Loading...
766 I \ . ./' I . . TOWN OF \VAPPINGER NOTICE OF APPEAL I RECEIVED AUG 1 5 1984 Et a [. <<-e ~~ Appeal No. 1lc <n Date t I ~l{ l )Cf ~ I; .... Appellant S\e\j~N ~N'eNDc:LA v.; ",pr,()Cjl:'o..:~ f^~ TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: ELAtttE R. SNOWDEN Home Mailing Address t> I D\) C\ \ KC^ 0 Zip Code: \1.590 Tel. II: lH,l-O %03 I, ST C \I Ii" N ?!f'~\~n<.k.\ :~ . appeal from a decision of the Zoning I nspector. dated .:tUII 1/. 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. = AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (dleck proper oncl. in connecrion with premises located at \:H t)t)t:.\\ K.<:f\r.> 0_ Lul (<;tree.&no.1 ----I.Sr "IlL \~-iu?J~'\-C.~-.s)'6~}~-GG, Townof\Vappinger.N.'r: Ilonmg dlSI.) (grid nO.1 I. PROVISION(S) Of THE ZO:'-lING ORDINANCE APPEALED A~tl(.J(.r:r ,S edi1JYJ '1tJr3 reQuirinq :2rJII,'nll t9'PrJ 2flj)~)a/ crP IJytJt1I1S/0J1 ,# a iJlJn -,;~m/rtf YJ'c " j ./ " "rlI-:IC. ;l'\:lllln or ,uo,a:~n ami para~rarnl ~ 2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Compiete relevant sl~uonl. * a. A VARIANCE IS REQGESTED for the following reasons: I) Strict application of the lorung Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: 2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediatc vicinity of this property and in this distnct because: {~}j The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character or' thc district because: b. A SPECIAL L'SE PER.\flT IS REQUESTED rmrsuant to article . section or ~l'b5ecti(1n , paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the r'ollowing use on the above premises: c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance is requested because: d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because: A't\,\GtQ) HER REM S \.. -. ...., 'r- r- ,\ .", .....- J.OT ARK: \nC ...._~~c Ie,) J\ " ,\(/',H'l'-i . '., ~.- 'I,C-- 01 "IV:"" '~91- -,-c 1"\'. ~\ ~ '\tE' {\UL WX_"'oS \ \ '\ \ L: 't.t'0\ C(' ';' \:::... (Use extra sheets if necessary) T\\C ~~Y;\<-\\f\1\ :'r-~'l:;)C"('r(Y\~ '.C1' L..U \:1- .:J~^(l~. rLI\C '-' 6- :;} l / · /.'/ )' /1. 1./ .1. Signature, (-,rr-"-a_~ 7<-/ ..... . ':j:>'-L_,t~-- · The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal. APPELLANTS ARE RESPONSIl3LE fOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUOUSHING THE REQUIRED LEGAL NOTICE IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER. July 16. 1934 To: Town ot Wappinger Re: Notice of Appeal Ladies & Gentlemen: I am enclosing the notice of appeal which I was informed was required before my builder could be granted a building permit for a new addition to my house. I purchased this house with my brother about l~ years ago. The house was in very poor condition and the upkeep was deplorable. Over the past year I have landscaped with gardens and improved both the outside and inside of the house 100%. It has been a tremendous asset to the area. I plan on remaining in this house for the rest of my life as I love the location, the soace and have always lived in this area. I have no intention of selling the house and am not attempting to improve the property for financial gain as mentioned in the printed "notice of appeal" form that you sent to me. My only interest is to improve the house and make it livable for myself and family and I need more room to be able to do this. I am certain that if not told, people passing the house would not even be aware of the addition when it is built which shows how inconspic- uous and well planned this addition is. I am very concerned about the time involved in obtaining a building permit as my builder had told me he would be able to start the house around the third or fourth week of July, and I am having an interview with an adoption agency next week which is explained in the attached reasons. I don't want to lose the builder and definately don't want to jeopardize the adoption. I certainly can appreciate the reason for zoning ordinances but hope that you will be able to process this and grant a building permit as quickly as possible. My builder had assured me that it would take no more than a week to be able to get the permit but apparently this is not the case. Thank you for your prompt attention and cooperation. . . . . 1. Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because: A. I purchased the house with my brother and his wife last year. The side in question is mine which is currently a two bedroom one bath house. The master bedroom is very small and has room only for one double bed and a chest. It contains no closet and the only closet available is the hall closet. The second bedroom is also a very small room and contains 2 closets which are only 2'wide each. The second bedroom has only I double bed and a dresser. There are currently three people living on my side of the house (2 adults and 1 child) and there is simply not enough room. Additionally there is a very small kitchen and no dining room which makes it very difficult to serve meals, especially if there are any more than the three of us. A second major hardship exists due to the fact that I am on several lists to become an adoptive father. Unless I can provide a larger bedroom, sufficient closet space, etc., I will be prohibited from adopting my child. 2. The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all prop- erties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this district because: My house is a legal two family house and so is the adjacent house. The house is located on l~ acres of land, on a hill and does not have the appearance of a two family house. In fact even when peo- ple first come to the house, they are not aware it is a two family dwelling. All of the houses in the immediate area are on large parcels of land which is a relatively rural area. They are not built near property lines. The hardship is definately caused by prohibiting my family from growing and causing very uncomfortable living conditions due to the small size of the rooms. The planned addition would be located in an area which is currently occupied by an attached shed. The shed would be removefr and the new rooms be located in the same area plus approximately 10 more feet. Any single family house in the area would be able to expand without obtaining a variance even though most of the other houses in the area are on Quch much smaller parcels of land. Additionally it does not change the exterior portion of the building to any great degree and in fact blends the back part of the house into the style house even better than it blends now. 3. The varience would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: The house is a one story ranch. The general shape of the house is a retangle with the exception of an enclosed Florida room on the back side of the house which is for the other side. The new addition would be the same size and configuration as the Florida room thereby blending in the entire back of the house. The addition cannot be seen from the road and would not change the appearance of the house. The majority of my property is behind the house and consequently it would not change the view from anyone elses property either. ... " Steven Amendola page two My plats are to make what is now master bed::oom and second bedroom into a kitchen/dining room. The two new rooms would be the bedrooms which means the house will still be a two bedroom house on my side. The house was originally approved to be a three bedroom I bath on one side and a two bedroom I bath on the other side and that is the way it would remain. It would not affect either water consumption or sewer as no new plumbing is involved. It definately observes the spirit of the ordinance as it still remains the same type house as originally approved with the exception of providing more living space for my family. It would not change the character of the district as the two family house next door does not appear to be a two family, my house does not appear to be a two family, it is located on a large parcel of land and the new addition not only blends in with the style of the house but improves it. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED TO\VN OF \VAPPINGER ACfION ON APPEAL AUG 1 5 1984 Appeal No. 766 Dated 8/15/84 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN Appellant ~t8v8n AmQndols Wappinger Falls, NY 12590 Address Diddell Road At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ~11lJl1st lLlt-l-} ,19 84 ,Appeal No. 766 was considered and the following action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, c::: AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, C AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), wars taken: I. VARIANCE: Bv resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance L would = would not produce undue hardship for these reasons: a. The property in question C would C would not yield a reasonable return if limited to the use permitted under the Ordinance. because: h. The hardship created is ;-= is not unique and .= 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 C would =-= would nor change the character of the district. because: Therefore. it was further determined that the requested variance LZ be granted C be'derried and that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer C be"t:onfirnlec:t [J{be reversed. SEE ATTACHMENT 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a Special Use Permit Q be granted C be denied. pursuant to article . section or subsection . paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance and. therefore. the decision of the Enforcement Officer CJ be reversed C 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: <J ,J ~.~ a-r · " '.j- . ,- ,., n of ~"~~"':"-'i;...u 1/ Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Appeal # 766 At the August 14th, a motion was made by Mr. granted. The motion was Vote: Mr. Landolfi - aye Mr. Caballero - aye Mr. Urciouli - aye The motion was carried. lb -2- August 15th, '984 1984 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Caballero, that the requested variance bE~ seconded by Mrs. Waddle. Mr. Cortellino - aye Mrs. Waddle - aye ("', 1 \1~_:v{'''.I Ow ,(I C-~"j "" ~,....-- "~~" .') _I~'. .... ~ ...~;..w.r-""'-'''d {I Mr. Joseph E. Landolfi, Chairman