1979-01-09The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was called to order on Tuesday, January 9th, 1979
at 8:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman
Charles A. Cortellino
Donald Mc Millen
Howard Prager
Carol A. Waddle
Members Absent
None
Others Present:
Robert G. Ruit, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
The Chairman asked the secretary if the abutting owners
and the appellant had been notified.
The secretary replied that in her absence Mrs. Hirsch
had sent out the notices.
Mr. Landolfi then explained that it was the procedure of the
Board to hear all the cases, then retire to executive session
and return at which time the Board may or may not render a
decision on each Appeal.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Appeal ## 423, at the request of Carmela Ciiarella - L.F.I.
Industries, Inc., seeking a variance of Section 413.03 - Non -conforming
Use of Building, Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit
expansion of their non -conforming business and construction of
structure for said non -conforming business on premises located on
Chelsea Road, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel # 6056-04-520428.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Tony Palumbo, President of L.F.I. Industries was present
for the Appeal.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board had received some information
but the members may have some additional questions regarding the
Appeal.
IN
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- January 9th, 1979
Mr. Palumbo noted that he had no place for his customers
and he can't bring them into the manufacturing areas due to
insurance requirements. He added that he only had an area of 12' by
14' in which the office staff of five persons worked in building # 8
on the map. Mr. Palumbo added that the circled buildings on the
plan would be removed as some of them are 40 years old as they are
Nabisco skids construction and he can't maintain them and these
have been used for minimal storage and are eyesores.
Mr. Cortellino asked where the 138 foot frontage was.
Mr. Palumbo replied that it was on Chelsea Road.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if Mr. Palumbo was cutting down
on manufacturing.
Mr. Palumbo replied that the outer buildings were not used
and modern technology made the outer buildings useless. He noted
that building # 1 is a house which is rented, # 3 is a low garage
and # 4 is their service garage.
Mr. Mc Millen then discussed the figures on the square footage
and asked if this new building would be strictly offices with no
storage of explosives or trucks.
Mr. Palumbo replied that there would be 4 offices and probably
a bathroom.
Mr. Mc Millen commented that it appeared the use would not
be expanded as this would just be for offices.
Mr. Palumbo replied yes.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard.
Mr. Aldo Marchini noted that he was in favor and it would be
beneficial to have the old buildings go down.
Mr. James Tompkins of the Chelsea Fire Company noted that
they had no objection to the building being used for offices
as they were here tonight to clear up a misunderstanding as they had
not received any building plans and have no objection to the use.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- January 9th, 1979
A gentlemen came forward and noted that he lived next door and
he was in favor of the variance being granted.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
No one else wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:14 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Appeal # 370, at the request of Taylor Rental Center, seeking
variances of Section 423, paragraph B and Section 424 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a free-standing sign to be erected
at a lesser setback than required, on property located on Route 9,
being parcel # 6157-02-624589, in the Town of Wappinger.
It was noted that action on this Appeal has been tabled pending
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy which had been granted.
No one present wished to offer any comments on this Appeal.
NEW BUSINESS:
The Board then had before them Appeal # 424, at the request
of Kenneth Sawyer seeking an interpretation of Section 423. Schedule
of Business and Industry District Uses, HB -1 zone with regard to
his proposed use of property located on Old Route 93, in the Town
of Wappinger.
It was noted that this request for an interpretation
had just been received.
Mr. Sawyer noted that he was here for an interpretation due
to his interest in a piece of property an Old Route 9 wh1ch was
about five acres. He added that he wished to build a health
and fitness club and also have racquet ball courts and that in
an HB -1 zone he was under the impression that these uses would
qualify but there is some question' about it and this is why he
was here tonight.
Mr. Sawyer commented that they were proposing a building of
100 to 125 feet, three levels and that on the appeal form they had
listed the uses they felt would qualify in this zone. (A copy of
said Appeal form is attached to these minutes as part of the record.)
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- January 9th, 1979
He noted that they would have approximately 1,500 square feet
for retail sales of sportswear, 4,000 square feet for the Nautilus.
fitness program for men and women, 2,500 square feet for the bar -lounge
area and then eight racquet ball courts with the remaining floor
area for lockers, saunas, whirlpool and offices.
Mr. Sawyer added that he felt that these would all qualify
in the HB -1 Zone and that he had a letter of intent that his group
had bank approval and must open by next fall and would like to break
ground in April as a three level building would take about six
months to complete and that twenty-nine feet of the building would
be out of the ground.
Mr. Landolfi asked how many people would be employed.
Mr. Sawyer replied about twenty persons. He then showed the
Board an artist's redering of the proposed building and added that
he felt that this area needed an activity of this type.
Mr. Landolfi then asked about traffic.
Mr. Sawyer replied that approximately fifty persons per
hour with maximum use of all the facilities and that the hours of
operation would probably be from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mrs. Waddle asked if this would be on an appointment basis.
Mr. Sawyer replied that the fitness program is supervised
and would be by appointment but the retail area and the lounge
would be open to the general public. Mr. Sawyer then added that
they intended to have parking on the right hand side of the property
and the building would be setback some distance from the front and they
would show expansion possibilities on the site plan.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about the hours of operation for the
lounge and bar.
Mr. Sawyer replied that it would be open during the hours
the facilties are available for the use of patrons and the general
public and that these activities would probably cease around
10:00 p.m. and would have the people out by 11:00 to 12:00 p.m.
He added that they were not anticipating twenty-four hours
use as this is only done in highly populated areas such as New York
City and did not see this as a probabilty in the future.
Mr. Sawyer noted that there has been documentation that this
type of facility is successful only by combining all these uses
into one complex.
He added that the Planning Board had also recommended to the
Town Board that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit recreation
uses in an HB -2 zone and that the Town Board was in the process
of creating recreational zones and uses and questioned whether any
type of recreational use would be permitted in an HB zone presently.
Mr. Saland added that he also questioned the marketability
of having such similar facilities in this area and that in reading
page 24 of the Zoning Ordinance that this picking and choosing among
the various permitted uses appeared to be questionable as he did
not recall this this was done in the past.
Mr. Saland noted again that he had been before the Town Board for
four months and had not received any negative reaction on his
client's proposal and wanted to see the Town get a recreational
oridinance. He added that this application before the Zoning
Board for an interpretation placed his clients in an awkward position
as racquet ball is not presently a permitted use and based upon
his opinion this request for an interpretation appeared to be a
way of getting in the back door.
There were no further comments.
The Zoning Board of Appeals then recessed at 8:35 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 423, at the request of Carmela Chiarella -
L.F.I. Industires, Inc., a motion was made by Mr. Prager, seconded
by Mr. Cortellino, that the variance be granted and that the
Appellant notify the Chelsea Fire Company and the Dutchess County
Department of Health of his intentions and that the buildings
indicated on the plan to be removed are removed before the issuance
of any building permit and that the present area used for offices
be vacated within ninety days after the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new structure.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 370, at the request of Taylor Rental Center,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen,
that the requested variance be denied on the basis that the sign
+►' would be too close to the road way and would distract drivers and
create a traffic hazard.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Zoning Board of Appeals
-5- January
9th, 1979
Mr. Stephen Saland, Attorney
at Law, then came before
the
Board and noted that he had
been a former member of the
Town Board,
was a taxpayer and was representing
a corporation that
for the past
four months has been before
the Town Board for the same
type of
operation which was outlined
by Mr. Sawyer here tonight
and the
group which he represents is
before the Town Board for
a public
hearing next month to create
a zoning amendment to permit
-this type
of use,..
He added that the Planning Board had also recommended to the
Town Board that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit recreation
uses in an HB -2 zone and that the Town Board was in the process
of creating recreational zones and uses and questioned whether any
type of recreational use would be permitted in an HB zone presently.
Mr. Saland added that he also questioned the marketability
of having such similar facilities in this area and that in reading
page 24 of the Zoning Ordinance that this picking and choosing among
the various permitted uses appeared to be questionable as he did
not recall this this was done in the past.
Mr. Saland noted again that he had been before the Town Board for
four months and had not received any negative reaction on his
client's proposal and wanted to see the Town get a recreational
oridinance. He added that this application before the Zoning
Board for an interpretation placed his clients in an awkward position
as racquet ball is not presently a permitted use and based upon
his opinion this request for an interpretation appeared to be a
way of getting in the back door.
There were no further comments.
The Zoning Board of Appeals then recessed at 8:35 p.m. and
reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 423, at the request of Carmela Chiarella -
L.F.I. Industires, Inc., a motion was made by Mr. Prager, seconded
by Mr. Cortellino, that the variance be granted and that the
Appellant notify the Chelsea Fire Company and the Dutchess County
Department of Health of his intentions and that the buildings
indicated on the plan to be removed are removed before the issuance
of any building permit and that the present area used for offices
be vacated within ninety days after the issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy for the new structure.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 370, at the request of Taylor Rental Center,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen,
that the requested variance be denied on the basis that the sign
+►' would be too close to the road way and would distract drivers and
create a traffic hazard.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- January 9th, 1979
With regard to Appeal # 4249 at the request of Kenneth Sawyer,
a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
table action on this Appeal for further study.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded Mr. Prager,
to adjourn the meeting.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
UNAPPROVED
ATTACHMENT
fir✓'
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs.)etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
• - _xOLzli`3 Or •�YIr1�P�'IGE%� app -cal o_ -
• . ' • NQXTCE OF
�1PPEr1Lh:c-
• - - • • 1 • _ ♦ _ �4 -•
App
TO THE ]GO -A -RD O- APPEAL,, :
2Pp'-:1 from a deQs on of the ZVm;f1
of 2_pp=1l�ct� -
_r5. _e':.:, d;"a __.. ..-. _• _��, Ig �%, a:.d da hcrzSf apply to the Zoning }3p rd of App�z1
s
tr -r: A. V'ARIA NrCE, A.. SPECIAL USE PEW-NI,IT, �j �'_`� �\�E�'� E�'A�I�J�► OF ��'�I�.
ZON-MiNG ORDINANCE AN - APPEAL AS A_c� AGGRIEVED PERSON CS) r"Cc itec:: propet�
onz), 'R conatc6aa Ts•I it pr eruses located a -
• (5'iZt� ic•_ no.) (lot no.) (zorun.-' Ci15iL1CC)
To7.--,-. of �i%27pi�2�:Z-'IST. Y.*..,. q
r_ Ro �sio�. (S)- O m zoo zn� o '_ � cE P . EP
cm
2r-6 le, scalo:L or su3_s_cuon aocl p,�.—,g._ ?*:i)
2.. T IPE Ox APPEAL (Complete S- c'o1
' z- AARI�'1i�CE IS REQUEST
'tIED for t: � fo'_IoSYi�o :c�sors: .. • '
zppli�tian of the 'Go:sao Or,:nancc v:o•.,'s p.o•iu e undue h=& -hip b: c s�:• •�
2) The hardship cre:tcd is L:.gt:e^' is r:�: s?�zre3 by 21i p: opera; 2gil:e ine:1; :'cji --'
c
viciday of this propert), 2 3 in this G2_'••.S:_.:z us;-�:
3) Th<. varta.rce would o`xsei: Lhc spint.._ ...e O:u:n_.._c 2..0 ti,a_.Idinot ch..n„ charact:r o
the district beet.
• . b. A SPECIAL USE PLP. IT IS RECLJESi'ED pur--a- nt to art:;le -- :, �ctiori o; suh;c�
.._._�._._-- _.. pato ph _....._ —_- of th`: Zoa:aU OrC;? 1-1! Cr
Yron t? -r--Imtemc Poll e.'
o`�iina
on th!: above pre. Tats.
c, I� i TE 2PRET21TICN of the Zr.: n:, 0: .:rs :ce is re unte3ve-
,' -u ems. Live, n��,c sv�,. e e� e.0 �- %a•-� _' '' �t� '
d. AGGT�,IEVED P S01(Su an app-zzl is req :cs:ed
3- OTHER REMARKS: .......... ..._......
_:_.____._.___._.._.___._...._.._.__......_._ •_______ _.. _._ �.. _:_
(Usc extra Streets if rer_s_")•} Sig:t_--. r -c,
a Tec required plan r *• st a.ccompr.}• t�c :pct-•_ cE
NOTICE: APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR -THE COSTS IIWOLI�ED AN
PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL -NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NM,,S-`PAPER:
outline oy TotaL nonce: t of pro ,es:ed
Heal i ann `Fi ness Faci.li�
---
The following is our concept of the use of the fa-ci Lity
bac rro ;c -e to Y,ui }_d.
zoned HB1. ':Uhen we looked at the total use and activity that
we u;;_lt re puttln -in thn t ,lLd _._ eve. tl,i:) ,-i; LL qualify
under H'31, since there is no clear cut zoning to soarer this type
of facility.
We are designing a. three Level building, LOO'XLO5-L25', which
will incor}orate the following activities and uses.
main Level: A. Snortspecializing in. sports apparel,
athletic footwear, racquets and b -.lis, etc.
This qualifies as a public co:m..m:�r:i:y.1 shod,; ?-BI.
Lower LeveL: Vie will have a large, highly supervised Nautilus
training, exercise, and body building area, with
various soecial classes, :uch as karate, exercise
classes, etc, There will a Le=o be separate men' s
and women's facilities including locker rooms,
whirlpools, saunas and showers. t`Je anticipate
as many women members as men. ;,#Te feel this
qualifies as a personal service, also under
HBI, 42..
Upper Level: The upper level will include :a Large lounge and
bar area with facilities for light lunch for the
oatrons using the facility, and.to cater to the
business man and orofessionaL pea -)le in the area
who can take a Long lunch, hour for a workout ,and
Lunch.. This qualifies under restaurant and bar,
HR L, jF;.
Combined on aLL three L,�vels will be racquetball and handball
courts, which will be an integral part of our fitness and related
persona L -services concept.
-2 -
with the high level of activities in the building, that we
covered under H31 zoning, and considering being located on five
acres of Land, we feel it can qualify under HBI and a multiple
use permit.
-z.�