963
,.
r
TO'\,1' OF ":-\PPL'\GER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. Q lo :\
~
Datej~nV' l~; ~q'q-u,
'JAM 1 S~ j,Qg7
/ ; ;/ EUtHE H. SHOWDER ~:;r/
Appellant ( ':711):J) t-iy iJ;~: J/~'-~;f fJ I/. E- ~~X~ tailing li:!-, / (-iI (/:5 r-/ If~
)l>~7f? ;S-l,/-u, ),:; I F~ Zip Code: /c2,3'-y CJ Tel.#~>?j'/-tsI3
/
TO TIIE BOARD OF APPEALS:, r ,
I, (o:/L--4'\.L:1 i/'J, i/~~/( d!t/!..t , appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, dated
, ' 19_, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for. A VARIANCE, 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERMIT,~ AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, CLAN APPEAL AS AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at (--" fie [-.jC a II cr ~
o (mee[ & no.)
f'-' 20 b 050 - O'~ - '3 43 4~'6 , Town of Wappinger, N. 'L
(wrung dlSt.) ij;nu no.)
1. PROVISION(S) OFTHE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED AI2T'u..€ ~ -St:"e,TlC\--..J +D4.3"3
(arnele. scalon or sub~non :lnd para!Uaph)
2. 1YPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section). *
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
c!y Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
@ The hardship created is unique and is not shared by :ill properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this proper!)'
and in this district because:
~ The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district
be-...ause:
b. A SPECLo\L USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article , 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 appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
q l, WV\ -e.v!\ t.h
~
ILl ,..
I/G+'( r \1\1) \ ...;a.\\.G""
\?CAJt9 . S :-C.c::. 1/'''''_\ k ; 4.( It- fj
() 11V\0J.e.r-~ r\A...;\; I Ie
r iPV\
I
'd1 . .
0, . {:.-.L, ~ -tv..I"1.
/ . (\
( :'~1~~L~7
\
i"'\D~~'\~ \I\,::--i,^-:"',
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
SigI1ature
,.I r /
)' 7 )/..' / ",,: {r
., ,./....i2>l 't C C
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL.
!'OTlCE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No.
963
Dated January 12th, 1987
Appellant Carmen Verdile
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
Address RD In - Chelsea Road
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 23rd, ,19 86 , Appeal No. 963
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, tl. 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 0 be granted 0 be denied and that the previous
decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be confirmed 0 be reversed.
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: SEE ATTACHMENT.
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal:
f}-r1;V~
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Page -2-
January .12th, 1987
At the December 23rd, 1986 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a motion
was made by Mr. Cortellino that they make the determination on the basis that this
particular lot and case is a special case and that our determination would be that
normally we would not intepret that you can change an old, existing mobile home
with a new one, but because this is a special case on this particular lot for that
size that we will allow for him to, we would interpret that he could change the old,
existing mobile home for a new one subject to approval by the Building Inspector and
the various codes that are required.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Landolfi.
Vote:
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Hirkala - aye
The motion was carried.
f1r/;v~
Angel Caballero,Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
AC/lb