972
~~~
,,-.~
TO\VN OF":~PPL~GER
NonCE OF .APPEAL
Did-
: ~ec-'d - 1-7:-RJ
. Appeal No. --9.1 d:.
D~- 3(d )IS~L
-R -,71987"
~~:~lailing_lL__ ~ 7 (,
Zip Code: ./ )- ~ 0/ 0
Tel. If:
Appellant ~)Jvw... W~I' tv ~
fA)A~ h ~ /1("
TO TIlE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I. tv c I Do^-' /)1 C' ("J/' l-l/ '/f-- *'r' 7ft . appe::U from a decision of the Zoning Inspector. dated
. 19_. and do hereby apply to the Zoning BO:1rd of Appeals for: 0'A VARIANCE. 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERMrr, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 0 AN APPEAL ~ AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises loc:ued at ~ a...t. o-{~
/Q /.A I' l ~ Cf 0 u 7?q ~ a (mcet & no.)
1\ - "/ 0 ~ I - 7 - -V (/ / . Town of Wappinger, N."%:
CZDlWlI c1I51.) lirn1 no.)
1. PROVISION{S)OFTHEZONINGORDINANCEAPPEALED~~ ~ ~.c- (',/ ~I ."z d~
~;4 ,.j.u.P<d. 'I-~ ~ ... /'1,L./ ~/~ :; c..... ~ u-,P ~
" ~ ()) ~ (artl (; I -p~'!~)
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant"SecUon). · .
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following re:1Sons: ,
@Suict.pplic::uion of the Zoning Ordin:lncewould p~~ds~~~ ~ ~
(j The h:1rdship cre:1ted is unique and is not sh:lJ'ed by :1ll prope;t,i iesesjIi '~ke inJ~)}Tme~te vicinity of this proper!)'
and in this district b=use: --/..Vf f.,.d ~ ~.-t;:t" ~,,-- 7'--- .
3) The vari311ce would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the ch:lJ'actC" of the district
beciuse: ~ e4( ~ t!M./..J..
b. A SPECL.;L USE PER..\1IT IS REQUESTED pursuant to :1I"tide . section or subsection
. paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to f)ermit the following use on the
above premises:
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested bec:1use:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
M M7
/ /
'~
~
...
(Use extrOl sheetS if necessary)
Signature /I~ -'i'1 '-~ ~/
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appe::U.
I
T
APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPI'1GER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No.
972
Dated
April 7th, 1987
Appellant
Wappinger Falls. NY
Weldon McWilliams
Address
Route 376
12590
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 11th ,19 87 ,Appeal No. 972
was considered and the following action on the request for: KI 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 ofthe Ordinance 0 would 0 would
not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question 0 would 0 woul(i 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 change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 b&-gr.aR~ IX] be denied and that the prevfous
decision of the Enforcement Officer CO be confirmed D~tl~. 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. INfERPRETATION: 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:
2!Jr-r- ~d<: ,~.,....e...:
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
4 .
Page -2-
April 7th, 1987
]
At the February 11th, 1987 meeting of the ZOning Board of Appeals, a motion
was made by Mr. Landolfi to deny the requested variance for the following reasons:
1. No building permit was requested.
2. It was known a variance was needed by the appellant, however, he allowed the work
to continue.
3. The first item on the contract calls for the construction of the garage, so, therefore,
the builder had adequate time to do whatever he had to do.
4. Since there was no building permit there is no C.O. and therefore our Assessor's
Office has no knowledge of this enhancement to the residence.
In summary, it is my opinion, based on these facts known by the Board it appears
that the appellant was in full knowledge of what his requirements were but still allowed
the work to be completed without a building permit or a variance.
Mr. Hirkala seconded the motion.
Vote:
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mrs. Roe - aye
The motion was carried.
~~~.
George Urciuoli, ChaIrman
Zoning Board of Appeals
GU/lb