968
'~
~~
TO\V~ OF \':-\PPL~GER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
~VED
I "~I' f' l Co[ t 1
,)!\!' I)
Appe2l t-;o. q.u, V
D:lte J,l:) 0 \J. t~. I ) q 0.0
I
// r ,
Appellant ( v -;:)r- / ,-) tv ~ .j cr).-~
IVt-h/7 ~/~ h ~
U' v
TO TIIE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I. ut'l ~W~S"'" . appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, d:ued
~ t ~ . 19~. and do hereby <1pply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: Pz A VARIANCE. 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERM 11: 0 AN 1i'<'TERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 0 AN APPE.tU. AS AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located <1t l~ ~ev.J ~lc,~"S<1\{.{L- ~
(strC'l:t &. no.)
0(15(1-07.- - ~ '81C\ ZO
ELAINE UJ SUuWUE[]
Home r-. tailing
Address /'6---;:,
/~/ !latE/:;"S ~k j2L
.
Tel. #~7 y '/ c.,I ")
Zip Code:
/ 2- ~-c;.6
--11 \- z- A
(wrung OISl.)
l!;nQ no.)
. Tovm of Wappinger, N.'Y.
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED Wl1~~ <;E:&Tt~ 42--2-
It> ~ ~ fttJ ftYD\\l~ v\~E. rrr:- fr~ ~l~~ ~hl~\1IVJc,\ l,;()c,f~'1)
l r-J ~ Ai,.- 'Z Pr . ~ € (article. s~tlon or sub\CCtlon :lno para!U'aph)
2. 1YPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant-section)..
a. A VARIA.NCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict a~lication of the Zoning O~din::w;:e would produce u~ds~ec<1use:. .
,11?~ /~/1"1 h;( .~ ~'-"-') ....9 <!-o- . ~ L.(!~t:t'Suh D~, ;;u~'t.
2) The hardship cre~ted is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the irnnfe~:ue vicinity of tIus pr*ITY
and in this district be'"'..J.use:
3) The vari:mce would observe the spirit of the Ordinance :md would not change the character of the district
/1 . F -, . '7"~IH- ~ s.e.,.
be'-...ause: (.(.;; i (J!cr,. <.J.-. ~.c... r -,
b. A SPECLo\L USE PER.\tIT IS REQUESTED pursu:mt to artide . section or subseeJon
, paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the following use on the
above premises:
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an <1ppeal is requested be'"'...ause:
-
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
Signatur(1/ L~.
· The required plan must accompany the Nerice of Appeal.
r
A?PELL<\.1\lTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
!'OT1CE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
I:
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
. TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 968
Dated January 5th. 1987
Appellant Carl Swenson
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
At a meeting ofthe Zoning Board of Appeals on December 21rd. , 19 Rfi , Appeal No. 968
was considered and the following action on the request for:!3 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:
Address 150 New Hackensack Road
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:
o. :..:;-t
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 -be-gran:te6. 00 be denied and that the prevfous
decision of the Enforcement Officer m be confirmed 0 ~ersed. 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 ofthe 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 deny the requested variance. I do not feel that the
applicant has demonstrated sufficient financial hardship on the single use that
our Zoning allows for in that area.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
f/-r1;V~
Angel Caballero, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
AC/lb
-