701
...
<:"-
LlV
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACfION ON APPEAL
~~ED
JAN 22 1987
Appeal No. 7 0 1
Dated January 14th. 1987
EUIIE II. MWIfI
Appellant Chandra Desai
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Address 45 Saddle Rock Drive
At a meeting ofthe Zoning Board of Appeals on January 13th ,19 87 , Appea1No. 701
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMI'f, 0 AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was
taken:
1. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance 0 would 0 would
not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question 0 would 0 would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under the
Ordinance, because:
b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and 0 would 0 would not be shared by all properties alike in the
vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because:
"
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not cha....lge the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 be granted 0 be denied and that the previous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be confIrmed 0 be reversed.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use Permit 0 be
granted 0 be denied, pursuant to article , section or subsection , paragraph of the
Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because:
SEE ATTACHMENT.
3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation ofthe Zoning
Ordinance as requested in your appeal:
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal:
~~ ~~~.
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACflON ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 701
Dated Januarv 14th. 1987
Appellant Chandra Desai
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
Address 45 Saddle Rock Drive
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appea!s on January 13th ,19 87 , AppeaINo. 701
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMI'T, 0 AN
INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was
taken:
1. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance 0 would 0 would
not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question 0 would 0 would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under the
Ordinance, because:
b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and 0 would 0 would not be shared by all properties alike in the
vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because:
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not chlulge the character of the district, because:
,,-' ',:"
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 be granted 0 be denied and that the previ"ous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be confirmed 0 be reversed.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use Permit 0 be
granted 0 be denied, pursuant to article , section or subsection , paragraph of the
Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because:
SEE ATTACHMENT.
3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning
Ordinance as requested in your appeal:
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal:
&r-- ~'* .:...-e.....
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals