Loading...
1966-01-11The regular meeting of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals was held on January 11, 1966 at the Town Hall, Mill Street, Wappingers Falls, New York, beginning at 8:00 p.m. Members Present: David N. Koffsky Thomas Graham Richard Jacobson Members Absent: Frederick Koehler The minutes of the previous meeting were read. A motion was made by Thomas Graham, seconded by Richard Jacobson, to accept the minutes of the December 21, 1965 meeting as read. Motion Unanimously Carried 8:00 P.M. - Public Hearing on Appeal #k 44, at the request of Margaret Card seeking a variance to permit re -location of a legally non -conforming store on her lot located on Route 9 and Fowlerhouse Road. Mrs. Card was not present. Her attorney, Mr. James R. Brown, Jr., 1 Washington Street, Poughkeepsie, New York, was present. Mr. Brown came before the Board. The present store will be demolished. A new location for a store in the back or on the remaining premises is requested. He respectfully urged that this is a legitimate bonafide hardship case. It is an act of the State putting these people out of business. They should have the right to use their property the way they have been using it. The Board reviewed the highway taking map. Mr. Brown presented the Board with plans of the proposed building. He stated that the apartment now over the store will be eliminated. Mr. Brown read Section 416.05 of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Ordinance. He presented the Board with a letter which Mrs. Card received from the Planning Board denying her a review for site plan approval due to the fact that it is a non- conforming use, and that it should be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Brown stated that assuming that this case does fall under Section 415.035 of the Zoning Ordinance, that a variance should be granted on hardship. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to speak in favor of the appeal. Mr. Angelo Williams, Beechwood Circle, stated that he was in favor of granting this request because the store was a convenience to those who live in the area. Mrs. Ina Glass, Beechwood Circle, stated that she was in favor of granting this request because the store was a convenience Zoning Board of Appeals -2- January 11, 1966 to her family. Mr. William Garnsey, Fowlerhouse Road, stated that he felt that the store is a necessity to the neighborhood. Mr. Robert Gianuzzi, Albany Post Road, stated that he felt the store was necessary, and also, a convenience to the elderly people who don't have to travel as far. Mr. Edward McAllister, Birchwood Mobile Homes, stated that a hundred people use the store. He stated that the signatures are shown on the list presented to the Board. He further stated that it is a clean store, it is run right, there are no loud noises, rackets, etc., and in the same vicinity there are bars and grills, garages, and wrecking yards. He stated that this man should be allowed to have a good, clean, legitimate business. The Chairman asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak against this appeal. Mrs. Edward Halpin, Fowlerhouse Road, stated that the deed restrictions on their property were put there to protect their property. She stated that as far as the store on Route 9, this is not now adjacent to their property, but it is going to be adjacent when the State claims a portion of the property for the proposed highway, Route 9 will be adjacent to Mr. Woolheisees property. She also stated that trash has been accummulating on the property in the rear of the store ever since the store has been in operation. She asked where the McAllisters live. It was replied that they live in Birchwood Mobile Homes. She stated that she felt that Beechwood Circle is not in the immediate vicinity. She stated that according to the Section on demolition, the property could be reconstructed in the same location. She asked if it is going to be the same location. She stated that this would be impossible. She stated that this demolition and reconstruction apply to property with non -conforming deeds or property with conforming deeds. Mr. William Garnsey, Fowlerhouse Road, stated that Mr. Card will still own quite a bit of property on Route 9 in front of his own home. He asked if he would be willing to put a store next to residential property, why not let him go and put it in front of his house? Mr. Edward Halpin, Fowlerhouse Road, stated that on the aspect of hardship, Mr. Card opened this store after it was known that the new road was being put through there. He stated that when this happens, if you have been there a number of years before, this would be a hardship. Mr. Singley, Peggy Lane, asked if the entrance to the store would be on Fowlerhouse Road. The Chairman pointed out that both the entrance and the exit are shown to be on Route 9. Mrs Edward Dexter, Fowlerhouse Road, stated that there was only one exit and entry way to that road. She also stated that if the store is kept in a very attractive way and the garbage does not collect in the rear, and if they can depend on the plans Zoning Board of Appeals -3- January 11, 1966 going through as it has been stated they would, there is really not that much objection. She stated that Mr. Card has promised them all things, and it is difficult to take him at his word. Mr. Singley stated that he felt that the map shown was not a very accurate one, since it does not show the location of the property in respect to the property of the surrounding neighbors. He stated that when he bought his home on Peggy Lane, Mr. Card pointed out that the two roads would be joined. He stated that this has not been done. He stated that a business was being built at the front end of a dead end street. Mr. Woolheiser, Fowlerhouse Road, requested to view the map. The woolheisers viewed the plan in reference to the location of their property. Mr. Woolheiser stated that when Mr. Card puts fill in his property, there will be a drainage problem. He was also concerned because it is the same side of his on which his porch is located. He stated that their house is about 30 ft. from the end of their property, which abuts Mr. Card's property. He felt that this would depreciate his house by several thousand dollars. Mrs. Halpin asked how close to residential property a store .may be located. She was told that in an R-20 area, which is residential, it would be 40 ft. from the rear yard line. Mrs. Halpin stated that Mrs. Card had built the building for storage purposes and put an apartment upstairs to rent out. Mr. Harry Ries, Peggy Lane, asked if in its consideration of an appeal such as this one, would the Board not consider the requirements of the present zoning law for a local business use or a general business use. He stated that he felt that they should take into consideration what the zoning law requires for setbacks in local business or general business zones. He stated that he did not know how they could squeeze a building between 25 ft. and 40 ft. when they only have 7S ft. He asked if the Board would allow a non-confoirming use to be moved so that it would be less than meeting the adjoining areas requirements. Mr. Halpin stated that if Mr. Card feels that this im a hardship and that he should have a stixw, the logical place would be in front of his own house. He stated that it would do away with Mr. Card's hardship, and it would do away with their hardship. Mrs. Woolheiser asked if it would be out of order to request that some of the Board members look at the site before a decision is rendered. Mr. Tom Larkin, Fowlerhouse Road, asked if Fowlerhouse Road is going to be an entrance. It was stated that according to the map and the plans it will not exit on Fowlerhouse Road. Mr. Singley asked if Mr. Card would be able to change the entrances and exits at a later date if he wished to do so. It was stated that the State Highway Dept. would have rules and regulations which would have to be followed. Mr. Card stated that he has already gotten permission from Zoning Board of Appeals -4- January 11, 1966 the State for two cuts on Route 9. He stated that the cars have to go south out of the parking lot. Mr. Card further stated that each and every one of the people who have bought property from him have had the restriction placed on their property by the F.H.A. He also stated that the other side of Route 9 is all commercial property. Mr. Robert Gianuzzi stated that the road was proposed to go through in 1951 on the opposite side of the road. Mr. Koffsky stated that the fact that whether the road was there first or Mr. Card's store was there first does not make much difference and has no bearing on the matter before them. Mr. Brown stated that the remark was made by someone that Mr. Card was out to make a fast buck from the state. Business and good will do not constitute an element of damages. He stated that you get the market value of property, and not the damages to the store. There is a highly personal element present. I ask that the Board consider these observations in that light. Mr. Singley wanted to go on record for his wife and himself as stated that there is no personal vendetta between the Singleys and the Cards. He stated that he bought a piece of property to build his home on and raise his family on. He stated that he was concerned about the neighborhood he wanted to raise his family in. He stated that he wants things to go fair and democratically, and not for just the good of one person. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 7 etfull s ted, Ct4, Susan J. Pike, Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger sjp APPROVED, MARCH 22, 1966