610
......L.
If
.........,- ~.'.,)... ,
~
~',.:lf,,'1~~,'i.i..'~ :'~Q;'. .'':t.l..;" . 'If .' l
-...."'"-._....~.i..;:~._.....__.,_.___..__._,___~
,'.\........b_...
A;'"
.R::rlvr~ONING BOARD OF APPEALS
~ ~ 198Z,TOWN O,F ~APP~~GER
ELAINE H. SNPWJJEN ACTION ON APrEAL
Dated...Ma.y.....l.4.th~.....1.98 2
f1
Appeal No. .....9.J.0
Appellant ..Mi.d.a.s....In.te.r.na.ti.ona.L..Corp...... . ..... Address. ...1.57.5..Jer.sey..A.v.enue........
.. .......... .~.~..9..!.....~.<?~ ..):.~.~ .~..,..... ;N~~.. ~.:r y"p.$.Y.?i.g.:K,... ..N.. J......... .0.8.9.Q2......................... ....... .......................... ................ ...................
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ....May...ll.th................................ ....., 19.....82,
Appeal ::'\0....6.1Q............ wa~ronsidered ami the following action on the request for: e A VARIANCE,
o A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF TI-lE ZONING OHDINANCE,
o AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S)) was takt:n:
I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict applicatiCln 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: ..........................................................................................................
................................................,....................................................... ...........-..............................................................-.............................................
b. The hardship cre.1.ted 0 is 0 is not unique 2nd 0 would 0 would not be shared by all
properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same use district) because:..............
.. ...................................,...........u...................................................................
c. The variance 0 would 0 wluld not change the character of the district, because: .........
Therefore, it was further determined that the reques:ed variance ~i't!'Ko@4 [1g be denied and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer [!l be confirmed 8be-f"eliT~r5e4: PLEASE SEE
ATTACHMENT
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By re.'iolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a
Special Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be d:;ilied, pursuant to article.................... ) section or subsection
__.__. ....................., paragraph ....................... of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En-
forcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed) because: ................................................................................
.
3. INTERPRETA.TION: The Board adopted th:; f(jllowj'lg resolution which stated its interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as requestrcl in your appe:ll:................. . .....................
4-. AGGRIEVED PERSON (S): By r{"solution of tt':': Bu~m!) the following decision was made on your
!'ppeal :
Appeal # 610
-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. Urciuoli, to
deny the requested variance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Caballero.
Vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Caballero - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
The motion was carried.
.. .... .. .....
~O~)_
- --.-,;;--
(Mrs.) Carol A. Wdddle, Chairperson
.'
.
,
.... -
....
Tax Map Parcel No. 615702-604953
To:
Zoning Board of Appeals
..
. .~
OJ
Referral: 82-103, Town of Wappinger
Re: Midas International Variance Application
In accordance with the provisions of General Municipal Law (Article 12B,
Sections 239-1 and 239-m),~the Dufchess County Department of Planning has
reviewed subject referral with regard to pertinent intercommunity and
countywide considerations. Upon field investigation and analysis, this
Department makes the following findings.
The subject property is located on the west side of Route 9, north of the
Middlebush Road intersection. Applicant requests a variance from the required
building setback of 75 feet from the front lot line; the applicant proposes a
setback of 33 feet from the front lot line.
Front yard setbacks serve several purposes in the community. They allow for
potential future expansion of Route 9 and provide space for the possible
construction of a service road parallel to Route 9. A service road would
provide access to individual uses and businesses and limit direct access to
Route 9 to certain designated intersections. Setbacks also provide for a
coordinated overall design of the roadway corridor, thus contributing to the
character of the Town.
Recommendation
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends that this variance
application be denied. If this setback variance were approved, a precedent
could be set for further requests of a similar nature.
Referral: 82-103, Town of Wappinger
l age ~2
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 7, 1982
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Departm~nt of Planning
By
~~
Richard Birch
Senior Planner
RE/db
l-.
:0)
.tQl ll..l .~.-. -~1 I.
1.;... ;'." ~.
. jlh ,., W'i"'~~'J7
, ",+';. ';"".::,; ,
.- .,. -~~.l..;II&..-~--T
,;.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. &7/0
/ J
Date 7/'02~./;P ~
,
.. ....<-1-.7....> - ('/~-~.- . -i;{/,
Home MaJ.1J.ng /?"c::>. ....~-.>........ /~~<C'
A:!.::lr3:::::::: ~e.K/' ~A?d..-t'-r{5A::/"C'<: .
"
,/ " ..-</.'v.
phone #{/ <:'''''''' ,,'/R2J>. 7/<6/ c:> G>~.2:.
- /'
*
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
I~P?ollant
~~~'-'J /A'/T""'~,e"~~/"---,,,/,~
c::o.,er~
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
,'I, u.:;-C'"~' ~?-,,,.::,-' , appeal from a decision of the
zoning Inspector, dated~~ ~ ' 19~, and do hereby apply to the
. zoning Board of Appeals for~A VARIANCE,DA SPECIAL USE PERMIT, DAN INTER-
PRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DAN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON (S) , (check
~ c;/,;.&:~/"".D",~J'A-- ~
pre;; one). in ~~e~t.ion with pr~~ise:-,located at ~. ~~t ~:~:/f .
-+-lY - t ,~ -D) GiS 1, O"Z.-' ~)4-"'\ '):, , Town of Wappinger, N.Y.
(zoning dist.) ,. (grid no.)
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED_~~t $/ S~-uhv\ 422.--
10 allow ~ 01 3'3 ~t- setb..t..\:. ~ ~ ~T ~'''!EV~ l,~ 1j1.w,~~ 7<; fr~ "
(article, sec~ion or subsection and parag aph) ~~~.
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (co~plete relevant section). *
a. A VAR~CE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) strict application of the zoning Ordinance would produce undue
hardship because: .-:: /4~-:-) .,'''?/" /.3'00 n::/ ~~/troo=-=> P~r-~'/ t/
/' ~ ""'<:'4 _ / c--: .::r". /0 V r' ... ;.;'}. .e. c:;...c..J ". ,'.') ~.:J ;",:.. a // <::) Co..,) ,
2) The hardship created is unique and
alike in the immediate vicin~ of
because: ~.r<:S~O.5~ ~^S~
,..P~;-c .:o? /Y ,
is not shared by all properties
this property and in this district
_...... ~. ,/,:"1-:' ___;r' ~....c::s-r--~ <~ ~ C' I ~
cY.. VfT _, _,. ~ r.. -::- '//<::1:' ,,~,
v t./
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not
change the character of the district because: ..k?".;--; __9 R.6. i.t...)'
/ .:> e..-lC ,1e...>- c / / t..A..,') ,.;;:/, e ,/. n c~ rtS!.<.:::1 .;'-' P ......,.:.:> ,>', -.:::/ Q ,,:1' I~
4de?t::4..:::;a..-:I"~- JeJ.6.::;;c-~.
b. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 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. OTHER REMARKS:
~~. ~-?./ . ._~/
(Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature -~'~L_.~:"'7~;)~' ~--
('C' . ....... ....,.,,'~...._q
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal. 'Gi . .
2\PPRT.T,J:\.Nrr~ J:\.RF. RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED IN PUBLISHING THE REQUIRE~