790
"..
TO\VN OF \VAPPINGER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
l'lJU--,--)
RECEIVED
FEB 141985
Appeal No. .::t-t ilCf (-j
Date I \ 1 3(; I ~. cl
~~ ;;<-/'i.' t:s-
. It
fL~
Appellant
HERRITT SEYHOUR
WillE H. SIO'JDEI
Home Mailing
Adm~s R.R. #1 Box 20, Old
Fishkill, New York
Zip Code: 125 2 4 Tel. #:
Route 9
TO TIlE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I, HERRITT SEYHOUR ,appeal from a decision of the Zonin~nspector, dated
()~;(jf;J1 ~b ,19.c.t-, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: crt A VARIANCE, 0 A
SPECIAL USE PERMI'f, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APP~ AS AN
AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at lli-1cl1 k:Jd t'l.l' () V- 1<0 .
i'fret'''& n/}. \
CPI- 14 ,11(- (,/s6 -OJ. ~ g.:LS'.6S0 ,TownofWappinger~N.Y.'
(zoning dist.) (grid no.)
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED Md. ~~
, ~ "L It,
~ _ _ III ' /J...J (arucle, s:1I or subsection and paragra )
()... 4LIM -~~~..ed-L.
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (cOmplete relevant section).. (SEE ATTACHED SHEETS)
fo'/, 31 :.Al~-a~
4.
~R-~
a. A VARIANCE 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 aU properties alike in the inunediate vicinity of this property
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 SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article , section or subsection
, paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to per!!'Jt the fo!!m..n.ng use en the
above premises:
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
i~
4
.
,
;,
;;
f
i
j
( 4
(Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature ~ </f/<~ ~~~A-
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
'j
~ APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL
~ NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER.
.,"li.'
.~~:'~:..
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TO\VN OF \VAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No.
Dated Feb. 14th, 1985
790
Appellant
Fishki11. NY 12524
Merritt Seymour
R.R. #1 Box 20 Rte 9
Address
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 12th ,19 85 ,Appeal No. 790
was considered and the following action on the request for:3tl A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, C 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 C is LJ is not unique and 0 would C 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 C would not change the character of the district, because:
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 b~grftftted- k.j be denied and that the previous
decision of the Enforcement Officer~ be confirmed 0 beTeversed:
SEE ATTACHMENT
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use Permit C 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:
\
'..-- .; I ·
o w .,~;..:;.o:..'1c'"
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
!',,~
Page -2-
February 14th, 1985
At the February 12th, 1985 meeting of the Zoning BOard of
Appeals, a motion was made by Mr. Caballero that the requested
variance be denied. The reason for the denial is that there are
no hardships shown and it would show the property as less conforming
as what it is now. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino.
Vote:
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Hirkala - abstained
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mrs. Waddle - abstained
The motion was carried.
o:.._~
..... I "__
. "",.".;i.'.{./
1/
Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
Ib
"":,"'r.;