1979-02-06The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was called to order on Tuesday, February 6th, 1979
at 5:00 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman
Charles A. Cortellino
Donald Mc Millen
Members Absent:
Howard Prager
Carol A. Waddle
Others Present:
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
The Chairman asked the secretary if the appellants and abutting
property owners had been notified.
The secretary replied yes.
The Chairman then explained that it was the procedure of the
Board to hear all the cases then retire for an executive session to
go over the information presented and the Board then would reconvene
at which time they may or may not render a decision of each case.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 425, at the request of Ralph N. Nenni, seeking a
variance of Section 421 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit him to establish a small engine repair shop on his property,
in his residence located on Ketchamtown Road, in the Town of Wappinger
being parcel # 6157-03-126417.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Ralph Nenni was present and noted that he would like to
get the variance and do this sort of work part time as he has two more
years til he retires and this would be a pick-up and delivery
operation.
Mr. Landolfi asked what type of advertising would be used.
Mr. Nenni replied that it would be word of mouth and there
would be no signs.
Mr. Landolfi then asked about the hours of operation.
Mr. Nenni replied that it would probably be a couple of hours
at night 4:00 p.m. til 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there would be any alterations to
the house.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- February 6th, 1979
Mr. Nenni replied that the work would be done in his basement
and would be bench type work with nothing too large.
Mr. Cortellino asked if this would involve testing engines.
Mr. Nenni replied yes that it would be lawn mowers, that
type of thing.
Mr. Cortellino noted that he was concerned about flammables.
Mr. Nenni replied that he did not keep gas in the basement.
Mr. Cortellino noted that there might be a problem with
insurance for the house with this type of operation.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Nenni if he had prior experience
in this area.
Mr. Nenni replied that he had done this type of work on the
side and was taking a refresher course. He added that he was presently
working at Trap Rock and the engines he would be working with would
be one cylinder affairs such as chain saws and lawn mowers and that
if the operation got big he would not have it in his home.
Mr. Cortellino asked if this would always be a part time
operation.
Mr. Nenni replied that if it stayed a small operation in
his home he would like to have it as he has a health problem
and would be retiring and this would provide additional income.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if Mr. Nenni had considered working
for someone else doing this type of work.
Mr. Nenni replied that he would like to work at his own pace
and set his own hours and added that he had lived on Ketchamtown
Road for fourteen years.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked Mr. Nenni what plans did he have
for the throw away material and what would be done with this as
he would not like to see a lot of motors piled up on the property.
Mr. Nenni replied that he had an outlet for the larger parts
but most of it would be very small and could go out with the daily
garbage.
Mr. Mc Millen noted that if the variance was granted there
are three large land owners surrounding this property and when this
is eventually developed there may be complaints later on.
Mr. Nenni replied that he did not foresee the operation getting
that big and there would be no more noise then if someone was
cutting their grass.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard for or against the Appeal.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-3-
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:10 p.m.
February 6th, 1979
Appeal # 426, at the request of Wallace C. and Mary S. Swaverly,
seeking variance of Section 422, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, for an existing house which was built
prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, which is 21.20' from
the front yard lot line and 18.34 from the sideyard lot line, on
property located on 30 Peggy Lane, being parcel # 6157-03-475294,
in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Bruce Hofstetter, Attorney at Law, was present and noted
that he was representing the Swaverlys.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he had been advised that this house
was sold some time ago and wondered why variances were now being
sought.
Mr. Hofstetter replied that there had been a sale but they
were not holding title as the F.H.A. wanted a Certificate of Occupancy
and only a temporary had been given when the house was Qri;�inalriy built
and that to now get a permanent Certificate of Occupancy the variances
were needed for this house to hold the mortgage loan.
Mr. Landolfi noted that most of the houses in this particular
development were built prior to zoning and as he now understood
the problem this appeared to be a matter of formal paper work.
Mr. Hofstetter noted that this did not appear to be a problem
and were only aware of it about a week before the closing.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who
wished to be heard for or against the Appeal.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:14 p.m.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Appeal # 424, at the request of Kenneth L. Sawyer, seeking an
interpretation of permitted uses in an HB -1 zone.
Mr. Kenneth L. Sawyer and Mr. Francois Cross, Esq., were
present.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- February 6th, 1979
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was anything Mr. Sawyer or
Mr. Cross wished to add.
Mr. Sawyer noted that he had a firm committment and had
a site plan drawn and was ready to go ahead if a favorable interpretation
was granted.
Mr. Cross then commented that they had a copy of the proposed
site plan and a letter of committment if the Board wished to see
them.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked about the square footage and a
breakdown on the ragquet ball courts.
Mr. Sawyer replied that the facility would be about
23,000 square feet and the courts Could Bp!6~,108Qt=aquaie--feet
of this area. He then showed the Board the artist's rendering
of what the finished building would look like.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked about a floor plan.
Mr. Sawyer noted that at this time they did not have a firm
floor plan and added that they would concentrate the useage of
the health and fitness area and this is the Nigh percentage.
Mr. Cross added that surveys have shown that the successful
clubs are the ones which have the combination of uses and this
has been the tendency in this field.
Mr. Cortellino then asked about the dining area.
Mr. Sawyer replied that there would be a small bar facility
in the lounge and the lounge would probably be in an area where
the other activities could be viewed.
Mr. Cross noted that they were not attempting to pressure the
Board in any way but time was a factor as he understood there was
another group looking into the Village.of Fishkill for this type
of facility and it will be a matter of who will be in first.
Mr. Cortellino asked if there would be memberships.
Mr. Sawyer replied that there would be memberships and
scheduling would probably be about 90 .percent members for
use of the facilities.
Mr. Cortellino asked if this would be open to the public.
Mr. Sawyer replied yes that they would not exclude the
general public. He then added that 8,000 square feet would be for
the courts, 1,600 square feet for the lounge and the remainder
of the rest of the 23,000 square feet for the other uses.
Mr. Cortellino then asked how many people would participate in
the programs and how many per given hour.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- February 6th, 1979
Mr. Sawyer replied that in prime times there would be about
30 to 40 persons per hour using the facilities.
Mr. Landolfi then asked about the staff.
Mr. Sawyer noted that he would be hiring 12 to 14 people full
time and 6 people part time.
Mr. "Cross noted"that the cost of this facility and the assess-
ment that would be placed on the property would be large.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked Mr. Sawyer if he would subcontract
the running of the facility.
Mr. Sawyer replied no that he would run the facilties.
The Chairman then asked if anyone else wished to be
heard.
Mr. Stephen Saland, Esq., noted that he had been before the
Board previously and was representing Sheraton Enterprises which
had received a mortgage committment for a similar facility for
3/4 million dollars and were now also proposing an indoor swimming
pool as part of the complex. He added that the interpretation
was asking the Board to permit recreational uses in the HB zone
and the LB zone is the only zone which presently permits the use.
He continued noting that the proposal before the Zoning Board appeared
to be trying to get as many uses as possible which he questioned at
the last meeting and felt there was a problem as he believed that
these uses are not feasible without the racquet ball courts and
questioned whether Mr. Sawyer would go ahead with the pro shop, health
club and lounge if racquet ball was not permitted.
Mr. Saland noted that the zoning ordinance referred to places
of amusement but there was no reference to this or recreation
and that the HB zone did not permit this and you are not talking
about a hardship but this request before the Board was asking for
a special use and it was questionable also whether the Nautilus
facility is recreation or a personal service.
Mr. Saland then quoted the definition of recreation from
Websters 3rd Edition Preckeation, refreshment of strength or
spirit after toil; relaxation; amusement, as workers need recreation"
and in view of this didn't think this would be a ;,Personal service
or recreation.
He added that he wondered as a practical problem would the
fire company be able to reach the top of the proposed three story
building and would the Zoning Board of Appeals permit this
proposal thru the back door by interpretation of what is not
permitted by zoning.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-6- February 6th, 1979
Mr. Cross responded that he was sure the building would be
within the range of fire apparatus and noted that this proposal
is up to the ultimate decision of the Board. He added that these
are supervised programs that could be considered personal services
and the Board can permit accessory ueses and based on nationwide
studies these uses are in conjunction with and incidental to
having racquet ball or some other type.
Mr. Cross conta.nueB noting the the Zoning Board has quasi
judicial standing and felt that the Board had tlhe def :nl�te--power
to interpret the Zoning Ordinance. He added that three of the
four uses were definitely permitted in the HB -1 zone and felt
that the fourth could be considered to be accessory to the Health
Club facility.
Mr. Stuart Buchalter noted that he had been listening and felt
that Mr. Saland had made a very good point and would there be
customers without racquet ball and as an example the New Hackensack
Road tennis court supports a pro shop but you wouldn't go ahead
without the courts and the Nautilus went with racquet ball and the
pro shop and lounge.
Mr. Saland noted that he took issue with Mr. Cross's comment
that the accessory use is rxaqwlaet ball but that is for the Board
to decide. He also asked whether the Board would wish to make
a decision without the full board being present.
Mr. Mc Millen then asked Mr. Sawyer if he would go ahead
without the rffgqq**t ball.
Mr. Sawyer replied no that these were all related uses and this
type of facility has to have these intermingling facilities.
Mr. Cross noted that ttta would appreciate a decision tonight
if at all possible.
The Board then recessed and retired to executive session at
8:45 p.m.
The Board then reconvened at 9:17 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 425, at the request of Ralph N. Nenni,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to
deny the requested variance on the grounds that the property in question
would yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under
the Ordinance because the property can be utilized for residential
purposes and no proven hardship exists at the present time.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
A
Zoning Board of Appeals -7-
February 6th, 1979
With regard to Appeal # 426, at the request of Wallace C. &
Mary S. Swaverly, a motion was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by
Mr. Cortellino, to grant.the variance and no environmental impact
is involved in granting said variance and the hardship created
is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the
vicinity of the property and the same use district and the variance
would not change the character of the district because the'house
has existed on the property for a period in excess of ten years.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to the request of Kenneth L. Sawyer, seeking an
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Mc Millen read the
following:
"The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger
interprets that the Health Club facility, the restaurant -lounge,
and the retail sportswear sales are permitted uses. The Sports
Facility I i.e. - racquet ball) would be a permitted accessory
use to the Health Club facility."
A motion was then made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by
Mr. Cortellino to adjourn.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs. etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
br
UNAPPROVED