979
-
.
-.
'3 S'
<2...~
TO\V!' OF \\:o\PPL'\GER
r\OTIcr OF .A.PPEAL
~ Ap;=!l>o. . Q'L9
FEB 12 1987D:u~J,L ~'-Ci I q y'l
I
i'" _ ...,.
Appellant . 5-te..p" 'e. N K()Nd r'lR..
:~eAC.O~I' '~'-/
EUIE .. _WID.
Home Mailing I \ I
Add:ess I..D '\
G- R e..eNt/)() () d. J)?
Zip Code: I & So 5?'
Td. N' R:~ I - XI,
TO THE DOARD OF APPEALS:
I, S +A -e f ,",t'" N \< (") r-1 d 0 ~ , appe:1l from a d~ion of the Zoning Inspector, dated
, 19_, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: t& A VARIANCE, 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERM 11: 0 AN INTERPIL~ATION OF THE ZO~ING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS A."l
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises loc:ued at Os \-, 0 ~ rJ \-\ ~ \ I <:K d "
r::- ISrrC'l:1 &. nc.,
~ - ) S ~ - 8 0 , ~ /' 5 G. - 0 ~ -,":J 60 10' -. . Town of Wappinger, N. ~
(ZDNnI 011\.) U;ncl nC.1
.
'1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED Ae'h'd-e~ S'ecn~ 4Of.3'2.--~ o.}luW
~ 0, V\se.- ~u. ~ CAv\.skot (A' ?l;S"k tv\V\.\-h~,^",\ \;A \t~ j ~Th 4- wvlrts . o,.J ~ ~~e.--\
" - n l:i \ - A k fan'tlc. ICCl!On or IUO~1I0n and p:ll \UlIPl11 \
W~~, ~ 0f'IC.- k-, \WO ~t't CV\~ ~~ Iv\-e. m<;W c;v.J. dv-t- '"""*~ ,,.] '"
2. 1YPE.oF APPEA. (Complete relevant section).. l\~-t<"c.k ~ ~ 4 Q\ \~ -kv-q ~,\<: ~,\~ ~.
. . a. A VA.RIANCE IS REQUESTED for the foUowing re:lSons:
1) Stria appliotion of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardsrup bec:luse: ~ ~
J.t:> ~ a... ~~~C11"'\~~4r~ ~-to '0:.0 Q a...
.2) The ~dship cre:lted'ts unique~d is not shared by :ill properties ~e in the immedi:ue vicinity of this proper!)'.
and in this distI'ia bec:luse: " \ ~ ~ r:dJ~ . 1:
'The.- ~-M.- is ~~-r\~ f'J)M.- ~-f.,vV"',.,.r,\ - .'3 C4,bl;..ts .
. 3) The variant:: woul~ observe the spirit of the Ordinance :md would not change the cna:acter of the cllstri:t
because: \V\~ ~ ~.e.v' Sl~l \~ lA~C; l~ ~ C'vrt..A.
b. A S?ECLoU. USE PERMIT IS REQU-~ 1 =.D pursuant to ani::le ,section or subsection
. p~agr:lph ofthe Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the
above pre:nises: " .
.
c. INTERPR-i=TATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested be--..ause:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
Signature
~~,L
"
· The required plan must accomp<lI1Y the Notice of Appeal.
. r
APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
NOTICE IN THE LOCAL N"EWSPAPER..
, '
"
.-
-
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TO\\TN OF WAPPINGER
ACfION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 979
Dated February 11th, 1987
Appellant
Stephen Kondor
Address 64 Greenwood Drive-
Beacon, NY 12508
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appea!s on February 10th ,1987 ,Appeal No. 979
was considered and the following action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 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 woulc;l 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, became:
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 ~"gffm~ !XI be denied and that the prevfous
decision of the Enforcement Officer [Xl be confirmed 0 be-r-eorei"5eft. SEE ATTACHMENT.
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:
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:
.~ ~-~.--'-'
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
...
Page -2-
February 11th, 1987
At the February 10th, 1987 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a motion
was made by Mr. Landolfi to deny the requested variance. Based on the evidence
heard before us this evening. I would consider it to be more of are-zoning.
The appellant has not met the 3 way test.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Roe - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
Err- ~~
George Urciuoli, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
GU/lb