538
. . .L.vn.u.,,,, .DVlUUJ VI:' nr.J;'" .cl1..1..o~
RECE" -"") TO\VN 'OF \VAPPINGER Appeal No. 538
" ~N~ 111~lj I, ACI'lON ON APPEAL D.ted .t"n~ J OJ;h. 1 ~81
'char~..d3Aui\Q", N'. '. .
Ap?el1ant Mi-..d.:-: __~!!&Jil<lY.l':.-st.gr~._"___ AddreS3...E.Q1J.t..e....9...::.. R n i_
N.._.......t.tSEP'in~~~el.!s~~':i.-X9..tl:_J..~~O ....._.. ..... -.------
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on .. .. .. ............ ~~_~.t.lL."_'.""""_'__.'''_)' J 9.....al.)
Appeal.No._.?.::iJi........ wa~ considered and the following action on the reque3tfor: rn A VARIAN~J
o A SPECIAL USE PERMIT) 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
o AN APPEAL' AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S)) was taken: .
I.. . ~ARIANCE:By resohltion of th~ Bcr.1rd, it was determi.ned that'strict app1i6tion oE the Ordinance
. 0 would 0 would not produce undue hardship for these rea;;ons: .
~,'The property in question. 0 'would O' would not yield a. reasonable return if 1imit~'to the
.use permitted under the Ordina.ncc, because: _.___.;..____
'.. .'.
'.. . ".
. t_......_____.__......--.
.1
. .~ - '. .- .
. '"
.... .,".
:. "" :;;.---.'-. ~-j'."
b. The ha.rdship created 0 is 0 is not unique and 0 would 0 would not be shared by all.....,:. :'J"
properties alik~ in the vicinity of the property and in the same use district, beause: _.._ . ' ....~. _:
...,..________._.__.__....__.._._.____..____..............._.__ 1
___..---:----__....._._....__..._..__....____.._............._........~..........-_.....--_....-~_ L"
c. 'The variance 0 w~uld 0 would not change the cha.racter of the district) because: ~..~_...:...' .
-,.. ~~.: ..
..._.._._____._._..___.......___.._..........__._..:.........._...............................____.__ '.11
-....--.. .'
-----.-..-..--.-..-....................-......-...--......---...............__.._.............-..........__...._..__..._...~.I
Therefore, it was. further determined that the requested variance B-ge-gR;Ji~ ~ be derued and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer ~ be confirmed [3-be~~ 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 .........-..-....--J section or subsection
__.._.._._j paragraph' __!'__._........._.. of 'the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En-
Iotcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, beause: ................-....--_....~.
.' .
" ...----..-----.---..-...-.-......--... ...--.--....-.-.-.....-.........-
-......-..--.-.--..--.--.-.......-.....................-......-.--.....--.-.--.-....--.-..................-.....--- ..
J. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: .......................................-.-.....-.--............-___._..__
................_...._....._..........._......._....................u.........................._.................................-...............................................-........-........--.--....-__
...........-...-..--...................-........................................................................ ..................................................-......................-.................--...-.....-..-..
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................--.......-....--.-
~. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your
::pp~l: ............................................................................................................................................................................................-..-_.__......_.
....- ........-...--...-.......................................................................................... ..................................................................................................--....-.-..---
.........................-......................................................................................~...............:. ...............0..... ............ZtZ... ..... ...... ............-..
. .----...--
'. '. · -ct.~~ -
....._..............c.h.;i.~;~;.z~~i~g..&;;.~d.~.iIp?;l~-..-..~
. .'
Appeal # 538
-2-
June 10th, 1981
. At the June 9th, 1981 meeting, a motion was made by
,-'Mr. Cortellino, that the reque'sted variance be denied and that
the, Zoning Board of Appeals supports the recommendation of
the Dutchess County Department of Planning dated May 21st, 1981.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Mc Millen.
Vote:
Mrs. Carol A. Waddle - aye
Mr. Joseph E. Landolfi - aye
Mr. G. George urciuoli -' aye
Mr. Charles A. Cortellino - aye
Mr. Donald Mc Millen - aye
~O~_
r
carol A. Waddle, Chairperson
br
Attachment
.-----
,-
s~
. . 1:14 v.' ?--.
I. , ~ 198Jt
Tax Map Parcel No. 615704-649068
To: Zoning Board of Appeals
Referral: 81-111, Town of Wappinger
Re:
Biuso Sign Variance Application
~
In accordance with the provlslons 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 field investigation and analysis, this
Department makes the following findings:
Applicant requests a variance from the Town Zoning requirement that signs
have a minimum setback of twenty-five feet from the lot line. Subject
property is located on the west side of Route 9, between Osborne Hill
Road and Smithtown Road.
The building and property have good visibility to Route 9, southbound
and northbound.. This fact limits the need for a sign variance~ The
purpose of signs is to identify, not to advertise. An important element
in this case is maintaining the visual quality of the Route 9 corridor
in this area. The visual environment reflects the overall quality of
tho community.
Recommendation
In view of the above findings, the Dutchess County Department of Planning
recommends that this application be disapproved.
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 21,1981
Kenneth R. Toole, Commissioner
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning
BY~~
Richard Birch, Senior Planner
4
,.
\,
"~ .----.'''"---." ..,'......
-~_..~ .....~.-..._~~
\.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
HI; .,-" .......... ...~
5~ 3 ?' ,
Il~te_ J~ ,lJ#'!--
lb l(
.
APP~ll~~t t )'. It ~ k\
\.,\..~) \.~ lA-I)
TO THZBOARD OF APPEALS:
I. ~~II'-(' . appeal from a decision of the
Zoning Inspector, dated J..' lL\ l! (Y; I , 19.fL, and do hereby apply to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for:UB;i'VARIANCE,r=IA SPECIAL USE PERMIT,t:]AN INTER-
.
&i .s /)
'1 \.
( {-- J.
(
V 1 /'
Address--l- - r 1- f
;.' .
I) ~ f /)
PRETATION OF THE ZONlNG ORDINANCE, DAN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON (8) . (chec~
proper one), in connection with premises located at
{2 f " 12 IJ '7
(street & no.)
, Town of Wappinger, N.Y.
, ,') .' ..;,.. , l: Ir)- c; ,y- i 4'11... (. ~
-d~~~~ d~~~.) (grid no.)
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED-.:8rb~<.:..,\e $ ~~-h~ 4ib.s~
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 \-lould prOduce undue
hardship becau.se: !""" t. i~ AL ~L rlL. )-t.~~, -( (... ., I ' . i)-....Lct fit). l e ~ (L( ~.<) Yl
lLl.. -lci.' { . ft..( . ell U.l..{.<. C t-.....(..,.I k".( ~ 6'--if/ l. t (L: ~ c.t ._'L~r( t....r.. 'lu..",,"~\t..:.t . ~~
''tt...J.l4~' t,. ('(u.' ...~. (,\...{. '\.l,t..l.oL-ti- ~L .;'!..J.C,;..'\.. ,/..<'"'t ;'\'~""l 1r::=-I-'.....~(, t('~,(1 i~
2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all prop~rties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this district
because: f~,- __<<t~~- ') {.,"', t"'i,~l:J.~) f,.l lk:~ c L {...,J.'t -':' ~ h,l.{~ ,tl.~(
-.~.,l'~" ~> ~.~1 ,") 1t....~C tL~~ ~'~t.. rb.(.'~,<,,~( i::('i-~u. t'J.:,H... c.I!C-b,~~P~~, .'~
., . (.; l 'c': i L......). Jc .~-9 I.. 1..L."ft....1.( l . ~~C'-( t 'flu. .Lt.. s- ,,(. tA.J-li..6.A.S.; (.,"( '-( /1 ~_ .~
3) The vari~nce would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and ~u1drtot
c~ange th~ characte~ of "the distric,t be;ause:, /~)~ G~ ~,.,;..i~f
.9 .: t.... 'vc t c. L J4---- '/ r' t....... .... ~ . u_ v,"-" u.-, 'ft...,. .J.~ ?- 'K-. l)..<.. ~
(L (..,
. 'I' f
) :.
b. A SPECL2\L USE PEfU.IIT IS REQUESTED pl.1rSllant to article ., section
or subsection , paragra'ph of the Zoning Ordinance
to permit the following use on the above p~emises:
c. INTERPRETATION of the Zoning Ordinance 1.5 requested because:
G. '~GGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested 'becc\usc: .
3. orl':~!~p. Ri~~.~:;'RK~;:
IL~~'/ I:{~.'
(Use ext::-a sh~~t-_~ if ntH-'l'>c,":''''''7\
C:;l'';; ,...... -. __ ",.. __
,
.
l '.., ,~t i_i' (/,-----,-->__ '
'"
.' \1'1,"\ ->-.. .J~.d.. .r T\ 0 (l ()
· ' ...... t fIJ ' l. Y'" t" ~
0, ae ~LI2) ;:"").'\,\1 ,-?n,"
~' , '...--.-!:.I'"J ""1',!,,;f \ \-
..-.-.. ~ ..-..' \
~
-,
N
.,
'~ \
,....~
~.- --- ...--.---.----.
....._------
!
!
I
, .J") I
,V I
I I
-.~~l~ 'f'~" ! II! . '
') , I {-l.-t
~~~(:'~~ -~_.- J! #;~:T-~--------- '-:1" L'>t""''i -f~~cM'1
~__ ,.s,'- ~o,~EO-~ ~,~--' ~ il -", "., ,~=7 ~2 ~_ H'~_ (Jj~Jf.J ~.,~
\"\'0 l .,_.______... __ __.__' ~. tt
... ..- .- - . --_.-~-- -~.~- -----. ---- '.
'n l' Cd< Ft-, i!\lV he i'C 1Y/I' D -I~u Pt.','/Y fh{) fLY'
" 1 -
~ t L\ I~ ~ :#f(f-~ ,',
U) c.t P,p~1.,LJ.:.L-) J ,0'
'(,._ _._b."L,.~~(_L
t
~ I
\ ~~
..../..\
{'v'
, "\
.'
PI [2J \.1 '\ f N f\ \J \ (
..,) c.
1<--\ l
-............, ._~..._' x.......... ..~."
",
.....4J. ~ '''~', ,.:'[.~ ~__ '" ,,:" ,I l,~ _" l_'J"",,_'''''~!_""'~ ~_--:' ~_, _ ,,,""
_! ~_.~.- .