960
Date C>Q.....--f- .
ql~C'
M~~. ,c.) <\ /~
"':y- r TO\VN OF \':.\PPL~GER JJJ
il ~ r-;OTICEOFAPPEAL--JM
NCl \} 1 ,j 1986
~ ~tailin
f.LAltlE Il. SI'X.~~!sS 135 tSBORNE HILL RD.
Appeal No.
Appellant ELIO TAVARES
FISHKILL NY
Zip Code: 1252~1
Tel. It: R9F.-7F. 7F.
TO TIrE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I, I ELIO TAVARES . appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector. dated
OC-tl)~e.if 2B . 19Li.f..-. and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: 00 A VARIANCE. 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERM 11: 0 AN INTERPRETATION OFTHE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAl.. AS AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at 135 OSBORNE HILL RD.
(street &. no.)
. Town of Wappinger. N.'Y.
R-15/80
(zorung dl5t.)
19-6156-02-Sg3754-00
(gnd no.)
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED ARTICLE IV SECTION 404 21 TO ALLOW FOR
THE EXPANSION OF A PARKING LOT WHICH IS PART OF A LEGAL NON CONFORMING RETAIL USE
(article. section or sub\eCtlon and para!U"aph)
2. 1YPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section). *
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardshi.J) because: NEED ADDITIONAL
PARKING TO MAKE SITE SAFE AND CONVENIENT FOR THE CUSTOMERS
, 2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this proper!)'
and in this district because: THE STORE HAS EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS IN A RESIDENT AL ZONE
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district
because: THE USE EXPANSION REQUESTED IS INSIGNIFICANT
b. A SPECL-\L USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article . section or subsection
. 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 appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
Signature /J<-r-
L..,/
(~ /
'", , /,/? ~ ...-:;:= / /.,'9-
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
r
APPELLAI,rrS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
r-.:OTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
,...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 960
Dated November 19th, 1986
Appellant Elio Tavares
Fishkill, NY 12524
Address 135 Osborne Hill Road
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 18th ,1986, Appeal No. 960
was considered and the following action on the request for: U A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN
Bo'TERPRETATION 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 [X be granted 0 -be-deffied and that the previ'ous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 -t>e-eeRflfmeEl !Xl 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:
f/-r/;V~
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Pcr~e -2-
November 19th, 1986
At the November 18th, 1986 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a motion
was made by Mr. Cortellino to grant the requested varaince under the expansion
clause. It is an existing use. He has never expanded before this and this is a
parking lot extension of the business. The business is both the building and
the parking. The appellant must go to the Planning Board for site plan approval.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - nay
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
fh-/;V~
Angel Caballero, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
AC/lb