1982-11-09The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of
the Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, November 9th, 1982,
beginning at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mi11,Street, Wappingers
Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Angel Caballero
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
G. George Urciuoli - arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Robert Peters, Deputy Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
The roll call was taken withffii� : i m uo]7 i' l ea nq absent.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the abutting property owners
had been notified.
The secretary replied that the appellants and abutting property.
owners were notified according to the records available in the
Assessor's office.
Mrs. WAddle noted that she would like to tell those present
a little bit how the Zoning Board will work this evening, we will
hear the appeals, after each appeal and everybody will have a chance
to speak,zfor or against an appeal, the Board Will speak up here and
we ask that no one disturb us when we go through the deliberations,
everything will be done in this room, decisions may or may not
be rendered tonight.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 642, at the request of William & Elizabeth Joosteema,
seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a second kitchen in a single-family
dwelling on property located on 6 Peter Drive, being parcel # 6257-
03-042304, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone present to speak for
this appeal.
A gentlemen came forward and commented yes, madam chairman
if he may.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked that he come forward and identify
himself.
Mr. Woody Klose noted that he was a lawyer, reside at
35 East Market Street, Red Hook, New York, for the applicant,
madam chairman and members of the Board, some time ago he sent
to your Zoning Enforcement Officer, a letter, don't know if the
Board has a copy of that letter as part of its record or not,
there is nothing he would like to add, he can publically disclose
what he said to the Board in that letter, hits some of the highlights
of the letter, why we are asking for a variance, why we are asking
for a second kitchen in a single family dwelling, if the Board wants
him to do that he would be delighted to do it, the Board has the
letters, perhaps it would be important for those who are in the
audience tonight and come from the neighborhood that we are asking
for a variance for a couple of reasons, several reasons most of
which we think have great substance, first of all the, it is our
opinion that the addition of a kitchen in this residence which is a
rather large house will not in any way change the character of the
neighborhood, it will not generate any traffic flow, it will not be
apparent, it is for the convenience of the Joosteemas and the
people who live with them, this is a 4,000 square foot house,
it has an independent heating system for each floor, have submitted
to the Board as part of the record, copies of checks payable to
Central Hudson showing our experience last year in March and April
to maintain 50 degrees of heat, as the Board can see on the first
floor, when the house was electric alone, the heating bill in two
months was over $1,100, and it is the Joosteemas plan to live on
the second, on,the first floor during the winter and on both floors
during the summer so it is important that they have a kitchen
facility downstairs, the applicants are in their seventies, they
have living with them people who have been with them for over thirty
years on many occasions and noted in his letter that one of the
people who resides in the house is an eighty year old woman who
has been with them for some.twenty years, so as part of their family
it is more convenient and obviously a great savings in time and
energy and the expense of living to have this facility on each
floor, if there are any questions the Board has or any member of
the neighborhood or anybody else; would be delighted to answer
them, thank you.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mr. Klose and asked if there was
anyone else to speak for this variance.
No one wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present to
speak against this variance.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-3- November 9th, 1982
Mr. James Meade and noted that his property abuts by
Mr. Joosteema's property.
Mrs. Waddle then swore Mr. Meade in.
Mr. Meade noted that the zoning ordinance plus their own
land deeds prohibit two family homes, they also prohibit the land
for being used other than residential, there are by his count nine
adults living in this one family home, question whether it is
really residential.
Mr. Urciuoli then arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he might ask a question before Mr. Meade
proceeds.
Mr. Meade replied yes.
Mr. Cortellino in your deed, are the other deeds for the other
properties also contain the same restrictions.
Mr. Meade replied yes, have copies here if you would care
to have them.
Mr. Cortellino asked including their (Joosteemas).
Mr. Meade replied all property owners of that particular
Mr. Cortellino commented let him rephrase the question
so he can answer, was it a large piece of property that was subdivided
and all the restrictions were put on all the property that was
subdivided, that would include the Joosteema's property.
Mr. Meade replied that it correct.
Mr. Cortellino thanked him.
Mr. Meade noted that when Mr. Joosteema purchased the house,
this house is worth over $100,000, you know it is like buying a
Cadillac, if you buy a Cadillac you can afford to run it, if you can
buy a house that is worth over $100,000 you should be able to run
it and Mr. Joosteema and his family have not been in the home, lived
in the home during a winter, really question whether he knew how much
it was going to take to keep this home, anyone who buys a home today
certainly would want to have some record of the cost of heating,
the cost of utilities, think he was probably aware as to the expense,
.. as to his family, don't know really what he means by family, family
to him means blood relations, family to the Joosteemas evidentially
means something else, you have nine adults living in a house, wonder
whether you can really call it a single-family home, that is all
he has to say.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle thanked him.
Mr. Meade then asked if there were any questions.
The Board noted that they had no questions.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else who wished
to be heard.
Laura Stocker of Ada Drive, Wappingers then came forward
and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Ms. Stocker noted that she thought you have to look at the
intent of the parties with a second kitchen, the reasoning to put
a second kitchen on the bottom floor of a home doesn't make any
sense when heat rises, if you heat the bottom half of a house and
the heat goes up to their upstairs, her understanding is that this
home has three bedrooms which are all maintained upstairs, there
is supposed to be the Joosteemas because of their age and they have
a eighty year old aunt living with them, how can you maintain a
bedroom at fifty degrees without hypothermia, that's all she has to
say.
Mrs. Waddle thanked her and then asked Mr. Klose if he could
tell her if all these nine adults are related to the Joosteemas
and how they are related to the Joosteems.
Mr. Klose replied that they are not related by blood and
their not related by marriage, they are people who have been in the
care of the Joosteemas from anywhere from
Mrs. Waddle commented then actually they are running a business.
Mr. Klese replied no.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they are paid for the care of these
people.
Mr. Klose replied excuse me, they are paid for the care of
these people, they are recompensed but not enough.
Mrs. Waddle asked they are recompensed by who, the County, the
State.
Mr. Klose replied yes but the point is
r+''
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented so it is a group home.
Mr. Klose replied that its not, and don't think, we are losing'
sight of things here a little bit, we are here to respond to the
application for a request for a variance, those who would say it
is not a family, they have other remedies but don't want to get
into that position, the point of the matter is that these people
whom he represents, the Joosteemas, have had in their immediate
care for anywhere longer then he has had the care of his own children,
various people, the newest member, the person who has been with them
the shortest period of time has been with them for fifteen years,
so the people who have been with them for fifteen to thirty-two years
so don't think that the Board should get sidetracked by a family
versus non -family, that is not the argument tonight.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would like to ask questions of
the Joosteemas as they would have to be sworn in.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would like to have one of
the Joosteemas come forward and be sworn in.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that there were some seats in the
front and were additional chairs along the wall that could be set
up for these people if someone would be so kind as to do this.
Mr. William Joosteema of Ada Drive then came forward and
was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Cortellino commented now these people have been with you
for a number of years.
Mr. Joosteema replied that's right.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mr. Joosteema when he purchased
the house it was with the expectation that these people would be
with you, am I correct.
Mr. Joosteema replied that's right.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if he had looked into the cost
of maintaining that establishment, you may sit down.
Mr. Joosteema replied no we always took care of the people.
Mr. Cortellino commented that wasn't his question, did you
look into the costs of running that house.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Joosteema replied yes, we knew what the cost would be.
Mr. Cortellino asked before you bought the house.
Mr. Joosteema replied yeah.
Mr. Cortellino commented that part of his application said
that the electricity bills totalled over a $1,000 in two months,
you knew that would be the electric bill.
Mr. Joosteema replied well yes, that is rather high actually.
Mr. Cortellino noted but you knew it.
Mr. Joosteema replied yeah.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to ask another
question, you are saying you put a kitchen on the lower floor,
is that the ground floor or the basement you are talking about because
usually in a house there is a ki'tcI eabn•the ground floor.
Mr,. Joosteema replied the ground floor.
Mrs. Waddle noted there is a kitchen there already.
Mr. Joosteema replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle commented you want to put another kitbhen in
Mr. Joosteema replied no, the kitchen is there, it was put
in.
Mrs. Waddle asked but how many kitchens are there on the
ground floor.
Mr. Joosteema.replied that the second kitchen is on the ground
floor.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they are both on the ground floor,
is that true
Mr. Joosteema no, one's upstairs on the upper floor and the
other one is down on the lower floor, there's two floors there.
8
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that she was trying to determine whether we
are talking about a first and second floor or a basement level,
first floor and second floor.
Mr. Joosteema replied that there is a first floor and second
floor as far as far as he knows, there is the upstairs, have a
kitchen upstairs and there is another floor downstairs, put in a
kitchen down there.
Mrs. Waddle asked but is that the basement level or a first
floor.
Mr. Joosteema replied well it could be the first floor
or next to the basement level.
Mr. Cortellino noted that we are talking only about two floors.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any more questions.
Mr. Klose noted that he would like to clarify one thing if
he .could, Mr. Joosteema said he would know what the electric heat
would be in the house when he bought it, think he misspoke him eif,
you didn't live in the house prior to buying it, did you.
Mr. Joosteema replied no.
Mr. Cortellino commented that you didn't have to live in the
house to know what the electical bills were, could have looked at
the previous owners, so he would rephrase his question, before you
purchased the house, is_ what he asked, did you know what the
electrical bills were, did you go over the records of the house
for heating or taxes and water.
Mr. Joosteema replied yeah we knew what the taxes were.
Mr. Cortellino asked did you know what the electrical bills
were, approximately.
Mr. Joosteema replied not really, no, we didn't have
Mr. Cortellino commented no, not yours, the previous owner's.
Mr. Joosteema replied no, he never told us about what
those were.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-8- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle thanked him and asked if there was anyone else
who wished to speak.
Mrs. Joosteema noted that she would like to clarify that,
they told us they paid so much a month, was like on a budget.
Mr. Klose noted that the point was that she clarified the
record, she said that she had seen the budget plan of the prior
owner was on.
Mrs. Joosteem noted we owned the house, we weren't in it
and we had the degree of heat on fifty degrees and it came to
that much money, so if we lived there it would be three times
as much.
Mrs. Waddle thanked her.
Ms. Stocker noted that she would like to add one more thing,
it is her understanding that to be granted a variance after the fact,
they put the kitchen in the home, they have a lawyer here, how come
their lawyer did not inform them of the zoning laws, there are
restrictions in the deed, now there is also Article 78 which she
was sure they were all aware of.
Mrs. Joosteema replied that they really didn't know this.
Ms. Stocker commented that ignorance is no excuse.
Mrs. Waddle noted that all discussion will be directed toward
the Board, we will not have any interchange in the audience.
Ms. Stocker replied okay, that was her question.
Mrs. Waddle thanked her.
Mrs. Barbara Meade of 9 Michael Drive came forward and was
sworn in.
Mrs. Meade noted that she wanted to express that she was
opposed to this variance also, question when the kitchen was
installed, whether it was installed before they knew what the
heating bills would be or not, believe the kitchen was installed
before the first of the year and believe these heating bills they
are referring to are after the first of the year, that's the only
other comment.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle thanked her and then declared the hearing closed.
Mr. Landolfi then moved that this variance be denied. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle commented so carried and.variance is denied.
Appeal ## 643, at the request of Peter Tomasic, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to allow for a rental apartment in a district which
allows only a single-family use on property located on 206 Old
Hopewell Road, being parcel # 6157-02-637535, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mr. Peter Tomasic of 206 Old Hopewell Road was present and
was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Tomasic noted that in 1972 be obtained a permit to
put an addition onto the house with the expectation that his
parents were going to leave Europe and live with him, he submitted
application and the Building Inspector,,at the time, put on the
blueprints is marked a kitchen, two bedrooms and a livingroom,
and not to long ago he received a letter from his parents that they
don't want to come and live with him, they are too old and appeal
to you tonight to give him permission to enter that part of the house
because the house is so big, so it is too big for him and his son,
was legally divorced and lived with his son in that big house.
Mr. Cortellino noted that his first question would be why did
it take ten years for this problem to arise, you applied for a
building permit in 1972 because of the exge-ctation of your parents
coming here and it took ten years for them to decide not to come here.
Mr. Tomasic replied that his mother has cancer and they
finally decided not to move her.
Mr. Cortellino commented it took ten years.
Zoning Board of Appeals ,-10- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Tomasic replied that he did not want to rent it to nobody,
did not want, just keep the house there.
Mr. Cortellino commented that he was not making himself clear,
in 1972 you must have expected them to come in 1973 at the latest.
Mr. Tomasic replied that it was yes and no about them coming.
Mr. Cortellino continued say 1974.
Mr. Tomasic said they finally told him no that they would
not be coming.
Mr. Caballero asked was that for one livingroom in 1972.
Mr. Tomasic replied that he didn't know how he filled out the
application but there was the mark on the blueprints, it was marked
a kitchen on it.
Mr. Caballero noted that was crossed off on,the blueprint.
Mr. Tomasic replied he did not know but he submitted- and --on
that basis they approved the permit.
Mr. Caballero noted that the permit was approved on the one
livingroom.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if the addition was completed yet.
Mr. Tomasic replied that it was completed, saw the blueprints
not too long ago in the Building Inspector's office which say on
kitchen, at the time he was in a one family dwelling the zoning
was RD -20 and know it is a long delay but to find, what,, no matter
who will live in the house , not my parents for that matter,
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she had received a letter from
the County and it reads:
"In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article
12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m), the Dutchess County Department of
Planning has reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent
intercommunity and countywide considerations. Upon field investigation
and analysis, this Department makes the following findings.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- November 9th, 1982
Subject property is located on Old Hopewell Road, east of the
intersection of this road with Route 9. The property comprises
1.5 acres of land situated in an Office Research (OR -10A) Zoning
District. Uses permitted in this district include offices, laboratories
and single-family residences. Applicant requests a variance to
permit a total of two dwelling units on this property.
This variance represents a request for a change of density. Changes
in density are more appropriately handled through the zoning amendment
process. The zoning amendment process provides for a comprehensive
review of the proposed density change; any adopted changes would
apply to entire zoning districts. A variance would only apply
to a specific property.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of
Planning recommends that this variance application be denied. Changes
in density of zoning districts are more appropriately handled through
the zoning amendment process.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base
its decision on the legalities or illegailities of the facts or
procdures enumerated in subject zoning action."
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Department of Planning
By: Richard Birch, Senior Planner
Mrs. Waddle noted so there are other things that can be
done with the property.
Mr. Tomasic replied that he doesn't want to sell it, want to
live, bought a house in 1971, it was 130 year old house, he rebuilt
it and put a lot of money in on it, want to stay in the Town, don't
giant t6 leava, wizen permit was issued was multi -family dwelling,
was in RD -20, was a long time ago agree with you but this happened
that parents finally said they didn't want to come over, then he
appeals to the Board either way but, there is also a trailer park
next to him that have a few houses which are rental so believe
it will not change anything in the neighborhood, so am here
now, it is too much time and money to be hmnest, had expectation
of his parents and that what he did, so asking for permission so
he can get someone, get rent so he can pay more taxes.
Mrs. Waddle asked if anyone else had any questions on
this.
The Board then reviewed the letter from Mr. Gunderud.
Mr. Tomasic commented he knew there were two separate
blueprintswith the Building Inspector.
Mrs. Waddle then thanked Mr. Tomasic and asked if there
was anyone else present to speak on this variance.
IN
Zoning Board of Appeals
-12-
No one else present wished to be heard.
November 9th, 1982
The Board then discussed whether or not the original permit
included the installation of a kitchen and bathroom or was just
for one livingroom.
Mr. Landolfi then moved that the Board table this for
further consideration with the Town Attorney. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board was tabling this and
discuss this with our Town Attorney.
Mr. Tomasic noted that he would like to get permission
as he would like to settle down but he would not rent the house
to nobody, nobody will be going to live in until he gets
clearance from the Board.
Mrs. Waddle commented that's right.
Mr. Tomasic added will not but a lot of people do, they go
against the Town, not here to set any precedent against the Town,
will go with you, thank you.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mr. Tomasic.
The hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.
Appeal # 645, at the request of Greg Nilsen for the 7 -Eleven
Store, seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 416.2 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a sign to be placed on
a property other than the property of use, said property being
Unionvale Auto Body, located on All Angels Hill Road,and Route 82,
being parcel # 6357-03-228010, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Gregory Nilsen, the proprietor of the 7 -Eleven Store was
present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Nilsen noted that basically what he was asking here, know
you are probably familar with the location but for the audience here,
we are talking about a business that is behind a gas station sitting
on All Angels Hill Road, it is not on a main throughfare which is
Route 82,a major throughf are, what we have here is a store that has
been lagging, suffering for the last ten years compared to the other
7 -Elevens who are on major roads, out store lags from the 9D store
and one in the Town of Poughkeepsie by about $-200,000 in sales and
against one of the other Town of Poughkeepsie stores by $250,000 in
sales and this business has had some very hard times over the last few
years.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Nilsen to wait just a moment and then
asked Mr. Peters if he would go outside and ask the people to be
a little quietier.
Mr. Nilsen comtinued noting that so what we have here is a
problem because the store wasn't located properly, wasn't situated
we in the right area, that the store has turned over owners, has had
trouble in this area because it couldn't be run properly, there were
*6011, no profits to keep it running properly and keep it well maintained,
am in the business about four years, had a previous 7 -Eleven to this
location, and grew up in this Town and decided to move back into
this Town, was here as a boy and came back and wanted to come back
into this area and own a business, so picked that location to clean
the store up, treat the customers the right way and run the business
properly, okay, one the things that would help him with this is
to let people know on Route 82 that we are here and open for business,
Monday through Friday we have.no business, his patrons that are around
him go to work from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., if he does $200.00 to
$300.00 Monday through Friday every day that doesn't even pay the
electricity bill, okay, you are aware of that, so most of his business
occurs from the local people when they come home and when they are
home on weekends, work a lot of hours in this store and to offset
his labor costs and it's a struggle for him to keep that business
profitable, have to work a lot of hours and keep every control
in place in order to make a living out of this, am asking you to
help him with this by putting on this sign so he can have hopefully
a day business, so people know when they drive by the intersection
of All Angels and Route 82, that 250 feet down the road there is a
business that's open to serve you, your coffee, your danish, whatever
you would like, and that's why he is here in front of the Board
tonight, have convinced the Southland Corporation, who own the property
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- November 9th, 1982
and who built the building and owns the franchise, to, if he runs
the business properly which he has been since he took over three
months ago, to come in there and remodel the business, update it
and make it modern, make it a modern facility and open it for the
public so it becomes more of a pleasure to go in there instead
of going into a store that has been outdated and needs to be
remodelled, so that's what are plans are in the future, the growth
has to be there so he can convince the company to go in there and
remodel this store and he has them there halfway there and he has
to keep them going that he is going to keep the business, build it
and make it a success as they share in the profits as well as he
does, it is a franchise, it's not that he owns and make every dollar
off of it, give over fifty percent of the profits to them and that
other fifty percent goes to him to amke a living and to pay the bills
and pay the help, so it is a struggle with the business and anyone
who is here from the area will know that they have seen owners go
in and out of that place and they have seen managers go in and out
of that place cause it is a tough store to handle and run and it
takes an experienced operator, knew what he basically got into
when he bought the store because he took a store similar to this and
turned it around an made it a success, am asking to put a sign
there, it isnot lighted up, it is going to be a reflecting sign,
it shouldn't disturb anybody, he submitted a drawing to the Board
that is a nice picture if you have it in front of you, if anyone
would like to see what we are talking about here, it shouldn't
get in anybody's way, it is only an aid to help him in the business,
hopefully he will be a success and that is basically all he had to
say and would answer any questions you might have.
Mrs. Waddle asked him if he did any advertising in any of the
media.
Mr. Nilsen replied that they were in the process of getting ready
to do that, the store has never been able to afford that type of
media exposure.
Mr. Landolfi then asked where did he figure most of his
customers are from at this time.
Mr. Nilsen replied from the local area to be honest with you,
they come from the sourrounding homes from developments in the area,
and they come from the IBM East Fishkill plantcoming out to p
9 and now across from the new Myers Corners facility that just came
in, most of the people are local residents and they make that business
a survive, they really do and he really doesn't have any commuter
traffic that, if someone doesn't know it is sitting behind the
Mobil station they go right by it, they go to anyone else who is down
Zoning Board of Appeals
-15- November 9th, 1982
the road and they really don't know he is there, they really don't,
they have no idea that he is there, he dind't even know the store
was there when he was looking for it because he had been out of
the area for a couple of years and had no idea the 7 -Eleven was
there himself until he went to the company to find it, so it is
in a very tough location, okay, that is why he is here in front
of the Board tonight, were there any other questions.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she had received a letter from the
County and would read the main part.
"Applicant requests a variance to allow a sign to be placed on a
property other that the property of use. This type of sign is
prohibited by the zoning ordinance.
Applicant's property os located on All Angels Hill Road near the
intersection of this road with Route 82. A variance for off -premise
sign on Route 82 is requested.
The zoning ordinance requirement that all signs pertain to a use on
the same property on which the signs are located is a key method
of controlling signs throughout the Town. Allowing signs on
properties not related to the use of the property leads to a
proliferations of signage. On such a situation, signs tend to defeat
their punpose. When the envirmnment becomes overloaded with graphic
displays, the cumulative effect is negative; the viewer sees less,
not more.
Recommendation
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this
sign variance application be denied. Uf this sign were approved, a
precedent could be set for future applications of a similar
nature. A proliferation of signage along Route 82, a State road
in western Dutchess County, could hazardously distract drivers of
vehicles along this road."
Mr. Nilsen commented that his only answer to that was that
he wished they had hadLeent him a letter and notified him, he wasn't
aware that there was a precedent set here on this particular issue.
Mr. Landolfi replied that there would be if the Board granted
this.
Mr. Nilsen replied okay, he didn't know the procedure, basically
what he had to say in front of them here tonight is that, he will
give a typical example, they put signs out on interstate 84, now
the little signs off the road so when people drive by they know its
here that there is a restaurant, a rest room, a gas station, okay,
he is in that same type of business, provide a service, there to feed
people and help people, okay, they put those signs out on Route 84,
now, maybe guess, you know.
Zoning Board of Appeals -16- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied but they are very tightly controlled
and there is no business along Route 84, they are just directory
signs at exits.
Mr. Nilsen commented right, he didn't have any access
and that's why he is here to tell the Board, this is the situation.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she felt that was comparing apples
to oranges in this case.
Mr. Nilsen replied that he sees the point but getting back to
what he was saying here is that we are in tough times, it is tough
for anyone to make a living, just trying to make a living and ask
you to be considerate of that fact and know that you have to take
care of everybody in the Town and ask that you look at this and some
how make it feasible if you can, don't know.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she didn't know how they could make
it feasible without opening up a Pandora's box.
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion to deny the variance.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli,
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was denied.
The hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Appeal ## 631, at the request of Frank Bruno, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 404 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a change of use of a non -conforming
business/residential combined use in a zone which does not permit
business or combined uses, on property located on Route 376 and
Diddell Road, being parcel ## 6359-03-092173, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Zoning Ordinance, Section 404.33
was amended by the Town and what we thought did apply was Section
422, was modified as follows: "Two uses shall be permitted in an
HB zone where said one use is a business to be operated by an owner-
Zoning Board of Appeals -17- November 9th, 1982
resident of said parcel; however, in no instance shall there be
more than one non-residential use for said parcel. Multiple
k6oll attached or detached uses shall be permitted in NB and GB districts
subject to the proper issuance of a special use permit.", unfortunately,
Mr. Bruno is in a residential district and this doesn't really
apply so we are right back from where we started from, what is the
pleasure of the Board, he still has the non -conforming business,
the antigge shop and he still lives on the property, therefore, the
property can still yield a reasonable return.
The secretary then noted that what his problem was, this is
where Universal Cash Register is and there is an apartment, he
had had real estate and then he went into the cash register thing,
he made the change already, so that's when Hans found out about it
and told him to come in.
Mrs. Waddle noted that they thought that the amendment would
satisfy it but unfortunately it doesn't, they are already in there,
Betty -Ann.
The secretary replied that the Universal Cash Register, she
belioved is in there, yes.
Mr. Peters added that there is an apartment there also.
Mrs. Waddle asked the apartment is there also.
Mr. Peters replied it is occupied, it is on the second floor
above the cash register store, it is a two story frame building.
Mrs. Waddle asked if he had a house on the property also.
Mr. Peters replied that it is all one building.
Mrs. Waddle noted its all one building, okay, we are
back where we started, we have to determine is a cash register business
a clean business the same as an antique business, is it going to
generate more traffic in that area than an antique business.
The secretary noted that she didn't believe he had an antique
business out there, think it was a real estate office, the antique
business was the Harrison property, this property was also at one
time, Darrow Monuments.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that if Universal Cash Registers went
out and he wanted to put another business in, he would have to
come back in.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that we are doing it after the fact,
we want to be able to control this before it happens.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if some one would like to make a motion.
Mr. Caballero then made a motion that this variance be
denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance is denied.
Appeal # 636, at the request of Dr. Walter W.D. Heaney, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 416 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a free-standing sign to be located
at the front property line where a 25 foot setback is required, on
property located at 260 New Hackensack Road, being parcel # 6259-03-
302177, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice and noted that this was tabled
from our last meeting because we had not heard from the County and
wouldLopenathis Wpnfor=di9=, sfion at`_this time, i* -there _nyone here
to speak for this variance.
Dr. Walter Heaney of 56 All Angels Hill Road was present and
was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Dr. Heaney noted that the reason he requested the variance
is travelling in the easterly direction on New Hackensack Road,
there is a line of trees in front of the property which are 75
to 100 years old pine trees and it does not afford visability
to the sign approaching from a westerly direction and from the other
direction there is no problem at -{all, there is plenty of visability,
but the property is set up about anywhere from ten feet to four feet
above the road level and with the row of trees it could become a
hazardous problem pd't icularly with a 55 mile an hour speed zone,
if someone sees the sign at the last moment to turn into the driveway
it could cause a pile up.
Zoning Board of Appeals -19- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked him if he had placed his sign in the
same place as the insurance people had their sign.
Dr. Heaney replied yes, he did.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she did have a letter from the County
which said it had reviewed the subject and recommended that a decision
be based upon local study of the facts in the case, so they have
no opinion one way or another.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he had a question, not really
pertainent but you will be prscti&iig=7 in that building now,
henceforth.
Dr. Heaney replied we are at the present time.
Mr. Cortellino asked if he expects to be practicing at his
residence also.
Dr. Heaney replied no.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was trying to refresh his mind,
believe you have at least one if not more than one variance on
your place of residence now if he was correct.
Dr. Heaney replied one.
Mr. Cortellino asked him if he recalled what that was for.
Dr. Heaney replied that it was a Special Use Permit to allow
him to practice in his home.
Mr.'Cortellino commented a Special Use Permit, not a variance.
Mr. Urciuoli asked how big would the sign be.
Dr. Heaney replied the present sign he believed was 3' by 41,
that was the existing sign that has been there for five years, when the
building was put up.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she did have another letter from the
Dutchess County Department of Public Works which said:
"Our inspection indicates that the existing sign is located
8.5 feet from the road pavement and is within the County right-of-way.
In our opinion the existing sign obstructs sight distance at the access
driveway and will hinder snow removal operations. Accordingly, we
urge relocation of the sign to a point outside of the road right-of-
way (minimum of 25 ft. from road centerline) that is acceptable
to the Town."
zoning Board of Appeals -20- November 9th, 1982
Dr. Heaney replied that they have the wrong piece of property,
they have to, had the property surveyed and the sign is 21 feet
back.
Mrs. Waddle asked him if he was sure that there was not a County
right-of-way going back there.
Dr. Heaney replied that he was positive, went to the wrong place.
It was noted that apparently they went to Dr. Heaney's house
rather than his new place of business.
Mrs. Waddle asked him if the sign at this house was down.
Dr. Heaney replied that it was not.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she thought he better get it
down if it is on their right-of-way.
Dr. Heaney replied right, it has been there for ten years.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were any other questions.
Mr. Landolfi asked if the sign would remain basically the size
he had now.
Dr. Heaney replied yes, not planning to increase it, don't want
to make it look ostentatious at all.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone else to speak
for or against this variance.
No one wished to be heard.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion that the variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Mr. Cortellino asked if it was 3' by 41.
Dr. Heaney replied yes.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that he would add that it be
limited to the existing footage, 3' by 4' and the approval of our
Building Inspector.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Zoning Board of Appeals -21- November 9th, 1982
The motion was carried.
Appeal # 637, at the request of Murray Ackerman (Stage Door
Furniture), seeking a variance of Article Iv, Sections 416.51 and
416.512 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow for a
sign on the front of the building that would be 180 square feet in
area where 100 square feet is permitted, on property located at
the intersection of Old Route 9 and Route 9, being parcel # 6156-02-
777824, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice and noted that this is also a
tabled appeal from last meeting due to not receiving anything
from the County and is there anyone here to speak on this appeal.
Mr. Jed Ackerman of 49 Brewster Woods, of Brewster, New York
was present and noted that he was one of the owners along with his
father of Stage Door Furniture.
Mrs. Waddle then swore Mr. Ackerman in.
Mr. Ackerman noted that first of all he would like to tell
the Board about the type of business, we have opened up now and
hope some of you have seen what we have here, the whole basis of
our business is style, grace and quality and our sign is in
conjunction with this, out type of sign would not be a neon sign,
it would be brown letters, plastic brown letters raised away from
our yellow building with lights hitting it, creating kind of a
shadowy effect, as a 3D effect, to give the feeling if the kind
of grace and quality that we have inside our store, the sign we have
up now is a banner sign, it will be smaller than that sign that is
up there now, at the time we just asked for our building, we
needed a banner quick, so we put a banner up, it will be a foot
smaller, it is four foot, this will be three foot sign, without the
banner, letters against the building, we have seen examples of signs
at time over the variance limit such as La Fonda Del Sol, has a very
big sign, the Datsun place seems to have a very big sign as well,
as well as the Channel place has a very big sign.
Mrs. Waddle commented let her clarify, in a Shopping Center
it is different.
Mr,_ Ackerman noted that we was going to read about that, can
tell you about that, you have our appeal and it says that compared
to 416.9112 of the Zoning Ordinance for sign regulations authorizes
retail and business outlets utilizing 5,000 feet of floor area,
1 square feet for every 100 square feet of floor area not to exceed
Zoning Board of Appeals -22- November 9th, 1982
500 square feet total, we happen to have 30,000 square feet there,
located on a fast traffic lane, also in the same paragraph it says
for retail or business outlets having 20 to 40 linear feet of building
frontage, those signs -shall not exceed three feet in height, we have
250 linear feet, now that is the ordinance for a Shopping Center,
we actually consider from our size that we are a small shopping
center, the size of this and this is something we would like to have
taken into consideration, also one of the things that we have in mind
is the fact that all in front of our business is all State land, we
cannot put a sign on the property in front of us because we would be
on State land which would be against regulations, therefore, it has
be on the building, also because of that State land we are setback
from the road, we are on Route 9, we are 168 feet back from one
the southbound side and 134 feet from the northbound side and as
well as the C.S.E.A. building which is 60 feet from the center of
the northbound lane also restricts the visiability as you come
upon the store and you go a little past it, the sign itself should
be of a size so if you are going by at 55 miles an hour you will be
able to see the sign, the length of the building,we have a diagram
here which shows us, we are actually 250 feet long, the sign, the distance
of the sign is 60 feet, by three, so that's about 95 feet on each side,
its architecturally it is sound, a smaller sign on there wouldn't really
be fair, it wouldn't look good architecturally, we dealing with
furniture we want something like that to be architecturally perfect
as much as possible, it is in proportion with the building ,
in other words, another thing really is that is kind of, we have
been in business in Dutchess County for over 21 years and our name
has always been Stage Door Furniture, if we were Stage Door Cars
or Stage Door, a small name and didn't sell furniture, we would be
able to put that sign on the building because the letters would be
less and the square footage of the letters would be, we are actually
being penalized for selling furniture , but anyway finally is the
fact that it is going on the building, we want to be here as a proud
member of the community, we just want to be known by people who
are going on that highway, there will be no obstructions as you are
driving by, you will see the sign on the building lite up as it
is now, except a smaller sign.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were other stores planned for that
small park in there.
Mr. Ackerman replied not to his knowledge, don't know.
The secretary noted that it was an eight lot commercial
subdivisionf there are seven other lots, the property has been
subdivided for about ten,years, this is the first one that has
come in.
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that she did have a letter from the
County.
"Subject property is located on the east side of Route 9, approximately
600 feet north of the Route 9 -Old Route 9 intersection. The property
is located in a Highway Business (HB -2A) zoning district.
A variance is requested from the zoning requirement that a facade
sign be no larger than one hundred (100) square feet. A sign with
an area of 180 square feet is requested.
Recommendation
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this sign
variance application be denied. The building on this site has good
visibility to Route 9 thus precluding the need for excess signage.
If this application were approved, a precedent could be set for
further applications of a similar nature.
Mr. Ackerman commented may he also state the factthat no
where in the variances of Zoning Boards or anything in this actual
zoning ordinance does it tell you about the size of the building,
you can technically have a building a mile long and only be able
to put a little sign on it , this is in proportion, if we didn't have
such a big building we feel we wouldn't ask for a sign, we are actually
not asking for a sign that is much smaller but our building is ten
feet high as well and we need this three feet just to equal out
the proportions and to be able to see the sign.
Mr. Landolfi asked would you also have a free-standing
sign, Mr. Ackerman, in addition to that one, or would that be
the only one.
Mr. Ackerman replied that will be our sign.
Mr. Landolfi that will be it in the way of signs.
Mr. Ackerman that will be the sign we will have on the building,
yes.
Mr. Landolfi asked him if he would have a free-standing
sign also.
Mr. Ackerman replied no.
Mrs. Waddle thanked him and then asked if there was anyone
else here to speak for or against this variance.
Mr. Ackerman noted that he would like to add something else,
the Department of Transportation is allowing us basically 100 square
feet, our building itself, the front of the building is 25,000
square feet of space, that is the size and proportion we are trying
to utilize, the hugeness of the building and it allows only 100
square feet, that's for every little store and we are such a bigger
size_
Zoning Board of Appeals -24- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented that unfortunately you are not the only
` people in that same problem, you have Lawrence Farms across
the street which has conformed with the sign ordinance, you have
Grossmans down the block which has conformed to the sign ordinance,
we have other signs in the Town that are conforming--to-the
ordinances.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would also like to add that
the argument you used that if the building was a mile long, we
addressed that very point to the Town Board as to a proportionate
sign according to the size of the building and we got no answer.
Mr. Ackerman noted that the main reason that Lawrence Farms
does not sell furniture, the fact that our name says furniture,
if we had know this twenty years ago we would have found a different
name and we would have been able to put it on, we are being
penalized for what we are selling.
Mrs. Waddle replied we are not penalizing anybody.
Mr. Ackerman noted what he meant was that there are more letters,
this becomes a problem.
Mrs. Waddle added that Mr. Cohen sells furniture over here
too, and believe he just had J.D. Cohen up.
Mr. Ackerman replied that the has J.D. C. Furniture and has
another sign up.
Mrs. Waddle added that she thought that since he had redone
the building he had just Cohen on the front of it.
Mr. Cortellino then made a motion not to grant the variance.
Mr. Urciuoli seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Landolfi noted that he would like to send a letter
to the Town Board that this be reviewed.
Mrs. Waddle noted that a recommendation had been made by
Mr. Landolfi that we again write to the Town Board asking for
some relief in the Zoning Ordinance on buildings that are of
a larger size that we are used to in the Town and would also
invite Mr. Ackerman to write to the Town Board.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this would be to ask for a change
to the Zoning Ordinance.
Zoning Board of Appeals -25- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that we cannot make that change.
Mr. Cortellino added that we are restricted as to what
we can grant a variance for, we cannot, lets say, change zoning,
the Town Board has that power or change the Zoning Ordinance, the
Town Board has that right, so what we are saying, what we would do
is to address this to the Town Board, we will also write a letter
to the Town Board to remind them that there is a problem, in -relation
to the size of the sign to the size of the building.
Mr. Landolfi then noted to Mr. Ackerman that instead of writing
a letter he might want to get on the agenda for the next Town Board'
meeting, alright and carry it on in that matter, you might expedite
it a little as opposed to going throught the letter process, unfortunately
our hands are tied in this matter, we have been trying to get relief
for people like you, the Town Board has to do this.
Mr. Ackerman asked you don't have the power to do this.
The Board replied no and Mrs. Waddle added we are not going
to do spot rezoning in the Town, that is a function of the
Town Board, is rezoning.
IR
Zoning Board of Appeals -26- November 9th, 1982
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 and a request for an interpretation
of the term "guest house".
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was the continuation of the
hearing that we tabled at our last meeting, please give us a
minute so we may get some of this out of our way, as long as you
have a court reporter present we would ask that you furnish a copy
without cost to the Board.
Ms. Raina Maissel, Attorney at Law, was present and indicated
that they would do so, and that as last time as you would recall
she did most of the talking, we talked back and forth, as she was
sure they would recall the basic position that she put to the
Board was that we are asking you to interpret that particular
section of the ordinance pertaining to guest houses and the position
that we taking is that we are entitled to have a guest house on
that property as a right, there is no requirement for a special
use permit, we say we have a guest house and we are entitled, however,
if you feel that we are not entitled, then we are going to ask you
on the facts of the case to grant us a variance and what she would
like to do tonight is have Mrz,. Spross testify before you as to
the facts of the case, how she bought the property, what's on the
property, we have maps, the blow --ups of the tax maps for you, the
survey map so that you can see the property, the photographs for you
to look at and we also have the realtor here who sold her the property
and the lady that is living in her guest house, so if that's agreeable
to you, Mrs. Spross will you come forward.
Mrs. Waddle asked hereto identify herself.
Patricia Spross, Forest View Road, Wappingers.
Mrs. Waddle then swore Mrs. Spross in.
Zoning Board of Appeals -27- November 9th, 1982
Ms. Maissel then asked Mrs. Spross to tell us when she first
saw this property that she now owns.
Mrs. Spross replied during the first part of March, of this
year, 1982.
Ms. Maissel then asked her if now could she identify it
on these-malDs=-can you tell us what these maps are and identify
it if you would and perhaps the Board would like to see these,
go up towards them and show them.
Mrs. Spross then came forward with aerial blow. -ups that this
is the 1980 map and the 1990 map, so when we, this parcel right
here against the property that she was shown, she put the pen in
and its a very small, small in here.
Mrs. Waddle asked if these were the aerial maps from the
Town.
Mrs. Spross replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she believed the Town had a copy of
them.
Mrs. Spross noted that this is the house that she was shown,
as you can see the pool is right here, and the little guest house
is down here, now the property line, did it on this map, didn't
draw it on the larger one, goes along at this rate here and cuts
across back through here, when she first looked at the property
she was told that it was 4.9 acres but when we had it surveyed
because of the County right-of-way and so forth it was down to
3.6, which is on the tax roll at 3.6, apparently the description
did'not take into consideration the amount for the right-of-way,
the 1970 map, she purchased the house this spring, in 1982, and this
is an 1980 aerial, the 1970 aerial is here, again the property with
a smaller shed so you can see that any of the additions were done
sometime between 1970 and 1980.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board was aware of that.
Mr. Cortellino then asked Mrs. Spross when she was at her
closing was she represented by a lawyer.
Mrs. Spross replied yes she was.
Zoning Board of Appeals -28-
November 9th, 1982
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the lawyer examined the deed,
what did the deed say regarding the property, as to whether
there were two dwellings on it or one dwelling.
Mrs. Spross replied that it listed it as a house, the
acreage, don't know,don't remember.
Ms. Maissel added she didn't believe that,it_did, the deed doesn't
describe the house as she recalled, she had the deed on file before
the Board, the deed just describe as deeds usually do, so many points
west and east, etc.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there are any restrictions on the
deed.
Ms. Maissel replied yes, there is a restriction that there
should be, can give you the deed and you can see, there is a restriction
as to the size of the building.
Mrs. Waddle noted of buildings on the property.
Ms. Maissel replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this guest house does conform to the size
or not.
Ms. Maissel replied she thought, can show it to you definitely
there is a 24' by 30' the deed requires and think this property
is 23' by 30', do have the deed with her in her papers and she can
get it out for the Board if they like.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she had a copy here.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how large was the second building.,
which you refer to.
Mrs. Spross replied 23' by 301.
Mr. Cortellino noted that was one foot under the deed.
Zoning Board of Appeals -29- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Peters, Deputy Building Inspector/
Zoning Administrator, if that was the size.
Mr. Peters replied that he didn't know the size, Carol.
Mrs. Waddle noted that unfortunately our Zoning Inspector is
not here this evening, he is ill.
Ms. Maissel noted we are going a little, was going to bring this
all out in sequence, but as you raised the point, this is an appraisal
that was done for Mrs. Spross by the bank who gave her the mortgage,
believe, know that she attached a copy of this to the memorandum
of law but has another one here and that shows a total area of
690 and it gives the size, says converted barn 23' by 30', we have
here also as we are going into specifics, a survey map which you might
want to see of the property which shows.yrou the house, the pool and
the converted barn down there, way down there, that's the property
and if you would like to take a look at it you are most welcome.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this driveway was in.
Mrs. Spross replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle asked if she knew approximately how long the
driveway has been in.
Mrs. Spross commented the driveway.
Mrs. Waddle added to the cottage.
Mrs. Spross replied that it was in when she purchased it and when
she looked at it, in dact when she looked at it
Mr. Peters commented that it wasn't a paved driveway or a stone
driveway, it is like a cowpath, a car can go up, you can just see
the imprint of tires, you can just see where the tires were.
Zoning Board of Appeals -30- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there is an individual water supply
and sewage system in this cottage.
Mrs. Spross replied no, the water supply is from the main
house.
Mrs. Waddle asked what kind of a sewerage system is in there.
Mrs. Spross replied that she was told that it was a holding
septic tank, we have not had any trouble with it.
Mrs. Waddle asked if it was a septic tank or a cesspool, do
you know.
Mrs. Spross replied that it says septic, was told it was
a septic.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if she had someone living in the
house now.
Mrs. Spross replied that she had a friend who was staying there.
Mrs. Waddle asked if they were paying rent.
Mrs. Spross replied no, are not.
Mr. Cortellino then,askdd how long did she expect them to be
living there.
Mrs. Spross replied that she honestly did not know, it could
be a short time or it could be longer, it is a friend of hers that
she has known for a long, long time.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how long have they been living there.
Ms. Maissel then asked if she may say, how many people are
living there.
Mrs. Spross replied one.
Ms. Maissel noted that the Board had been saying "they".
Mr. Cortellino then asked how long has the individual been living
there.
IR
Zoning Board of Appeals -31-
Mrs. Spross replied two months.
November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked -was this a converted barn completely
renovated when she bought the property or did she make some additions
after she bought the property.
Mrs. Spross replied that they sheetrocked upstairs, added
electric heat.
Mrs. Waddle asked if she had a building permit for that.
Mrs. Spross replied no, it was her understanding that if she
wasn't changing the square footage it was not necessary, did have
the electrical inspector inspect the elctric.
Mr. Cortellino commented that there was a phone and electricity
in that building.
Mrs. Spross replied correct.
Mr. Cortellino then asked who pays for those utilities.
Mrs. Spross replied that she pays for the electricity, it is
in her name.
Ms. Maissel then commented that perhaps Mrs. Spross could
describe the inside of the smaller dwelling when she bought it
first, tell them what was there.
Mrs. Spross replied as it is to date, exactly, we didn't do
anything to the downstairs, it has an efficiency kitchen which was
pine cabinets which someone very carefully and very beautifully
built in, they are not the kind that you just buy in the store
and nail to the wall, it has a full bath, it has a brick floor in
the kitchen and the bedroom area, it has like a livingroom off of
the kitchen, that has all built in book shelves, again in pine,
it has.windows, it has french doors throughout the downstairs,
we didn't' even paint it, it is totally as it was the day we
saw it, the day we purchased it.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many bedrooms does it have.
Mrs. Spross replied that it had one downstairs, in fact the
bed was left, upstairs is just one room and a closet, we added
a sink and a bathroom, sink and a lavatory, not a shower.
14
Zoning Board of Appeals -32- ' November 9th, 1982
Ms. Maissel then noted that this is a photograph.
Mrs. Spross noted that at the time of closing the man
representing Home Equity gave her these, these .are what they
had shown people who were interested in the property and said
since she had bought it, she might as well have them.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the real estate agent was aware that
this was legally, that it was not, didn't have a certificate of
occupancy and it was built without any permits.
Ms. Maissel noted that he was here if the Board would like
to ask him.
The Board then looked at the photographs Mrs. Spross had
given them and noted that it was very pretty.
Mrs. Spross noted that you could see that it is not something
that somebody just did to use just once in awhile.
Mrs. Waddle noted that it never had a certificate of
occupancy as far as she understands.
Mrs. Spross noted that now she knows.
Mrs. Waddle asked if her attorney had checked this out.
Y
Mrs. Spross noted that somebody had lived there.
Mrs. Waddle replied yes but that it never had a certificate of
occupancy for anybody to live in it, your attorney never checked
that out.
Mrs. Spross replied that she had a deed title guarantee
and had a survey done and nobody came up with anything that showed
any problem.
Ms. Maissel then noted that perhaps Mrs. Spross could tell
the Board how far the cottage is from the main house.
Mrs. Spross replied 225 feet.
Ms. Maissel then asked how far is it from the property line.
Zoning Board of Appeals !-33-
November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Spross replied that it is 185' from Maurer Terrace, which
is the road, it is 65 feet on one side, 45 feet to the rear it does
kind of angle off so it does change within
Ms. Maissel then commented that you do understand that it
is the setback requirements that she was bring out.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board had no problem with that.
Ms. Maissel then asked Mrs. Spcoss if she could tell the
Board what the reflection in the price, first of all what she
had paid for the property and how much value was placed on the
cottage.
Mrs. Spross replied that she paid $87,000 for the property
and when she had the appraisal, the people from the bank came,
they appraised the property at $95,000, $15,000 for which they
based upon the cottage, the size and the capabilities, the kitchen
and bathroom as it sat unfinished upstairs, so that her mortgage
and the value of that property is certainly based greatly upon
that building.
Mrs. Waddle commented that you realize that you can still use
it for a guest house without kitchen facilities.
Mrs. Spross replied but the kitchen was there when she
purchased it and it is a beautiful work of art and it seems
rather strange that she would have to rip out something that was
so beautifully built when it was there, she did not build it,
if she had built it
that. Mrs. Waddle commented that she understood that, we understand
Mrs. Spross commented if it was unattractive she would say
hey, you know
Mrs. Waddle noted that is not even thepoint though, she can
subdivide.
Ms. Maissel then asked Mrs. Spross if she could tell the Board
how much it would cost her to subdivide.
Mrs. Spross replied approximat6lyr4l�,000 and she would truly
prefer not to spend that kind of money, she was not interested in
subdividing it, don't want to own another house for any reason, she
bought a property that had a guest house on it and she thought that's
Zoning Board of Appeals -34- November 9th, 1982
just great, we have a lot of friends and family that live out of
town, it was perfect.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Ms. Maissel if she was aware that the
Board did have a memorandum of law from the neighbors.
Ms. Maissel replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle asked her if she had a copy.
Ms. Maissel replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle asked the Board if they had any more questions.
Mr. Cortellino then commented that he thinks that it is very
important that permits, not necessarily by Mrs, Spross, but
that apparently no permits were applied for or a c.o. for that
building, and although°can and"erstandxthat p hardship not of her
own creation, still puts us in the position that if something illegal
can be performed,
Ms. Maissel noted that she could understand your, she could
come in and apply for a coo., that is not really what we are
worrying about tonight, if it is a question of the zoning she
has been served by the Zoning Administrator with an illegal
which says that the occupancy is illegal.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she was absolutely right, we have to
get one thing out of the way first, then he can
Mrs. Spross noted that as far as she could see there was,
except for the c.o.
Mrs. Waddle noted that there were no building permits ever
issued for the barn or the guest house.
Mrs. Spross noted that there would be no way to pick that up,
you can go on from deed to deed and property to property.
Mrs. Waddle noted that we did pick it up, unfortunately
somethings
91
Zoning Board of Appeals =35 -
November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Spross noted that she was saying a buyer, you know
you could go back 25 years and somebody added a little wing on
a building, and 25 years later the fifth buyer could say all of
a sudden they didn't have a building permit, that is five buyers
ago, there isn't anybody who can pick that up.
Ms. Maissel noted that she could tell the Board if its of
any use, when she represents clients buying houses she doesn't
go and find out if there is a C.O., she checks the deed and she
will see if there is any obstruction, any defect in the title,
and she would go certainly and see if there is anything in the
zoning ordinance itself that would prohibit any use that is there
or any contemplated use, or anything that her client might want
to do there, don't think she would go and see if a C.O. had been
issued, would assume that those things would be in order, unless
she had some reason to think it wasn't and if you look at your
zoning ordinance which permits a guest house it just says you
can't have commercial use, you can't rent it, would simply say
to her client, hey you know you can't rent this place, don't think
she would go further than that.
Mr. Cortellino noted that we have had a number of cases,
think if he were her in the-fu,threkhe would check, we have had
a number of cases where banks have granted mortgages and there
was no C.O. on the structure.
Ms. Maissel commented i that, -'could iwell be' but generally you don't
run into this particdlar--type..,of situation.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she had the same situation with a
house she bought, unfortunately the bank held a mortgage on it
and four sides of the property never closed and it looked like
she owned all the way down to the Poughkeepsie bridge, and they had
had a mortgage on it for eleven years so these things do bear checking
out, especially in today's climate where there is a lot of building
going on that we really don't know about.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there were any other questions of
Mrs. Spross.
The Board indicated that they had no further questions.
Zoning Board of Appeals -36- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mrs. Spross.
Mr. Donald Bellinger of Guernsey Real Estate, SaItPoint,
New York.
Mrs. Waddle swore Mr. Bellinger in.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Bellinger if he would like to
proceed.
Mr. Bellinger noted that he would proceed in a dialogue
fashion, will answer questions.
Mr. Cortellino asked him if he had handled the property
before, at the previous time, was he familar with the property not
just from this particular instance but did he handle that property
before.
Mr. Bellinger replied no, out firm did represent it earlier
yes, but he personally didn't, no, at the time that the property
was sold to Mrs. Spross it was being handled by basically being
handled by Home Equity and Home Equity is the corporation that
which you may know represents IBM and we headed a co -broke
arrangement with Home Equity basically, previous to that we did
have it in multiple listings as one of our own listings which
is generally from our Poughkeepsie office and as such, at that
time, our listing salesperson who was Claire Grant, identified
the property as being a mini estate with main house and converted
barn for guests or in-laws with the property, the second floor
of the barn is unfurnished, many materials included, pool requires
a new liner for which adjustment will be made, of course horses permitted
but also might point out says, all the information is believed to
be accurate but not warranted.
Mrs. Waddle commented that there were enough problems, don't
put any horses there.
Mr. Cortellino noted that the reason he said was what was just
said, that it may be acctLrate but is not guaranteed.
Ms. Maissel then asked Mr. Bellinger if he could tell the
Board what value he would place on the guest house.
Mr. Bellinger replied that the guest house was probably worth
in replacement value about $20,000.
Ms. Maissel then asked him what would he say its value would
be if it didn't have a kitchen in it, how much would it reduce
its value.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3�- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Bellinger replied to the replacement value, would say
that that particular kitchen was worth from $3,000 to $5,000
but as such think, have often times seen guest houses out of
state, throughout the are he generally works in, which is in the
Millbrook area, where guest houses are quite familar and would
say that a guest house in that region if it didn't have a kitchen
would be worth considerably less, would say that the value of this
guest house, placing the value of $20,000 would be worth half of
that.
Mr. Cortellino noted that in speaking of the worth of a guest
house, are you speaking of it as a home that could be sold or
you speaking of it as construction costs.
Mr. Bellinger replied construction costs and also see a guest
house as being a facility that an owner would have accessible and
available to one's guests so that they could live quite comfortably
on their own with out need of interrupting the lifestyle that is
going on in the main house.
Mrs. Waddle commented for a short period of time.
Mr. Bellinger replied for any period of time,
ice,, Mr. Cortellino noted that that is what the interpretation
will address.
Mr. Bellinger replied that he, himself had been a guest
in another country for a period of a couple of years on a quite
pleasant estate, and it was not uncommon to do that and don't think
it is uncommon to have guests for long periods of time, or uncommon
to have guests accomodated comfortably.
Ms. Maissel then asked him if he could tell us what was inside
the guest house.
Mr. Bellinger replied basically what was inside the guest
house is the same thing that Mrs. Spross told you was inside the
quest house, as he recalled it, it did have an unfinished second
floor and think there was a hole in the roof at that time, the chimney
went out and there was an area that wasn't closed in entirely,
flashed in entirely around the chimney, that wasn't finished but
the first floor was actually as described, it is quite a pleasing
little number,
Ms. Maissel asked if it had a stove.
"` Mr. Bellinger replied yes it had a stove, it had kitchen facilities
as would be expected.
Zoning Board of Appeals .3- November 9th, 1982
Ms.maissel noted that they had the lady who is the guest
if the Board would like to speak to her.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she didn't think that was
necessary.
Ms. Maissel then asked if there was anything further she
could assist the Board with, any other questions.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she didn't think so at this
point.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone here to speak
further for this variance.
No one wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who
wished to speak against.
Mr. Stanley Miller of Forest View Drive then came forward
and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Miller noted that he was one of the neighbors and
we were here at the last hearing and we received a copy of the
memorandum of law that was submitted and we then decided to turn
one into you to corect some of the facts that were incorrect
and also to state why we are opposed to this, first to clear up
some facts, this barn was not built in 1900, it was built between
1968 -, 1971, he owned property already in 1969 and he knows that
when he bought his property it was just a barn, and the owner later
converted the downstairs to live in himself, he lived there himself
because was separated or divorced and that's the way it was until
it was sold.
Mr. Cortellino asked when the former owner was separated or
divorced and moved downstairs, who occupied the main house.
Mr. Miller replied his wife and children, he built that for
himself, it was orginally a: barn and he, only the lower part
was converted, he also put in a cesspool, the other neighbor who
is not here tonight was there when the cesspool was put in and it
is just a cesspool, he wasn't there so he can't say that he knows
what's in there.
Mr. Cortellino asked if the main house had a septic tank.
Mr. Miller replied yes, electricity was provided from the main
house at that time there was no telephone, and we are opposed for
Zoning Board of Appeals -39 November 9th, 1982
several reasons, number one there is no, first of all it was built
illegally by the previous owner but it was not, there was nobody
strange living in there, nobody was concerned and even the owner
was only very rarely there, he was mostly away on business, we saw
him rarely and so now it has changed, now two people are living in
there that as far as we know, there are two cars always parked there
and two people always leaving there every morning and coming back
every night, in the beginning it was three or four cars every day,
we don't know who these people are but we do know that there is
a mailbox at the road, there is a private telephone, there is a
permanent address given as thatsnot under the owner's name, and the
electricity has been brought in from the road and a separate utility
pole installed to bring in this electricity, believe it is being
rentedbut we can't say that because he really doubts that so much
money would have been spent by the new owner to convert the upstairs
and then have just guests living there, there was four weeks of
construction going on.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if he may ask a questions, since
the property is so large, forget what the acreage is,
Mr. Miller replied 3.4 acres on the Town map.
Mr. Cortellino continued what is your objection to two buildings
being on the property other than the zoning.
Mr. Miller replied first of all it is illegal, he himself was
interested in at one time in putting on a guest house on his
property.
Mr. Cortellino then commented let him rephrase his question,
forget about it being a guest house, if Mrs. Spross were to subdivide.
Mr. Miller replied,that he has nothing against subdivision
if the septic system is enforced.
Mr. Cortellino commented that Mr. Miller's objection was to
what he believed was the cesspool, not the number of people living
in the other house.
Mr. Miller replied yes, but now' only the number of people
now, concerns him because there is an improper septic system
but if it was subdivided and it conformed to all the Town zoning
requirements we would have nothing against it but presently we do
mainly because of the septic system and number two because it was
14
Zoning Board of Appeals -40- November 9th, 1982-
after
982
after being bought it was converted upstairs and we think that
anybody who would buy a property through a real estate agent and
have a lawyer, would know that it is not allowed in this area,
it is not zoned for that and that owner has done business in real
estate before, we have checked the records and at least seven
or six transactions like this were done by her before, so she
is probably not unfamilar with the zoning where she buys, also
as far as the size and the looks we have nothing against that,
it is a nice looking location but we also feel that if it was sold
and then probably the next owner would not have, would rent it out
even if its now only a guest, approved as a guest house with a
variance granted for kitchen facilities and toilet facilities, it
could easily be rented or maybe it is right now -rented out as really
doubt that a good business person would do, with so much money into
that and just have guests live in there for long periods of
time but that.is in his opinion, on the putside of the building
nothing was done except a deck was put up, that is an addition
that was put on since the house was bought and think that if the
other neighbor was here think that he would certainly express
his concern because his well is on the other side of the road
across the septic system, other than, as far as subdividing this,
we, he personally had nothing against that and do also think that this
would allow or give other people just the right to do this on
their own because most of the properties out there are large and
you could put a second house on it as far as the size of the property,
his was almost 2k acres, at one time thought of doing something
myself but didn't because it was without a kitchen facility it
was of no use to him, but if he could do it without applying for it
and come later- on and get a variance that would be so much easier
especially not on the tax roll, this property is not on the tax either,
because their assessment is just like his is, that is all he had
to say.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mr. Miller.
Mrs. Waddle then spoke to Mrs. Spross noting that she was still
under oath, would like to make it clear or get it clear in her mind
once again, do you pay the electric bill for that guest house.
Mrs. Spross replied yes she does.
Mr. Cortellino then asked why are there separate lines.
Zoning Board of Appeals -41-- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Spross replied because the guest house had no heat
at all, to be able to use it year round, the service at the main
house was not large enough to handle electric heat, so forced
to run aline, have had it inspected and called Central Hudson
to do just that, we just simply did not have the power to run
that extra heat.
Mrs. Waddle thanked Mrs. Spross.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone else to speak
for or against.
Mrs. Spross noted that she would just like to say one thing
more if she may, whether she spends her money however she pleases
she thinks it is her business.
Mrs. Waddle noted that's not the point.
Mrs. Spross added no, but don't want someone saying that
she can't spend that kind of money, if she has that kind of money
and would like to finish a building so that it was attractive,
am a designer by trade, with her it is a joy to see something
beautiful and that was perfectly lovely building, she was just
making it a little prettier.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she thinks it is a joy for all of
us to see something beautiful but we want to go through the
right channels to do it.
Mrs. Spross noted that she understood that but didn't think
that somebody should say that she shouldn't spend her money in
that way, think she has a right to spend it.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she didn't think he meant it in that
way.
Mr. Miller then noted that in the memorandum of law, one of the
points for granting a variance was that it would be a hardship
on the new owner and that's why, if'it was really a hardship then
don't think that she would have spent all this money.
Zoning Board of Appeals -42- November 9th, 1982
Ms. Maissel commented if she may, madam chairman, the
hardship we are talking about id economic loss that would be suffered
rr' by her in the event at this time the variance is not, ':�be ,tc6Zomic amounts
of money that she puts into the property, sure you are aware.
G
Mrs. Waddle added you are talking about the economic loss
if she had to tear out the kitchen.
Ms. Maissel replied yes and her loss of not being able to use
this as a guest house.
Mrs. Waddle replied why not, why wouldn't she be able to use
it.
Ms. Maissel replied because it is not a self contained unit
and as
Mrs. Waddle noted that if she was having over night guests,
why wouldn't she be able to use it.
Ms. Maissel noted that there guests that she could overnight,
they wouldn't have any facilities for cooking for themselves, there
is nothing in the ordinance or anywhere and think she had made
the point that says what a guest house should be.
Mrs. Waddle replied that is left to the interpretation
of this Board.
Ms. Maissel noted it can be done, that is correct, that is
what we are here for.
Mrs. Waddle noted exactly.
Ms. Maissel added that is one of the reasons, the question
of the septic system came up, Mrs. Spross, we are not aware it has
become a problem, if there is she can assure you that that will be
taken care of if there is any problem whatever with wells and
septic systems, she's perfectly happy to do it.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she thinks we will cross that
bridge when we come to it and then declared Appeal # 638 closed
as far as testimony was concerned, am going to table this appeal
a
91
Zoning Board of Appeals -43- November 9th, 1982
and we will call a special session on November 30th as you are
aware, for the purpose of rendering an interpretation and
for either the granting or the denial of the variance. Thank
you.
The hearing was closed at 9:35 p.m.
Appeal # 644, at the request of George Harrison, seeking an
interpretation of Article,IV, Section 404.33 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a non -conforming use of a building
to be changed to a less non -conforming use, of property located
on the corner of Route 376 & Myers Corners Road, being parcel #
6358-01-271593, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present to speak
on this appeal.
Mr. George Harrison was present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Harrison if he would like to proceed.
Mr. Harrison commented that he would like to rent the building
out again, to a less non -conforming use.
for.
Mrs. Waddle asked him what he had in it before.
Mr. Harrison replied antiques and insurance.
Mrs. Waddle then asked him what did he want to rent it out
Mr. Harrison replied to a non profit organization.
Mrs. Waddle asked him what non profit organization.
Mr. Harrison replied the Sons of Italy.
Mrs. Waddle asked to do what.
Mr. Harrison replied for meetings.
Mrs. Waddle commented as a meeting hall.
Zoning Board of Appeals -44- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Harrison replied a meeting hall, executive meeting.
Mrs. Waddle commented that means the use at night, right.
Mr. Harrison replied yes, and he needs it at night, too.
Mrs. Waddle replied yes but that this would be considerably
longer hours than an antique shop, playing cards, may be a little
beer, may be some dancing.
Mr. Harrison noted that they are here if the Board would like
to speak to them.
Mr. Armand Luppavaro, Secretary of the Sons of Italy, was
present and was sworn in by Mrs. Waddle.
Mr. Longabaro noted that basically your reference to beer
and card playing and late nights and dances, okay, we are not a
club, we are not a social club, we are a community organization,
we do have meetings, monthly meetings, executive meetings, committee
meetings, they, will be at nights, our meeting nights, but we are
not a social club, one part want to make clear, we are a community
minded organization, we sponsor Boy Scout troops, we gave to
Cools (Cooley's) anemia, befWeen last year anti this year $2,000,
we supported a Boy Scout troop, a Little League team, a motorcross
yeam, so just to clear the point about us being a card playing
social club, okay.
Mrs. Waddle asked what are their activities, socially.
Mr. Longabaro replied socially, we have, like he said.
Mrs. Waddle asked do they have dances, social nights.
Mr. Longabara replied no.
Mr. Harrison added that they are going to have a dinner -dance
but it will be held at Spring Hill!.
Mrs. Waddle noted that was what she was getting around to,
you are not going to; -hold anything like that here.
Mr. Longabaro replied that this place would be too small for
anything like that, basically, a meeting room, it will be open at
night.
A
Zoning Board of Appeals -45- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked every night.
Mr. Longabaro replied no, it will be open Monday through
Friday, won't be open on weekends at all.
Mrs. Waddle asked what purpose will it be open for every
night.
Mr. Lm obar-p.:,replied we have an officer's meeting once a
week, we have a committee to make sure that everything runs smoothly,
and we meet on certain, like our meetings on Monday nights, the
committee will meet on whatever night they pick to meet, are open
for new membership.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many people do you get out to meetings.
Mr. Longabaro replied that their monthly meetings, okay,
out total membership is 37, our monthly meeting, our last meeting
we had 31 members there, any social event we would run would be
too big for that place, like we are having our annual dinner -dance
at Spring Hill Restaurant, we had our summer dance at the Pirate
Canoe Club, so there would be as far as social activities say for
a couple of members stopping at night to see how everything is,
that would be it.
Mr. Caballero asked Mr. Longabaro where did they meet now.
Mr. Loggsabaro replied right now we meet at St. Columba,
we meet at the school.
Mrs. Waddle asked what hours do you usually have this
open, how late would it be.
Mr. Longabaro replied our meeting night, the first Monday
of the month, which is a'fuli membership meeting, we were open
til 10:30 p.m., may be the last member was out at 11:00 p.m., at
the latest, during, that would be it.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many cars are usually brought to the
meetings, 20 to 25, question the parking facilities, question the
danger of all those cars pulling out of those roads.
Mr. Landolfi then asked how long the organization had been
in existence.
vJ
Zoning Board of Appeals -46- November 9th, 1982
Mr. Longabaro replied two years.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they foresaw a sizeable amount of
members, are you looking to have a hundred members, two hundred
members, what are the plans for the organization.
Mr. Longabaro replied that as in any organization we would
like to grow, sure.
Mr. Landolfi asked if they had a feel for what, open, you
could have a thousand members, would you dike to have a thousand
members.
11 Mr. Longabaro replied no, think that the biggest lodge
in the whole State of New York runs about 200 hundred members.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she would like to table this.
Mr. Mauro Rizzi then came forward and noted that he was
on the Board of Directors.
Mr. Rizzi was then sworn in by Mrs. Waddle and noted that
we are nothing more than the Knights of Columbus or the Elks
type of a club, we are not a social oriented club where we would
be a clubroom type of situation, we have spend a lot of time in the
East Fishkill area and we just haven't found a place suitable, we
have been meeting at St. Coluinbals ?-s6hool<11and it doesn't meet
our needs, we keep getting in the way of the janitor, trys to sweep
the floors at night and we are having our meetings, we also have our
wives who want to have a ladies auxilarly and want to get involved
helping the community, this is another reason why we would probably
have meetings more than once a week., we don't want to mix the two
together just like the ladies auxilarly would be in any other civic
organization, as you were told by Mr. Longabaro, we do sponsor a
number of organizations, we sponsor the Boy Scouts, we have money
donated, we have sent money to Italy for the earthquake fund and
one of the members in the club is going to be the new govenor,
Mario Cuomo happens to be a member of the Sons of Italy, so does
the Lieutenant Govenor , so does Senator D'Amato belong to the
Sons of Italy, so am trying to say we are not a fly by night organi-
zation and think if we do come into the area we will be an attribute
and we can actually take that corner which everytime he lived in the
area for ten years, to him it has only been a small little antique
shop which has had at time as many as ten and fifteen cars parked in
A
Zoning Board of Appeals
-47- November 9th, 1982
the parking lot, now you asked how many cars would be there,
if we have 20 cars it would be on the most part 20 cars and that
is not really a busy throughfare, we don't come out onto 376, we
come out onto Myers Corners Road and it is a large corner, the drive-
way is large and we intend to, if we do get permission to move in,
we intend to put up a light to light the parking lot so it would
not be a dark area where a car would be coming out, don't think
it would be a dangerous situation, anything that you might want to
ask, please ask him so he might answer it.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she didn't think the problem was
with them, the problem is the whole area out there and, therefore,
she was going to table this request for an interpretation until
the Board gets with their attorney.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would also like to have the
highway superintendent look at the entrance and the zoning administrator
check on the parking spaces, Hans could look at those.
The secretary noted that one road was a State road and the
other was a County road, so Ken Croshier really has nothing to
do with this.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like the County to look at it,
an opinion from them.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he would like a count on the
parking spaces.
It was noted that Mr. Gunderud would be able to determine
what the Zoning Ordinance would require on this.
Mr. Richard Sabatelli noted that he lived across the street
from Mr. Harrison's property and was concerned as well as some of
his other neighbors were to make sure that should this change take
place that it would not fundamentally alter the character of the
neighborhood, am not opposed per se but would like to be sure, for
example if he lights don't want them shining into his house or
something like that.
a
Zoning Board of Appeals -48- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied no, there would be restrictions placed
on it but right now they are asking for an interpretation to see
if it is permitted.
Mr. Fred Zipprich then came forward and noted that he lived
across the street on Myers Corners Road and asked where do you go
from here after the interpretation takes place.
Mr. Cortellino noted that it would depend on the interpretation.
Mr. Zipprich asked if it is favorable what happens then.
Mrs. W ddle noted that if the interpretation was favorable
they would be able to move in but this Board would put restrictions
on how they could use the property.
Mr. Zipprich commented that he better speak up now, if you
want to say anything, is that correct.
Mrs. Waddle replied no, because, not necessarily, you can
if you like but have tabled this and it will be continued at our
next Board meeting, but if you would like to say something would
be glad to swear you in.
Mr. Zipprich was then sworn in by Mrs. Waddle and noted
that he just felt that he questions the proposed use will be less
non -conforming, that is his biggest problem because most activities
will take place at night and they are saying at the first meeting,
November lst, took a quick estimate and it goes between 20 and 30
cars.
Mrs. Waddle commented you mean they are there already.
Mr. Zipprich replied yes, November 1st was the meeting.
Mrs. Waddle asked in that place.
Mr. Harrison noted that there was a meeting there, that's all.
Mr. Zipprich added on that night it was full of cars, that
lot was jammed, it was full of cars, correct, was there to eleven
o'clock if not later, so really don't know if this will go on every
night, were cars there all week long, so it is a night activity,
it is not an antique shop or office use which take place during
the day, this is at night.
Zoning Board of Appeals -49- November 9th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Peters to have Mr. Gunderud
look into this, there should be no activity at the property
until an interpretation is handed down.
Mr. Rizzi then noted that we as a club could not make decisions
on our own, before any of the members could take a vote on if
we even wanted the room, the membership had to come on a number of
occasions to check that room out, that is why they were there,
we could not make a decision if we wanted to, we wouldn't be here
tonight.
Mr. Zipprich commented let him continue, he daresays that
renovations have taken place in there, of some sort, to accomodate
you people and as far as your reference to St. Columba church is
concerned he goes to meetings there also and has never been swept
out of there, so don't know what the problem was there.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she did not want to know what the
problem was there as it had nothing to do with this, all we are
concerned about is this piece of property.
Mr. Zipprich noted that he doesn't question the integrity of
the people or of the organization itself, that is not his problem,
his problem is that he lives across the street from them and has
rr to listen to the noise which is less in the winter but will be
tremendously more in the summer with the doors and windows open
as it is going to get hot in there.
Mrs. Waddle noted that as she had stated this has been tabled
and will be continued and was there any other business to come before
the Board.
There was no further business and Mrs. Waddle noted that
she would entertain a motion to adjourn.
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mr. Caballero, to adjourn.
The motion was unanimously carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:100 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Mrs ) B tty-Ann Russ, Secretary
Town Wappinger Planning Board
br