07-7356
~
'....
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
SUPERVISOR
CHRISTOPHER J. COlSEY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
20 MIDDlEBUSH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FAllS, NY 12590
(845) 297-1373
TOWN COUNCIL
WilLIAM H. BEALE
VINCENT BETTINA
MAUREEN McCARTHY
JOSEPH P. PAOlONI
July 22, 2008
RECEIVED
AUG 0 8 2008
TOWN CLERK
To: Chris Masterson
Town Clerk
From: Barbara Roberti, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Peter & Donna Colucci Decision
Appeal No. 07-7356
Attached you will find the original Application/Decision & Order for Peter
& Donna Colucci, 1471 Route 376, Wappinger Falls, NY., Tax Grid No.
6259-04-762010. I would appreciate it if you would file these documents.
Attachments
cc: Mr.Mole'
Mr. & Mrs. Colucci
Zoning Board
Town File
Town Attorney
Building Inspector
- \I LO U ( 'IL:4~p
lown Wappinger Code Enfor
845-297-0579
p.2
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
P.O. Box 324 - 20 MIDDLEBUSH ROADDJ ~ f"r0, r~ 0 fI/7
WAPPINGERS FALLS. NY 12590 IJ1J L5 ~ L5 \!J @ [Q)
Zoning Board of Appeals SEP 1 0 2007
Office: 845.297.1373.... Fax: 845.297.4558
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Office: 845.297.6257
www.townofwappinger.us
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
Application for a Use Variance
Appeal #
07- 735t::,
Dated: September 10, 2007
TO. THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK:
I (We), Peter and Donna Colucci residing at '133 Dixon Road, Cannel, NY 10512
,845 - 225- 5901 (phone), -hereby appeal
to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the decision/action of the Zoning Administrator,
dated September 12, I 200.&...., and do hereby apply for a use variance.
Premises located at 1471 Route 376
Tax Grid:if. 6259-04-762010
Zoning District R-40 Residential Zone
1. Record Owner of Property Peter and Donna Colucci
Address 133 Dixon Road
Phone Number 845-225-5901
Owner Consent: Dated: N/A Signature: N/A
Printed: N/A
2. Variance Request:
I(We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance of the following requirements
of the Zoning Code.
240-37 District Regulations
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Intended use, alteration, conversion ancl/or construction (Describe p..,rop.,Qsed project)
Applicants desire to use property as three mult~-family dwellings as ~ollows:
two two-family structures and one four-fanuly structure. A St~pulat~on entered into
l:etween the revious owners and the Town of Wapp~nger perrruts one two-tanuly,
one two-famil and one one-famil . licants seek a use var~ance to perrru the
the permitted one-family structure to l:e used as a fo:rr-fami y structure.
TOW024.Z8A-AUV (4..()J Rev) ) of 4
,JUI LO U ( I L:~~p
I own Wappinger Code Enfor
845-297-0579
p.3
~
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Use Variance Application
Appeal No.
3. Reason For Appeal (Please substantiate the request by answering the following questions in
detail. Use extra sheet, if necessary):
A. Are you able to make reasonable economic use of your property without a variance? Please set
forth detailed financial evidence describing.
Nn. Sf'!e attachffi ]\.ffidavit of Doj:lllii colucci
B. Is your property unique in the neighborhood that needs this type of a variance? Please explain
your answer in detail. .
Yes~ See attached Affida;vit o;f BeMa. C01UCCl
'Co If your variance is granted,.willlt change the kind of nefghborhood in which' your property is
located? Please explain .your answer in detail. .
1I.1. No. See attached Affidavit of SetlAa Colucci
D. How did your need for a variance come about? Is your difficulty self created? Please explain
your answer in detail. . '. . .
Dif;ficulty is not self-c;rea,ted. See attached A;ffldaVlt o;f Ponna Coluccl.
4. List of attachments (Check applicable information)
(X) Financial (economic) statement. This statement should not be personal in nature. The
Information provided should relate directly to the property for which you are seeking a
variance and should illustrate the monetary Injury or undue hardship you are suffering
without the variance.
(29
Survey Dated June 10, 2005 , Last Revised
Prepa red by Kenneth B. Salzmann
N/A
and
(2Q Photos
C) Drawings Dated N/A
(X) Letter of Communication which resulted in application to the ZBA:
(e.g., recommendation from the Planning Board/Zoning Denial) ..
Letter from Zoning Administrator Dated: 9/12/06
Letter from Building Inspector and Director o;f Code Dated: 9/11/0b
Enforcement
TOW024.2BA..A UV (4-.0YRev) 2 of 4
(Appearance Ticket
and Information)
(supporting Deposition)
.. L:b VI lL:bUp
Town Wappinger Code Enfor
845-297-0579
pA
"
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Use Variance Application
Appeal No.
( 20 other (please list):
See attached ,Affidavit of00"i:ina Colucci
5. Signature and Verification
Please be advised that no application can be deemed complete unless signed below.
all information given is accurate as of the date of application.
--
DATED: 9/10/07
./ (Appellant)
. Anthony R. Mole, Esq.
('"( lR'l'T ~~ T .P.TRF.T r ' ^' SJ-lTT .T ,TNG r P r.
(If mQre than Qne Appellant)
Attorneys for Appll.ca,nt:s
DATED:
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
A. The appellant ( ) IS ( ) IS NOT able to make reasonable economic returns on the property
without a variance for each permitted use within this zoning. district.
B. The appellant's property ( ) IS ( ) IS NOT unique in the neighborhood that needs this type
of a variance.
C. If the variance is granted, ( ) IT WILL ( ) IT WILL NOT change the kind of neighborhood
in which the property is located.
D. Is your difficulty self created? Please explain your answer In detail.
TOW024.zBA.A UV (4-03 Rev) 3 of 4
JUI Lb U { , L:bUp
Town Wappinger Code Enfor
845-297-0579
p,5
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Use Varfance APRllcatiO'56
Appeal No. [> 7-73h
Conclusion: Therefore, it was determined the requested variance
Be ( ) GRANTED ~ DENIED. .
Conditions/Stipulations: The following conditions and/or stipulations were adopted by resolution
of the Board as part of the a,ction stated above: ..
rb ~ ~ / .
~ ?/~. (.aX U'!/I~' . ,
/ ~' , ~ "
%Ji~~) (1-' (/--cU~
~ Find~.in !!..Facts A. ttached", .
DATED: . v~-o/~'~~
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
::~Nu~
. jChalrma"h
PRINT: '~A- Kb '--1J{ItC Ere..
TOW024.zBA-AUV {4-O3 Rev) 4 of 4
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICATION FOR A USE VARIANCE
FINDINGS & DECISION
Appeal No.
A ~pll.C~4-:~n D~t~.
r\.p aUUJ a~.
Applicant
Premises Located at:
Tax Grid No.:
Zoning District(s):
Record Owner of Property:
Variance of Code Sections:
07-7356
C'~~4-~~""~_ 10 "00'"
J~pl~JJJU~J J U, ..UU I
Peter and Donna Colucci
1471 Route 376
6259-04-762010
R-40
Peter and Donna Colucci
~ 240-37 (District Regulations)
Evidence Presented
I) Affidavit of Donna Colucci dated September 10, 2007;
2) Deed to the premises dated October 18, 2004;
3) Note and Mortgage October 18,2004;
4) Stipulation of Settlement between Longhitano and the Town of Wappinger
5) Appearance Ticket 00831 dated September 12,2006
6) Supporting Deposition of George A. Kolb, Jr. dated September 11, 2006
7) Information dated September 12,2006
8) Profit and Loss Statement for 2006 & 2007
9) Tax Returns
10) Leases
11) Report of Bailey Browne CPA & Associat~s dated February 1,2008
12) Report from Dutchess County Planning pursuant to GML 9239-m deciding issue is one
of local concern
13) Short Form EAF
14) Contract of Sale
15) Letter from Premier Abstract, Ltd dated October 1, 2004.
Description of the Premises & Proposed Variance
The premises that is the subject of this application is a 12.11 Acre Parcel located at 1471
Route 376 in an R-40 District. Peter and Donna Colucci received title to the property by deed
from Signorino Longhitano and Diana Longhitano dated October 18, 2004. There are three
dwellings located on the property and one garage. The dwellings are known as the main house,
the blue house and the tan house. The main house is the subject of this application. The premises
is located in a single family R-40 district.
The applicant's predecessor in title Signorino Longhitano and Diana Longhitano entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement with the Town of Wappinger that authorized the three buildings
on the property to be used as a two family dwelling, a two family dwelling and a one l'amily
dwelling. The applicant seeks a variance to use the main house, which by the stipulation is a one
family dwelling as a four family dwelling. The blue house and the tan house shall remain as two
family dwellings.
Public Hearing
A public hearing on the application was held on June 24, 2008 and July 8, 2008. Peter
Colucci and his attorney Anthony Mole, Esq. spoke in support of the application and responded
to questions of the Board. At the June 24, 2008 public hearing ten (10) neighbors appeared and
all spoke in opposition to the application. The neighbors stated that the premises was not in
conformance with the single family neighborhood and allowing additional dwelling units would
exacerbate a bad situation. Some neighbors acknowledged that adverse impacts from the
premises had decreased since the Colucci's took title to the property.
Review of Use Variance
The determination of the ZBA 111 granting a use vanance IS guided by Town Law
~267-b(2)(b) which states:
(b) No such use variance shall be granted by a board of appeals without a showing
by the applicant that applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused
unnecessary hardship. In order to prove such unnecessary hardship the applicant
shall demonstrate to the board of appeals that for each and every permitted use
under the zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is
located,
(I) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of
return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence;
(2) that the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and
does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood;
(3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood; and
( 4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created.
The ZBA determines that the evidence presented result in the following determinations
regarding the above noted factors.
Reasonable Return
The Applicant has provided financial information that indicates that it is not capable of
yielding a reasonable rate of return on the property. The applicant indicates that unless the main
house is used as a four family dwelling it will lose money on the property. The applicant
purchased the property for 1.5 million dollars. For 2008 the property is assessed at 1.2 million
dollars. Based on the evidence submitted, it appears that the applicant will in fact lose money if
the premises are used as required by the Stipulation, that is five residential units.
Hardship to the Property is Unique
The surrounding area is predominantly single family residential which is allowed in the
District. The Applicant's property is unique when compared to the conforming properties in the
neighborhood because there are three dwellings located on the premises. Most other properties in
the area contain only one dwelling.
Chan2e in Character of the Nei2hborhood
Granting of the variance will create a change in the character of the neighborhood. The
neighborhood consists of single family dwellings, not multi-family units. At the public hearing
the neighbors all testified that the existing use of the property was out of character with its
surroundings and generally disturbed the peace of a single family residential neighborhood. The
stipulation in place allows for five residential units where one is allow by the code. An addition
of three more dwelling units would only exacerbate the existing situation.
Hardship Self-Created
Paragraph 13 of the Contract of Sale for the property to the Coluccis indicates they were
buying five residential rental units; this is consistent with the Stipulation. Schedule B to the
Contract of Sale shows a Rent Roll as of July 1, 2004 for 5 units. The total rent roll shown was
$3,376.25 with one unit vacant and one unit owned by the Longhitanos.
The applicant has provided a letter from Premier Abstract dated October 1, 2004 which
has attached a letter from Mark 1. Liebermann-Fire Inspector dated September 27, 2004 which
states:
"New owner's shall be aware of the Court Stipulation of 1995 issued by Judge
Wolfson of the Town of Wappinger Justice Court regarding the number of
residential units permitted at the aforesaid site, per attached site map."
The attached map shows Buildings 1,2,3 and Barn. The main house is shown as 1 Family.
The applicant has testified that it did not know of the Stipulation and that there were eight
rental units on the site when they purchased the property. The contract of sale and the letter from
the Fire Inspector put the Coluccis on notice that they were only buying five legal rental units.
They ignored those documents at their own peril and proceeded to buy the property with
unrealistic assumptions. Based on those facts, the hardship was self created.
As one of the neighbors commented at the June 24, 2008 public hearing, the neighbors
should not suffer because the applicant made a bad real estate investment.
Decision
Applying the standards of Town Law S267-b(2)(b), a use variance cannot be granted
because the requested variance will alter the essential character of the single family residential
neighborhood and the alleged hardship has been self created.
Application for Variance DENIED.
The foregoing is the decision of the ZBA.
Jul 25 07 12:50p
Town Wappinger Code Enfor
845-297-0579
p,6
1 PROJECT ID NUMBER
PART1. PROJECT INFORMATION
517 .20
APPENDIX C
STATE eNVIRONMENTAL QUAliTY REVIEW
SHORTEN~RONMENTALASSESSMENTFORM
for UNUSTED ACTIONS Only
(To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor)
2. PROJECT NAME
Colucci
SEQR
1. APPUCANT ! SPONSOR
Peter and Donna Colucci
3.PROJECT LOCATION:
Munlc~1ty Town of Wappinger
4. PRECISE LOCATION: Slreet Addess and Road
1471 Route 376'
Tax Grid #:" 6259-04-762010
County
Dutchess
Inlersecllons, Prominent lancmarks etc - or prO'Jlde maD
S.1S PROPOSED ACTION: 0 New 0 Expansion f2[JModfica6ql! altsratlon
6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY;
A Stipulation entered into between the previous owners and the Town of Wappinger
permits one two-family dwelling, one two-family dwelling and one one-family
dwelling on the subject property. Applicants seek a use variance to permit .one .
two-family dwelling, one two-family dwelling and one four-family dwelling.,on the
subject property.
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
Initially 12. 431 acres Ulllmately 12 . 431 acres
8. YIILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTI:-JG ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS?
DYes [iI No If no, describe briefly: Multi-family is not a permitted use ~n the R-40
Zoning District in which the subject property ,is situated.
9. Y/HAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VIClNITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as ma~ as apply.)
[E3 Reside~1 0 Industrial ~ Commercial (]Agriculture 0 Parte I Forest I Opeq Space
DOIler (describe)
10. DOES ACTICJ\I INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCY (Federal, Slate or l..ccal)
DVes ~ No If yes, 1st agency name and pemil J approval:
11. DOES #if ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENn.Y VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
illiI Yes 0 No If yes, lis! agency name arid penrit J approval: Stipulation between the Town of
Wappinger and the previous owners, a copy of which is attached.
UL T OF PROPOSED ACTION" WIlL EXISTING PERMIT I APPROVAL REQUIRE MODI:=1CATION?
No
CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
S~ILLING, P.C. Da~: 9/10/07
e, sq.
If the action Is a CostaJ Area, and you are a state agency,
complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
,",UI '::0 U ( I.:::oup
I own VVapplnger Gode Entor
845-297..0579
p.7
PART II- IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED At'NTYPE I iHRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR. PART 617.4? lfyes, coordinate the relliewprocess and use the FULL EAF.
Dyes DNo
8. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNlIS7ED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR. PART 617.61 if No, a negative
declaration may be superseded by another invclved agency.
Dyes DNa
C. COUlD ACTlON RESUi..T IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwrltten. if leglble)
C1. Existing air quaBty. surface or glllUl1dwa~ quality or quantity, noise lavels, exlsUng traffic pattern, soDd waste procluctioo OIl'disposal,
r~".:'~~~~~:'~'~'~'.~~. .... ..... .. ..._..... .... ~.. .-....j
C2. Aesthetic. agriaJlttnl, archaeological, historic, or other natIJral or culbJreI rasources; or community or nelgttlcrhood cha-acter? Explain briefty:
I .' 1
C3. Vegetation orfal.llB, fish, sheUfisll or wildlife specles. significant habitats, or threatened or endangered speclesr Explain briefly:
, . . .... ...... .. .... .n....._. ... ___ .._. .. .... _ .... ,__.__ '" . ..... _'.... ___. _.. ...~
04. i-m~~= ~_"'_~'~~"'~"~'W"~~~_ 'fl~dW'~'~QI~~'~~ ~'~'..... .1
~[,=d~m:~~:~~~~m~.~_bY~~.-_'='.Ex~bri~ ... .... J
car.m,~~,~:~~~'~:mC1~~ ~bri~Y. .. . _'H".,I
C7. Other 1m1l2c.ts (lnctJdinq chanoes in use of either ouantllV or t't'De of enerov? explain brisflV:
I...... ...._................ ._ .__._. .._._... '..__ __ _ ___. _..' ....___._ '...._." ._... _ .._... ""'" ... ... .. _____..1
D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE El'MRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL
D~~D~T'c~}?_m_~_:m~~. '. ..... ....,... .' _ .1
~ D~:,OD 1 UKELYTO .E~ c~~ RaA~ED_m p~rE:-ADVERSE ~RDNM.~~ IMP~~ .~' ~~ I
PART III . D~ERMJNA1l0N OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
INSTRUCTIONS: Foreach adv8/'&e effectldentlfjedabove, detennlnewhelherltissubstantial, large, importantoro1herwlsesignificant. Each
effect should be assessed In connection with Its (a) satting (l.e. urban or rural)j (b) probabnlly of occurring; {c) duration; (d) Irreverslbllity; (e)
geographic scope; and (1) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. EnSlra that explanations contain
sufficientdetal1 to show that all relevant adverslllmpacts have been identlried and adequately addressed. If question d of part il was checked
yes,the determination ofslgnlflcance must evaluate the potenfiallmpactoflhe proposed action on the environmental characteristics oflhe CEA..
Check this box If you have Idenltfied ona or more potentially Iargeorslgnllicantadverse Impacts \\tIlch MAY oca.tr. Then proceed dlrectry to the FU
EAF and/or prepare a poslllve declaration.
Check this box if lOlJ have determined, based on !he InformatJon and analysis above end any supporting doaJmentatlon, !hat the prcpclSed act
WILL NOT rllSLJlln any slgnlflcant adverse environmental Impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting
det.erminatlon.
Name of Lead Agency
Date
Prml or Type Name of ResponSIble Dtlicer In Lead Agency
nUl! of Responsible Ofticer
Signature of Respol'lSl.bJe otficer III Lead Agency
SlgnaUJre of Preparer (If dlfferellt from responsible officer)
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
In the Matter of the Application of
PETER AND DONNA COLUCCI
Petitioners
AFFIDAVIT
CURTISS, LEIBELL & SHILLING, P.C.
By: Anthony R. Mole, Esquire
Attorneys for Petitioners
20 Church Street
Carmel, New York 10512
(845) 225-5500
1 \ r .
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF NEW YORK
)
)
)
ss:
COUNTY OF PUTNAM
DONNA COLUCCI, being duly sworn, deposes and says that:
1. My husband, Peter Colucci, and I are owners ofa parcel of land located at 1471 Route
376 in the Town of Wappinger, designated as Tax Grid No. 6259-04-762010, which is located in the R-
40 Residential Zoning District (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property").
2. This Affidavit is submitted in support of our application for a use variance before the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger, which is submitted simultaneously herewith.
3. The subject property is approximately 12.431 acres and contains 4 structures as follows:
(1) a I-story garage; (2) a 2-family dwelling; (3) a 2-family dwelling; and (4) a structure which is
designated as a single-family dwelling and is the subject of our application for a use variance to use the
structure as a 4-family dwelling (hereinafter referred to as the "subject structure").
4. The subject property is surrounded by mostly residential houses. However, a commercial
automobile repair operation is located on the parcel of property that adjoins the subject property to the
east, fronting on NYS Route 376.
5. My husband and I purchased the subject property from Diana and Signorino Longhitano
in October of2004. A copy of our deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Mr. and Mrs. Longhitano
entered into a Stipulation with the Town of Wappinger in 1996, whereby the Town of Wappinger and
Mr. and Mrs. Longhitano stipulated and agreed that there would be permitted to exist on the property
1
1.\ 1 .
"one two family structure, one two family structure, and one one family structure for a total of five
residential units." A copy of the Stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."
6. When my husband and I purchased the subject property, the subject property was used as
one two-family structure, one two-family structure, and one four-family structure. We were led to
believe that we were permitted to utilize the property in that manner. In fact, we would not have
purchased the property if we were not able to use the subject structure as we were led to believe we
could, as the subject property would not have been worth the purchase price otherwise.
7. On or about September 11 and 12, 2006, an appearance ticket was issued with regard to
the subject property in which the Town of Wappinger alleged that the use of the property violated
Section 240-37 ofthe Code of the Town of Wappinger. Upon information and belief, an Information
and Supporting Deposition to that effect were filed with the Justice Court of the Town of Wappinger.
Copies of the Appearance Ticket, Supporting Deposition and Information are attached hereto as Exhibit
"c. "
8. My husband and I have appeared in Court with counsel in an attempt to resolve this
matter. Due to the fact that we are not able to own and operate the property without having two two-
family dwellings and one four-family dwelling as income, we decided to submit an application to the
Zoning Board of Appeals to obtain a use variance permitting us to maintain two two-family dwellings
and one four-family dwelling on the property.
9. For the Board's information, attached hereto as Exhibit "D" are photographs showing the
exterior and interior ofthe structures on the subject property. The photographs indicate that the
buildings have been separated as apartments for a significant period of time and possibly since their_
construction.
2
l' , .
10. I understand that in order to obtain a use variance from the Board of Appeals, it is
necessary that an applicant must demonstrate unnecessary hardship. It is respectfully submitted to the
Board that we would certainly suffer unnecessary hardship if we are not able to utilize the subject
property in the manner proposed.
11. The subject property is located in the R-40 Residential Zoning District, which permits
sing1e- family residences. However, this situation is unique in that there is the aforementioned
Stipulation executed which permits two two-family dwellings and one one-family dwelling on the
subject property. Clearly, the Town's execution and agreement to the Stipulation indicates the Town's
recognition that the subject property is uniquely situated and is appropriately used as a multi-family use.
12. We cannot realize a reasonable return on our investment with regard to the subject
property, and that lack of return is substantial for the following reason: My husband and I purchased the
property for $1,500,000.00 and paid $225,000.00 as a down payment. We are currently paying a
$1,275,000.00 mortgage, which is privately held by the previous owners of the property, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit "E." Our monthly payment for the mortgage and taxes for the subject
property is approximately $9,839.00. Our monthly rental income is approximately $10,000.00. Taking
into account the other expenses with regard to the operation and maintenance of the property as listed on
our Profit and Loss Statements, we have suffered a loss each year with respect to the ownership of the
subject property. A copy of our Profit and Loss Statements for the period January 1, 2006 through
September 6,2007 are attached hereto as Exhibit "F."
13. As is evidenced on our Profit & Loss Statements, in the year 2006, we suffered a loss of
$16,595.17. Thus far in 2007, we have suffered a loss of$6,155.27. Ifwe are unable to operate the
subject property as two two-family dwellings and one four-family dwelling, we will not be able to make
3
" f _
our monthly payments for the mortgage and taxes, and we would lose the subject property to foreclosure.
Additionally, the property would certainly not have been worth $1.5 million if it were not able to be
utilized as two two-family dwellings and one four-family dwelling, and it certainly would not be worth
that amount as a single residential property.
14. The hardship relating to the subject property is unique and does not apply to a substantial
portion of the district or neighborhood. This property is surrounded by residential properties; however, a
commercial automobile repair operation exists on the parcel which adjoins the subject property to the
east, fronting on Route 376. The three residential structures have existed on the subject property for
many years. Upon information and belief, many of the apartments in the structures were used by
farmhands as their residence while working on the farm which used to be operated on the subj ect
property years ago. These structures appear to have been separated into apartments for many years and
possibly since their initial construction. Accordingly, as these structures have been used as multi-family
structures for many years, to continue that use would not produce a change in the neighborhood, which
renders this application unique in this regard.
15. Further, due to the financial hardships associated with operating this property as
aforementioned, the subject property is uniquely situated in that if it is not able to be operated as two
two-family dwellings and one four-family dwelling, we would not be able to pay the mortgage for the
property, not to mention the other expenses associated therewith. The uniqueness ofthis property would
not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood, since there are no other properties
located within the general vicinity of the subject property which are similarly situated. The subject
property was once operated as a farm. The residential structures located on the property were utilized in
the farm operation; namely, to house the owners ofthe property and, upon information and belief, to
4
I" I .
house the farmhands. The subject property is approximately 12.431 acres in size. These constitute
major differences between the subject property and any ofthe other properties surrounding the subject
property or any other properties located within the general vicinity of the subject property.
16. The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. As aforementioned, the structures have existed on the subject property as multi-family
dwellings for a very long period of time. This has been recognized by the Town of Wappinger in its
execution of the Stipulation permitting two two-family dwellings and one one-family dwelling on the
property. Upon information and belief, the one-family dwelling has been utilized as a four-family
dwelling for years prior to our ownership of the property. Also, as previously stated, it was our
understanding upon purchasing the property that the single-family structure would be permitted to be
utilized as a four-family structure. Further, the use of this property is residential in nature and, therefore,
would conform to the residential character of the surrounding properties and community.
17. The hardship suffered by my husband and I has not been self-created. We did not create
the circumstances surrounding the necessity of the use variance in this matter. We purchased the subject
property for $1.5 million with the understanding that we would be able to operate two two-family
dwellings and one four-family dwelling in order to realize enough of a return to pay the mortgage and
taxes. Our financial circumstances are such that we would not be able to continue to own this property
without facing foreclosure if we are not able to collect rental income on 8 units. Further, we would not
be able to sell the property as a single-family residential property for a purchase price that would allow
us to recover what we have paid as the purchase price for the property. Further, as aforementioned, the
subject property has been used as multi-family residential for many years prior to our ownership. It is
also important to note that the Stipulation was not provided to us or contained in a title report when we
5
.
, .
purchased the subject property. Accordingly, we were not aware of the Stipulation until after we
purchased and we received notice that we were in violation of the Town Code ofthe Town of
Wappinger for our multi-family use of the subject structure. Accordingly, our situation and hardship
was not self-created.
18. Upon information and belief, based upon the most recent assessment, our property taxes
will increase approximately $6,500.00 annually.
18. For the Board's information, the survey submitted simultaneously herewith was
incorrectly done in the name of DeGarmo Hills LLC, which was a company name we intended to form
for the purpose of managing the subject property. However, DeGarmo Hills LLC was never formed by
us. My husband and I are the individuals who hold title to the subject property.
19. My husband and I have authorized our attorneys, Curtiss, Leibell & Shilling, P.C. to
prepare and execute the application for a use variance and to submit the same to the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Wappinger.
WHEREFORE, your affiant respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant the use
variance in order to permit two two-family structures and one four-family structure on the subject
property.
~ &tIll
DONNA COLUCCI
I~
,2007.
otary Public
ANiHONY R. MOLE K
NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YOR
. NO 02M06059316
QUALIFIED IN PUTNAM CO~~T~II
COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY
6