1965-12-14The regular meeting of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board
of Appeals was held on December 14, 1965, at 8:00 P.M., in
the office of the Zoning Administrator, Mill Street, Wappingers
Falls, New York.
Members Present:
Robert L'Archevesque Thomas Graham
Frederick Koehler
Members Absent:
David N. Koffsky Richard Jacobson
The minutes of the November 16, 1965 meeting were
read. A motion was made by Thomas Graham, seconded by
Frederick Koehler, to approve the minutes as read.
Motion Unanimously Carried
8:00 P.M. - Public Hearing # 1 - Appeal # 42 - on the
application of Mrs. Katherine Knapp for a variance to permit
construction of a pre -built home on a privately owned right-
of-way known as Plaza Road. Mrs. Knapp was present for her
appeal. It was established that she owns lots 8 and 10 on
Plaza Road. Plaza Road is not a Town accepted road. She
stated that the State is taking the lot on which she is
presently living. She wants to move the pre -built home which
is on the lot which the State is taking. She also wants to
put a 2 -car garage on this lot. She stated that this lot
is the only thing she will have after the State takes her
present property. The Board reviewed the plot plan in
reference to conforming sideyards, etc.
Mr. Stephen Puzio, 215 Sheafe Road, Wappingers Falls, stated
that he owns the road on which Mrs. Knapp has the lot. He
stated that according to the ordinance, a residence cannot
be placed on a lot which is not on a Town Road. He also
stated that there are Board of Health regulations, and since
the lot is very close to the water table, he felt that a
sewage system would not operate sufficiently on this lot.
Referral was made to Sections 411.09 and 412.04 of the
Ordinance which have to do with the size and location of
lots.
Mr. Paul Panson, Lake Oniad Drive, Wappingers Falls, asked
what Mrs. Knapp was applying for, and what variance she was
asking for. He also asked that another public hearing be
scheduled.
Mr. A.W. Vandewinckel, Lake Oniad Drive, Wappingers Falls,
asked if the fact that this lot is not on a Town Road was one
of the reasons Mrs. Knapp is asking for this variance.
Mr. Judson Williams stated: You are concerned with the State
statute. Consider that there are a number of lots on Plaza
Road which are presently undeveloped. Ultimately, you will
end up with a fully developed road which is not a public
road. Fire apparatus cannot get in, fuel trucks refuse to
Zoning Board of Appeals -2- December 14, 1965
deliver, etc. when there is snow on the ground. If the Town,
through pressure, is obligated to take over a road and
expand the initial cost of putting that road into shape, this
becomes a general Town charge, shared by all the taxpayers
in the Town. This road was laid out originally as 40 ft.
wide. The Town prohibits less than a 50 -ft. width. The
additional 5 ft. shall be dedicated by the owners along that
road. I would be quite prepared to donate 2h ft. We would
also be prepared to pay some fair share of the cost of
developing the road and putting it into shape so that the
Town would accept it.
Mr. L'Archevesque stated that the Board would have to confer
with the Town Attorney and the Planning Board. He also stated
that the character of the neighborhood is the normal consideration
of this Board.
Mr. Puzio stated that the Board of Health matter should be
taken into consideration by someone.
Public Hearing # 2 - Appeal # 43 - on the application
of Mrs. Arnold McNiel for an interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance in reference to the definition of "customary home
occupation". Mrs. McNiel was present for her appeal. Mr.
Peter Maroulis spoke on behalf of Mrs. McNiel. He stated that
Article II, Section 220-3 is not the definition with which we
are concerned. He stated that it is the definition of "customary
home occupation". He stated that Mrs. McNiel is a licensed
beautician who has operated a beauty parlor in the Village, and
it is her intention to retain a few of her customers. What
she intends to do at 11 Wildwood Drive is to have one or two
customers a day come into her home and she will do their hair
for them. It is not the full spread of services which are
afforded in a Beauty Parlor. The purpose of earning this
additional money is so that she can afford to contribute to
the purchase of the home and the mortgage payments. He stated
that Mrs. McNiel had assured him that she will not advertise
her services nor will she display a name plate in the front
of the house as permitted by the Ordinance. He stated: The
interpretation that we are seeking here this evening is that
occasional hairdressing is not the operation of a Beauty
Parlor. I have cited a number of cases that have already gone
to court with reference to beauty parlors. The Zoning Ordinance
permits other professional uses. I submit to this Board that
a licensed beautician is a licensed profession. The teaching
of singing and dancing is an "other profession". The New York
State courts held that giving dancing lessons to groups of
children not in access of 10 was permissable. Dressmaking
is recognized as a home occupation. Occasional hairdressing
is not the operation of a beauty parlor. If the Board were
not to agree with that particular point, I submit that we
would come under the heading of "Other profession". If the
Board is in doubt, I suggest that the Board set a limitation
as to the number of people who can come per week. No more
Zoning Board of Appeals -3-
December 14, 1965
than two people will be coarsing in per day to have their hair
done . I called the Board's attention to the second point.
Before zoning went into effect, a man could use his land in
any manner. Since the advent of Zoning, a person's use of
his land is restricted.
Mr. Ludewig stated that it was brought to his attention that
there is a deed restriction forbidding commercial use of any
of the property in the Wildwood development.
Mr. Joe Landolfi, President of the Wildwood Civic Assoc.,
stated: We are definitely against this. Who will stand
outside her home to see how many people she takes care of?
I want to go on record that the people of Wildwood are definitely
against this.
Mr. Don Margolis, 41 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, felt
that the definition of Home Occupations was clearly stated in
the Ordinance,. and that this definition should be adhered to.
He stated that the Board was dealing with rights and not
privileges of the individual, and if Mrs. McNiel has not yet
moved into the house, she will not be denied any rights or
privileges which she is now practicing.
Mr. Charles Cortellino, 26 Russ Place, Wappingers Falls, I
submit that zoning was put in to protect the landowners, but
all of the landowners. Zoning is to protect the people who
are there and the Town, and therefore you don't have criscrossing.
Mr. Sam Tregor, Russ Place, Wappingers Falls, stated that he
was against having this practice take place in Wildwood. He
stated he was also concerned about the fact that a precedent
may be set.
Mrs. Sarah Berinato spoke in favor of Mrs. McNiel. She stated
,that 9 times out of 10 a building is not even altered. She
stated that a hairdresser would have to make a lot of money
to go out and rent a store area. She stated that the ladies
in Wildwood should be glad to have a hairdresser move into
the neighborhood.
Mr. E.J. Broussard, 13 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, replied
that it would not be of an advantage to the ladies in Wildwood
since Mrs. McNisl would be doing her friends' hair.
Mr. Ed Seller, 1 Wendy Road, Wappingers Falls, pointed out
that there are deed restrictions prohibiting commercial use
of the property. Mrs. Cortellino, 26 Russ Place, Wappingers
Falls, pointed out that most women have their hair done on
weekends, and there is therefore the possibility of traffic
congestion on weekends.
Mr. Rifkin, 35 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, stated that
the hairdryers constitute a nuisance by interfering with television
reception.
Mr. Victor Fanuale, 12 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, stated:
I am against this, and I don't know how you are going to be
able to police occasional hairdressing. There is a problem
in enforcing this.
Zoning Board of Appeals -4- December 14, 1965
Mrs. Berinato asked what sone this was located in. She also
asked if their decision would be effective in all residential
areas in the Town.
Ellis Joy, Dennis Road, Wappingers Falls, stated: I amagainst
this because of the fact that although it is an interpretation,
the deed says that it is residential only.
Mrs. Bernice Mills, Brian Place, Wappingers Falls, stated that
she was in agreement with Mrs. Cortellino in saying that it
is a job preferred by most women on the weekends.
Gregory Sarno, 8 Dana Place, Wappingers Falls, stated that
it is conceivable that this is merely a statement of fact
and nothing else.
The Chair stated that this is simply an interpretation and
it would apply to anyone in a similar situation throughout
the Town.
Mr. Walter Boileau, 44 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, stated
his position as opposed to this on the grounds that this may
not a precedent. He stated that all of the people had moved
into the area with the thought of making it residential.
Mr. Joseph Meuse, 21 Dennis Road, Wappingers Falls, stated that
he was against permitting Mrs. McNiel to do hairdressing in
the Wildwood development.
Mr. Paul Tuccinardi, 19 Wildwood Drive, Wappingers Falls, wanted
to go on record as being against this because of the operation
I, of the machines, and also, pointed out that this is a school
bus pickup area, and that children are picked up and dropped
off at this particular point.
Mr. Rifkin asked if there were any dangerous dyes or chemicals
which would be in the garbage that could be picked up or
carried off by children and dogs.
Mr. Landolfi thanked the Board in behalf of Wildwood for their
time and attention.
Hearings adjourned at 905 P.M.
A motion was made by Thomas Graham, seconded by Frederick
Koehler, to meet with the Town Attorney and a member of the
Planning Board to discuss appeal # 42. Motion Unanimously Carried
A motion was made by Frederick Koehler, seconded by Thomas
Graham, to table the matter of McNiel pending a further discussion
by the remainder of the Board with appeal # 42 with the Town
Attorney. Motion Unanimously Carried
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Respectfully s ted,
Smu-, -
" " V& -C
Susan J. Pik , Secretary
Zoning Board of Appeals
sjP APPROVED, 12/21/65