607
'ING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOvVN OF \VAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal ~o....6.o.7......P''''''''
Dated ,M~.Y....J.1.t.n.l....198.2
ELAINE H. Si!OWDEN
A pptl !ant ..Sharon....&...Ronald....Kar:li.c.......................................... Address .. Route...,3-7-6...........................
...........W.9.PP..iD.9.~;J;::.s.....F.al.l.s..I.....NY........l.2.5.9P.................. .......................................................................................................................-.....
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ........................M.ay.....1.l.th..........................................,....., 19..82. >
Appeal No.......Q.Q.7........... was ro~sidered and the following action on the request for: {R} A VARIA);CE,
o A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZO::\I);G ORDli\A);CE,
o AN ~\.PPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was taken:
I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict applicat:on of the Ordi~ance
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: ............................................................................................................-...
.................. ............ ....................................... .............. ............................................................. ............................. .... ...~....................................._....._._.
b. The hardship created D is D is not unique and 0 would 0 would r.)t be shared by all
properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same use d:st:-i:t, because: :.........--....
.................................. .............. ........................ ...... .................... .............. ............................. ..........._...... ..... ..........04............. .............u.........._...._....
....................................... ................................ .......................... ............... .......... ......... ................................................................................................---....-
~.
-
c. The variant:e 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because: ....................
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................-...--..
......... ......................................... ..... .rr-................ ............................ ... ....................... ... ........ ........ ....... ............................... .................................----.........
"-';
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 8-be-gn,ntd U9 be denied 2.!ld
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer ~ be confirmed B'h=Teversed. PLE.~SE SEE
ATTACIDlENT.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board i,t was determined th2.t the request fo:- a
Special Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be denied, pursuant to article ........................, section or subse:ton
....................., paragraph .................................... of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En-
forcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ....................................................................................-........
...........................................................................................,....,...................................................................................................................................-.........--
............ ........ ................... ..... .................................................... ........... .............................................. ................. ... .... ....................... ............ .......-........... .-.-. ~.-....
3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which st~ted its interpretaton
of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ..................................................................................................-.....
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................-...
....................................................................................................................................................................................... ,...................................................-...
4-. AGGRIEVED PERSON (5): By resolution of the Board, the following dec:siafi was made on your
~:ppeal: ........................ ......................... ............... ....... .......... ............. ............. ............................................................. .... ...... ......................................~.....
......................................................................................-........................................... ..........................-..........'.................
...-........................................-.....
.................................................................................................................................................n....................................
kvaQ~--
Ch:1.iMn....., Z,)ping "E~2"~:-.! .=.f :\ppc~'13 ...
Appeal # 607
-2-
May 14th, 1982
At the May 11th, 19~2 meeting of the zoning Board of
Appeals of the Town of Wappinger, a motion was made by Mr. Caballero,
to deny the requested variance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. urciuoli.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
The motion was unanimously carried.
4ev~-
(Mrs.) Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
~
~ ,RECEIVED AP
111 3 .1982
Tax Map Parcel No. 635801-375599
To:
Zoning Board of Appeals
Referral: 82-76, Town of Wappinger
Re:
Karlic Variance Application
j,.
< ,
~J
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 inter-community and
county-wide considerations. Upon analysis this Department makes the following
findings:
Subject property is located in a<Planned Industry Zoning district on Route
376. The Town Zoning Ordinance prohibits retail sales but allows temporary
stands for the sale and display of crops grown on premises. The applicant
requests a variance to allow the permanent sale of crops grown on the
premises.
The Planned Industry district is generally undeveloped; a single family
residential area is located west of this industrial zone. There is a business
zone on Route 376 in the Town of East Fishkill, approximately one-half mile
from the subject site.
The primary issue in this application is whether or not the property should be
used for retail purposes. This application is a use variance, that is, a
request to allow a use not permitted within the zoning district. In general,
such requests are best handled through the zoning amendment process with
approval by the Town Board. The zoning amendment process provides for a
comprehensive review of district uses and the area as a whole while a variance
would apply only to a specific property.
The property is unique, however, in its location in a Planned Industry
district and the proximity of power transmission lines.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of Planning
recommends that the decision in this matter should be based on local study of
the facts. Consideration should be given to the fact that the construction of
greenhouses and sale of products sold on premises is proposed in this
application. This type of use can expand over the years into a substantial
retail operation.
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: April 8, 1982
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Department of Planning
By
~~
Richard Birch
Senior Planner
RB/hl
1-
:j
j
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. ~~ ,,'/
Date CJ/d ~ ~..
.'1 \\
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
n;'l~ellant
(--'\
(~). . J j /)
'Jl:fluvl/ oj t ,~"';'/'_(fi
.
. J J /
k (t/vV.,V
Horne Hailing;)_
Arl..:1- - "" - 1/ "
_\.....- c:__ '- ~
"2 '7 /
,) I C
Phone # 'J J [ .. 7 t y cj
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I. i.JI't/l"'11 ~2,'"'/LIJ ;If'! ~ / . appeal from a decision of the
Zoning Inspector, dated ~)~W...{V\ 7.-6 , 191f2., and do hereby apply to the
zoning Board of Appeals for:~A VARIANCE,[:lA SPECIAL USE PERMIT,t:]AN ~~ER-
PRETAT'ION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DAN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S} {check
--2:r
(zo~ng dist.)
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
-=:b C\\\ovJ fu-c -,~ \e, 0
(article, section or s
, 6'358-'0 \... 3,(5",,\
(grid no.)
1{T. '3 7 (
(street & no.)
, Town of Wappinger, N.Y:
proper one), in connection with premises located at
APPEALED~~< ~
se~ 4.-'Z.-2-
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (co~plete relp.vant section). *
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) strict application of the zoning Ordinance would produce undue
hardship because: p) f . J...t- J- " . ," ) J.. ,
, ./, ..~ G~&..)rtr.,) ..A~f.'"t.. / ~'-)) .. nklt4_u,- JLVC..",<...,..;
,;}U'1")Uti, _ ~~ ~t.l$4.~t'o~ du.a.J ..L~)../}W.U;.c'j ,.<-<-"C<.~ti L ~("'I/(J ~
d lJ:O.:-d;zv-s C(.. A}Cdi/o.M.il-- U
2) The haraship dreated is unique and' is not shared by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this dist=ict
bec~use: U -c c, fc..... ,,J,..J.' l'1 ~ r nt e' xl! PL~JJL'~ tI#'''"! (u. 6",...J,t;I F~c.
('v-,l A-, jet). pi 7'L\.~ bl R I. 37t "".{4='.. lO,~ U "tf""1/'"' f atlu
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not
.change the character of the district because: 1 !.~'}rl.. ~t.LI..K) i
f'~",.~ M< u-~-,U{. ~L<4.tl M-/? 1J.. fUrl-it;: (;/ .
b. A SPECIAL USE PEIDlIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article , sect-ion
or subsection , paragraph of the zoning Ordina~ce
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:
(Use extra sheet.s if necessary)
---- ,
S i 9 n a t ur ~ ~-.:j, ) ..:..2 'j~ L/{
,
.,
;/
t\ /!
. i. .
'." \..I.c.. /'
* The recuired ?la~ Dust accompany the Notice of Appeal.
i\PPr::LU\~TS ..;~~~ rzES?O),SI3I..E FO~ 'I'HS COSTS I~NOVJSl:) I~; PUBLISHING TH'4
'1 T.....:~'-\ T. 'j()'T'rr;:' T:J 'T;f? T r.r:\-;". ~r;:~,.j'~D:l. P?R
/?,
f,^IIt...;..:;J.
I ,.j ,~,_ :J\ !-,f
Rr.:QUI~~~ \
. .
OFFICE OF THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
.
"TOWN OF WAPPINGER.
TOWN HALL
WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590
Ta.. 2~7.e28.
February 26, 1982
!<1r. & MrS. Ron Karlic
Route 376
wappingers Falls, New York 12590
RE: Interpretation of "Temporary Stand"
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Karlic:
Since your property is in the P.I. zone~ you are permitted any of
the non-residential uses of the residential' zones. "Farm Uses" are
'permi tted with Special Use Permit approval. Therefore, your proposal
to build greenhouses would be permitted under Section 421, item h,
permitted principal use. Item (b) states "no retail sales shall be
. permitted on the premises except as provided in 13 below" and ~13
states: "Temporary.stands for the sale and display of field and
garden crops grown on the premises". I would interpret temporary
stands to mean those set up"'~for a week or several week period perhaps
1 to 4 times a year depending on whatkind.of farm uses were established.
I would not agree that if you grew crops year round, the temporary
stands could operate year round. However, since you are not in a
residential zone an interp~etation might be different in YQur case and
I would recommend that you seek an interpretation from the Zoning Board
of Appeals.
SinCere~Y " . .
Haw ~..
Hans R. underud4
BuildingVlnspector &
zoning Administrator
HRG/dlh
cc: zoning Board of Appeals
