966
~ ~-
TO\V~ OF \\:.\PPL"GER
~OTICE OF APPEAL
RECEIVED '
m! t, '! :: tf' Appd No. ---5d( rl-P
~. ,.,! 'I ,. l l 0 ,
- v Date If I? / ~ 6
liE 11, SIWWiJEfJ
Appellant N f C./c.
Ct.-l\f2K
Home t-.Iailing "?
Address ->.3 SVCtc.io-I flt,
u',4-pp,rJ h.(,,2S FJ+ll.S, (\1.'(.
Zip Code: /2...5-'" C>
Tel. #: 2.."'1 )- oG)~
TO TIIE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I. !,'Ie. J.lO'-I-lS C '-14 (2((.. . :J.ppeal from:J. decision of the Zoning Inspector. dated
NO\} 11!::J . 19 ~G . and do hereby :J.pply to the Zoning BO:J.rd of Appeals for: !X, A VARIANCE. 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT; 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 0 AN APPE.-\L AS AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at
(strcct &. no.)
(2 - 20 (: (~) -; - O~.... - '5) 0'5- 62. ( . Town of W:J.ppinger, N.'Y.
(wrung om.' (grid no.'
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED ~th:-nC-Ik~ 5:E:c'IlG~ 42.1 - 1V ~
~ \1'tt:; \~s'^~'-€ ,,-v-..('. 0\11\IA)I.N~ ?~\'\ ~ rw M1)li1~ \l')1i\"\ A Ie:; I <;. \)1Yt~ v-)~
I
7AJ; I <::. ~ Q\.A \ ~ (artiCle, scalon or sub~tlon :l.nQ para!U"aph)
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section). *
2.. ~~~IANCE IS REQUESTED for the following re:lSons:
r 1). Strict :J.pplic::ltion of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: II "V 0(.1'- 0 'p (JJw~^(J
,,7' T;-lrt C..Of\l!.TVc.T/()I'.J OrA-DO/Tlor/tH.. I-IV/N&:" ANI) "4"::,1,,11. sPAc::./i
2) The h::lI'dship cre:ned is unique and is not sh::lI'ed by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of tIus proper!)'
and in this districrbe--...:luse: Ovr.... TO YJ-4r... vl'lv5vIH_ SHAP/:" oF- ,HI:.. ,-oj / ONI":.. c.oaN~r't c,r-
-. '14ft. P/loPO::,,(tO {J.O()iT/o,..l lNOV':"() C.OM(t WITIo4''''' IS- fF..~r OF IJ-i('/.. (>!2-0PflI:..T'( ~i(.,jr;'..~
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the ch:J.r:lcrer of the district
bee . TJ.41'i.. HONl(t NK...,.:J-()aoR. '~AfJR.o-;-/ N1;rrI,,';'" 60 F(!"r fiwA<( ~o A-OF-o..""~TrL sPpr..li.. ,,-</cc./{..()
cause.ST1"-'-- !::"../S.T /3I':.T'-t'i.tlN' Tl-'(:;' .sTIaVG.j"V~(ts. oT~(.1t ~or"'\I'lS IN TI1(L. AR-(i!'t PR.r:s(l,..c.,.....~
HA-vr.. 1""""0 c.1\11.. V\A~4c,.(l~jj:f\1..f).-A:ilJ2LIlo"'S,
b. A SPECL-u. USE PE~\UT IS Kl:.<....IUESTElJ pursuant to artide . section or subsection
. p:l:agr:lph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the
above premises:
c. n-."TERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because:
-
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an :J.ppeal is requested be--..ause:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
Signature ~~ C/--VL--
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.:
I\.?PELLA..~'TS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
!'OTICE IN THE LOCAL NeWSPAPER.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 966
Dated January 5th, 1987
Appellant
Wappinger Falls, NY
Nick Clark
Address
33 Sucich Place
12590
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 23rd, , 19 87 , Appeal No. 966
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 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 change the character of the district, because:
.. :.;0: ~
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance KI be granted 0 beeerried and that the previ'ous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be.~t:U:n:lecl~ be reversed. 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:
-
ffrl;V~
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Page -2-
January 5th, 1987
At the December 23rd, 1986 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a motion
was made by Mr. Urciuoli to grant the requested variance based on the applicant
is asking for a 25% sideyard setback relief, and that 25%, which is a 5 foot setback
where a 20 foot setback is required is only on a very small portion of the total
addition that is being put up. In view of the amount of the variance, of the
setback that is required, in order to conform to zoning I believe that a practical
difficulty would be involved in re-designing the addition based on the amount of
the variance that is actually required to put it up as it is presented to us.
Being that there seems to be some difficulty in the clarification of the front yard
setback, if our Zoning Administrator goes out on a site inspection and determines
that the addition part is within the 35 foot front yard setback requirement that
the variance be granted.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
fh-1/JJ4
Angel Caballero, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
AC/lb
-