1982-10-12The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town
of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, October 12th, 1982, beginning at
8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Angels Caballero
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
G. George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Hans R. Gunderud, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
RobertaPeterspepep�ity Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle then asked if 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 noted that she would like to explain how
the Zoning Board will work this evening., we will hear the cases
by the appeal number, we will hear the case -,in full, everyone will
have a chance to speak either for or against the variance, after
everyone has spoken then the Board will deliberate up here, we ask
that you do not interfere -.during the deliberations of the Board,
we may or may not render a decision this evening, each witness also
will be sworn in when they give testimony.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 633, at the request of Timothy J. Kowalsky, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow him to construct a 24' by 26' attached garage
within 28 feet of his sideyard setback where 40 feet is required,
on property located on Hopewell Road, being parcel # 6157-01-422545,
in the Town of Wappinger.
Mr. Timothy J. Kowalsky was present and was sworn in by
Mrs. Waddle.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Kowalsky noted that what he planned to do if everything
goes accordingly, would like to put a two car garage on the side of
the house, when the house was built he decided to close it in and put
the garage on at a later date, and didn't realize it was forty
feet for the code and when he went for the permit was told that
he needed a twelve foot variance so he put in for a twelve foot
variance, the front yard has a septic tank, the other side yard
has the leach fields which he had to build and there is only one
possible side of the house to put the two car garage and that is
where it is placed.
Mrs. Waddle commented that's in the back, think your house
runs this way.
Mr. Kowalsky then noted that he had a map here which showed
a better picture, as far as squaring it off on the map (plot plan)
which he was given with the building permit, that is pretty rough,
but have a copy here of the one that was filed and it shows it
a lot better.
The Board then looked at the map Mr. Kowalsky had presented.
Mr. cortellino then asked on the side of the house facing
Old Hopewell Road, what is the distance, what is the length of
the side facing Old Hopewell Road.
Mr. Kowalsky replied that it is actually cattycorner,
148 feet.
Mr. cortellino noted that was the setback, he meant the width
of the house, the side of the house that is facing Old Hopewell
Road, how wide is that.
Mr. Kowalsky replied that the side was approximately twenty-four
feet.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Kowalsky if this drawing was
correct, it doesn't appear to be in line with what is there.
Mr. Kowalsky replied no, it was pretty hard to do on the
chart, have one here that shows it better, noted driveway location
comes in and that is where the garage would go, where the little
pencil mark is, this is the closest point, this corner to the
back line, my parents'property is here, it is twenty-eight feet.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Kowalsky who owned the property in back
of and the side of him.
Mr. Kowalsky replied his parents.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- October 12th, 1982
The Board then looked over Mr. Kowalsky's drawings.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the Board had any further
questions.
The Board had no questions.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone to speak for
or against the variance.
No one wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if someone would like to make a
motion.
Mr. Landolfi made a motion that the variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was unanimously carried.
The hearing was closed at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Appeal # 634, at the request mf Albert D. Devito, Jr., seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow him to locate a shed with a twenty-five foot
frontyard setback where thirty-five foot setback is required, on
property being 73 Scott Drive, parcel # 6257-04-728483, in the Town
of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Albert D. Devito,-,-dE._was-present and was sworn in by
Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Devito noted that what he was interested in doing, have
a corner lot and the way his lot is set up the only flat land
is on the side of his property, am limited in the amount of space
even on the side of the property as to what he can do there as
part of it is a -hill, the limited amount of area he has where
he could possibly put a shed is basically towards the front of his
house between the property line and the house, now, can't put it
anywhere else as the only other area he has is a lot of water there,
it is always wet, let us put it this way about nine months out
of the year, so it is rather difficult to anything there, it is all
hilly, so it would be diffult to put the shed inside a hill
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- October 12th, 1982
so the only piece of property he actually has is the flat part of
his land which lays in the front of his house to the side, as you
notice the round circles indicate pine trees, these pine trees are
approximately ten feet,. six to ten feet right now, they basically
camouflage him and give him the privacy he needs on the side of
his property, if he was to locate the shed, which will be an
8' x 8' x 8' shed, the trees will conceal the shed and as they
continue to grow they will conceal it even more, now what he intends
to do it to make a decorative piece, don't intend to make it look
like a simple shed, intend to dress it up, put shrubs around and
blend it in with the rest of the house to make it look like a
neatly structured part of the house, the shed will be wooden, it
won't be metal and it will be a barn type shed and that's basically
what he wants to do, need the space, need the room, this is the
reason he was seeking the variance.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he could bring it in closer to the pool.
Mr. Devito replied that it is possible but thought about that
and in bringing it in closer to the pool and laying flat that way
it might become an eyesore, then it will stand out and it will be
further from the street giving it more visability from the street,
putting it on an angle kind of gives it a more dimensional look
and more attractive look to the shed itself and it is pushed more
into the tree area.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the trees go all the way along the side
of your property.
Mr. Devito replied no, just in that area, have a neighbor
that lives just above him, who is with me, also another neighbor
down the corner from him who came to verify the type of setup he
has and to indicate a willingness to show that they are here and
don't mind his putting it up.
Mrs. Waddle asked how far back was the pool.
Mr. Devito replied that the pool he would say sits about in
the middle, indicate,25 feet, it might be less.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he said 25 feet to the shed, proposed
shed.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Devito replied that the pool is in line with the house,
the house is 35 feet to the property line.
Mrs. Waddle noted so it is really only ten feet from the
pool to the proposed shed.
Mr. Devito commented that it is about in the middle, might
indicate about 15 feet in both directions, probably sits in the
middle, from the curb line figure about 15 feet.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she was talking about the pool, the
pool is back 35 feet from the lot line, from the proposed shed to
the edge of the pool would be ten feet.
Mr. Devito replied approximately.
Mr. Caballero then asked if the grade goes down from the
pool.
Mr. Devito replied that the grade is level in this particular
area but it.goes,.down from the top here, goes down this way, have
indicated hill coming this way and hill coming this way, which
indicates, it is rather a small area which would make it a very
crowded and an unsightly spot to put it even though it is still
in the back.was mentioning before it is very hilly there and so it
would be rather difficult to plant it inside the hill, have a
steep grade there as well as a condition of being wet all year
round which would make it rather difficult to lay a shed in there
without being concerned about it tipping over, or bending or having
it stand up straight.
Mr. Cortellino then asked what was the distance between the
pool and the house.
Mr. Devito replied that the distance between the pool and
the house was about 20 feet.
Mr. Landolfi then commented that this property is very well
laid out, not only is the house and the property, the way it is laid
out now, an asset to the Rockingham development, it is an asset to
the whole Town and the only other logical placelike he said, we
were out there and made an inspection on it, would be in that
wet area and obviously there are problems there.
Mrs. Waddle commented that there is no other logical place
to put it..
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked the Board if they had anymore questions.
The Board had no further questions.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else here to
speak for the variance.
Mr. Richard Simmons noted that he lived on 69 Scott Drive,
it is immediately north and directly next to this property.
Mr. Simmons was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Simmons noted that he wanted to state that he had no
objections to it, the property is very neat and well kept and
the trees would shield it, we don't even see the pool or anything
else that is there now because of the trees.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mr. Simmons and then asked if there
was anyone present to speak against the variance.
Mr. Russo noted that he was not speaking against it but
wanted to know what the shed would be used for, not at the present
moment, the future.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it is a tool shed.
Mr. Russo commented it is'goinj to be a tool shed, it is not
going to be a cabanas may run pipes there, get enough water now
as Mr. Gunderud knows all about this situation, so don't want him
to put a shower in there, may get the idea to just make a cabana
out of it, come out of the pool, take a shower in there and get
dressed, if it is going to be for a tool shed, don't have an
objection.
Mrs. Waddle noted that all he was in for was a variance for
a tool shed and then asked if there was anyone else who wished to
be heard on this variance.
Mr. charles Fitzrandolf of 77 Scott Drive and can say that he
lives directly across the street from Danny and his property besides
being well kept, where the shed is going to be located it is set in
the bushes so its not an eyesore from the road or from my property
or from Richie right here, so am only up here to say that we don't
have any objection as a neighbor right next door to Danny.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mr. Fitzrandolf.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Caballero then made a motion that this variance be
approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle then noted that on Appeal # 636 and Appeal # 637,
that's Dr. Walter Heaney and the request of Murray Ackerman, will
have to be tabled because we did not get any recommendation from
the Dutchess County Department of Planning, so they will be tabled
to our next meeting, they are tabled, we did not receive any
recommendations from the Dutchess County Department of Planning
and we have to receive recommendations from them on these appeals
because of the roads that they are on.
Mr. Ackerman then noted that this puts them in a very difficult
situation as we have a store opening that is going to happen on
the 30th of this month, we have 30,000 square feet of furniture
that is going to be on display here and we do not have a sign and
the sign is terribly important for us to know how large it can be.
Mrs. Waddle commented that they could put up a sign that
is in accordance with the Town's zoning ordinance.
Mr. Ackerman noted that the sign that they are permitted to
put up is exceedingly small for the size of that building, that
building is 250 feet long and anything that we put there we might just
as well not have anything there at all.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they-v►ere not going to hear the case
as the last time we went ahead and did a case she got called
down on it from the County.
Mr. Ackerman noted that they had a sign maker standing by
right now pending the decision of the court tonight as to whether
or not we can go ahead and have the sign.
Zoning Board'of Appeals -8 October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied that she was sorry but can't act without a
recommendation from the County Planning Board, you are at liberty
to put up a sign within the zoning ordinance of the Town of Wappinger
at this time, cannot do anything further on this, have to wait for
the County.
Mr. Ackerman asked how long this would take.
Mrs. Waddle replied until the next meeting, one month, as was
said before you can put up a sign that is in accordance with the
Zoning ordinance, we cannot act on it tonight, we have no recommendation
from the County, wish we could help you but can't help you at this
point.
There was then a question as to why the County was involved
and it was noted that anything that is within 500 feet of a State
or County road must be referred to the Dutchess County Department
of Planning.
Mr. Ackerman then asked about the time element.
The secretary noted that the County has thirty days and this
was sent to them on the twenty-second of September.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the County was within their time limit
and they have not come back with a reply.
Mr. Ackerman commented that he understood that when they
submitted the request for the variance.
Mrs. Waddle replied that is no guarantee that you would receive
the variance and as she said and would repeat herself once more, you
are at liberty to put up a sign within the Zoning ordinance of the
Town of Wappinger, now that should not hinder your opening, you would
have a sign.
There was then a lady in the audience who asked if she could
be put on a mailing list so she would know when this meeting is.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it is advertised in the local
papers,
The lady noted that she is an interested party and there are
occassions when she misses getting the paper.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied that the Board does not have a mailing
list, the meetings are every secnd Tuesday of the month unless
it falls on holiday and the Board has to designate another evening,
do not send out notices, it is posted according to law in the local
newspapers.
The lady then asked if she could put it on record that she
had over a year ago her parcel was rezoned without her getting
a letter or any indication.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she believed she was confusing the
Town Board with the Zoning Board, have to address that to the
Town Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals has nothing to do with
rezonings, only hear cases on areas that are zoned and there
are hardships on the property, these do not come before us, you
have to go to the Town Board, if she wants to wait to after the
meeting is over the Board will discuss this with her but have other
cases we must go over now.
Appeal # 638, at the request of Patricia F. Spross, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421, paragraph 7 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow a guest house with full kitchen
facilities in a zone that allows for one single-family dwelling on
property located on Forest View Drive, being parcel # 6257-04-
816023, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Ms. Raina Maissel then came forward and noted that she was
an attorney and was representing Ms. Spross.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that the Board had its own recording
equipment, you will not be permitted to record th:s, yqu can get it
from the secretary when she transcribes it.
Ms. Maissel commented you object to this, sheds an official
court reporter from Mary Babiarz.
Mrs. Waddle replied yes, we have our own.
Ms. Maissel asked you transcribe.
Mrs. Waddle replied yes we do, this is all recorded and you may
get a copy from the secretary of the Zoning Board.
zoning Board of Appeals -10- October 12th, 1982
Ms. Maissel noted that she was sorry, she was not aware that
the Board had a tape recorder and transcribe it, usually it is
just minutes.
Mrs. Waddle replied no its not, this is all on recording.
Ms. Maissle noted that what she was going to do if she may
was to present the Board with an overview of what is going to be
presented to you.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would swear her in first.
Ms. Maissel replied no that she was not testifying, she is
an attorney, don't testify, the owner of the property, Patricia Spross,
will testify and she will have another witness who will also
testify, she was simply here on a matter of law and to present
Ms. Spross' case to you as best -she may, what she did have and
what we hope to show you is some documentation, have prepared a
memorandum of law with some attachments which you may wish to
look at or refer to your attorney, whatever, you may like to
have that now as we are going through it cause she will simply
highlight some of the points that we are going to raise. Ms. Maissel
then passed put her memorandum of law to the members of the Board.
Ms. Maissel noted that as she had started to say her name is
Raina Maissel, have an office just a mile and a half away in the
Town of Poughkeepsie, now this case is a little unusual in that
we are not coming in for a variance or asking for something to be
done in the future, this is a situation where her client purchased
property and on the property at the time she purchased it were two
buildings.
Mr. Landolfi asked if he might interupt for a minute, you say
you are not lookinag for a variance.
Ms. Maissel replied that what they were coming in primarily
is for an interpretation of your zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Waddle noted that then this was a mistake.
Ms. Maissel noted the zoning regulations, that is their prime
purpose here tonight to ask you for an interpretation and if you
find that you consider in your opinion we are in violation then
we ask you for a variance, we put both things down together because
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- October 12th, 1982
it would be foolish for us to come in and for you to say no and
then we have to come back here with virtually the same testimony
for you, have also for you, if you don't have it, copies of the
schedule of regulations for residential districts which is of course
your 421 and what we are particularly interested in is the subparagraph
7, we are going on accessory uses, there is one for each of you,
we will be showing you some aerial photographs of the property which
we obtained, blow ups from downtown from Dutchess County, the
photographs were— taken in 1970 and 1980, now attached to the
memorandum of law that you see there, there is a copy of an appraisal
that was made for the Ulster Savings Bank.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this was already existing when she
bought the property.
Ms. Maissel replied that is correct, she will so testify,
it was there, if she may.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gunderud if it was there, what
is the problem.
Mr. Gunderud replied that the problem is that they converted
and it was done illegally, there was no building permit ever issued
to convert the barn to a residence and the property was sold by a
realtor as a two family property, still doesn't make it legal or
proper.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he had one more question to ask
of Hans, didn't we make an interpretation of a guest house a
couple of months ago.
Mr. Gunderud replied yes, believe it was on the Montfort
property.
Mr. Cortellino asked if there was a copy available.
Ms. Maissel noted that she had the Montfort decision, however,
if you want to deal with that first or at the end, our contention
is that it is a totally different situation, the property here
we are dealing with a 3.6 acre parcel of land, we have two structures
on it, a main house with a pool, we have what was an old barn,
225 feet away, we do not know when it was built and you will hear
testimony that we believe the old barn was put up around 1900 and if
you gentlemen know the area, perhaps have more familarity with it,
you of course may use your knowledge as long as you, in the decision
you make and it was converted at some time prior, we don't know when
it was converted, we were not there, we did not do the converting,
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- October 12th, 1982
it was converted prior, we don't knowifit was converted prior
to the enactment of the ordinance or when it was, we have no knowledge
of that.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Gunderud if he had any knowledge
of this.
Mr. Gunderud replied that based upon his research it appears
that it was converted definitely after the enactment of zoning and
probably in a time frame of the mid 1970's, 1975 to 1979, something
around there, by the previous owner, whose name was Cadwaller.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that Ms. Maissel was not arguing
for a variance.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she wanted an interpretation.
Ms. Maissel noted that she wanted an interpretation first,
if we can get to that because we say that whenever, certainly one
of the interpretations that you can place upon this property is
that it's sufficiently large for to'enable subdivision to take
place, you have 3.6 acres, you are in an R-40 zone which is
one acre zoning and there is some law which indicates that you can
simply look at and say well you know it is a de facto subdivision,
otherwise you are going to require this lady to go out and come back
in
Mr. Corellino commented that is one of the solutions.
Ms. Maissel noted that is possibly a solution, however,
she is not planning, she doesn't want to subdivide, she wants to
use this property as a guest house which was what she bought it
for.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she could still use it that way and
settle her problem if she subdivided.
Ms. Maissel noted that if she subdivided, to come in to subdivide
it am sure you know is a very expensive proposition, also the barn
is very small and she would have to get a, if she wanted to use
that as a main house, she would then have to start a variance for
that, what we are saying is that it is there, we would be glad to
stipulate to any restrictions you want to place on it, we do not
wish to rent this property, we simply -want to use it as an accessory
use.
a
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented fine, if you take out the kitchen
there is no problem.
Ms. Maissel replied well if we have to destroy the kitchen, we
don't believe, and it is our contention to you that we are permitted
to have a kitchen, the reason and am jumping a little but this is
what you are after, there is nothing in your ordinance, there is
nothing in your regulations which say anything about a kitchen
and would submit to you that you should not take a restrictive
interpretation of the ordinance, you are required as she may submit
to you as members of the zoning board of appeals to apply an
interpretation in all cases in favor of the owner of the property
and against the municipality and have cited law on that, in a case
where there is a conflict, you must have very clear authorization
in your zoning ordinance before you can deprive someone of the
existing use of a property or what's there, in other words you are
saying to this lady take it out.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the Boar
illegal action, not necessarily by you',
do something illegally and then say it i
Board
cannot overlook an
otherwise anyone could
s there.
Ms. Maissel noted absolutely, you are correct, absolutely,
we are saying that that this was not illegal.
Mr. Cortellino commented that it is not your fault.
Ms. Maissel replied no we are not even saying, yes -that's
true too, but what we are saying is that this use, this guest
house is a permitted accessory use within the framework of your
ordinance as it is written.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how often this guest house is to be
used, the frequency.
Ms. Maissel replied that you would have to ask the lady
that, she will testify to you, am just the attorney, am more
concerned about the interpretation of your ordinance and what
am saying to you is you've got an ordinance which states,
your regulations permit, look at the schedule of regulations
it says permitted accessory uses right on the top, in the column,
it says uses or structures customarily incidential to any permitted
principal use provided that such accessory use shall not include
any activity commonly conducted for gain except as hereinafter
excepted and so on, and you also have an asterisk here when you
got to have special permits, now there is a listing under
permitted accessory uses of what can be done without a permit,
a use as a right, a list and number seven is garden house, guest
house, caretaker's cottage, pool house, play house and so on and
so on, provided that any such structure complies with all yard
setbacks and not operated for profit, so in other words if she was
Zoning Board of Appeals
-14-
October 12th, 1982
coming in and saying want to lease it, get x number of dollars
a month, that would not be permitted, she would have to come in
and ask you first, would have to get whatever you want and if
the property did not comply with the setback requirements and think
you will find when you look we have a survey for you, when you look
at that you will see that this little cottage, this old barn, is
well back for the setback requirements, so what we are saying in
effect, can summarize this, it is perfectly legal, it would have
been a permitted use and unless you find something in the ordinance
which talks about kitchens and would request that you say fine,
this is a permitted use under your ordinance, the only definition
that she could find in your ordinance and maybe she missed something,
is a definition of an accessory building, which is Section 20,
page four of your ordinance, which is a subordinate building,
the use of which is customarily incidential to that of a main
building on the same lot, and the height of which does not exceed
twenty feet, well what is customarily incidential to the use of
a main building, a guest house is customarily, this property she
understands was advertised as a small estate, you have this little
house there, this barn which was converted, it could be used as
a caretaker's cottage if she wasn't going to be there all the time
and wanted to have someone live. there if she was wealthy enough
to support a caretaker, some ordinances and there is a considerable
amount of law on people who construct, have a main house and a
couple of acres, they had a gardeners' cottage, they had a garage
which had an apartment over it, they rented it out and then the
ordinances kept changing, sometimes the ordinances said well
it has to be members of the same family, they have to be servants,
your ordinance doesn't say anything like that, it is wide open,
of course you can, the Planning Board could recommend to the Town
Board or whoever, however it works here, that you change or make
your ordinance more specific and if you do so then anytime anybody
comes in this situation would have to do that but you don't have
anything in the ordinance right now that is that specific, it doesn't
say it has to be a servant, it doesn't say it has to be a member
of the same family, it doesn't say you can't have a kitchen, it
doesn't say any of those things, it just says permitted use is
guest house or caretaker's cottage and other things.
Mrs. Waddle noted that also in that district it says one family
residence.
Ms. Maissel replied that is correct, it does but it also says
as an accessory use you can have a caretaker's cottage, so that's
generally, it's not specified that has to be a member of the same
I' -I
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- October 12th, 1982
family, it could be someone living there, a caretaker isn't usually,
don't have that much knowledge of caretakers but don't usually
belong to the same family, so don't think you are bound by a fact
that says one dwelling unit, sure one main principal use but you
have accessory uses and they are listed for you, now have seen this
and called around to other towns, quite a few of the towns in the
area and said do you have such accessory use in your ordinance,
called the Town of Poughkeepsie and called La Grange and called
the County and said do you know of any in this area, they said
why don't you try the Town of Washington, they are way out and maybe
they have estates, called them but they don't have it either, so am
sure there may be someone in all the towns of Dutchess, didn't have
the time to spend to get someone in all the counties but maybe
somebody else around here has a different interpretation, or someone
that has this accessory use and have cases on this but they don't,
haven't been able to find it, it might be helpful to you the case
law read as said they generally concerned with someone coming in
like say just the amount of land that is permitted and then want
to put a second one on there, here that would have lots and lots
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the Board had Mr. Adams' interpretation.
Mr. Gunderud noted that he believed it was on the Montfort
case.
Ms. Maissel commented that she remembered pretty well and as
she recalled this was a situation where you had a house, don't know
if there was more land available, but someone wanted to build a
house, an apartment or something for a mother-in-law.
The Board noted that this was a different situation.
Ms. Maissel noted that the only two that Mr. Gunderud showed
her was one where somebody with a house and they wanted to convert
within the house, wanted to put a second kitchen in and the second
one was Montfort where she understood it was a breezeway and a
fire wall, it was an attachment to the house and read Mr. Adams'
letter and read the cases on which he based his decision and those
are all dealing with a single family or very close structure and
someone in effect wants to create a two-family residence in a one
family house.
IR
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then commented that based on one dwelling unit
per property this is really two houses, two one -family houses.
The secretary then returned with the Montfort file and noted
that she could not find Mr. Adams' letter.
Ms. Maissel then gave the Board a copy of Mr. Adams' letter.
The Board then reviewed Mr. Adams' letter and Mrs. Waddle
noted that this is in actuality the interpreation as far as our
attorneys were concerned and what he says in fact is that a
a guest house is exactly that, namely something for guests who
are normally those individuals having a transient status rather than
a permanent status, transients normally do no require full kitchen
facilities and well on this one it was obvious that the full kitchen
facilities are being submitted, think that we should really get
back with our attorneys and explore this further.
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino to table this.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Ms. Maissel then commented that perhaps the Board would like
to take Ms. Spross' evidence on the facts because she was just
talking and she could, you would then have a record of what the
facts are, am telling you that it is so many feet and so on but she
could tell you specifically, she could testify to you, am not sworn
and not testifying.
Mrs. Waddle noted fine but didn't know if anything more
could be added then Ms. Maissel had already said.
Ms. Maissel noted that it was up to the Board, if you want
to take sworn testimony or you want to take her word for it, that's
fine.
Mr. Landolfi commented that the facts were very well presented.
Mrs. Waddle added that she did not think that the Board needed
the sworn testimony at this time, think we are going to table
this appeal until we get with our Town Attorney and we shall take
it up again at the next Zoning Board meeting and if at that time
we feel that sworn testimony is necessary then we shall call
Ms. Spross.
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- October 12th, 1982
Ms. Maissel replied fine, Ms. Spross also has the realtor who
can tell you what was there at the time she purchased it if you
have questions.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Ms. Maissel.
Ms. Maissel then noted that they do have the aerial photos
and there was one more point she wished to make,to the Board while
they were at it, that is that on the neighboring properties as far
as we have been able to determine there are more than one structure
also and it shows on those photographs, so don't know, you are looking
for customary incidental use, you are going to have to interpret
that as a guest house, we don't know how this has been interpreted
in fact.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she couldn't speak about the other
properties in the area, there may be some facts that are indicative
of that, we stay away from that, we just have tunnel vision on
the case that we are concentrating on and are sure Hans will
do his job and investigate the rest of the properties.
A gentlemen from the audience noted that a memorandum of law
had been submitted and the parties who were asked'to come here
don't have copies of the memorandum.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was just presented to the Board.
The gentlemen then commented that in all fairness it would
appear that the other parties should have copies of the document
we may desire to place our own memorandum of law.
Mrs. Waddle replied that it was now a matter of record,
you can get a copy if you.wish from the secretary of the Board, it
will be available tommorrow, okay, and this is tabled until the
next meeting, until we get with our Town Attorneys.
A gentlemen then asked if notices would be sent again as
they did have some concerns.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this would be tabled and there would not
be another notice sent as this is a continuation, we will meet on
the second Tuesday in November, which is November 9th, will be the
next Zoning Board meeting when this case will be taken up, at 8:00 p.m.
The appeal was tabled at 8:45 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- October 12th, 1982
Appeal ¢# 639, at the request of Wallace B. Post, Jr., seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition within 10 feet of the front
property line where fifty feet is required, on property located
on Robinson Lane, being parcel #k 6459-03-03-083370, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Wallace B. Post, Jr. was present and sworn in by Mrs.
Waddle.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Post if he would like to state
his case.
Mr..'Post noted that he was applying for a variance to
finish his addition, applied for a variance last year and got
it but went bigger with his addition and now has been informed that
he has to get another variance to finish his addition.
Mrs. Waddle asked him how much bigger.
Mr. Post replied a second story.
r Mr. Landolfi added that it was already there and asked
Mr. Post when he moved into the house.
Mr. Post replied approximately five years ago.
Mr. Landolfi then asked him when he started the original
addition to this house.
Mr. Post replied about two years ago.
Mr. Landolfi then asked him what percentage of completion
did he feel his residence was at this time.
Mr. Post replied maybe about 75 percent.
Mr. Landolfi then asked him if he was granted a variance
when would be a completion date.
Mr. Post replied that he is not a contractor, he builds this
out of his paycheck, buys the lumber, don't go out and get big orders
so it takes time, can't give you a date.
l�J
Zoning Board of Appeals -19- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that his concern was that Mr. Post's home
r„r as he knows is practically on Robinson Lane on the turn and it
is very visable especially to the people who are back and forth
to the ball fields and appreciate what he is saying, it does take
time and go by it quite frequently and progress is coming kind of -slow
and don't know, feel you might think you have a blank check on how
long this can go on.
Mr. Post replied that if it offends somebody he is sorry but
is doing the best he can with what he has to work with.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board was trying to help him,
appreciate his circumstances but it has to be a two-way street.
Mr. Cortellino asked how large was the house before the
addition.
Mr. Post replied 18' by 36'.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the problem was that he was supposed to
put a one floor addition on and he put a two floor addition on,
this is the problem, really he is not asking for any more distance.
from where he is already.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he couldn't get any closer, a snow
plow would move him out.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he is going up.
Mr. Post noted that he wasn't going any higher than two floors.
Mrs. Waddle then asked how much was up.
Mr. Post noted that the roof was on and closed on.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that it said 10 feet plus or minus, how
much plus or minus.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he had gotten a variance on the
setback, the problem was that it was supposed to be one story
and he went up to two, is a two story addition now.
Mr. Urciuoli asked if he exceeded the variance.
Zoning Board of Appeals -20- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Gunderud replied that he did, was granted because the
lot was a non -conforming lot, the house is only about ten feet
from the property line, under the non -conforming provisions of
the ordinance you are not supposed to increase the non -conformity,
so he got a variance for one floor, which was a certain amount
of bulk and that was ten feet from the line, now he's up, the
roof line on the original one was going to go back, now the roof
line is going parallel to the street so now instead of just having
a gable end to the road you have the whole side of the building to
the road so it is quite a large increase.
Mr. Post replied that on the original plans it is just as
high, he just utilized all that space instead of having it all
roof.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he thinks there are two things to
consider here, one: forget about that some people have done things
without the knowledge of the law, you have -knowledge of the law because
he had come -in for a variance now if we grant a variance we are
saying if you can put it up before Hans stops you we will give
you a variance and move that the variance be denied.
Mrs. Waddle replied wait a minute, and asked Mr. Post if
he realized he couldn't put a second floor on.
Mr. Post replied he knew he needed to get a building permit
which he didn't, he caught up with me but didn't know he needed
a variance.
Mrs. Waddle commented wait a minute, he is honest, not a fast
builder, we have had problems like this before with builders
who have put the whole house up and been off and a lot of capital
has been behind them, okay and then thanked Mr. Post and noted that
he had said enough and asked if there was anyone present to speak
for or against this variance.
Mr. Oscar Velez of Robinson Lane came forward and was sworn. -in
by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Velez noted that he objected to something this
gentlemen said (Mr. Landolfi), like you said a lot of people
have money and nobody objects.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she didn't say that.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Velez noted that the point is this, the pioneers built
houses and then you come in with ordinances and stuff like that,
think the gentlemen is doing the best he can with what he's got,
and because people drive by.
Mrs. Waddle noted that isn't the point, that isn't the point
at all, the point is that he had a variance to put on the one floor
and then he just neglected to get a building permit when he went
up.
Mr. Velez noted that he understood that but when this
gentlemen said was that he drives by the park and he was talking
about how soon will it be completed and that's the point am getting
at as the guy is doing the best he can, whether people drive by
the park and see it or not, you 'know what he meant, other than that.
Mr. Gunderud then noted that there is a two year time limit
on permits, on the completion, the original has been revoked.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this is needed as some people would
let it go forever.
Mr. Landolfi noted that this was his point.
Mr. Velez noted that he hoped the Board would grant
the request.
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion to deny the requested variance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - nay
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
The motion was not carried.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - nay
A motion was then made by Mr. Urciuoli, that the variance
be granted. Mr. Landolfi seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Cortellino - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-22-
October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented lets get the front done in record time, okay.
Mr. Post replied that he would do his best.
Appeal # 641, at the request of Robert M. Field, seeking a
variance of Article iv, Section 412 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow for the issuance of a building permit for a
single-family residence to be constructed on a private road, said
private road known as "Four Fields", and being parcel # 6258-03-
264246, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Robert M. Field of 33 Dogwood Hill Road, Newburgh was
present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Field noted that he would like a variance to have permission to
build a home --on an acceptable building lot which does not have
acceptable street frontage, it only faces private land, it meets
your basic zoning requirements, acreage wise and setback wise, there
are other homes on the same street and would be glad to answer
any questions the Board may have.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many homes were there.
Mr. Field replied five he thought.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if he had a purchaser in mind for this.
Mr. Field replied yes, they are here tonight.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they were aware of what they could be
denied, like expansion, may not be school buses, there are a lot
of hidden things that he thought that they should be aware of.
Mr. Cortellino.then asked about the right-of-way.
Mr. Field replied that the right-of-way for the road is
fifty feet wide, it is only a one lane street but is a fifty feet
right-of-way, easement.
Mr. Cortellino asked about the gravel part.
Mr. Field replied that the gravel part was about twenty feet
wide.
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi then asked if they had ever thought about
petitioning the Town Board to take over the road.
Mr. Field replied that he hadn't, he is a builder.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he thought it would be advantagous
to the occupants of the existing homes as well of those coming in,
trying to protect the Town, have had problems in the past with roads
like this, they might complain that no one is taking care of the
snow in the winter.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there are aware that there is no snow
plowing, they have to take care of this themselves.
Mr. Landolfi added that they may have to burn a lot of wood
as the oil truck may not be able to get in and so on.
Mr. Field replied that he thought these were factors that
they were aware of and can accept, don't need to speak for
them as they are here.
Mr. Bob Rogen came forward and noted that he presently lives
at 10-H Alpine Drive, am asking Mr. Field to construct this home,
we are aware that the private road does not have the services of
the Town for the snow removal, you mentioned school buses, these
don't present a problem to us and don't believe it would really
present a problem to anybody who might purchase the property after
we have had it, it is in the vicinity of Evans school, walking
distance and it is very easy to get to Myers Corners Road, if
that was a problem, don't forsee that, we are aware that the road is
private, there are currently people living on the road that contract
for snow removal including the driveways of all the homes that
face on this road so we are aware of the situation of its being
a private road and that is acceptable to us.
Mrs. Waddle asked him if he was aware also that after the
house is built you can't add on, another variance would be needed.
Mr. Rogen replied yes and that they had pestered Mr. Field
enough to make changes in the house plan as we are quite aware
that we don't intend to do more.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he would have an awfully long walk
to Evans, you are close to Myers Corners school -
Mr. Rogen noted he meant Myers Corners, it doesn't affect them
but anyone who might come into the house after them, it is close
to Myers Corners school.
zoning Board of Appeals -24- October 12th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Landolfi if they had ever had
to get a fire truck in there.
Mr. Landolfi replied no but we can get in and out of there.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone else present who wished
to be heard for or against the appeal.
Mr. William Gobe came forward and noted that his property
abuts this one also and would like to recommend that the variance
go through, if you are familar with Four Fields road and Pizzagalli
is trying to get the Cornell and Drake property right behind it
and it look like the way things are going they will, in favor
of variance.
A motion was then made by Mr. Landolfi, to grant the
requested variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
The hearing was closed at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to recommend that
Appeal # 635, the Wappingers Elks and Appeal # 640, Robert and
Elizabeth Murphy, be referred to the Planning Board for their
review and recommendation.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any further business
to come before the Board.
There was no further business.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would entertain a motion
to adjourn.
A motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, seconded by Mr. Urciuoli,
to adjourn.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
-25- October 12th, 1982
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
br
UNAPPROVED
W
Respectfully submitted,
AA
(Mrs etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Zoni Board of Appeals