Loading...
303 , i I I ~ I I f .1 A _ RI~VED '~-9' 1976 Appellant tll~'A..~~u.(Jj_....S"1.'.'J._.l............ Address.......1S....Sp;r..1n....8Q.4........................ ......~~~"~!.I.....~...X~~........:l...~~.!............................................................................................................................................... ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER ACTION ON APPEAL Appeal No. ........303.................. Dated .J.......ttJa......l.'7.6 At a meeting af the Zoning Board of Appeals on ...................................................,;r_.....e..~............................, I 9....1.~.., Appeal No........~.Q.~......... was ronsidered and the following action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE, ~ A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ~ AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ", ~~1trh1\.~~~1\N-1i~rl!f.c;}rPI!1t~6H'(~, was taken: '. "'-~ . . I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application Df the Ordinance o would 0 wDuld not produce undue hardship for these reasons: a. The property in question 0 would 0 would riot yield' a r~nable return if limited to' the use permitted under the Ordinance, because: ......:..::.......:::...~...:..................................................................................... .1.... ... A~~aGba..~ .....u......~.............................................................................................................................................................w...................................................... b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and 0 would..O would not be shared by all properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because ~ .................. llle... a.. A~bc.t._t . .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .- ".j" , "" ................................................................................................................................................................................................,................................. c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the disotrict, because: ..................... Pl.... ..e A~~..._~ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 'Dherefore, it was further determined that the requested varJance 0 be granted 0 be denied and that the previous decision of the EnfDrcement Officer 0 be confirmed 0 be reversed. 2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a S,pecial Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be denied, pursuant to' article ........................, section or subsection ....................., paragraph .................................... Df the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En- , iorcement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ................................................................................................ Pl.... ... A~~.o__~ ............................................................................................................ ........ .............................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... J. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolutiDn which stated its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in YDur appeal: ............................................................................................................ Pl.... ... Att:.~_t .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................... ............ ....................................................................................... ................................. ........... ........ .... .............. .......... ~........... ..... .... .... ................ ..... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4, AGGRIEVED PERSON (S): By resolution of the Board) the following decision was made on your appeal: .................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . ............................................................................................................ ...,........................................................................................................................... ......~;;,E;.Z;;~~5iAPp~:J~.;/ / / / / ./ I '- ~ J A ~ RI~VED '~9 1976 Appellant Ki.~..~f&\ll.{Il.....a"L~..i_l............ Address.......15....SpJ:.t.n.....Il.O..4........................ ......~~!ft,.~..,.....Ift...J~~........~.~..Q.;l................................................................................................................................................ At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ...................................................,1..........,.~............................, 19....1....., Appeal No........~.Q~.......... was ronsidered and the following action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE, ~ A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, ~ AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ~. ~~~l"'~'1\~N-1\~m~~I~..I~~()!{(s" was taken: '. . ..._~ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF WAPPINGER ACTION ON APPEAL Appeal No. ........303.................. Dated .J_.....tt.b......~t.7.6 I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application 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, !>ecause: ......:..::.......:::...~...:..................................................................................... '1.... 8.. A~~.oIJa_~ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and D would,D would not be shared by all properties alike in the vicinity of the property and in the same use district, because~ .................. ?1..... S.. A~t.a~_~ ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .' ',.,' , '" ................................................................................................................................................................................................,................................. c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because: ..................... pl.... ... A~U_7_'t .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 'r-herefore, it was further determined that the requested vad;:t.nce 0 be granted 0 be denied and that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer 0 be confirmed 0 be reversed. 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.... ... A~~.~....._~ 3. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ............................................................................................................ pl.... ... Att..,._~ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4, AGGRIEVED PERSON (S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your appeal: ............................................................. .................................................................................................................................................................. ..............................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................... " " '. "., ' .......~.... .-.......~/..............t;........~~~~...... ...... ./ .. ........................i. hairman, Zoning Board f Appeals / I I / / ,I / I App,eal # 303 June 9th, 1976 At the June 8th, 1976 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Cortellino made the following motion: . .: '1,-, Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court dated April 16th, 1976, the Board of Appeals of the Town of Wappinger held a public hearing on May 11th, 1976 upon the appeal of M & G Sanitation, Inc. dated October 3~d, 1975 seeking (1) a variance, (2) a special permit, and (3) an interpretation of the zoning ordinance. ,.." ~.. The appeal from the interpretation of the zoning ordinance has been considered first. Appellant seeks a de~ermination that its intended use is a permitted use in a local business (LB) zone where its lands are situated. At the hearing, appellant testified that it desired to construct a single pre-fabricated steel building on its lands to house large garbage trucks used in its garbage hauling business, which business is conducted both within and with- out the Town of Wappinger. Additionally, a small office would be located on the premises. No garbage would be stored on the premises; the trucks would be stored indoors where they would be cleaned and where minor repairs would be performed. The Board finds that the use intended by the petitioner is not permitted in a local business (LB) zone. The principal use of the premises is the use of the facility for housing trucks used elsewhere in garbage hauling. Such is not a personal service contemplated within an LB zone, as a reading of Section 423 evinces an intent that personal services performed in such zone be performed Appeal # 303 -2- June 9th, 1976 on the premises. Reference is made in particular to subdivisiq~ , ':'1\' (4) under "permitt,ed principal Uses" limiting manufacturing to that ". -....'" for on premises sales or the performing of services primarily for residents of the neighborhood. Section 6 t~ereof also speaks of :~ ~ , . the local area. Residential Uses are permitted. While sales, repairs and service of motor vehicles is permitted, these activities can and are to be performed on the premises. .. , ') Additionally, the Board finds that the local business zone is the -most restrictive of the non-resident~'~~ zones) ~~ such, limiting use of the land to those uses which can be performed on the premises is compatible with the intention of the ordinances. with respect to the granting of a special permit, as the intended use has been found not to be a petmitted use, the request for a special permit is academic. Such permit can only be granted to permitted uses. with respect to the request for a use variance, the same may only be granted if (1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return under permitted uses; (2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to general conditions, and (3) the use will not alter the essential character of the neigh- borhood. The appellant has not offered any evidence to demonstrate that the land could not yield a reasonable return if used for permitted uses. His proof, at best, suggested the contrary as his appraiser (Harold R. Fountain) suggested that the value of the land may have Appeal # 303 -3- June 9th, 1976 increased. He also conceded that the owner might recoup his total .. ..: it\.. investment ($50,000.00) if the land was sold with the building on it. No proof was demonstrated that because of certain peculiar factors attributed to appellants land, it could not be used for any purpose other than that intended by him. The only evidence ,... ~.' was addressed to the use sought by petitioner. with respect to the question of whether the plight of the . ,." .....J " owner is due to unique circumstances, the phrase "unique circumstances" is one addressed to the character of the land. No proof was adduced that the land was of such a unique character that it could not be used for permitted uses. No proof was adduced showing that the land was burdened with handicaps or impediments~to land use not shared by neighboring lands. No showing was made that appellants land was no less suitable for permitted uses than other land in the neighborhood. with respect to the question of altering the essential character of the neighborhood, the intended use is dissimilar to the uses presently existing. While other commenced uses can be found in the immediate neighborhood (barber shop, florist, grocery, hardware store, gasoline and service station, basket shop) their uses are retail or personal services performed on the premises. Appeal # 303 -4- June 9th, 1976 The evidence adduced by appellant was addressed primari.:1~,: - .' ,.'. .to the expenses incurred by him in ~~liance upon alleged represen- tations and a building permit issued by Town officials. While the Board does not doubt the good faith actions of appellant, this " ... : Board under law remains the final administrative arbitrer of questions affecting the zoning law, and upon timely appeals ,.'" .: it is vested with the authority to interpret the zoning ordinance - , and to reverse the determinations of other officials. Until this Board acts, the time appeal has .- ",J" ( ..\,. or to elapsed, any rightsdof the appellant have not become vested. Additionally, this Board is constrained to find that its powers to grant variances are limited to those situations where the land is responsible for the unique plight of the owner; in the application under review, it has not been shown that the land is burdened with infirmities that make the use of it uneconomical under the zoning ordinance. The Board also noted that no foundations have been built for the building and that the pre-fabricated building could be adapted to a permitted use or could be moved to another site. While each would entail some additional expense, the Board is not convinced that a substantial portion of appellants's investment could not be--recouped. The building is of conventional design and could conceivable be put to many uses with minor modifications. The appeal of appellant is denied in all respects. . Appeal # 303 -5- June 9th, 1976 The motion was seconded by Mr. prager and was carried. . .: '1.... Roll Call Vote: Charles A. Cortellino - aye I victor Fanuele - nay Joseph E. Landolfi - aye Howard prager - aye .' Carol A. Waddle - absent '" .~.) ."