953
.,..
?,.
TO\Vf\ OF \'l\PPL~GER
~OTICE OF APPEAL
~ AP~"O~
.J i\ t'! \} \ (t L I Date
fUINE H. SNOWDErJ
Appellant K u R. r
\)Jc;rr ;\i(J e r5
TO TIIE BOAm> OF APPEALS:
KI/KI
I,
() (,~ \ 7 , 19.s::k..., and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 0 A VARIANCE, IS(A
SPECIAL USE PERMrr, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS ~
AGGRlEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at 110:, ]),dt! ell /2L..t "
G "'" ~ 4-' 5 -7 . -~ (street & no.)
"0 .;L '.... , ~ 0 - "2.... iJ.....
L "'.,u -' -'.:J ~ . Town of Wappinger, N.'Y.
. (zarung dlSt.) (gnd no.)
RE:/fv'ER-
r;J I s lif Y
,
Home ~lailing
Address I J &
!:xdd e. J I
1-::) .
Zip Code:
J2s-7'O
Tel. #: 'Ib;1./fv)
8' C; 6, - SS.2 :l...
REINE R
, appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, dated
1. PROVISION(S) OFTHE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED
(article. sealon or sub~tlon and para!Uaph)
2. TI'PE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section)..
a. A V.~IANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this properry
and in this district because:
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district
because:
b. A SPECL<\L USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article % , section or subsection
4o't ~ ( . paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the
above premises: OJ~~M0N\ G"F ,q ~fh.., ~ Fr9-vv'ltv-t (~- UNI=cry,,,,,,,~)
l(~1-~~ . .
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zorung Ordinance IS requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
-
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
J _
Signatur~/C:~- fv: ~~
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
T
APPELLA.."ITS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
..
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No.
953
Dated January 5th, 1987
Appellant Kurt Reiner
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
Address 116 Diddell Road
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 23rd, ,19 86 , Appeal No. 953
was considered and the following action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE, ::J 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 change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance a: be granted 0 ee-e-eIDee and that the prevfous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 9&GeHHRBOO XX 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 [J be reversed 0 be confirmed, because:
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:
,
~/;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 variance. Mr. Reiner isn't expanding the
non-conforming use, he is not adding another apartment to it. I feel the uniqueness
in trying to live in 1,000 square feet is kind of unique. He is only adding to
his own living quarters. He has more than sufficient property, 2~ acres. He
doesn't need any sideyard, front yard, rearyard setbacks. I think it is pretty
obvious that removing a tenant would pose financial hardship and I don't think
it would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. I would like to
put a stipulation:
1. At no time will the Board entertain an expansion of the upstairs apartment
for any reason.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - nay
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
fhl;V~
Angel Caballero, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
AC/lb
.,