Loading...
609 .!i~#!"~>'i" . .i}~~~~Jt.;14~:. . "'i;,(","t.~~ItIf'l~' '. ';'''~j"", ..,' ...... 'b.-." " ":'1,:: ,1ft '. .. : ,-".' .. .;,' .. .. _, ,..... .:...,.,,\,..'..: 'j_;';~.' J . ,; '. "'l ,"~' " .... _ .', 't,';\..,~.~____~. __~.~'_';;"'" ~",,' ,\)iJ.-:~~ , '~~~'.'~ . ~."",.' ': ~t ' ,L~L' 4'41;1 ~(~;,~ \,-, '. fl~;/i' :, ,.. - .~::~':'~ ,.' . \,:'~':.",;:,' y~X,:, Appeal No. ......60.9................... Dated May.....14th.,.....,l.982 /'.~~.~<: .AppeJIant .y.JD.g.~.n.~....Q..~ArnP..r.Q~J9.........,..........................,.... i1..ddress Par..tridge..,Ro.ad........ m......~y.9:~....~.!!;f,.~.I.....H!!t...XQ;J;.~. ....l.~.5..3.S.,...........,........ ..,...... ....... ....... .............. .... ...... .... ......... ............... .... .....................,...........,..... ........ At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on .........................M~Y....llt.h............................................., 19.....82, A,.ppeal No............~.?~...... was ronsidered and the following action on the request for: @ A VARIANCE, o A SPECIAL USE EERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF TH'E ZONING ORDINANCE, o AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was taken: I. V ARlANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance o 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: .......................................................,.....:....................,............................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... e' 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: .................. ....01............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. c. The variance 0 would 0 would not ch~nge the character of the district, because: .................... ..........................................................................................;....................................................................................................................'.................. ................"................,....,.................................................,........................................................................................................................................ ~herefore, it was further determined that the requested variance [3-be-gr-l'tfttee.[]: be denied apd that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer ~ be confirmed B-ee-PeV~~ PLEASE 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 subsectioll ....................., paragraph ................................... of the Zoning Ordinance atid, therefore, the decision of the En- forcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because; .......................................................................................... ... .. .... ....... ........ ................... ........................... ................... .. .. . .. ................... ...... ....... ....... . ,........................ ....... ............. ......~...................... .... ........... ................... J. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following re.:;olution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ........... .. ......................................................................... ..................................................... .',.... ................. ,.......... ................ ....... ... .............. p' ....... ......... .... ................,.. ............................................. .............,....................................................... ..................................................... 4. AGGRIEVED PERSON (S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your ftppeal: ................................................................................................ ......... . ..... ............ ... ........ ..................... .............................................................. .. .......- ........................... ...................................................................... ......._.......:~~~~~ --.,......;;.;~.:..._-_.___..;..___J.;..;I.,".;....~."..:....._._. _ ,. ,_~_..o..-.:.d':$-;-J.' -<l:'{~I:~Iti;:;;:":' --- .--.. -'_..;..._,.........;.....,;..~--'--"'.L...~......__._.. .:.~~ Appeal # 609 11 -2- May 14th, 1982 At the May 11th, 1982 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger, a motion was made by Mr. Landolfi, to grant the requested variance for a period or one (1) year or when the property is sold, whichever comes first. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cortellino. Vote: Mrs. Waddle - aye Mr. Cortellino - aye Mr. Urciuoli - nay Mr. Caballero - nay Mr. Landolfi - aye The motion was not carried as the Dutchess County Department of Planning had recommended against the granting of a variance, therefor~ a four (4) to one (1) vote was required. The variance is, therefore, denied. " ... ,r'~ ~ --'L ./".') }Il ..:.~~/ IlY~'~~ -AI ...J (Mrs.) Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson .'::'.,.L"';'~:"':'~_~i1.:._ . -~ .~. c ;.:.&. ~ RECEIVED M"l)' ~ d - I.) 1982 Tax Map Parcel No. 615704-623465 To: Zoning Board of Appeals Referral: 82-99, Town of Wappinger Re: D'Ambrosio Variance Application In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article 12B, Sections 239-1 and 239-m), the Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent intercommunity and countywide considerations. Upon analysis, this Department makes the following findings. ." Subject property is located in a Highway Business Zone on the east side of Old Route 9. Two buildings are situated on the property; a restaurant is proposed for one of the structures. A variance is requested to use the second structure as a residential dwelling. The Town'Zoning Ordinance does not allow two principal uses on a lot. This application is a use variance; that is, a variance for a use not permitted in this zoning district. Changes in district uses are more appropriately accomplished through the zoning amendment process with approval from the Town Board. A zoning amendment would apply to all properties within a zoning district; a variance would only apply to a specific property. While the proposed use of the property may be appropriate, the matter should be resolved through the zoning amendment process. Recommendation The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this variance application be denied. Changes in zoning district uses should be accomplished through the zoning amendment process. The Dutchess County Department of Planning does not presume to base its decision on the legalities or illegalities of the facts or procedures enumerated in subject zoning action. Dated: May 5, 1982 Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner Dutchess County Department of Planning By ~.~ Richard Birch Senior Planner RB/db " _.~. '. It'.:_F.. ~"."'" .,r- ! t I -' TOWN OF WAPPINGER Appeal NO.tfc):? NOTICE OF APPEAL Date w.~~--> _ II.' Home Mailing f'1P~7Id tr Illl. ;;,,;:;~ll~::;t I'll!{ e~Nr 1) 14M Ptf<.'S I ~ Ad-~rooo //.;k f#ff(r' I" '1' _ . 1~6~Y Phone # :1 ~ r -~ ~ b ~ ( TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: r/ . I . I, y /!(C~/{T' j) fi~t hltos I 0 , appeal from a decision of the Zoning Inspector, dated~~ '7 ' 19~/, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for:~VARIANCE,r=JA SPECIAL USE PERMIT,I:]AN INTER- PRETATION OF TIm ZONING ORDINAlqCE,[:]AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRrEVED PERSON(S) (check proper one), in connection with premises located at~J1 JIt?/ !rt:I ' /... C....1 . t . il.' c (street & no.) ,_!2J .1 ... 0 --.01..-3 -, ~ ,) , Town of Wappinger, N.Y. (grid no.) 1. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED Ar-n(..\e ~ ,~lluV\ 42k "-\ u a \ \ r.\r. , 0-. Jv..< l \ \ N ''\vc-e,lI'N\\ j'V M - I ,,"1\ eS ' \ \eJl . ,-& c.! v.:> ~ \ \e (article, section or subsecti n and paragraph) _ .' (l....,; l,. . , v\ tC .J \ l<'\. \/\ 'Z'I.,^ ~ \.\ >e.... \.? 2. TYPE OF APPEAL (ColJlplete ;elevant sectiop). * e~~\>\\(>~eJ,,~ Ci~h~ M -~ Se'"M.~ ~o(Y\-\)e.\ a. ,A. VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons: / 1)) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance ,.,ould produce undue ' : "/ . , . . ',-" hardship because: TNt: flffSE Mj SIT", lA ,Ie) ." HI(. & J,~ c tV E...; /W/V" ~',f #4Lck'{ f~tf;o~ C' {-'TIMe j (.,."'9(.Jl (J IoL' J iE,:-'.,....'(,.T' to r-.,J4bPlVdoN li,( ,I '5H"'IfT I;'~ir/D 4 c:.) f Ii I~~. -. l2)) 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: f~d;J/:it'TI {~. 'c"c SIVtJ/(..( (0 .S'!~.J.l'<.J',J~ t1-.$ It: ~ 2~.,/y /{~lY /?v lc 5 rif\td R Fy v L r1 r ( (\ ('\I.s _ ~;'IThe variance would observe the spirit of-the Ordinance and would not L:Y change the character of the dist~ict because: . 77 I,j ;J/f~>LNr( 'T' #/1( F-:r- /~/'//Y r tJsc""'.J lJ.' l'.~ flf.~ {{ 'Vi E- . . 7 ftt'1 I1r'J'l.'~51/'-4'( 7 f?~/J/V T~ ('o,yFcffl--;f P-//r# ;,;;?o/V/14 Y b. A SPECIAL USE PE~lIT 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. OTIIEH. REMAHKS: ,~ \. (Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature . , ," ,,~ . /'''' " .'-- '-...,-'/ ~ c.L:' //.- . .'IiT ....- - . ,,' ,::.,"'~L",,'~. .~. .,/~. l...-..-'f___ .t ,. - * The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal. ,~~ ~ A?PELIA.NTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQU~D" , - -:"'r"."l\ ~ .. ~"'~ T/"'t"r.' T1\T r-~\"'T'r' 'r ;"",,\~~,.. 'T"""""'..,._,.....-A.,.-,............... .,~ .- . OFFICE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER TOWN HALL WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 TEL 297-82158 April 5, 1982 Pursuant to Section 450.2, I have attached reviews of the Frank Piccone site plan application received to date. I Mr. Lapar's review has covered most of the comments required of the Zoning Administrator with the following additions - corrections: d. Site plan shows an existing cottage. I believe this is a residence and as such would have to be abandoned upon use of the main house as a restaurant. e. Use of existing cottage to be designated on plan g. Grade of driveway not to exceed 10% - grade to be calculated and shown on plan. Off street loading - one space required ( 15 x 40 feet) with proper space for turn-around. I would also assume the Fire Bureau will require access'space at the entry area- designated no parking. No signs shown, I am sure one will be required. Proposed sign could be presented, plans for building will be reviewed for conformance to State building code at time of building permit application. i. 50.242 - .' HRG/dlh - ~Fi' "',,.D. ~ .