1978-05-09ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN HALL
MAY 9TH, 1978 - 8:00 P.M. MILL STREET
AGENDA WAPP. FALLS, NY
I PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Appeal # 393, at the request of John R. Albrecht III,
seeking a variance of Section 414.05 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit him to erect a section of fence eight foot in
height on his property located on Route 376, being parcel # 6358-01-
254824, in the Town of Wappinger.
2. Appeal # 394, at the request of Patrick Falciano, seeking
a variance of Section 414.06 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit him to erect a 20' by 24' attached garage within 20 feet
of his sideyard lot line on property located on 47 Cider Mill Loop,
in the Town of Wappinger.
3. Appeal ¢# 395, at the request of Donald J. De Lorenzo, seeking
a variance of Section 422, paragraph 6 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit him to erect a 14' by 20' addition within 38 feet
of his rear yard lot line on his property located on 10 Carroll Drive,
in the Town of Wappinger.
4. Appeal # 396, at the request of William John & Virginia E. Brown,
seeking a variance of Section 411.07 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit then to erect an 18' by 24' addition to their
residence located on 30 Cedar Knolls, in the Town of Wappinger. Said
property having no frontage on a street or highway as defined by
Section 280A of the Town Law.
5. Appeal # 397, at the request of Klassen Builders, Inc.
seeking variances of Section 422, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to erect a single-family
dwelling at lesser setbacks than required on Lot 14 East Salem Road,
being parcel # 6256-02-769756, in the Town of Wappinger.
6. Appeal # 398, at the request of Florence Nelson, seeking a
use variance to permit an additional principal permitted use to be
conducted in a local business zone on property located on Route 9D,
being parcel # 6157-01-073649, and owned by John De Layo, in the
Town of Wappinger.
7. Appeal # 399, at the request of Robert -Mark Realty, Inc.
seeking a variance of Section 421, paragraph G of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to erect a 4' by 6' free-standing
sign on Lot 54 of the Spook Hill Estates Subdivision, being parcel #
6257-01-172676, in the Town of Wappinger.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Appeal # 392, at the request of Furman B. Rogers, seeking
a variance of Article IV, Section 411.07 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a single-family home
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MAY 9TH, 1978
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
dwelling on his lot located on Schlicter Road, in the Town of
Wappinger. Said property having no frontage on a street or highway
as defined by Section 280A of the Town Law.
III MINUTES:
Meetings of February 9th, 1978 and March 21st, 1978. (Copies
were previously Distributed.)
The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Town of Wappinger was called to order on Tuesday, May 9th, 1978
at 8:17 p.m., at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls,
New York.
Members Present:
Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman
Charles A. Cortellino
Carol A. Waddle
Members Absent:
Donald Mc Millen
Howard Prager
Others Present:
Robert G. Ruit, Bldg. Inspector/Zoning Admin.
Betty -Ann Russ, Secretary
The Chairman asked the secretary if all the Appellants and
abutting property owners had been notified.
The secretary replied that they had been notified.
The Chairman then explained that it was the Board's procedure
to hear all the cases and then retire to executive session to go
over the material presented and then reconvene at which time they
may or may not render a decision on each appeal.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ## 393, at the request of John R. Albrecht III, seeking
a variance of Section 414.05 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to permit him to erect a section of fence eight foot in height on
his property located on Route 376, being parcel # 6358-01-254824,
in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. John Albrecht was present for the Appeal.
Mr. Albrecht noted that he would like to have an eight foot
fence.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he and Mr. Cortellino had been out
to the property and had a few questions. Mr. Landolfi then asked
Mr. Albrecht how long he had lived there.
IM
Zoning Board of Appeals -2-
Mr. Albrecht replied four years.
May 9th, 1978
Mrs. Waddle then asked how long the trailer on the adjacent
property had been there.
Mr. Albrecht replied that he thought about 15 or 16 years.
Mr. Landolfi noted that this had been checked and the
trailer had been placed on the property prior to zoning.
Mrs. Waddle asked if there would be only one section of fence.
Mr. Cortellino replied that there were hemlocks and there
had been a fence.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if the proposed fence would be similar
to what Mr. Albrecht had.
Mr. Albrecht replied that it would be eight foot stockade
fence for 64 feet and then would drop to six feet in height.
Mr. Landolfi noted that the trailer appeared to be on the
property line.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the trailer was in before zoning
can it still be on the line.
Mr. Ruit noted that it was considered non -conforming and
there were no sideyard requirements prior to the adoption of the
zoning ordinance.
Mrs. Marilyn Albrecht noted that she was in favor of the
appeal for the reasons stated in their appeal form.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to speak for or against the appeal.
Mrs. Belle Beneway noted that she was opposed and had lived
next door for forty years and never had any problems but since
the Albrechts moved in they took down fence and we went to court
and Judge Bulger ordered them to erect a fence. She added that
the trailer has been there for 19 years and if this fence goes up
that high it will shut off air and light in the trailer which is
now surrounded by cedar trees and that they have had lawyers
working on this problem which has been going on for three years
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- May 9th, 1978
and we are presently having the property resurveyed and it should
be ready within thirty days and this was just a spite fence.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mrs. Beneway if she was the owner
of the property.
Mrs. Beneway replied yes and noted that her daughter-in-law
lived in the trailer and also wanted to speak and that this fence
would block the view and would be a health and fire hazard.
Mrs. Pat Beneway noted that she lived in the trailer and it
had been there for 19 years and if the Board allowed the eight
foot fence she would have very little light and that since the
trailer is on the line if the fence is erected she wouldn't even
be able to open the windows.
Mr. Landolfi asked how difficult it would be to move the
trailer.
Mrs. Pat Beneway replied that were several large trees
on the side.
Mr. Landolfi then asked how tall was the trailer.
Mrs. Pat Beneway replied about 9 feet at the most.
Mr. Landolfi noted that even with a six foot fence which
is permitted it would appear there would still be a problem with
the windows.
Mrs. Pat Beneway replied that the hemlocks don't prevent
her from getting air where the fence would.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was no other place on the
property where the trailer could be moved.
Mrs. Pat Beneway replied that there were numerous trees and
her father-in-law's lawn and added that at least she was now
getting some cross ventilation with the windows and didn't have
an air conditioner.
Mr. Howard Beneway said he quessed most everything had been
said and the original property line had been straight, now it was
all zig zagged, and Mr. Miller (Land Surveyor) was off someplaces
by seven feet and original survey showed I owned four feet past
the trailer and the other fence had been taken down and we are in
the process of having the property resurveyed to find the boundary.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- May 9th, 1978
i s Mr. Albrecht noted that when he bought the property he had
�4w a V.A. survey and now the second time the surveyor brought a
transit in and the trailer was on the line.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if both parties couldn't get together
and try to work the lot line dispute out.
Mrs. Waddle noted that she didn't think the Board should
get involved with the lot line dispute and should stick to
the facts.
Mr. Landolfi noted that at the planning and zoning seminar
held in April, boards were advised that they should seek solutions
to the problems, other then giving variances.
Mr. Albrecht noted that he was here for a variance for the
eight foot fence.
Mr. Beneway asked what would be done if after the survey it
turns out the fence is on his property.
Mr. Albrecht replied that if it was wrong after the survey
he would remove the fence and the trees.
Mrs. Belle Beneway noted that they had tried to be neighborly
but it didn't work.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.
Appeal ## 394, at the request of Patrick Falciano, seeking
a variance of Section 414.06 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance
to permit him to erect a 20' by 24' attached garage within 20 feet
of his sideyard lot line on property located on 47 Cider Mill Loop,
in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
No one was present in behalf of the appellant.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he and Mr. Cortellino had been out
to look at the property and Mr. Falciano had indicated to them
that he would be present for the public hearing.
The hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. as no one wished
to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5-
May 9th, 1978
Appeal # 395, at the request of Donald J. De Lorenzo, seeking
a variance of Section 422, paragraph 6 of the Town of Wapppinger
Zoning Ordinance, to permit him to erect a 14' by 20' addition
within 38 feet of his rear yard lot line on his property located
on 10 Carroll Drive, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Donald De Lorenzo was present for the appeal.
Mr. Landolfi noted that Mr. Cortellino and himself had been
out to look at the property and asked how long Mr. De Lorenzo had
resided there.
Mr. De Lorenzo replied since 1965 and there were five in the
family.
Mr. Landolfi then asked if there was any reason why Mr. De Lorenzo
couldn't cut off the addition by two feet.
Mr. De Lorenzo replied that he wanted to make the dining room
larger and on the other side was a bedroom and he didn't want the
family room there.
Mr. Cortellino asked why the kitchen was being changed.
Mr. De Lorenzo answered that it was long and narrow and one
half was the kitchen and the other half was the dining room. He
then referred to the floor plan he had submitted.
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 8:40 p.m.
Appeal # 396, at the request of William John and Virginia E. Brown,
seeking a variance of Section 411.07 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance, to permit them to erect an 18' by 24' addition to their
residence located on 30 Cedar Knolls, in the Town of Wappinger. Said
property having no frontage on a street or highway as defined by
Section 280A of the Town Law.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6-
Mr. William Brown was present for the Appeal.
May 9th, 1978
Mr. Landolfi noted that he and Mr. Cortellino had been out
to the property but since there were two rather large dogs they
did not get out of the car.
Mr. Brown noted that they wanted an additional bedroom, a
family room and a half bath and they have three children and
expect to have another and they need more room. In discussing
his plot plan with the Board, Mr. Brown added that the house had
been built about thirteen years ago and he had spoken to his
neighbors and they had no objections.
The Chairman then asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Mrs. Virginia Brown came before the Board and noted that the
way their house sits it is too close to the line now as the house
is on an angle and that the previous owners of the adjacent
property years ago bought seven feet that was originally part of
our property and the way the house is located on the lot this
is really the only place the addition could be placed.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present
who wished to be heard for or against the appeal.
No one wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:45 p.m.
Appeal # 397, at the request of Klassen Builders, Inc.
seeking variances of Section 433, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Town
of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to erect a single-
family dwelling at lesser setbacks than required on Lot 14 East
Salem Road, being parcel # 6256-02-769756, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Otto Klassen, President of Klassen Builders, Inc., was
present for the Appeal.
Mr. Klassen noted that he was willing to deed another
40 feet of property so he may contruct a home on this lot. He
added that the lot line was on the Town line and this was why
tw it was an odd shape and that the proposed house would be ten feet
zoning Board of Appeals -7- May 9th, 1978
from the line and forty feet parallel and indicated these dimensions
for the Board by showing them the plot plan he had prepared.
Mr. Klassen also noted that when he subdivides his property in
Fishkill that this lot won't be in violation. He added that the
septic system is in the front of the lot and he couldn't get a
house that would fit in with the existing homes in the area on
this lot that would fit without being in violation.
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 8:48 p.m.
Appeal # 398, at the request of Florence Nelson, seeking a
use variance to permit an additional principal permitted use to be
conducted in a local business zone on property located on Route 9D
being parcel # 6157-01-073649, and owned by John De Layo, in the
Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mrs. Florence Nelson was present for the Appeal.
Mrs. Nelson noted that she wanted to use one room in
front for the sale of dried flower arrangements.
Mrs. Waddle asked if the property had been used for a
business before.
Mr. Ruit replied yes but that the property had not been
for residential use.
Mr. Landolfi asked about parking.
Mrs. Waddle noted that the entrance was off Marlorville Road
and that there was a parking area in the back.
Mrs. Nelson noted that she planned to have one sign, only
what may be allowed and it would be on some spot on the porch.
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 8:50 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -8-
May 9th, 1978
Appeal ## 399, at the request of Robert -Mark Realty, Inc.
seeking a variance of Section 421, paragraph G of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to permit them to erect a 4' by 6' free-
standing sign on Lot ## 54 of the Spook Hill Estates Subdivision, being
parcel #k 6257-01-172676, in the Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Jonathan Jacobson, Esq. was present in behalf of the
appellant.
Mr. Landolfi noted that he was familar with the area and
the lot on which the sign was to be located but was unable to
determine the exact location of the sign.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if the sign would be setback
15 to 20 feet from the street.
Mr. Jacobson replied that it would conform to the setback
requirement and that they were seeking a variance on the size
of the sign as the ordinance permits only three square feet and
they wanted a 4' by 6' sign.
Mr. Landolfi then asked how many parcels .remained to be
sold.
Mr. Jacobson noted that there were 29 lots and the roads and
improvements are going in and the builder is ready to purchase the
property from Shelter Mid -Hudson Properties who gave us permission
to make the appeal.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if Robert -Mark was the agent.
Mr. Jacobson replied yes. He added that the sign would be
yellow and brown and would indicate the property would be for sale
and there wouldn't be a great deal of information on the sign.
Mr. Landolfi asked where on the lot the sign would be physically
located.
Mr. Jacobson replied that the sign would be on goal posts
at the required setback.
Mrs. Waddle then asked why the sign was needed.
Mr. Jacobson noted that people would drive around and the sign
would let them know who to contact.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- May 9th, 1978
Mr. Landolfi then asked if the appeallants advertised
in the newspapers.
Mr. Jacobson replied that they advertised in Westchester, in
the dailys and weeklys and also in the local papers.
Mr. Landolfi then asked Mr. Jacobson what the sign will
buy him.
Mr. Jacobson replied that it would point out to buyers
where the property is and who to contact.
Mr. Landolfi then read the following petition.
May 4, 1978
As residents of the Town of Wappinger and specifically, Spook Hill
Road, the following people strongly oppose Appeal ## 399 by
Robert -Mark Realty.
Name
S/ Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Zysk
S/ Mr. & Mrs. William Hamlin
S/ Mr. & Mrs. W.J. Neave
S/ Mr. & Mrs. - J. Jastrebski
S/ Mr. & Mrs. K. Knutick
S/ Mr. & Mrs. G. Benan
S/ Mr. & Mrs. D. Perrini
S/ Mr. & Mrs. Barry Rosenberg
Address
70
Spook
Hill
Road
68
Spook
Hill
Road
66
Spook
Hill
Road
62
Spook
Hill
Road
60
Spook
Hill
Road
58
Spook
Hill
Road
56
Spook
Hill
Road
64
Spook
Hill
Road
Mr. Jacobson commented that the sign wouldn't detract from
the area as it was only 4' by 6' and the three square feet permitted
by the ordinance wouldn't do anything. He added that it would be
a wood sign with a brown background and the quadrants would be
yellow and Robert -Mark Realty, For Sale and the phone number would
be on the sign.
Mr. Cortellino commented that this sign would just
identify the broker and how does this tell people where the
property is.
The Board then looked at the subdivision map noting that
all the front portion of the subdivision had been sold and homes
built on and the lots for sale are in the back and the only vacant
lot in the front was where the sign was proposed to be located.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- May 9th, 1978
Mr. Jacobson noted that the people would see the sign and
call and would be shown the lots that are available. He added
that this is the only lot that they own that has frontage on
Spook Hill Road.
The Board then discussed possible locations for the sign
but it was reported that the other vacant land in the subdivision
was owned by the Town of Wappinger and was recreation land.
Mrs. Waddle then noted that she thought the proposed location
would confuse people as they would think this was the only vacant
lot available.
Mr. Cortellino noted that there was virgin timber on the
other side and some people might think this was the land for sale.
Mr. Jacobson replied that when people see the sign they
will call.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present
who wished to be heard for or against the Appeal.
Priscilla Ann Robb of 72 Spook Hill Road, noted that
her property was adjacent to lot 54 on which the sign was proposed
to be located. Ms. Robb then submitted the following letter
to the Board.
75 Spook Hill Road
Wappingers Falls, NY
May 9, 1978
Zoning Board of Appeals
Town of Wappinger
Town Hall - Mill Street
Wappingers Falls, N.Y.
RE: Mark Realty - Appeal # 399
Dear Board Members:
I would like to be on record as being opposed to the erection
of a sign on lot 54 of the Spook Hill Estates subdivision. This
particular lot is situated on a bad turn on Spook Hill Road and there
have been many accidents and near accidents on this turn through the
years, two within the past two weeks.
I believe the added distraction of a sign on this property
would create an increase in the occurence of accidents due to
cars slowing down -or stopping on the pavement to copy down the
Zoning Board of Appeals -11- May 9th, 1978
advertising information.
I trust the board will take this into consideration when
making their decision.
Very truly yours,
S/Frances L. Frisina
Ms. Robb noted that a lot of people travel this area and that
a car hit a tree but if that hadn't been there the car would have
hit her house and was afraid of property damage as the cars don't
heed the speed limit and that the sign would further distract
drivers as they may not be looking ahead.
Mr. Jacobson asked if they could put the sign on Ms. Robb's
property and he appreciated her concern but didn't think the
sign would make a difference.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to be heard.
Mr. Joseph Ludewig came before the Board and noted that his
family had the property across the road and that he was very
interested to hear the discussion and was concerned about the
interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as the sign proposed was
an advertisement for RobertMark Realty and not for the lots or
builder which he didn't believe was permitted and that the Zoning
Ordinance spells out what the appeals board can and cannot do.
He added that the proposed location of the sign was not in the
right place and questioned whether it was on a buildable lot.
Mr. Ludewig added that this was a dangerous curve and cars would slow
down, stop and read this sign and this was hazardous. He also noted
that the sign was not for the owners of the property but was an
advertisement for Robert -Mark Realty and not the lots, and ideally
the sign should be located on Reggie Drive although the entire time
Schoonmaker was building here they didn't have a sign and he
didn't see the need for a sign now as they are just in the process
of developing the roads, etc.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to be heard.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The hearing was then closed at 9:17 p.m.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- May 9th, 1978
The Board then retired for an executive session and reconvened
at 9:55 p.m.
With regard to Appeal # 393, at the request of John R. Albrecht,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mrs. Waddle, to
grant the variance with the stipulation that the fence shall be
erected on the property line or property of Albrecht and if the
survey indicates that the fence and/or trees are not on the
Albrecht property said fence and/or trees will be moved accordingly.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 394, at the Request of Patrick Falciano,
a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
table action on the Appeal as the appellant was not present.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 395, at the request of Donald J. De Lorenzo,
a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mrs. Waddle, to
grant the requested rear yard varaince.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 396, at the request of William John and
Virginia E. Brown, a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by
Mr. Cortellino, to grant the variance as it would not change the
character of the district because all properties in the area are
located on the private• road and the sideyard setback variance
is also granted.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 397, at the request of Klassen Builders
Inc., a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mrs. Waddle,
to grant the variance in accordance with plot plan entitled "Map
of Survey, Lot No. 14, Auklo Realty, Town of Wappinger, Dutchess
County New York", dated March 28, 1978, revised May 8, 1978 and
prepared by Richard G. Barger, P.E. & L.S. and further, a deed
in escrow for the 40 additional feet for Lot 14 shall be prepared
and a copy shall be given to the Building Inspector prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
Zoning Board of Appeals -13- May 9th, 1978
With regard to Appeal # 398, at the request of Florence Nelson,
a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
tw grant a variance as it would not change the character of the
district as other businesses are located in the area.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 399, at the request of Robert -Mark
Realty, Inc., a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by
Mr. Cortellino, to table action on the Appeal and directed the
secretary to write. to the Appellant and request that they provide
additional information with regard to what will appear on the
sign and the proposed setback.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
With regard to Appeal # 392, at the request of Furman Rogers,
a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
grant the requested variance.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by Mrs. Waddle,
to accept the minutes of February 9th, 1978 and March 21st, 1978.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
A motion was then made by Mr. Cortellino, seconded by
Mrs. Waddle, to adjourn.
Motion Was Unanimously Carried
By Those Members Present
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i000 4"
(Mrs.) etty-Ann Russ, Secretary
br
UNAPPROVED