324
..
,y~t~~
~ R 1 4 1976
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. ..............32.4...........
Dated ..Ap<<':i:l.....14~h.......1976
..
Appellant .....Cb_ical...IIaAk...HU4aca...VU1er........A..Address......C/.O...Scho~i.14.......COl.lJ,u
.......p.....a......aox....5.5.l,....lJy.ack., ........I'OA.......l.Q.KO..................................................................................................................
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ................................~pr.i'l.....J:~th......................................., 19......76,
Appeal No..........37.f........ was considered and the fDllDwing action on the request for: Ga A VARIANCE,
[31rSPti8k\i..~f>E R.ll.RlWl:r~T~PRPI~1'A+1~~:Hi'r3.QNlA*G7~llllA.NRi.J11
13-ANIll\iPPE.IJ. AI. 1\iN.~IUi'T'[;'T"\ ~J\DC.f"\~T~ was taken:
I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application Df the Ordinance
o would 0 would not produce undue h2lrdship 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 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 variance ~J..- 8'!q'U'&' Ga be denied and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer IJ be confirmed ~ ..IJM"'.... (Pl.... ...
.t.~..che4 ."'-~.)
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 subsection
....................., paragraph .................................... of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En-
forcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ................................................................................................
1. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ............................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................................................................i.............................................
.... AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your
appeal: ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................." ..............
~d~.~fAPp;i;..mmm.
.
",~
"
"'"
RIDER
(1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would
produce undue hardship because:
(a) The foundation of the sign has already
been constructed pursuant to an approved building permit
and would subject applicant to additional unreasonable
cost if removed.
(b) The property line on the site bears no
relationship to the actual distance from the intersection
of Middlebush Road and Route 9 due to the unusual amount
of land appropriated by the State of New York for its
right of way.
(c) Virtually the entire site has been utilized
by applicant for compliance with the traffic pattern
and parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and
Planning Board. No other area of unused land on-site
is appropriate for a sign. Undue hardship would be
created by the forced location of the sign over 100
feet from the road.
(d) The spirit of the law is not violated because
of the actual distance of the sign from Route 9 and
Hiddlebush Road.
(e) There is no violation of the side line
restriction in the Ordinance since the sign is over
10 feet from the Route 9 boundary line.
(f) Were it not for an unusual jog in the boundary
line caused by the State appropriation for right of
way purposes the sign would be 75 feet from the front
line of theproperty and would not violate set-back
requirements.
(g) Location at the southeast corner of the
property is essential for identification from all four
directions.
(h) The sign is to be used is the standard
sign used by applicant and it would subject applicant
to. great hardship to require a special sign which is
only 3 square feet smaller per side than the one contemplated.
~.
-2-
(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:
(a) There are many restaurants, gas stations,
car wash, etc. within about 1 mile in each direction
on Route 9 that have more than 1 sign and areas
exceeding 25 sq. ft.
(b) The hardship is not self-induced since
the Building Inspector has already issued a building
permit which included the location of the sign.
(c) The strict requirements of this district
are unappropriate considering the actual location
of the property.
(3) The variance would observe the spirit of
the Ordinance and would not change the character
of the district because:
(a) The area of the sign visible by one
person at anyone time is only 1/4 of the total
area. It is relatively low in height (9 ft.) and is
simple, dignified, and not garnish or obstrusive.
It is internally illuminated making no glare or
intense light.
(b) The location of the sign is actually further
away from Route 9 than the boundary line due to the
State right of way.
(c) The district in question is adjacent to
the largest and most heavily traveled highway in the
Town at one of the most heavily traveled intersections.
-"-'-. ;; J~..
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. ....~c!...L.
February 27,1976
Date.........
Chemical Bank Hudson Vallev, N.A. c/o Schofield & Colgan
Appellant ................................................................ ... ....... ........,.. ...... .., ..... .... ~......,.. '... ..... Address.....,. ........ ...... ..... ......... ..... ........ ......... ...... .. ...
...............~..~..q..~......?~.){.....?..~)..L)~y ?:~.~..?.. .JI. .~. X~.. ..). 9 .~f3. 9..... .................. ........,................... ,....... ............,',.............
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I (we) .......:.~.:.~~~.:~.~.....~.~~.~....~I.~.?s.?n.....'.r,~.~.~.:..Y.?.I.r~.~.~.... ........, appeal from a decision of the Zoning
(name of appellant)
Inspector, dated ......................,'............................, 19..............., and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for: D A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check proper
. ... N/vJ Corner Rte. 9 f, Hic1dlebusl1 Rd.
one), In connectlOn WIth premIses located at .............................................................................
(street & no.) (lot no.) (zoning district)
Town of Wappinger, N. Y.
I. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED ...
Article IV Section 423 Paragraph - Dist. LP L.
( indicate
article, section or subsection and paragraph)
.....".................. ...............,........ .................... .."..............".......,...........
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section).*
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
1) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
See Rider
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 Eider
3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of
the district because: .
See Eider
b. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUESTED pursuant to article ..................., section or subsec'
tion .............................., 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: ......................................................................................................................................................................................
.... ....................,.....,..........,.....,......,...,..,......,.........".....,........,.,......................,.....................................................,..,..................................................................
t?1
( Use extra sheets if necessary) Signature.. D....?/. *1..::>.c::~_...... .................................
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
Appeal .. 324
April 14th. 1976
A vari~nee C8n only be considered if ~he owner of the property
i~ the a.ppellant; a.nd not the pusan le.a1av the propert.y.