818
..,
c
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
~~
M A ~ 2.,3 11986' Date
Appeal No. q- \ ~
0/J? ~'<? S
cc UtlP
. 1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED e~ ue<. ~
~ Glllc
J- .Jl fa. i.... (.l AJ .s -.e t- It Ii -e. (ar~c~ sectitl. oc.~~~cr,,-anj ~aph~ i +- ~
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section). * 1f;;1 ~ :J;:J.:. b
~cO (- .
+ C /VIIJ+' IJ~; 's'~ le s
'Sec' I /l tJ
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 all properties alike in the immediate 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-A4- '2. , section or subsection
+4 "2- . Ilaragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the follmving use ~e ,
above premises: '~fY\.O-h \A...Q Sa U?_ S I M~ ~ ro IV """t v V l U
c. INTERPRETATION ofthe Zoning Ordinance is requested because:
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
(Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature ~ ~ r:/?: ~ I Ii
~ ~. ~~
· The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
APPELLANTS 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. 818
Dated May 22nd, 1986
Appellant Hugh Greer (East End Automotive)
Route 9, Wappinger Falls, New York
Address c/o Greer Toyota
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on May 13th ,19 86 , Appeal No. 818
was considered and the following action on the request for: 0 A VARIANCE, 6.{] A SPECIAL USE PERMI'f, 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 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 IX] be
granted 0 bc::d=mcd, pursuant to article IV ,section or subsection 442 , paragraph of the
Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because:
SEE ATTACHED
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:
1h-/;V~
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Page -2-
May 22nd, 1986
At the May 13th, 1986 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, a motion was
made by Mr. Cortellino to grant the requested Special Use Permit with the following
conditions:
1. Stage 1 & 2 will proceed in a timely fashion. There shall be no one year
lag between the stages.
2. The Enviornmental concerns (ex. hazardous waste) shall be addressed.
3. Signage shall be addressed and shall conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
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.
~//V~
Angel Caballero, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
lb
cc: Planning Board