1235
T "
APPEAL ACTION
REFERENCE:
Appeal No. 1235
Application Date:
12/06/96
Filing Date:
12/24/96
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. N.Y.
TO: CLM Associates, Appellants
RE: Volvo of Wappinger
1597 Route 9, Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
Tax Grid #19-6157-04-690127-00
At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12/23/96, 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:
Anpeal '::1235 - At tl1e req1.1est of eLM Associates (Volvo of WanDinaer-) t"llJl()
are seeking a variance of Article IV, Section 410.12.6.2, which allows two
(2) permanent mounted free standing signs in the case of commercial
development provided the "structures" are located more than 125 feet from
the "front lot line".
However, the applicants are showing 90 feet, thus
requiring a 35 foot front lot line variance to have the second sign on
property located at 1597 Route 9 and is
identified as Tax Grid #19-6157-04-690127-00 in the Town of Wappinger.
It was further determined that:
1) The requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood. No, substantial detriment will be
created to nearby properties.
-..
APPEAL ACTION
CLH ASSOCIA.TES
VOLVO OF WAPPINGER
APPEAL #1235
PAGE 2
2) There are no other feasible method(s) available for you to pursue to
achieve the benefit you seek other than the requested variance because
there will be two dealerships on the property which requires two
separate signs. They can not be moved back any further due to the
septic system in the rear.
3) The requested area variance is substantial.
4) The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5) The alleged difficulty is not self-created due to the restrictions put
on the owner by the dealerships in relation to the size of the
buildings and the requirements of signs.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it was determined that the requested variance be
qranted wi th the understanding that if they don't go forward wi th the
second dealership within a year, then the variance will be null and void.
r. Jo.eph Howard Prager,
ing Board of Appeals
own of Wappinger
Sworn to befon me on this
~tjt/.-l1 day of 'J2~ ,1996
O' ,
..e~<>- i!t ~
Notary Pl1bll
f\c",: "
; I (;1
, 'i 0'" Ycr!c
,,-,~ .~ ;. ')
C!..''2li:::~C !'1 DUTChes:.; County
r'"-."nio-'nr I=vn'f'"_ )()/3"/1"")' 07
...f"'......."...............,'t-' "'..." 9-4.
APPEAL ACTION
REFERENCE:
Appeal No. 1234
Application Date:
11/04/96
Filing Date:
12/24/96
ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER. N.Y.
TO: Richard & Diane Clark, Appellants
79 Scott Drive, Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
Tax Grid #19-6257-04-727449-00
At the meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on 12/23/96, the referenced
appeal was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your
request for (2) two area variances to the Town of Wappinger zoning Law.
By resolution of the Board, it was determined that:
Anpeal #1234 - At the request of Richard & Diane Clark who are seeking (2)
two area variances of Article IV, Section 420.3, which requires a 10 foot
side yard and rear yard, the applicants are showing a 5 foot side yard and
rear yard, thus requiring an 5 foot side yard and rear yard variance to
construct an 8' X 24' wood storage shed on property located at 79 Scott
Drive and is identified as Tax Grid #19-6257-04-727449-00 in the Town of
Wappinger.
The Zoning Board of Appeals declared itself Lead Agency and made a
Negative Declaration of Significance for this project on November 26,
1996.
It was further determined that:
1) The requested variance wIll I will not produce an undesirable c]1ange
in the character of the neighborhood. No I y~~, substantial detriment
will be created to nearby properties.
,
Il
APPEAL ACTION
RICHARD & DIANE CLARK
APPEAL #1234
PAGE 2
2) There ~/ was no other feasible rnethod( s) available for you to
pursue to achieve the benefit you seek other than the requested
variance. (Due to the topography of the land.)
3) The requested area variance ~ / is not substantia.l.
4) The proposed variance~ / will not have an adverse effect or impact
on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
dL::;trict.
5) The alleged difficulty~/ is not self-created.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, it was determined that the requested variance be
aranted/ ' ~IT ft .
Chairman
Ml-~
Zing Board of Appeals
Town of Wappinger
swo~ to befo~ me on this
J..t./ day of t;i~ . , 1996
~ r)~ 7YJ- d?~
Notary Public
.L'i "',~~ j,~ i r1 ;.-;C;i
!\~:-<-:~..' l' ~-1t(:l of NawVOrtc
N( :=.j';':')
O._,-:-_i!r::~c In DUlch8S::; county' ,
,::>"",cc"Y. E',W83 In/31/19::e.7
RECEIVED
DEe 2 4 1996
ELAINE SNOWDEN
TOWN CLeRK