1979-04-10The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was called to order on Tuesday, April 10th, 1979
at 8:10 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:
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
The Chairman asked the secretary if the appellants and abutting
property owners had been notified.
The secretary replied that notices had been sent to the appellants
and abutting property owners.
The Chairman then explained that it was the procedure of the
Board to hear all the cases, then take a short recess and reconvene
at which time the Board may or may not render a decision on each
appeal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal # 427, at the request of Laurence Siena, seeking a
Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, subparagraph 16 of the
Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit a nursery school to be
known as the "Aspen Day School" and to be located on 1 Aspen Court,
Lot 28 of the Primrose Hill Subdivision, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Laurence Siena was present.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board may have some questions
and asked Mr. Siena to explain the type of operation he planned.
Mr. Siena indicated that they would have a maximum enrollment
of 12 and he noted that he had received a copy of the Highway Super-
intendent's comments where he objected to the use because of obstruction
of traffic. Mr. Siena responded to this comment that there would not
be an obstruction as there would be only 10 to 12 students and his
driveway could easily accomodate four cars.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- April 10th, 1979
Mr. Landolfi ask4ad about the hours of operation.
Mr. Siena replied that there would be indoor activities and
they would run sessions from 8:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., no lunch,
and 12:45 p.m. to 3:45 p.m. He added that they had no,intention of
providing any outdoor activities and would not be operating during
the summer.
Mr. Cortellino then asked the ages of the children who would be
enrolled.
Mr. Siena replied that they would be 3 years old to 6 years old.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Siena if he was aware of the number
of nursery schools already in the area.
Mr. Siena replied yes and noted that he already had enrollment
for his school.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about who would run the nursery school.
Mr. Siena replied that his wife and a licensed nursery school
teacher would run it and added that he was also a school teacher and
was familar with what is required.
Mr. Landolfi noted that there appeared to be no exit off the back
of house, only off the garage and there was only one entrance/exit
in case of fire.
Mr. Siena replied that there was just a small flight of stairs
up to the kitchen and there was an exit off there and were windows
in the basement.
Mr. Landolfi then asked what form of advertisement would be
used.
Mr. Siena replied that he might place an ad in the local paper
and had an enrollment of 10 right now and he also might pass out
hand bills.
Mr. Landolfi noted that there was a sign ordinance for residential
areas.
Mr. Prager noted that the fire department had not yet been contacted.
Mr. Siena noted that he had been in touch with his insurance agent
and was advised that there was a fire hydrant in the street and he would
have install what extinguishers are required.
Mr. Prager replied that the Town had a fire prevention ordinance
and the local fire company would go over the house plans with Mr. Siena
and advise him of what he would be required to do.
Mr. Mc Millen indicated that he would like to see another exit
for the basement area.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- April 10th, 1979
Mr. Landolfi noted that they were concerned about how in the
case of a fire the children would get out.
Mr. Siena replied that if it is required that he would provide
another exit and added that the windows in the basement were according
to the requirements of the code.
Mr. Cortellino then asked just what a licensed nursery school
teacher was.
Mr. Siena replied that they are licensed to teach pre -kindergarten
to sixth grade with a BA degree.
Mr. Mc Millen asked about a lunch hour.
Mr. Siena replied that if they provided lunch they would have to
hire a nutrionist and that five of the students would probably be staying
for the day but they would have to provide their own bag lunch. He
added that at this point he could not really tell the number of
drpp offs and pick ups there would be but didn't think it would cause
a problem with increased traffic.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard for or against the Appeal.
Mr. Jerald Kriesberg noted that he was the developer of the
Primrose Hill Subdivision and added that most of the lots were in
the hands of various builders and the Board might want to consider
this as people will be moving into the houses in the future and
might want to have an opportunity to voice their opinions as there
will be about 15 other lot owners in this area.
Mr. Siena noted that when he made his application he was
advised that the property owners would be notified.
Mrs. Russ replied that Mr. Siena's abutting property owners
were Blooming Grove Associates and A.Y. Homes according the records
in the Assessor's office and we have no way of knowing who will own
these home until there are closings on the homes and the buyers are
put on the rolls.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wished to be
heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- April 10th, 1979
Appeal # 428, at the request of Juliana Garofalo - Julfran Farm,
seeking a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 421, subparagraph 17
of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit the construction
of a 54' by 76' barn for use as a private stable on property located
on Maloney Road and Smith Crossing Road, in the Town of Wappinger,
being parcel # 6359-01-110650.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mrs. Juliana Garofalo was present.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the Board may have a couple of questions
and added that some members of the Board had been out to the property.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there were 138 acres.
Mrs. Garofalo replied that there were 133 acres.
Mr. Landolfi asked if there was any entrance/exit on Maloney Road.
Mrs. Garofalo replied that it was on Smith Crossing Road.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about the number of horses that would be
on the property.
00, Mrs. Garofalo replied about thirty, that she now has between
26 to 27 and would be a private stable, it would be a breeding operation
and there would be no boarding of horses.
Mr. Mc Millen commented that it appeared to him that she just
Vanted to put up a structure, there was no change as it was an
agricultural use and asked if this was the area where the big open
field was on Smith Crossing and Maloney Road.
Mrs. Garofalo replied yes.
Mr. Cortellino noted that they would be breeding thirty horses,
foals are gotten rid of?
Mrs. Garofalo replied that they are sold and leave the property.
There were then some questions regarding whether the Garofalos
would be residing on the property -and who would presently care for
the horses.
Mrs. Garofalo indicated that they eventually planned to build
a house on the property when their home is sold and that they had
someone to look after the horses and feed and care for them. She noted
that they would build the barn and fence the property before the
horses would be on the property.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard for or against the application.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- April 10th, 1979
Mr. Sid Corbin noted that he owned the farm on the backside of this
property and his wife will manager things til the Garofalos move up
and it has always been a farm and had no objection.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:33 p.m.
Appeal # 429, at the request of Werner & Ruth Henzler, seeking
a use variance of Section 421, subparagraph 2A of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to subdivide their property which
would create a reduction of minimum acreage requirements in accordance
with the above-mentioned section, said property being located on
Smithtown Road and also having frontage on Route 9, in the Town of
Wappinger, being parcel # 6156-02-794970.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Werner Henzler and Mr. Ian G. Mac Donald, Esq., were
present.
Mr. Mac Donald noted that Mr. Henzler proposed to subdivide a
parcel of land which he wanted to give to his daughter to construct
a residence and this would reduce the total acreage assigned to the
trailer park. He noted that they had been in to see the Zoning Board
if the fall about this proposal and were now seeking the area variance.
Mr. Mac Donald added that they put dashed lines on the map to delineate
the trailer park and septic fields and this left a large portion of
the property virtually unused and this is basically a technical subdivision
and 9.290 acres would remain. Mr. Mac Donald further noted that it
was a non -conforming use although it conformed by having the acreage
and that they are not destroying the intent of the ordinance as the
trailers are located in one area.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the lot would face on Smithtown Road.
Mr. Mac Donald replied that the proposed lot would conform
and faced Smithtown Road and added that the Henzler's residence was
not part of the parcel before the Board.
Mr. Landolfi then read the following paragraphs from the
Dutchess County Department of Planning's referral 79-62, dated
April 6th, 1979.
General Information
The applicant requests a variance from the minimum lot area requirement
of ten acres for mobile home parks. The property consists of ten acres
of land; the existing land use is a mobile home park. A variance from
the lot area requirements would permit the applicant to subdivide the
ten acres and create additional lots and uses.
A significant ommiss ion in this application is the lack of a specific
number of acres to be varied; there is no indication of the number of
acres the mobile home would consist of if a variance were granted.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- April 10th, 1979
The more basic issue, however, is whether or not the ten acre minimum
lot area requirement for mobile home parks is appropriate. A change
in this provision should only be made after an analysis of the impact
of such a change throughout the Town. If a change were appropriate,
the zoning amendment process could then be used. A variance from the
requirement for a specific property would not be the appropriate
mechanism in this instance.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of Planning
recommends that this variance application be disapproved. If granted, a
precedent could be set for similar applications from other existing mobile
home parks in the Town. As indicated above, the appropriate mechanism for
appropriate changes in the minimum lot requirements would be an overall
analysis followed by the zoning amendment process.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its
decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures
enumerated in subject zoning action.
Dated: April 6, 1979
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning
By Signed/Richard Birch, Senior Planner
Mr. Mac Donald noted that the decision was up to the Zoning Board
based purely on the merits of the application.
Mr. Cortellino asked how many trailers were on the property.
Mr. Henzler replied that there were 21 trailers and felt that
the 1.67 acres he wanted to cut out had no bearing on the trailers.
Mrs. Waddle then asked about economic return on the property
and if there was financial hardship.
Mr. Mac Donald replied that economic hardship was not the
problem, that there was vacant unuseable land. He added that he
felt that the intent. of the ordinance was to spread the trailers
out but this was not the case on this parcel and the sum and substance
was the merits of this application and in light of what the Dutchess
County Department of Planning said he didn't feel that this would set
a precedent.
Mr. Landolfi replied that this was only an opinion.
Mrs. Waddle asked for clarification regarding where the
Henzlers presently lived.
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- April 10th, 1979
Mr. Mac Donald replied that the Henzlers resided on a separate
parcel which was not part of the application.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard for or against the application.
No one present wished to be heard.
Mr. Mc Millen then noted that this was in an RD -20 zone and
it appeared to be very close if Mr. Henzler gave 20,000 square feet
to his daughter and would he accept this alternative.
Mr. Mac Donald replied that he felt the basis of their argument
is the land is not being used and this was academic.
Mr. Mc Millen replied that the Board should not make things
more non -conforming.
Mr. Mac Donald replied that this was not their intent.
Mrs. Waddle commented that she felt that the ten acre
minimum for trailer parks was to provide open space or to have
each trailer on a lot of 20,000 square feet. She added that it
appeared that they might already be one trailer over what is
permitted on the parcel.
Mr. Mc Millen noted that if it was brought down to twenty
trailers and only 20,000 square feet was taken out that a variance
might not be needed.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The heard was closed at 8:50 p.m.
Appeal # 430, at the request of Gino Porco, seeking a use
variance of Section 421, subparagraphs 2A and B of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to construct a proposed ten unit
apartment building, on his property located on Maloney Road, consisting
of 2.37 acres, in the Town of Wappinger, being parcel # 6259-02-760823.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Gino Porco was present.
Mr. Landolfi noted that some members of the Board had been out
to look at the site.
Mrs. Waddle asked what the units would consist of.
Mr. Porco replied that there would be five one bedroom and
five two bedroom apartments with living rooms, kitchens and baths.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there was sewer and water available.
Mr. Porco replied that it would be septics and wells. He
added that the one well was enough.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8- April 10th, 1979
Mrs. Waddle then asked how old was the system and what was the
gallonage.
Mr. Porco replied 500 gallons and that he would have to put
in another septic.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the well was to serve both buildings, how
many gallons per minute were they presently getting from the well.
Mr. Porco replied that he did not know.
Mr. Cortellin noted that question number twenty on the Environmental
Assessment form asks for the water useage.
Mr. Porco replied that he did not want to spend money if he
could not do what he wanted.
Mr. Mc Millen asked Mr. Porco how he intended to build as it
appeared that the construction would take place on the top of the
hill.
Mr. Porco replied that he would take some dirt away.
Mr. Cortellin noted that on page three, question number two,
it said that 75 tons would be removed and this was quite a lot.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to be heard for or against the application.
No one wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
The Board then recessed at reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 427, at the request of Laurence Siena,
a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen, to
table action on the application.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 428, at the request of Juliana Garofalo,
a motion was made by Mr. Prager, seconded by Mrs. Waddle, that the
requested Special Use Permit be granted.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
With regard to Appeal # 429, at the request of Werner and Ruth
Henzler, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mr. Mc Millen,
that the requested variances be denied as the variance would change the
character of the district, because the required ten acre requirement
for a legally non -conforming trailer park would no longer be available and
further, no evidence of hardship was indicated.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- April 10th, 1979
With regard to Appeal # 420, at the request of Gino Porco, a motion
was made by Mr. Mc Millen, seconded by Mr. Prager, to deny the requested
variances as strict application of the Ordinance would not produce
undue hardship as the property in question would yield a reasonable
return if limited to the use permitted in the Ordinance because the
property may be utilized for other residential purposes.and further,
no evidence of proven hardship was indicated and the variance would
change the character of the district because a minimum of ten acres
in addition to central water and sewer are required for multi -family
units.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
A motion was then made by Mrs. Wgddle, seconded by Mr. Cortellino,
to adjourn.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
(Mrs Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
br
UNAPPROVED