe we can be successful in getting some kind of uniform
solution in the Town, which we really strive to.
Appeal ## 621, at the request of Robert P. Wallace, Jr., is
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a driveway on another property, said
property being located on Route 9D, being parcel ## 6057-04-980352, in
the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Robert P. Wallace, Jr. of 50 Imperial Boulevard was
present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Wallace noted that his father-in-law had given him the
property in front of his own, there is a driveway that runs along
the edge of it and all I would like to do is come off that driveway
from my property, believe that the Board has a copy of the
map.
' The Board then looked at the plan.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Wallace if he wanted to widen the
driveway at the mouth.
Mr. Wallace replied no, just come in and go'off the side
of the driveway.
Mr. Wallace then indicated to the Board where on the plan
he wanted to come in from.
Mrs. Waddle noted that really he does not want to make another
driveway come in from Route 9D.
Mr. Wallace noted that he had spoken to the State Department
of Transportation, Mr. Wally Hart, he said that in order to put
another driveway here would be too critical an area because of
the turn on that corner, so he suggested that I use that existing
driveway.
Mrs. Waddle commented that it was an existing driveway and
all he wanted to do was to come off of it.
Mr. Wallace replied yes.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- July 13th, 1982
.Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any other questions.
Mrs. Waddle than asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak fro or against the appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she did have a letter from
the Dutchess County Department of Planning which she would read.
"Applicant request a variance to use a driveway on another
property for access to Route 9D. The Town Zoning ordinance requires
that access to a building be over the property frontage of that
building. A potential result of combination driveways is the de facto
creation of a new road. The number of uses along the driveway can
gradually increase, while the driveway is notconstructed to the
Town construction standards. Inadequate maintenance of the road
and limited access for emergency vehicles are typical problems
resulting from this type of arrangement.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that the
decision in this matter be based on a local study of the facts
in this case. Consideration, however, should be given to the
potential problems resulting from combination driveways.
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 asked Mr. Wallace if his father-in-law owned
the driveway.
off.
Mr. Wallace replied yes, he owns the property in the back.
Mr. Cortellino asked the driveway that you will be deeding
Mr. Wallace replied yes he owns that.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he bought the lot from him.
Mr. Wallace replied no.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he gave it to him, its your lot,
it is deeded to you.
Mr. Wallace replied yes, it will be deeded to him.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked if an easement will be included
with this deed, whoever owns that property can use it, can use
that driveway.
Mr. Wallace replied yes, that will be included, will be written
into the deed, will be a legal right-of-way.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any other questions.
The Board had no further questions.
No one else wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:12 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion that the variance be granted
subject to the normal approvals.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would like to amend the motion
to include that the easement be in the deed in case the property
was sold.
The amended motion was then seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was unanimously carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Appeal # 622, at the request of Iric W. Gardell, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit the construction of a 22' by 24' detached garage
within five feet of the sideyard lot line, on property located on
102 Brothers Road, being parcel # 6358-03-062404, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Eric W. Gardell was present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
11
Zoning Board of Appeals
July 13th, 1982
Mr. Gardell commented that presently he has a one car garage,
have two cars, a motorcycle and a tractor, there is no room to
fit anything so would really like another garage, the side of the
house is the only place that is really practical to build a garage,
because of the layout of the land that is the only location that
is really practical, the neighboring house is setback at a considerable
distance, don't feel this will pose any threat.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was the front of the house or the
back of the house.
Mr. Gardell replied the front and the indicated the
location to the Board by referring to his plans.
The Board then looked at Mr. Gardell's plan.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gardell if there was any reason
he could not build this on the back of the house.
Mr. Gardell replied that he could but that this is all higher
land back here, would have to do quite a lot of excavating.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if he could bring it in closer to
the house.
Mr. Gardell replied that his back door was there.
Mr. Cortellino then asked where the one car garage was now.
Mr. Gardell replied that it is under the house, in the
front.
The Board then discussed the location of the existing garage.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that it could have been a two
car garage but Mr. Gardell elected to have it a one car garage.
Mr. Gardell replied that was correct.
Mr. Caballero then asked why it was a sixteen foot door.
Mr. Gardell replied to get the tractor out and have the
cars, 16 foot is the width, it is 8h foot high.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- July 13th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked what was under the rest of the house.
Mr. Gardell replied that there is an unfinished area.
Mrs. Waddle commented that if it is an unfinished basement,
in actuality you probably move the laundry room and have
another garage under here, correct.
Mr. Gardell replied well except for the plumbing, it would be
difficult.
Mr. Urciuoli asked if wouldn'=t this be easier than having to
do the excavation work.
Mr. Gardell noted that he supposed he could but would
be a lot of work, there is a lot of rock as far over
Mr. Landolfi commented that he didn't know where he could
cut that five feet, his concern was.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was asking for a two car garage
rather than a one car garage
Mr. Gunderud noted that practical difficulties can be considered.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against the appeal
No one present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was in fact a two car garage, correct.
Mr. Gardell replied yes it would hold two cars but that was
not what he was looking for, could put two cars in but that was not
what he planned.
Mr. Landolfi noted that they were trying to address the question
of a hardship here.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that he questioned why it had to be five
feet rather than ten feet back and then referred to the location of
the adjacent house.
IM
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would like to make some comments,
number one; the problem here is do to his own choosing in not
utilizing this other part as a garage, number two; even though he
says it is a one car this is really a two car, a variance would not
be necessary if that was a one car garage, the problem arises out of
it being a two car garage, so as far as I am concerned I would
deny the appeal, it is of his own making and it is being compounded
by by going for a two car garage instead of a one car garage and
have no assurance that it would be used as a garage even.
Mr. Caballero then made a motion to deny the requested
variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Appeal # 623, at the request of June Eulie (Sparks Computerized
Tune-ups), seeking a variance of Section 416.72 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a sign to be erected with a five
foot setback whereattwenty-five foot setback is required on
property located on Old Route 9, being parcel # 6157-02-619532,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Ed Cambell of 381 Brooks Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania,
was here to represent the franchise company and Mrs. Bulie who is the
owner of the property. Mr. Cambell was then sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Cambell noted that the pitch of the building necessiatated
the variance request, it is my understanding that we are making two
requests here, to increase the size of the sign and to reduce the
setback requirements.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they had no request to increase the
size of the sign, can only address the variance request for setback.
Mr. Cambell then noted that he had some material which might
be helpful to the Board and the Mr. Russ is also present and he
is the contractor who is putting up the building who is more familar
with the property and will describe what we are trying to do, this
is an overall view of the property and its location and the building
is about 80% complete, it is on Route 9, Old Route 9 and Hopewell
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- July 13th, 1982
Road, it is my understanding and it doesn't really pertain to the
second part on the size, that we would be entitled to three pole
sign of 25 square feet and that may be a literal interpretation,
but that is the way my understanding is.
It was noted that there could be a sign on Hopewell Road,
one on Route 9 and another one on Old Route 9.
Mr. Cambell noted that there is also the fifty foot right-of-
way owned by State and because of the location of the building and
the lot size, the traffic on the north could never see the sign
if it was setback an additional 25 feet, we would like to move it
up to five feet.
The Board then looked at pictures of the property and the
proposed location of the sign.
Mr. Caballero asked if this lo&k was non -conforming.
It was noted that it was as far as the lot size went.
Mr. Cambell commented that he thought he had stated his case.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the sign would be located right
at the entrance.
Mr. Cambell replied yes.
Mr. Cortellino noted that although we aren't acting on the
size of the sign he would like to discuss it.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she would not entertain a discussion
on the size of the sign at this time and then asked if the Board
would like to have an on site inspection.
The Board indicated that they were familar with the property.
Mr. Christopher Russ noted that a second point this is the
only practical place to put the sign, also because of this being
a twenty scale map, any place twenty five feet in this you are on
the pavement, over here you are in the septic system, and over here
the visiability comes into play as you are right along the curb line
at Texaco.
Mr. Cortellino asked what is the problem with the septic
system, wouldn't it support a sign.
Mr. Russ replied that you are not allowed to do that.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Russ also noted that there is a State tree there, it
is owned by the State.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gunderud what was his recommendation.
Mr. Gunderud replied that he had no recommendation, it was
not really his place to make a recommendation.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she realized that but was asking
for his opinion since he has been more involved with it.
Mr. Gunderud then commented that the property does have unique
characteristics which do call for some kind of exception from the
normal twenty-five feet setback.
Mr. Caballero noted that he disagreed, it is a smaller than
allowed lot and we permitted them to put the business there, feel
if granted we would be setting a precedent.
Mr. Urciuoli then asked about the setback of the Texaco sign,
was that twenty-five feet back.
Mr. Gunderud replied no, they had a variance also.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board has had probl t;; with setbacks
on other sites, the Ship's Wheel, Mid -Hudson Army and Navy store
because of the setback on Route 9 where the businesses are closer
and you could not have the twenty-five foot setback, the signs would
be in the back of the buildings in some cases.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that they have the advantage of being at
an intersection, where traffic does have to slowdown for the
lights.
Mr. Cambell noted that their experience in the franchise world
is that the use of the sign is extremely important to the volume of
business that is being generated, also extremely important to the
number of employees that you hire, that sign back by the requirements
of your law would be just about out of sight in any direction.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he considered the sign for purposes
of identification or for advertising or both.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Cambell replied that identification is the prime reason,
it has no advertising value except for identifying who we are,
the sign is very unobtrusive, the only portion of the sign that
lights at night is the colored section.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she did have a letter from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning which she would read.
"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.
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 enumerate in subject zoning action."
Mr. Urciuoli then asked what would happen if we gave them
the same setback as the Texaco sign has, this way we would keep the
two signs basically in line.
Mr. Peters then commented that this would be a problem as
the State property runs back at an angle, the corner of the property
is 75 feet back from the road already, this is 75 feet from Route 9
and if you tell them to go 25 feet back it will actually be about
100 feet back from the road, from Route 9 where other properties
along Route 9.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that he was thinking if they could be kept
in line, about the same distance.
Mr. Cambell noted that fey vgN�^uld,be ver close to the same line
of sight but it would be further back, 25 feet would be much further
back than theirs.
Mr. Peters noted that he understood what Mr. Cambell was saying,
if they put their sign in line with Texaco's sign, their sign
would be out there in front of the property.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they would be back further than the
Texaco sign.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- July 13th, 1982
It was noted that this would be so even with the five
foot variance.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that in that case he had no objection.
Mrs. W ddle noted that she did not either and would entertain
a motion.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mr. Urciuoli them made a motion to grant the requested
variance. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Appeal # 616, at the request of George H. Harrison, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 404.3 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a legally non -conforming antique shop
use to be changed to another type of business use, on property located
on the corner of Route 376 and Myers Corners Road, being parcel #
6358-01-271593, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice and noted we left off at the
last meeting we were going to contact our attorney and we do have
a letter from him and asked if Mr. Harrison was here.
Mr. Harrison was present.
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- July 13th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Harrison if he would clarify for the
Board once again what he intends to do with this.
Mr. Harrison replied that all he wants is to rent the
building out to another person who will run the same type of business
that he is running.
Mrs. Waddle commented which is an antique business.
Mr. Harrison replidd antiques, or furniture, crafts.
Mrs. Waddle commented no, it was an antique business.
Mr. Harrison replied that it was antiques, used furniture
and collectibles.
Mr. Landolfi noted that it didn't really say that on the
variance form, trying to understand what you are trying to do so
we might be of some help to you.
Mr. Harrison replied that he wanted to rent the building
out, for another business, it has been a commercial building.
Mrs. Waddle commented that there are businessess and there
are businesses, there are more non -conforming and less non -conforming,
and there is the status quo which is an antique business, what we
do have to know is what you are going to do with it, do you have
a client now to rent the building.
Mr. Harrison replied that he did but that he had lost one
already from last month with the delay, have another one now
he has crafts which is furniture, in other words it is like what
you might call it new furniture that looks old, refinishing.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was reproductions.
Mr. Harrison replied yes, reproductions.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this is actually a furniture store then.
Mr. Harrison replied yes and he is also going to be selling
collectible items.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would be prone to grant a variance
if another antique shop was going in but didn't want to get into
anything else.
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- July 13th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino indicated that if it was not an antique
business he would be against it.
Mr. Caballero then asked if there was another insurance broker
there now.
Mr. Harrison replied himself,
Mr. Caballero .cemitented that there would then be two businesses.
Mr. Harrison replied no, it will not be in the building, am
going to operate out of my home as have an office in Poughkeepsie,
in other words would use my home as an insurance office as a
convenience, that is all I would be doing.
Mr. Cortellino commented that he was disturbed about one thing,
there is no problem if it is continued as an antique business, you
would not have to be here, but you are .proposing is not a continuance
of the same business but another business.
Mr. Harrison replied that the reason he is doing that now is
because he lost one from last month, had an antique dealer from
Hyde Park, was all set but because of the month's delay lost him.
Mr. Cortellino noted that was not the topic, you can't go
into another business, we are not to encourage non -conforming uses,
the non -conforming use is the antique business.
Mr. Harrison noted that it was real estate before that,
was before he owned it and before that was a restaurant.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she believed that was before zoning.
Mr. Urciuoii commented that he didn't think there was anything
the Board could do, you can't change the use.
Mrs. Waddle added that Hans' take was that if you rented
it out to someone else that would be, he would have to come in
for a variance to do that, liatevno objection to giving the gentlemen
a variance if it is going to be another antique shop, do have a
problem if it is going to be another type of business because
then it becomes more non -conforming, would entertain a motion
that if it is an antique business he can carry on that but not
for another type of more non -conforming business.
Mr. Harrison then asked if it would have to be antiques.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-17- July 13th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied it would have to be antiques at this point
in time, unless you would like to petition the Town Board which
we have made recommendations to the Town Board on that area and
also believe some of your neighbors have tried to speak to the
Town Board on rezoning that area for business, we don't object
to that, but again we are not going to spot rezone the Town, have
to go to the Town Board.
Mr. Gunderud noted that if Mr. Harrison was going to run the
insurance office himself that is permitted as a home occupation,
certain specified uses are permitted in residential zones.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak for or against this variance.
Mr. Salvatore Eretl.of 328 Myers Corners Road, am a
neighbor of George Harrison, have been living there for five or
six years, have no objection myself to what George is trying to
do here, as a neighbor and a friend of George, have no objection.
Joyce Needham, Real Estate Broker, noted that Mr. Harrison
was her client and know that there are a lot of people in the area
who would like to do the same thing that he is trying to do and
it seems like some kind of arrangement could be done either for
him to rent out the building.
Mrs. Waddle replied that this is why we want these people to
go and see the Town Board.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that they could petition the Town Board
and get the whole area rezoned in one shot and you have a lot better
chance, it is the same case as earlier as we don't want to get
into spot rezoning certain areas, it doesn't help at all.
Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Landolfi noted that there were several
people in the area who wanted rezoning, go as a group.
Mr. Harrison noted that he difteit necessarily want it commercial,
just want to be able to rent out the building.
Mr. Caballero replied then in that case the tenant should come
in and tell the Board what he wanted and the case would then be
reviewed on its individual merits, can't have carte blanc and make
it into any use.
PI
tq
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- July 13th, 1982
Ms. Needham noted that she just wanted to clarify that you
are saying is the only thing that can be done right now is an
antique shop but he can rent it out as an antique shop.
Mrs. Waddle replied yes but we haven't made that motion yet.
Mr. Ferdinand Zipprich noted that he had no objections as
an antique shop, his main concern was the vagueness of the request,
other business use and that was why he was here, wanted to find
out.
No one else present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would entertain a motion.
Mr. Cortellino moved that Mr. Harrison could continue or
could lease as an antique shop. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. Urciuoli,
to adjourn.
br
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs.) ty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoning oard of Appeals