1982-12-14The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was held on Tuesday, December 14th, 1982, beginning
at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
Angel Caballero
Charles A. Cortellino
Joseph E. Landolfi
G. George Urciuoli
Members Absent:
None
Others Present:
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to call this meeting of
the Zoning Board of Appeals to order and asked if all the abutting
property owners been notified.
The secretary replied that the abutting property owners and
the appellants were notified according to the records available
in the Assessor's office.
Mrs. Waddle then asked for the roll call.
The secretary called the roll with all members being present.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would like to tell those present
how the Board will be operating this evening, we will hear each
appeal and after everybody has had a chance to speak for or against
the appeal, the panel will then deliberate, you will have your
chance to speak before the panel deliberates, while we are talking
over the case we will entertain no interference from the audience.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ## 640, at the request of Robert B. & Elizabeth M.
Murphy, seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, paragraph
18 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit the conversion
of an existing residence into apartments on their property located
on the corner of Route 376 and Joel place, being parcels numbered
6259-04-907028 & 921040, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
rr%
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Robert Murphy of Route 376, Wappingers Falls, New York,
was present and noted that they were here to ask for a Special Use
Permit to convert their house into apartments and were asking this
under Section 421, paragraph 18, and we feel that we meet all the
specifications of the code and that our house was build long before
1962, we have well over 3,000 square feet of living area and each
living unit that we propose will have more than 600 square feet
of living space.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the units are in place already.
Mr. Murphy replied no they are not, we have used it as a
single-family residence for ten years, now we came before the Town
Planning Board twice in the past month and am sure you received
their letter as he did and they had approved this with conditions
which we fully accept.
Mrs. Waddle then asked him how long he had owned the property.
Mr. Murphy replied since 1964, would like to add that this
was at one time a multi -family house when we purchased it in 1964,
in fact it was for thirty years, from 1942 to approximately
1972, so we did have it as apartments at one time, ten years
ago we converted back to single-family.
Mr. Landolfi then noted that when the question was asked about
the apartment being in place, believe you misunderstood..
Mr. Murphy replied we have removed one kitchen that was in
place when we purchased it, there has been a kitchen on the second
floor at the time of purchase which has been pulled out.
Mrs. Waddle asked how many kitchens are in there now.
Mr. Murphy replied one.
Mrs. Waddle asked in the whole house.
Mr. Murphy replied yes.
Mr. Landolfi commented that all he is lacking
Mr. Murphy added that the pipes are there, everything is
there.
Mr. Landolfi noted that there was a question when Mr. Murphy
was before the Planning Board relative to the water and swerage.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Murphy replied that they are still awaiting, at least he
has heard nothing from the Dutchess County Board of Health, the
Health Department, have called them but have received nothing, have
talked with them but thats it, have talked to Mr. Nick Johnson of
the Town Board and he would like us to join it because think he
is the interface between the Town Board, have made application on
October 30th and we are wai4ing to hear, maybe someone else has
heard but he hasn't.
Mr. Landolfi then commented that any decision would have
to be based on that.
Mrs.-Wdddle then asked Mr. Murphy when he expected to
hear.
1
Mr. Murphy replied that he would hope in accordance with the
time span provided on the flow chart there.
The secretary noted that the zoning ordinance has a pend
of time in which the Special Permit procedure goes but we have no
control over how long the Health Department might take to approve
a hook-up into the water and sewer districts.
Mr. Murphy commented that obviously they could not begin to
do this until we recei*4M& their approval, we know that.
Mr. Cortellino commented this is zoo "jigier-family residential,
R -e20.
Mr. Murphy replied that it was R-40, think that it is R-40.
The secretary noted that it is zoned R-40, the surrounding area
is zoned R-20 because they got the density bonus for water and sewer.
Mr. Murphy commented that fr -he measured tke plans,
the zoning map which is not actv" he figured that they
are probably one-third of an , n Brining us and three
families would be the equivi -,they propose, so actually
our density is no greater than what is there already particularly
if they get hooked up to the sewage.
Mr. Landolfi commented that he had two acres, the house is
on the one acre.
Mr. Murphy noted that was correct, in other words the Town
Planning Board had notions of taking another acre, that is
equivilant to giving the bank $10,000 which he didn't think was
necessary unless they needed it, then they have got it.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked the Board if they had any more questions
of Mr. Murphy.
The Board had no questions and Mrs. Waddle thanked
Mr. Murphy.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to speak on this appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then closed the hearing at 8:08 p.m.
Mr. Cortellino then moved that the Board grant the. Special
Use Permit based on following the recommendations of the Planning
Board and any other agencies' requirements such as getting Town sewer
and Health Department approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Special Use Permit was granted
contingent on Health Department approval, Town sewer and other
authorities.
Appeal # 647, at the request of William D. Corrigan, seeking
a variance pursuant to Article IV, Section 404.5 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to be built on
an existing building with a 15 foot sideyard setback where 25 feet
is required, on property located on 18 De Garmo Hills Road, being
parcel # 6258-02-750660, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone here to speak for
this variance.
Mrs. Eileen Corrigan of 18 De Garmo Hills Road, Wappingers
Falls then came forward and noted that they were seeking a
variance to get a family rooM on the back of their house, it
will continue the used to be in
Zoning Board of Appeals
-5- December 14th, 1982
an R-20 zone, the zoning was changed to R-40 and we would like to
build a family room, we need the extra space, we are a family
of six and it is,consistent with other additions in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the side of the house is only 15 feet
away from the lot line now.
Mrs. Corrigan replied right.
The secretary then noted that a lot of those homes were
built prior to zoning.
Mr. Landolfi added that this was one of those.
Mr. Landolfi commented that this is all they could do based
on the lay of the land, he was out there, went out and looked,
they couldn't do it elsewhere, they couldn't put it on any other
spot on the property.
Mrs. Waddle ahked if there was anyone else to speak for or
against this variance.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then declared the appeal closed at 8:13 p.m.
A motion was then made by Mr. Urciuoli that the variance
be granted. The motion was seconded by 41r. Caballero.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was granted.
Appeal # 648, at the request of Greer Toyota, Inc., seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 422 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow an addition to the existing building with
a 54 foot setback where 75 feet is required, on ploperty located
on the corner of Route 9 and Olf Route 9, being parcel # 6157-02-
585606, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-6- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was anyone here to speak for
this variance.
No one was present to speak for the variance.
A gentlemen noted that he was here to speak against
the variance.
Mrs. Waddle told him to come forward and identify himself.
and give his address.
Mr. Sam Greer of 29 Birch Hill Drive, Poughkeepsie, 12603,
noted that he was here to speak against it because his brother
has no right to even make an application, he hasn't asked the Board
of Directors or the stockholders and nobody knows anything about
it but him and we are not going to build on that property, definitely
not, so you people don't want you to waste your time, just tear
it up and throw it out, am the major stockholder of Greer Toyota,
as a matter of fact Greer Toyota doesn't even own any property,
any wheres.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she had no problem with that.
Mr. Landolfi noted that we can handle that very easily
and would make a motion that this be diced. 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 motion was so carried.
Appeal # 640, at the request of Herbert Redl, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 416.73 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a free-standing sign to be located on
the property line where a 25 foot setback is required, on his
property to be used for self -storage mini warehouses, located on
Route 9, being parcel # 6156-02-774949, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Herb Redl of Stringham Lane, Pleasant Valley, then came
forward and noted that the main reason for the variance was because
the State laready owns between sixty and sixty-five feet from the
road from his property at the present time so he will have a
65 to 70 foot setback from the highway where the sign is presently
requested.
Mr. Cortellino then commented to Mr. Redl as he recalled
you are having storage areas, so your customers would-be more or
less not transient on a daily basis, lets say like a e°ikiwip
or something,
y P y a.
g, a customer whom you resume lets sA like a marina
you have something there and would be a long time client of yours.
Mr. Redl replied well it something new in the area like
condos when they first came into the area, people have to be
educated as to just what self -storage bins are and it is a nationally
known fact in the industry that 45 percent of your business comes
from exposure.
Mr. Cortellino commented that if he understood correctly
you are saylicV-initially at that start so that people would know
what you are offering and where it is you would need identification
or but not permanently.
Mr. Redl replied that it is a csns thing because there '
is a constant turn -over because people, it is a month to Month
basis on rentals, it is not long-term rentals, have 262 rA tal
units so there will be quite a turn -over, constant turner r
and the size of the sign is only five by five which is 2'5 mare
feet and the further back you put that at least, people can't read
it.it is not like being ten or fifteen feet from the road, you set
the sign back 100 feet you would need,a sign 10' by 15' to read it
and the further back you put the sign off *e; road the larger the
sign has to be but because your requirements on the signs, the size
of signs you have to be close to the road, and am not being close
to the road because am still 65 feet from the highway.
Mrs. Waddle asked if that is 65 feet that the State owns.
Mr. Redl replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle asked then your property starts.
Mr. Redl replied yes, that is a real hicap because of the
road.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Redl if he planned to advertise
as well, mean obviously you will have your sign but will you do
any advertising in the papers.
Mr. Redl yes he would be doing advertising in the paper
and also classified but it is necessary like any business,
there is no business going that is, you have to be on the ball,
have a plot plan here that layouts perfectly as far as driveways
and parking area.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she did have a letter from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning which in substance says:
"Subject property is located on the east side of Route 9, south of
the Smithtown Road intersection. The applicant requests a variance
to allow a freestanding sign at the front property line; the Town
Zoning Ordinance requires a setback of 25 feet for signs.
Located on heavily -traveled Route 9, this property has adequate visibil-
ity to motorists approaching from either direction. The provision and
the maintenance of adequate setbacks are important to the visual
quality of the roadway corridor. The quality of signs within the
roadway corridor is a reflection of the quality of the immediate area
a s vGeM as the community as a whole.
In view of the above findings' this Department recommends that this
sign variance application be denied. An approval in this instance
could set a precedent in future requests of s similar nature."
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was signed by Kenneth R. Toole,
Commissioner of the Dutchess County Department of Planning.
Mr. Redl then commented that if you look at the plot plan
you see how far it actually is and accessability is from going
North and coming North there is a curve in the road that even
brings the road further away from the property, it has to come
around to it so it is more of a hardship than if it was a straight
road cause again hope you have a plot plan here so you can look at it.
Mrs. Waddle commented that the Board is familar with the area.
Mr. Redl continued noting that the State owns and part of the
shoulder the State owns so he is quite a ways back, as a rule of
thumb and he is not an engineer, the further back a sign is the more
difficult it is to read and the more difficult it is to read the
more hazardous it is as well, there are very few pieces along there
that have a 65 foot setback, now that Stage Door is much closer
than he is but for some reason the State owns 65 feet here in
front of him.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-9- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle noted that the State owns all of that in front
of Stage Door also.
Mr. Redl noted that it is along the road here as he has the
same problem next door with the Kawasaki building they own quite
a bit there also.
Mr. Landolfi then commented that independent of any decision
made on these he feels that the Town Board should look at these
with regard to the taking line along these properties that affect
the sign setbacks.
Mr. Cortellino noted that this problem exists along here.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this had been brought to their
attention and at the last meeting with them came back with
that we have to do our own thing and make our decision as
obviously they are not going to give us any assistance in
rewriting the zoning ordinance as it pertains to signs so we
will just have to continue to take it one on one.
Mr. Landolfi noted that this is a setback problem and we have
three in a row.
Mrs. Waddle commented yeah but then we are going to go spot
zoning the Town again on Route 9 to say the setback
Mr. Redl commented that the Town is requiring him, you are
setting a pprdent, you really are not because actually the
State owns different sections of land on Route 9, here you already
have 65 feet to start with and you are only requesting 25 feet, if
he bmaied up the street further then the State owns up to nothing.
Mrs. Waddle noted that then if he had an older building
that was right up there he would still have a problem with
setbacks because if we made you put your sign 25 feet back it
would be in back of the building, so there is a problem there
and we are well aware of it.
Mr. Redl commented that the size of your sign, 25 feet,
am sure that was probably somehow taken into consideration the size
of your sigg based upon your setback as a requirement but when you
start setting it back almost three times what your required setback
is, good judgement has to be passed on that.
91
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were an other
if anyone present wished to be heard. y questions and
No one wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle declared this appeal closed at 8:25 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was a motion on this.
Mr. Urciuold then made a motion that the variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle noted that the variance was denied, on a County
recommendation, four of the five members of the Board have to be
in agreement before the variance can be passed, two of the members
of the Board are not in agreement, these are, therefore, we have to
deny the variance and that's only on County recommendations, all others
variance can be three with two against, on the County it has to be
at least four.
Mr. Redl then commented that if you would only look at the
plot plan and see that this is the ideal location based on the
Planning Board's approval and so forth, otherwise you are right
in the parking area.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she had no problem with it but
two members of our Board db.
Mr. Redl noted that he had a plot pian in the car, thought
you would have it available but have it if it is of some help
to you.
Mr. Cortellino commented that is not his problem, problem is
that he sympathizes but on the gounds on which we can hand out
variances he doesn't meet the requirements, meaning that the Town
Board should address Route 9 with their setbacks and review the
situations.
Mrs. Waddle commented that they are all not the same on
Route 9, this man is 65 feet back from the road because of the
Zoning Board of Appeals -11-
December 14th, 1982
State own this, on the other side we had setbacks because people
were too close to the road and we had to bring it closer, so
it is not the same conditions.
Mr. Caballero then commented that right now the construction
on Route 9 is going to start in a couple of months where they
are taking sides of the road on both sides, these signs would be
right against the road, feel that too much signage does not help
the merchant, it actually hurts him, you havessix or seven signs
one after the other right against the road, it just, in his opinion,
the setback is there for a reason and it is good judgement used
on the part of the County and planners and believe that it should
be that way.
Mr. Redl noted could he just show the plot plan, it will take
just one second, these are the buildings which are under construction
right now, this is the parking area here, the parking is laid out
here and this is the sign here, the further you go south the deeper
you are away from the sign, you are 65 feeethere, here you are probably
100 or 90 feet, a 5' by 5' sign at that distance, as far from the
road, is unreasonable.
Mrs. waddle commented that if you had to go back another
25 feet you would be back where, some place over here.
Mr. Redl replied yes, in the driveway.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that as far as the State widening the
h&ghway, this isnot a building that we are putting here, it is
a pole.
Mr. Redl commented that on top of that your requirement is
25 feet, they will never come to widen the road that much in that
area, don't even know if there are plans right there.
Mr. Caballero noted that there are not necessarily plans but
that thirty years ago there were no plans for the road and right now
work�'is being done, it is happening today.
Mr. Redl noted that they could still put in another lane, there
is 65 feet,
Mr. Cortellino commented that he didn't know why the State
requires that much land, don't know why and like you say in different
spots they take different amounts, all he was going by is the
m Town ordinance.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Redl noted that he wasn't making any request to enlarge
the sign or anything else, if you set the sign back here, the
further southou o the further back
Y g you are from the sign,
and this lays out perfectly with the parking and this has all been,
everything is under construction now.
Mr. Urciuoli noted that if we can move a building closer,
he felt that the sign could be closer, could move the pole.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she didn't have a problem and asked
Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Caballero if their votes remained the same.
Mr. Cortellino and Mr. Caballero noted that they were still
voting no.
Appeal #k 650, at the request of Frank R j seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 416.73 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a free-standing sign for Redl's Parkway
Auto Parts to be placed on an existing pole on the property line
where a 25 foot setback is required, on property located on Route 9,
being parcel # 6156-02-753949, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal nbtice.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone here to speak
for this variance.
Mr. Herbert Redl of Sttingham Lane, Pleasant Valley, noted
that it was a similar situation only that that it is a situation
that might be more persuasive to the Board, it is on an existing pole,
an existing sign that has been there for about twenty years.
Mrs. Waddle asked it has been there.
Mr. Redl replied yes.
Mrs. Wadd&e noted that she had no poOblem with that.
Mr. Cortellino then indicated that he had no problem with
that one.
Mr. Urciuoli commented that he can't justify the two, Charlie:;
can't justify the two, it doesn't make sense.
Mr. Cortellino replied that there is a diffence in legalities.
t
Zoning Board of Appeals
-13- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then commented that why did you have a problem
with the last one, have to disagree.
Mr. Cortellino.commented that there is a difference in legalities,
willing to go along on this one.
Mr. Caballero commented that he was consistent and would
vote against it.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was anyone present to speak
for or against the appeal.
No one wished to be heard.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Landolfi then moved that the variance be granted. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Waddle commented so carried, don't understand the
reasoning but.
Appeal # 651, at the request of Owen Peterson, seeking a
variance of Article IV, Section 416.73 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to allow a free-standing sign to be placed on the
property line, where as25 foot setback is required on property
located on the corner of Smithtown Road and Route 9, being parcel #
6157-04-671026, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle read the legal notice and then asked if there
was anyone present to speak for the variance.
Mr. Van Splinter of Hightop Road, West Milford, New Jersey,
was present and noted that he was the manager for Mr. Peterson at
this location and the reason we are applying for the sign variances,
the building is a low building and it is sits back and it is blocked
by a building next door and there is a clump of trees alter that: -so
you can't see the building and if we go back 25 feet, heard the comment
before, it would be inside the building, it does conform with the
other signs in the area.
Zoning Board of Appeals -14- December 14th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that they were looking for six feet, okay.
Mrs. Waddle then commented to Mr. Cortellino how could he
possibly deny the other one, don't understand your mi,jigoat
all.
Mr. Cortellino replied that there was a rationale, may disagree
but there is a reason.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there were any ggestions and if
anyone wished to be heard for ori this appeal.
No one wished to be heard. The hearing was closed at 8:38 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would entertain a motion.
A motion was then made by Mr. Urciuoli, to grant the
variance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
The motion was carried.
WMIMM BbSINESS:
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
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 distruct which
allows only a single-family use on property located on 206 Old
Hopewell Raod, being parcel # 6157-02-637535, in the Town of
Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the Board heard testimony at the last
meeting, this meeting is for a decision only and that she would
read the decision and then give an explanation.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant applied in 1972 ff09-a building permit to add a living
room to an existing single family residence. Subsequent: thereto,
and at dates upspecified, petitioner commenced construction of the
Zoning Board of Appeals -15- December 14th, 1982
living room and several other rooms for which an application had not
been sought. The premises is situated in an area zoned OR -10A and
is adjacent to a mobile home park. Rental units are available within
the park.
DECISION
The request for a variance must be denied. Applicant has failed
to satisfy any of the three -fold requirements for a variance, making
no showing of financial hardship as no dollar and cents proof was
offered that the principal permitted use of the property, a single
family residence, could not be used for such purpose. Moreover,
the hardship is not unique, being one that was self-created rather
than one arising from the nature of the land in question. Finally,
the density of the area would be adversely affected.
Mr. Cortellino then moved that the requested 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 then commented now, we are denying this but
this Board has been to the Town Board about this kind of living
arrangement in the Town of Wappinger and am sure you have read
about it in the papers over the'*ast few weeks, think that the
position of the Board will probably be that we are not going to
entertain any of these variances until the Town Board has rewritten
the Zoning Ordinance to give some relief in the Town.
Mr. Tomasic then commented in 1972 when he applied for a
permit he submitted blueprints which stated on kitchen, under
that basis was issued a permit.
Mrs. Waddle commented that he had so long to build and believe
that was crossed out and something else was crossed out on the
plans.
Mr. Tomasi& replied that Mr. Gunderud failed to provide you
with the specifications, what was in those blueprints in his files,
when he goes to that expense, under that bails he built it and
his father and mother were going to live with him, how he spoke to
the Board the last time and he explained that finally they decided
not to come and live with him, so in that case even if his father
and mother came to live with him, you are telling him,that they
cannot live with him.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-16- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied that they could live with him as long as
you didn't have a kitchen in there, a second kitchen in there.
Mr. Tomasic commented that in the blueprints it stated a
kitchen and on that basis.
Mrs. Waddle replied that she believed that- +�
crossed out.
Mr. Tomasic replied it is not, he saw the blueprints in
Mr. Gunderud's office and it was not crossed off.
The secretary noted that on the vellum one it was erased
or crossed oft, there were zerox copies also in the file which
indicated a kitchen and bathroom, went by the original print:;
which had been erased.
Mr. Tomasic replied that he submitted the blueprints to
John Holler and on that basis he built, if not he would not have
gone to that expense, don't want to break the Town law.
The secretary noted that the application also stated that
it was for a living room addition, there was no mention of
` plumbing fixtures.
Mrs. Waddle asked Mr. Tomasic if he had researched his
application, as our secrltary has said it was just for a living room,
the building application.
The secretary added that back then there was a three dollar
a fixture charge.
Mr. Tomasic commented that the blueprints said a kitchen,
did not want to go to any expense, don't want to cause problems
for the Town for anybody but would not have spent anything on the
house if he was not going to intend to build on that basis. ,
Mrs. Waddle asked if the kitchenwas in there now.
Mr. Tomasic replied yes.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she would hold oft on doing anything
on it as the Town Board is looking at single family conversions
into homes where the landlord is living in the home, will not make
you tear out the kitchen at this point, we are asking you to hold
off renting it, that would be illegal, the Town is looking into
the matter, it is going to take several months, so she would suggest
that he just sit tight.
Zoning Board of Appeals -17 December 14th, 1982
Mr. Tomasic commented he would be honest with them, we are
going to finish this in court, he will sue the Town to issue the
permit to build.
Mrs. Waddle noted that is his perogative.
Mr. Tomasic replied that is right, the man who issued the
permit is still alive and he will appear in court, to be honest
with them, he put money into and he is going to instruct his attorney
to take action against the Town.
Mrs. Waddle replied fine but suggested that before he spend
that money to give the Town a chance to relook at the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Tomasic replied that he had given two months already,
beginning from November the first time he was before the Board.
Mrs. Waddle noted that he had since 1972.
Mr. Tomasic replied yes he knew but he did not go through. this
because he expected his T38ther and me±ther to live with him but then
finally his mother had cancer and did not want to come, 76 years
old,lvis father is 76 and his mother is 75, they want to stay in
their own country, then he came forward to the Board.
r/
Mrs. Waddle then commented that all she could say is that we
have a lot of people in this Town who are in the same problem, we
are trying to correct it but you are going to have to give us
time.
Mr. Tomasic replied he understands, when he applied for a
permit he was in a multi family zoning, then you people changed
the zoning in the Town, when this was done he didr3't know, not born
in this country, hot educated here, on this basis and submitted
the application, said go ahead and build and now you say to him
that he can?t rent it, see something very wrong.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she was sorry but thought that
there must have been some misunderstanding, she was not privy to
that knowledge and all she could tell him was that they are trying
to work on the zoning ordinance to correct some of this, if he feels
that he wants to sue the Town, that is his perogative, all that
she was saying that instead of spending all that money right now,
give the Town a chance.
Mr. Tomasic replied that he had given the Town two months
already.
Zoning Board of Appeals -18- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle replied that she was sorry, that is his recourse,
thank you.
Mr. Tomasic commented that they would hear from his attorney
very shortly.
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 _Ls: non -conforming use of a
building to be changed to a less non -conforming use, of property
located on the corner of Route 376 and Myers Corners Road, being
parcel ## 6358-01-271593, in the Town of Wappinger.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this iaeeting is called for the findings
of fact and a decision, the testimony has been taken at a previous
meeting and then read the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant owns a single story dwelling in an area zoned R-40
to allow a non -conforming use of the building to be changed to a
less non -conforming use, namely that of a meeting hall. At the
present time, the premises is utilized as.a retail store. Applicant
seeks both to change the non -conforming use to a meeting hall, a
building that could hold up to 70 people. Opposition to the applica-
tion has been expressed by several neighbors who are apprehensive
as to the impact of the proposed use upon the character of the
neighborhood. The Zoning Administratmr has determined that the
parking lot is substantially undersized for the projected or
contemplated use.
DECISION
The application is denied. Applicant has not dempnstrated
that the concerns of neighbors as to increased volume of use of
the premises will not have a detrimental impact on neighboring
properties. Additionally, the premises are not suitable for
the use intended, having a parking lot that is substantially
undersized for the proposed use.
Mrs. Waddle noted that this was an interpretation and did not
need to be voted on, in other words, we find that is not a less
conforming use that the use the applicant already has and feel that
the building is too small to hold up to seventy people.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-19- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any other business to come
before the Board.
Mr. Herb Redl then came before the Board and noted that just
one thing, he was so narrow minded, just thinking about distance
that he forgot to mention, as he left here,, how important it was
to have a sign, to prove there was an existing sign, he had just
taken down the motel sign, very close to this exact location that
advertised the motel there.
Some members of the Board noted that there was a blue motel
sign that haf'. existed.
Mr. Redl noted that the motel sign had existed there for
many, many years.
Mrs. Waddle replied that he was absolutely right.
Mr. Redl added that it was also much larger than what he
was asking for, he didn't realize how important it was to have
a sign that had existed, as a matter of fact had taken down three
sign that had existed on that property.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would reopen the hearing on Appeal #
649 of Herb Redl, would someone like to make a motion.
Mr. Landolfi then made a motion to re*porx in The
motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the hearing was reopened.
Mr. Landolfi commented that using the same logic.
Mrs. Waddle added using the logic that the matel sign was
there which she had completely forgotten about,
Mr. Landolfi added that he did not see how they can deny
this because he recalled the signs, there were three signs.
Mr. Urciuoli then made a motion that the variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Zoning Board of Appeals
-20- December 14th, 1982
Mrs. Waddle commented so carried and that it was a tough struggle.
Mr. Redl then thanked the Board.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if there was any other business to
come before the Board.
A gentlemen then came forward and asked if they could
reopen on the meeting hall.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she would entertain some discussion
on that, surely.
Mr. Landolfi noted that perhaps the Board should let him
know what his options are, in other words, he could either accept
the Board's decision, he could reappeal it with additional information
or you could go to a higher court, those are three of the options
that they have.
Mr. Mauro Rizzo noted that he was one of the trustees in the
organization, the Sons of Italy, and he, it was a sad event that
happened, we all know what happened to Bob Petdrs, whm was a fkiend
of his, and he was throughly behind the wall about this, he was
under the impression that they had plenty of parking and we had that
checked out by Bob about a week before he passed away, he checked
it out for him, he was fighting for himeand he really couldn't do
too, tbo much but he was trying to give hinm all the answers that
he needed to know where they were falling short and where they
weren't falling short, and that was one of our leasezproblems, the
parking lot.
Mrs. Waddle noted that vas just one:,of the problems, the
main problem was that it is a non -conforming use and the Board
has to decide whether it is more non -conforming than what was already
there or not and that is the key, the parking is a consideration.
Mr. Rizzi then commented that prior to it being a retail
store, it was a restaurant, *he sign is still sitting there,
Brown's Restaurant and they probably had more use than we did and
if it was still a restaurant it would still have more use than
we would have.
Zoning Board of Appeals -21- December 12th, 1982
Mr. Landolfi noted that he was very familar with the area, being
a native, believe him there were never more than ten people if
there were that many there at one time.
Mr. Rizzi noted that if it was still a restaurant you would not
hinder him on the amount of people that could come in, you wouldn't
tell him that.
Mrs. Waddle noted that it was a different issue.
Mr. Rizzie then asked then lets go back to this club, how many
people can th4alt9om legally hold.
Mr. Cortellino replied seventy.
Mr. Rizzi noted that their membership was thirty.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if they intended to stay that
size.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she did have a letter from
Hans Gunderud, our Building Inspector,'which she would read.
"Based on parking requirements in Section 470 of the Zoning Ordinance,
10 spaces are required for a place of assembly (calculated on 1,056
square feet of building area).
The New York State Building Code may allow up to 70 people to occupy
the building (based on 15 square feet per occupany).
If there are to be 30 cars on the lot, the minimum parking lot area
would have to be 9,650 square feet whereas only 4,500 square feet is
shown."
Mr. Rizzi asked so that would limit us to how many cars.
Mr. Landolfi noted that even if there were to be thirty cars,
okay, you only have half the space that you need.
Mr. Rizzi replied so what you are saying is that we have
room for 15 cars.
Mr. Landolfi replied yes but that is only part of the problem.
Mr. Rizzi noted that they would go along with fifteen.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-22- December 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle noted that is not the major problem, the major
problem is this is a non -conforming use, he is in an area where
he can continue his retail business or whatever he had there but
anything else is less non -conforming (conforming).
Mr. Harrison noted that he would like to inject something
on that report that Mr. Gunderud sent, he was over since that
letter was sent, since he got a copy of that"letter and he showed
him, he didn't realize that one entrance had been closed that
would increase the aprking area, there is no two entrances to that
property, there is one entrance.
Mrs. Waddle noted that unfortunately Mr. Gunderud is not here
this evening.
Mr. Harrison added that Mr. Gunderud was supposed to get
a report back.
The Board noted that the parking or lack of parking was.
not the main problem.
Mr. Rizzi then noted that the area itself, can't understand
Ile is, under the impression that there will be a new building going
in across the way, some type of large gathering hall or a club.
The secretary noted that it willbe a ball, tennis,
'.
and this is in a Planned . Y zone.
The Board noted that this is an entirely different matter,.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the law are there and the Board
has to use their judgement where it is warranted, the use is the
key factor here.
Mr. Rizzi commented the p- considered mo a not --conforming
than what existed previously, tt, the whole thing there.
Mr. Landolfi replied yes, that is the key.
Mr. Rizzi then asked where does that line cross, at what point
does one thing become more non-coufa ting than other, how do you
base that.
4
Zoning Board of Appeals -23- December 14th, 1981
Mrs. Waddle noted that he was non -conforming now and that
he can have the same type- of business in the building but he can't
go to another type, can have the same type of business.
Mr. Rizzi thanked the Board.
Mrs. W-ddle noted that she would entertain a motion to
adjourn.
A motion was then made by Mr. Urciuoli, seconded by
Mr. Landolfi, to adjourn.
The motionwwas unanimously carried by those members
present.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Respe fully submitted,
'00.,
kl
(Mrs.) a ty-AnAuss,Secretary
Zoning bard of Appeals
br