1236
..
'-'
-...."I
APPEAL ACTION
REFERENCE: AREA VARIANCE
Appeal No. 1236 Application Date: 01/27/97 Filing Date: 02/26/97
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. N.Y.
TO: Ellen & Joseph Proto, Appellants
9 Crabapple Court
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
Grid No. 19-6257-02-669977-00
At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 02/25/97, the referenced appeal was
considered and the action indicated below was taken on your request for an AREA VARIANCE
to the Town of Wappinger Zoning Law.
By resolution of the Board, it was determined that:
Appeal No. 1236 -- At the request of Ellen & JoseDh Proto who are seeking a variance of
Article IV, Section 410.4.2.4, whereas a fence is not to exceed six (6) feet in height above
adjoining grade and you are showing several areas of the fence exceeding six (6) feet by I" to 4",
thus requiring a variance to exceed the six (6) foot limit for the fence on property located at 9
Crabapple Court and is identified as Tax Grid No. 19-6257-02-669977-00 in the Town of
Wappinger.
The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency on February 11, 1997.
It was further determined that:
SEE ATTACHED FINDINGS OF FACTS (Page 3)
1. The requested variance MiA~ II will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood. No 1 N (t<j,1 substantial detriment will be created to nearby properties.due to
the fact fences are allowed and the exceeded height is very minimal. Also,
fences are allowed in the R-20 district.
2. There was 1 WJa.6trJ.(jt/ other feasible method(s) available for you to pursue to achieve the
benefit you seek other than the requested variance. The applicants could shorten the
height of the fence by cutting the proper amount from the top or installing
the fence post deeper in the ground.
..
~
......,I
APPEAL ACTION
ELLEN & JOSEPH PROTO
APPEAL NO. 1236
PAGE 2
3. The requested area variance t'B/' is not substantial. It is from 2.8% to 6.9% in various
areas with the average percentage being 4.9%.
4. The proposed variance wAn/ / will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental condition in the neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is / /1sIrJ9V self-created. The fence company installed the fence
at the incorrect height.
Mr. Prager made the motion to grant the variance.
Mr. Lehigh seconQ~d the mqti9n.
ROL~.CALL: Pra~erl Yes. Mr.. Lehigh. Yes. Mr. diPierno: No. Mr. Fanuele: No. Mr. ~~rren:
VOT,,, 2 l!6Nct-aStON: Therefore, it was determmed that the requested variance be /gr!aJJtftd// denied.
No.
1
{J seph Howard Prager, Chairman
ing Board of Appeals
Town of Wappinger
;L~.
Swo~ to berz;; ;;s
Jt:rday of. . , , 1997
J2jc-- dY] ~
,
Notary Public
!'.'
" :; ; 1 11l ;,',( ;~
< tlte of NawYorl
r~c z:::.-'; j' :.1
r', .,' :cc' \'1 D. UIchess COU~l:f V
=):;C:re~ 1il/3lJ1
..
'-'
""'"
FINDINGS OF FACTS
ELLEN & JOSEPH PROTO
APPEAL NO. 1236
PAGE 3
The appellants property in its entirety falls into the R-20 district classification and is located at 9
Crabapple Court in the Town of Wappinger, NY.
The Appellants property was purchased from Richard K. and Teresa M. Cypher.
The appellants had a fence installed by Mid-Hudson Fence Co., 1297 Route 376, Wappinger
Falls, NY. The fence is erected on the appellants property on both the east and west sides of the
appellants house. The fence was erected December 9, 1996 to take the place of another fence
which was erected on Sept. 30, 1995.
The appellants property lines were resurveyed on November 4, 1996 by Raymond Kihlmire,
Licensed Land Surveyor to verify his property lines.
A site inspection was held on Saturday, February 15, 1997 with all members ofthe Town of
Wappinger Zoning Board in attendance. The fence height was measured at that time in
numerous areas and was found to be from two to five inches above the six foot height limit.