559
"'.
uS
f r!~
R~CE'VE''':' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SEP 11 1981 TO\VN OF \VAPPl:\GER
ACTION ON APPEAL
. Appeal No. .22.2._.__
Dated S.e.ptemher 1 Qt11, 1981'
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN
.'
A ppdla.rtt .....Ri C'1-I rl"\ (J ....&...Bar.b.ar.a...wi.es.t.................................... Address...B.o.ute....3.1.6...&. A 11..An~.el.s
...........I:!.i1l...,Ro.ad......._.......................... ............................................. ............................................................................................._..............___
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ................S.eptember.....8t.h............................_....._.., I 9.....B.l~
Appeal No...--5.5.9......... was considered and the following action on the request for: rn A VARIANCE,
o A SPECIAL USE PER:VIIT, llil AN INTERPRETATIO~ OF THE ZOl'nNG ORDI:"-I.-\..i.'lCE,
o AJ."l APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSO~(S), Wa! taken:
I. VARLWCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict applic:l.tion of the Ordin:mce
o would 0 would not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
. a. The property in question 0 would 0 would not yield a. reason:l.ble return if limited to the
use permitted under the Ordina.nce, because: ................_..._._...................___._.. ~ __.__
...-----....-...--......................-..........-..-...........-.....---._.._.._............_.._.__....--..............................._._..,..... 1
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: _"";"__
-.---.-..--:--.-.....-..-..............--.............-..................,.-.......--..............-...............--......................,..........--.-.--..-...---....--.
c. 'The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because: ... _..........._
.....--...........--.-......................-................................................... .......................................................-....................................-....-...-..--
...-.---................--.......................--................................-.--....... .........-..........-.............................--...........................-..........-..--...--........-.-
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested varia:1ce ~ be granted 8be=e~ and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer El=ue~vilh!Ti~tl ~ be reversed. PLEASE SEE
ATTACHlvlENT .
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the requ~t for a
Special Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be denied, pursuant to art:cle ........................) section or subsection
_.._..........., paragraph _.................................. of the Zoning Ordinance an.d, therefore, the decision of the En..
Iorcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ........................................................ _____
,.
....................-......-..................................................................................... ....... ....................................................--..................................-.......-......-..........-,
......._............_................._.._..__._.................................................u.......................................................__..._...__....____........._......._.___...._..
J. I:--;TERPRETATION: The Board adopted the follo,...ing resohtio:l which stated its interpretation
or the Zvning Ordina.nce as requ~"'ted in your :lppeal: ...............................................................~...............................~.....
PLEASE SEE ATTACHMENT
................,............. '.,-. ....................... ..... .............................................................,.......................
.... ...............,.................................-.............~........................
.......... .. ........ ............................... P" .n...............
r E\......D PEn,o"(s) B l' f' T, d . r,' . '-1" .
? :....~GIU r.. I\,.., 3 : y rCSOll:t!On 0 t:J~ ..tr.-:ir ) t::e :-'J!ll)w:ng \,.;eC1S:On \\(15 r.-::l::~ on your
.~.~. :':11:
. .
kr2~,~
~,
TOWN OF tiAPPINGER
Appeal No. ,~S 9
. ...~
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Date
7- ::J.:J. - g/
Appellant Richard and Barbarra Wiest
Home Mailing
AddressRte. 376 and All Angels Hill'
Road. Wappinger Falls. ~_ v_
TO T:a:s BOARD OF APPEALS:
I, Richard Wiest and Barbara Wiest , appeal from a decision of the
Zoning Inspector, dated May 15 , 19 81, and do herebY~PP1Y to the
,Zoning Board of Appeals f9r:[]}~ VARIANCE, OA SPECIAL USE PERMIT, Qill.AN INTER-
PR3TATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, DAN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) , (check
Rte. 376 and All Angels Hill
proper one), in connection with premises located at Road
GB
(zoning dist.)
,
'62?9-04-535l75
(grid no.)
(street & no.)
, Town of Wappinger, N.Y.
. '.'-
. ';. ~ ..:' ;.
1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED Article II - Definition of
use and lot. ~lso, Article IV, Section 422, Schedule of Regulations
(article, section or ,subsection and paragraph). k,
,C~}W "'~ lNt>4QlC-h\n~",- Jo li~ ~1tV'.I\'v-&- i VlUS, p<~~l"e.R ttJ 1k- G \S ZuY\6 ~(f). for (/,
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Co:ij\p1ete relevant section). * -to t\\\,r..'\./...i, ~ (2.) ~q'f^-<
I'v.e.- c..g ~0 .
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the zoning Ordinance would produce undue
hardship because:
See Rider Attached
v~~~
, .
UI.~S I~
2) 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:
See Rider Attached
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not
change the character of the district because:
See Rider Attached
b. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article
or subsection , paragraph of the
to permit the following use on the above premises:
, section
Zoning Ordinance
c. INTERPRETATION of the zoning Ordinance is requested because:
See Rider Attached
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS:
re-
The Town Board has recommended that we apply for
a varJ.a~ce.
(Use extra sheets if necessary)
Signature
* T~e ~cquired plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
~?P~L!ANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COSTS
."'.'-~""'" .,.,'......~""'\.,...,....,......,. "T",'r t'T'l'r""'" O'",n':"\"'!"" 'l'I..,........l/""O"""""'l'""'\r"'r'\
n;VOVJED n; Pti'BLIS~Ut;G THE REQUl'R'ED ,
, I '-' J-I1t
'I
I 2.a.-l) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hard-
I shi p because:
~
The premises are presently improved with a structure that contains a
retail grocery store on the first floor and an apartment on the second floor.
The building was constructed and used for substantially the same purposes for
many years prior to the enactment of the initial Town of Wappinger Zoning
Ordinance. Applicant, Richard Wiest, has been the owner and proprietor of the
I retail grocery store for a number of years.
The recent reconstruction of Route 376 has caused havoc with the
operation of the store and' has resulted in a substantial diminution of
business. It has also been established that a curb will be installed in front
of this property, which will have the effect of precluding customer~ from
entering the parking lot directly from All Angels Hill Road or New Hackensack
Road. This will cause a further disruption in business and decJi~~; ip.custo-
mers.
During the past year, the income from the business has declined sub-
stantially and it is expected that business will continue to decline. . Because
of these circumstance~, the continued operation of the store on'a profitable
basis is questionable.
Applicant, Barbara Wiest, is a licensed real estate broker and until
recently has been affiliated with Bunker Hill Realty, Inc. She now owns her
own real estate business and deals exclusively with customers by appointment.
Because of the decline in the operation of the grocery store it is financially
necessary to modify the conduct of ~he same and utilize a portion of the area
now occupied by the business. It is contemplated that a smaller portion of
the premises be used for the operation of the store and a small portion be
utilized for the operation of applicants' real estate business.
We have been advised that the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the contem-
plated use of this property. Apparently, the problem lies in the definition
of IIlot" as contained in Article II of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically,
that section provides that a lot is "a parcel of land not divided by streets,
devoted to a particular use, etc." Apparently, this phrase has been inter-
preted as precluding,more than one type of business on anyone parcel of land.
Applicants request an interpretation of this section of the ordi-
nance. The preclusion of the contemplated use of applicants' property under
this section is questionable when the definition of "use" is considered. The
ordinance defines use as "The purpose for \'/hich land, \'Jater or a building or
structure is designed, arranged, intended or for which it may be occupied or
intended. II Certainly, the operation of the two contemplated businesses on
applicants' property fits within the definition of Iluse." The present inter-
pretation would also cause an inconsistency, in that a real estate office
could be a permitted accessory use in a residential district, but a prohibited
use in a commercially zoned district.
II
I
II
"
ii
II
I
In the event that applicants err in their interpretation of the
ordinance, application is made for a varience from the aforesaid provision of .
the ordinance. Strict application of the ordinance and this section in particut
lar would produce ~ndue hardship. ~hat the present use of the premises as a
retail grocery store will not yield a reasonable return. Also, because of the
nature of the building, there is no authorized use that would yield a reason-
able return. That applicants are presently suffering and will continue to
suffer severe financial hardship under the restrictions of the ordinance.
2.a.-2) The hardship created is unique and is not shared by all properties. .
alike in the immediate vicinity of the property and this district. That
applicants' property is the only property in the area that is similarly
situated and affected by the ordinance and the disruption of business caused
t . _
by road construction. That other properties in the area have a variety of
commercial uses, but none is affected by the aforesaid provisions of.the
... ..~. . . I.:' ~..
Zoning Ordinance.
2.a.-3) The varience would observe the spirit of the ordinance and would not
change the character of the district. The district in which the subject prop-
. ~ .
erty is situate is zoned for commercial usage. There are a v~riety of busi-
nesses now located in the immediate area, including restaurants, a lumber yard,
heavy equipment business, etc.
The use of the premises as a real estate office would have no effect
on the flow of traffic in the area. It is operated by appointment and usually
in the evening hours and on weekends. There is ample parking available for
both businesses on the premises.
,
.,
Appeal # 559
-2-
September 10th, 19d1
v~ '..
At the September 8th, 1981 zoning Board of Appeals meeting,
Mr. Mc Millen moved that the requested variance be approved subject
to the same owners operating the store and office in the same
location. The motion was seconded by Mr. Urciuoli.
Roll Call vote:
Mrs. Waddle - aye
Mr. Landolfi - aye
Mr. Urciuoli - aye
Mr. Cortellino - nay
Mr. Me Millen - aye
The motion was carried.
The zoning Board of Appeals then rendered the following
interpretation:
The interpretation on Appeal # 559 on the number of uses
permitted in a General Business zone, the zoning Board interprets
that one use is permitted per parcel in a General Business zone.
h{2lfl~
(Mrs.) Carol A. Waddle, Chairperson