1972-06-13The regular meeting of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of
Appeals was called to order on Tuesday, June 13, 1972 at 8:03 p.m., at
the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Arthur Kalaka
Allen B. Cooke
Charles Cortellino
Members Absent:
Gordon A. Hirt - resigned
Carol A. Waddle
Others Present:
Susan J. Pike, Zoning Administrator
Betty -Ann Geoghegan, Secretary
Mr. Kalaka asked the secretary is she had received affadavits of
publication from the newspaper.
The secretary noted that no affadavits had been received.
Mr. Kalaka then asked if all parties and abutting property
owners were notified.
The secretary replied that all parties were notified.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Appeal ## 151, at the request of Edward C. Anderson, seeking
a variance from Section 422.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance to construct a two -car garage within 23 feet of his
sideyard lot line, on his property located on 8 Top 0 Hill Road,
Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Anderson was present for his Appeal.
Mr. Kalaka asked Mr. Anderson how large his lot was.
Mr. Anderson replied approximately 150'by 3801.
Mr. Kalaka then noted that Mr. Anderson was in violation of
about two feet.
Mr. Cooke then asked Mr. Anderson how close the nearest building
is.
Co
Mr. Anderson replied that the nearest building was about 73'
Mr. Anderson noted that there was no other practical place on the
property to locate the garage.
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- June 13, 1972
The Board and Mr. Anderson then generally discussed the
existing driveway.
Mr. Anderson noted that his property was high and hilly.
Mr. Kalaka then asked Mr. Anderson how many children he had.
Mr. Anderson replied four and their ages were 15, 14, 11, and
10.
Mrs. Waddle then arrived at 8:07 p.m.
Mr. Cooke asked if there had been a garage.
Mr. Anderson replied yes but it had been converted.
Mr. Kalaka then asked Mr. Anderson how long he had lived. there.
Mr. Anderson replied that he has resided there for twelve years.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone present who wished
to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:09p.m.
Appeal #p 152, at the request of Michael F. Stach, seeking a
variance from Section 422.5 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance,
to erect an above -ground swimming pool within 5 feet of his sideyard
lot line, on his property located on 1 Cayuga Drive, Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Stach was present for the Appeal.
The recommendation of the Dutchess County Planning Board was read.
The Board and Mr. Stach then generally discussed the plot plan
of Mr. Stach's property.
Mr. Kalaka asked Mr. Stach where his house was located as it
was not shown on the plot plan.
Mr. Stach then indicated to the Board where his house was located.
Mr. Kalaka then noted that the proposed pool would be in violation
of about five feet.
Mrs. Waddle then asked Mr. Stach if the pool would be taken down
in the winter.
Mr. Stach replied that the pool would not be taken down.
Zoning Board of Appeals -3- June 13, 1972
Mr. Stach then continued stating that he had two children.
The Board asked if Mr. Stach belonged to any recreational facilities.
Mr. Stach stated that he belonged to the IBM Country Club.
Mr. Kalaka then asked Mr. Stach what type of pool would be
erected.
Mr. Stach replied that it would be aluminum, four foot high and
24 feet in diameter.
The Board and Mr. Stach then discussed possible location other
than the proposed for the pool.
Mr. Stach pointed out to the Board that there was no other place
for the pool as his drainfields and septic were located in the backyard.
The Chairman then asked if there was anyone else present who
wished to be heard.
No one present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:15 p.m.
Appeal # 153, at the request of Reissler-Ruit Bldg. Corp.,
seeking a variance from Section 422, paragraph 5 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance to complete construction of a single-
family dwelling which has been constructed within 13.56 feet
of their sideyard lot line, on their property located on Amherst
Lane, Town of Wappinger.
Richard Reissler and Robert Ruit were present for their appeal.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Kalaka asked how far to completion the house was.
Mr. Ruit stated that the house was 95 % to 100 / completed.
Mr. Kalaka then stated that actually the house was about seven
feet in violation.
Mr. Ruit then stated that the lot had been purchased with the
kd foundation already on the lot and the violation was discovered when
another lot was being surveyed.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- June 13, 1972
Mr. Ruit continued stating that the construction is almost
complete and if they had to start from scratch the cost would be
prohibitive and that he had purchased the property with the
foundation already on the property at which time a building permit
had been issued to the original builder.
The Board and the appeallants then discussed the location
of the property. It was pointed out that it is close to the
Montclair property.
Mr. Kalaka then asked what needed to be done in order to
complete the house.
Mr. Ruit stated that it had to be painted and the kitchen
put in.
Mr. Cortellino then asked if they had received a building
pefmit .
Mr. Ruit replied that Cornell Builders had obtained the
original building permit, put in the foundation and never
completed the house, the permit expired and Mr. Ruit then
reapplied for a building permit which was issued for the lot.
The Board and the appellaihts then generally discussed
the other homes in the area that had been built by them.
The Board then discussed the possibility of purchasing the
adjoining lot and taking 10 feet and deeding it to the lot in
violation.
Mr. Reissler and Mr. Ruit explained that this would be a difficult
solution to the problem as they could not be sure whether or not
they could purchase the lot.
The Board then asked if there was anyone present who wished to
be heard.
Mr. Howd of Amherst Lane stated that he owned lot # 69 the one
adjacent to the lot the variance was being sought for, and that
he didn't want to voice a formal objection but had some questions.
Mr. Howd noted that with the discovery of incorrect lot line
the lot line of lot # 68 goes through the middle of his driveway.
Mr. Howd further noted that apparently this put his lot in
violation.
The Board and Mr. & Mrs. Howd then generally discussed
this point.
Mr. Howd further noted that he apparently has been in
violation for 5 or 6 years. Mr. Howd wondered if some
agreement could be made concerning his driveway.
Zoning Board of Appeals -5- June 13, 1972
The Board then asked if anyone else present wished to be
heard.
No one else present wished to be heard.
The hearing was closed at 8:35 p.m.
Appeal ## 154, at the request of Ronald M. Smith, seeking a
variance from Article IV, Section 422, paragraph 5 of the Town of
Wappinger Zoning Ordinance, to construct an attached garage addition
within 10 feet of his sideyard property line, on his property located
on 15 Cider Mill Loop, Town of Wappinger.
The Chairman read the legal notice.
Mr. Smith was present for his Appeal.
Mr. Kalaka asked Mr. Smith if he presently had a garage.
Mr. Smith replied yes stating that it was 20 feet by 20 feet
and very small.
460 Mr. Kalaka then asked if it was an attached garage.
Mr. Smith replied that the garage was in the basement and
the proposed garage would be attached to the house.
Mrs. Waddle then asked if Mr. Smith planned to keep the
existing garage as a garage.
Mr. Smith replied that part would remian as a garage and
part would be used as a laundry room.
Mr. Kalaka then noted that the proposed addition would be
32 feet wide.
Mr. Smith replied that was correct.
The Board then discussed the size of the proposed garage
in comparision with the existing one.
Mr. Smith noted that behind his existing garage was a family
room which had dimensions of 12' by 20' and the exist garage was
20' by 20' making the total area 20' by 32'. He noted that the
proposed garage was 15' by 32' and the necessity of this large
i area was for storage of lawnmower and bicycles.
The Board then asked if anyone else present wished to be heard.
No one else present wished to be heard.
Zoning Board of Appeals -6- June 13, 1972
The hearing was closed at 8:45 P.M.
The Zoning Board of Appeals then went into executive
session at 8:47 p.m.
The meeting was reopened at 9:55 p.m.
Regarding Appeal # 151, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino,
seconded by Mrs. Waddle, to grant a variance on the grounds that
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same use
district because other properties have twenty foot side line
setbacks and the variance would not change the character of the
district, because other.lots have less side line setbacks.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
Regarding Appeal # 152, a motion was made by Mr. Cooke,
seconded by Mrs. Waddle, to grant a variance on the grounds that the
hardship created is unique and would be shared by all properties alike
in the vicinity of the property in the same use district, because all
houses in the area share the same problem.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
Regarding Appeal # 153, a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle,
seconded by Mr. Cooke, to grant a variance on the grounds
that the property in question would not yield a reasonable return if
limited to the use permitted under the Ordinance, because the cost of
relocation or dismantling the house would be prohibitive and
the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all
properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same
use district, because the previous owner constructed the foundation
in violation of setbacks unknowingly of which the appellants were
also unaware and the variance would not change the character of
the district, because the distance between houses is reasonable.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
Regarding Appeal # 154, a motion was made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded
by Mr. Cortellino, to grant a variance on the grounds that the property
in question would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the
use permitted under the Ordinance, because the topography of the land
prohibits the construction of a garage elsewhere.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
With regard to Appeal # 149, at the request of Harold Bonnerwith,
seeking a variance from Section 416.062 of the Town of Wappinger
Zoning Ordinance as it applies to his junk yard located on the
southwest corner of Middlebush Road and Old Route 9, Town of
Wappinger, the following letters were read:
7i;:.'
Zoning Board of Appeals -7- June 13, 1972
June 9, 1972
Mr. Arthur Kalaka
Zoning Board - Wappingers Falls
Wappingers Falls, NY
Dear Mr. Kalaka,
I understand that Oliver's Transmission, corner of
Middlebush Road and Old Rt. 9, is seeking a zoning variance
in order to expand their "operations." I live on
Middlebus Road, and I feel that the corner lot where
Oliver's is located is a disgrace. The lot is crammed full of
rotting decayed autos and there are two trailers (both inhabited)
parked in front of this mess. To me, it all appears very
unsanitary as well as an eye -sore.
Recently the Zoning Board of Hyde Park has cracked
down on abandoned cars and will issue fines to people who
have even one junk car parked on their property.
I feel the Zoning Board should investigate forcing the
460 owner to clean up the lot before even considering a zoning
variance. Middlebush Road is a residential area now with a
junk yard as part of it - I would like it to be a 100/
livable area.
Sincerely,
signed: Robert J. Coogan
Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, NY
The following letter was read as it was the recommendation of
the Dutchess County Department of Planning:
To: Zoning Board of Appeals
Referral: 72-132 Town of Wappinger
RE: Bonnerwith Request for Variance
The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject
referral within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article
At 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m) and finds the decision in this
matter primarily involves matters of local concern.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends the decision
be based upon local study of the facts in the case.
Zoning Board of Appeals
-8- June 13, 1972
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.
Date: June 7, 1972
signed: Henry Heissenbuttel, Commissioner
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning
Regarding this Appeal, a motion was made by Mr. Cortellino,
seconded by Mrs. Waddle, stating the following:
The fencing of the yard shall comply with Section 416.062,
with the following exception:
1. The junk yard shall be completely surrounded by a fence
of chain link type, no less than six feet in height, at a
setback of fifty feet from all streets and property lines.
2. The yards between the fence and property lines shall
be landscaped with plantings. Type and spacing of such
plantings shall be according to the recommendations of
the Engineer to the Town.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
The Zoning Board of Appeals then had before them Appeal # 156,
at the request of Mrs. Rita Ruder, seeking an interpretation of
the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Wappinger, regarding a
specific definition of "Beauty Parlor" in order to permit the
following: Installation of a small office in a portion of her
home sufficient in size to handle a single client at a time and
engage in the home occupation of cosmetology and hairdressing on
her property located on 1 Ardmore Drive, Town of Wappinger.
Miss Pike, Zoning Administrator, informed the Board that she
had discussed this appeal with Mr. Rappleyea, Attorney to the Town,
and he felt that a hearing could be held without a legal notice
being published and an interpretation could be given.
The Chairman then read the following letter from Mrs. Ruder:
1 Ardmore Drive
Wappingers Falls, N.Y. 12590
June 7, 1972
Town of Wappingers
Zoning Board
Town Hall
Mill ,Street
Wappingers Falls, N.Y.
Zoning Board of Appeals -9- June 13, 1972
Attention: Mrs. Pike
Dear Madam,
In accordance with our recent telephone conversations, I wish to
petition the Board for an adjustment of the Zoning Ordinance, to wit:
To permit the installation of an office in a portion of my
home, at the address heading, in order that I may pursue
my profession as a cosmotologist and hairdresser.
The office would be arranged to handle a single client at a time and
would be constructed, furnished, and maintained in accordance with
all applicable state and local regulations.
I am a licensed cosmotologist and hairdresser for the past 20 years.
I am unable to practice my profession outside of my home because of
my children who need my -attention.
I hope that I may have a favorable and early reply to this request.
Yours truly,
460 signed: Rita Ruder
The Board also read the following addendum attached to Mrs. Ruder
Appeal: ,
An interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance rega-r ding a specific
definition -of "Beauty Parlor" is requested in order to permit
the following:
Install a small office in a portion of my home sufficient in
size to handle a single client at a time and engage in the home
occupation of cosmotology and hairdressing. I do not plan to
operate a Beauty Parlor as conventionally understood or defined.
It would seem that engaging in the occupation of cosmotology and
hairdressing, a profession in which I have been licensed for the past
twenty years, in a portion of my home on a single client basis falls
within the definition of "Customary Home Occupation" and is not in con-
flict with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance
regarding secondary use of my dwelling.
An individual, such as myself, engaged,in the public practice of cos-
motology and hairdressing, qualified, licensed, and regulated by the
State, and offering skilled services to clients is a professional in
every sense of the word as are Chiropractors, Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers,
etc. As a professional I feel that I should be able to pursue my
profession in my home within the other Articles of the Ordinance as
do the Chiropractors, Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Etc.
Zoning Board of Appeals -10- June 13, 1972
An early reply is requested so that I may proceed as petitioned, or if
refused to carry the matter further with the aid of legal counsel.
signed: Rita Ruder - June 8, 1972
1 Ardmore Drive
Wappingers Falls, NY
Mrs. Ruder was present for the Appeal.
Mr. Kalaka asked Mrs. Ruder if she was presently involved
with cosmetology and hairdressing.
Mrs. Ruder replied no.
Mr. Kalaka then asked Mrs. Ruder what was cosmetology.
Mrs. Ruder replied that this was involved with make-up.
Mr. Kalaka asked if Mrs. Ruder was aware of what the
Zoning Ordinance had to say in regard to this.
Mrs. Ruder replied yes, but she wanted and interpretation of
Beauty Parlor.
The Board then inquired as to whether or not the services
Mrs. Ruder offered were any different than those offered by a
"Beauty Parlor"
Mrs. Ruder replied that the services were the same but only
one client at a time was handled.
The Chairman then read from Section 220., the definition of
Home Occupation, Customary: An accessory use of a service character
customarily conducted within a dwelling by the residents thereof,
which is clearly secondary to the use of the dwelling for living
purposes and does not change the character thereof or have any
exterior evidence of such secondary use other than a small name
plat, and in connection therewith there is not involved the keeping
of a stock in trade. The office of a physician, surgeon, dentist or
other individual musical instrument limited to a single pupil at a time,
who offers skilled services to clients, and is not professionally engaged
in the purchase or sale of economic goods, shall be deemed to be Home
Occupations; and the occupations of dressmaker, milliner, or seamstress,
each with not more than one paid assistant shall be deemed to be Home
Occupations. Dancing instruction, band instrument instruction in groups,
tea rooms, tourist homes, beauty parlors, barbers, convalescent homes,
mortuary establishments, and stores, trades or business of any kind not
herein excepted shall not be deemed to be Home Occupations.
Zoning Board of Appeals -11-
June 13, 1972
The Board and Mrs. Ruder then generally discussed this section of
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Winfield Ruder then stated that this really was not a
definition of "Beauty Parlor" which was what was requested.
Mr. Ruder continued stating that what his wife planned was
not a beauty parlor as each customer would receive individual
attention as there would be only one client at a time.
The Board then again asked if there were any different types
of services offered that would make this different from a beauty
parlor.
Mr. Ruder replied that essentially the services were the same
with the exception that his wife would have only one customer at a
time.
Mr. Ruder also noted that most beauty parlors sell wigs and
hair brushes which his wife will not be doing.
The Chairman then read Section 455.03 regarding parking
requirements.
The Board then asked Mrs. Ruder if she has worked professionally
in other shops.
Mrs. Ruder replied that she had worked in Saks Fifth Avenue
and other beauty parlors in the New York vicinity.
Mrs. Cornelia, a neighbor, then spoke in favor of the
establishment of such type business as Mrs. Ruder had applied
for
The Board then again generally discussed the appeal in regard
to the definition of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman then stated that the Board would like to review
the Appeal at greater length and possibly consult with the Town
Attorney and an interpretation would be given at the next
Zoning Board meeting which would be held on July 11, 1972.
It was then noted by the Board that letter were received from
Daniel Bloom regarding Power Test Petro and a letter from Susan Pike,
Zoning Administrator regarding the appeal of Mr. Martin Leskow. Both
letters were placed on file.
A motion was then made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cooke,
to accept the minutes of May 9, 1972 and May 16, 1972.
Motion Unanimously Carried.
Zoning Board of Appeals -12- June 13, 1972
A motion was then made by Mrs. Waddle, seconded by Mr. Cooke,
to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty, n Geoghegan, Se etary
C. .
APPROVED JULY 11, 1972