265
I c,
~
R CEIVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1'0\\11-1 OF "/'1 APPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. c........2.65..c.....c......
Dated ..De..c..emb.~.;J;::....l.l~~.D, 1975
ELAINE H. SNOWDEN
Appellant ......c..;r.9.bn.....A..J,,~.~.~nq.~.f....c...................................... ..... ...... ......... Address...~.~~ ....~~~1.<:~.~.~~.~~...~?~.?:.........
.......'livapping.exs...F.a1ls..,....m .......12.5.9.0................................................... .............................. ...................................................................
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on .....................................P..~.q.~~p..~;r;.....~.th............................, I 9.7..~....,
Appeal No......26.5........... was considered and the following action on the request for: Qg A VARIANCE,
o A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
o AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was taken:
I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance
o 'VIxmld D would not produce undue hardship for these reasons:
a. The property in question 0 would 0 would not yield a reasonab)e return if limited to the
use permitted under the Ordinance, because: ..................................................................................................................
...........................................ELEASE....S.EE...AT.XAC:U;E;.D....S;a;J;!;:.~.'r............................................................................................
b. The hardship created LJ 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: ..................
...........................................ELEASE....ScEE...ATTAC:aE.D....S.~;S.T............................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because: .....................
...........................................l?LEASE...SEE...ATTAC.F...E;D.....SHEE.T............................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
'Dherefore, it was further determined that the requested variance Efi;e:~ 1m be denied and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer Qf be confirmed [J95e1"evefsea;===
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board i,t was determined that the request for a
$pecial 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: ...............................................................................................
............................................................................................................ .......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3. INTERPRET A 1'1 ON: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ............................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....,.................................................................................,..........................................................................................................................................................
4-. AGGRIEVED PERSON (S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your
~ppeal: ...................................
.................................................................................................................
................ ......................................................................................................
................................................ ...........................................................,...... ................. ............................................................. ....................................
"-~..
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
, .-,,-
;;.
\PPEAL #265
-2-
December 11th, 1975
By decision of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
the application for a use variance is denied as the Appellant has
not met the burden established by case law by competent evidence.
\
Appellant has failed to show by competent evidence that the
property cannot be used with any reasonable return~~nder the use
permitted. It is noted that the property is zoned R-20, and not-
withstanding the presence of a utility easement, the easement existed
at the time of purchase and prior to the adoption of the Zoning
Ordinance. Improvements made were made after the adoption of the
Ordinance and with the presumed knowledge of the existing zoning
restrict:ions. Further, it has not been shown that the improvements,
such as fill and septic systems, could not be utilized for permitted
uses.
Additionally, the only hardship shown is the existence of the
utility easement. While it may be alleged that the land is encumbered
by the same, other lands are similarly encumbered. Additionally,
as previously stated, this encumberance is deemed self-created as
the land was purchased with knowledge of the encurnberance. This
encurnberance did not arise from the character of the land but instead
\'las implicitly accepted by the Appellant when he purchased the land.
Finally, the Board concludes that the granting of the variance
would further aggravate existing non-conforming uses. A non-conforming
trailer park is located adjacent to the Appellant's site, and this
Board does not deem it proper to further enlarge the non-conforming
character of the neighborhood, which is single-family residential
homes.
..
EIVEO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APR 1 0 1975 TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ELAINE H. SIDWDEI ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. ..............2.!.J.;j............
Dated ...l~Q.~r..i.L..1.0.......1.'9..7 5
~
AppeIlant ..................Jehn....A:leKl!nde-:l'....................................................... Address....aew.....ti.'l,Q.k.u:}.ilit.c](....~.......
...........................W.app-iI'1q6r......P-al..l-e.,....N'J........1....590............................. ..................................................................................................
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on .....................................Ap.r.i.l....e.th....................................., 19...75...,
Appeal No........265.......... was considered and the foIl owing action on the request for: ~ A VARIANCE,
o A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE,
o AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S), was taken:
I. VARIANCE: By resolution of the Board, it was determined that strict applica,tion 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 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: ..................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................................................................u.................................
c. The variance 0 would 0 would not change the character of the district, because: .....................
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance B-.~t.. [;J be denied and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer lia.be confirmed g.~MWJl68Iii.- a. thi.
..~t.er 1. JlO~ within tJae ju1.41<<1oa of t.JM SOD1nt ...... of Appeal. ba~ of
2.. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request for a the
Special Use Permit 0 be granted 0 be denied, pursuant to article ........................, section or subsection =4
....................., paragraph .................................... of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, the decision of the En- ·
fercement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ................................................................................................
............................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
J. INTERPRETATION: The Board adopted the following resolution which stated its interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as requested in your appeal: ............................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................u..
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
4. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S): By resolution of the Board, the following decision was made on your
appeal: ........................................ .................................................... ........ ...........................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................,..............................................................................................................................
)"
'"
;;.'
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appeal No. ........~..,...-S~
Date .....?I?1I?5........
Appellant ....J.QRN....AJ~.~AN.Q~.:R...........,.............,............................... Address,...........~~.~..!!~~~~~.~.~.~.~.. It.?~.cl~
_.......W.~pp.~g~.:r.~...E~.~.~~.~....N.~:'!Y...xgF~..........,.............................................. ............................................................................... .... ..... ..... .... .
TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS:
I f~ .......JO'HN...AL.EXANP.ER.................,..........................................................., appeal from a decision of the Zoning
(name of appellant) . ,"
Inspector, dated ......................................................, 19..............., and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals
. "
for: rn A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 0 AN INTERPRETATION OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, 0 AN APPEAL AS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) (check prop~r
one), in connection with premises located at ..............AH..A~g,~J~...B~.~tB-g~4......................................................................
(street & no.) (lot no.) (zoning district)
Town of Wappinger, N. Y.
2. TYPE OF APPEAL (Complete relevant section)..
a. A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED for the following reasons:
I) Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undue hardship because:
See Rider Attached
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 ........,............, 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:
........................................................................................................................................................................................
... ........................................,...........................,...........................................................................................................................................................
(Use extra sheets jf necessary) . sigruture......2~..........C2~~.........._...
* The requIred plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal. .
"
If'
"
RIDER TO APPLICATION
FOR ZONING VARIANCE
2. a. (1)
Strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would produce undu.e
hardship because:
In the year 1957, the applicant entered into an installment contract
of sale for the purchase of approximately 4 acres of land that are situate
at All Angels Hill Road, Town of Wappinger, New York. Under the
terms of this agreement, the applicant was no t to acquire title to th~
premises until the purchase price was paid in fuLL. The applicant
acquired title to the said premises in August, 1974.
At the time that the applicant entered into the aforesaid agreement,
the Town of Wappinger had not enacted a zoning ordinance and the usage
of the premises was not restricted. There was one occupied mobile
home located on the premises, at that time, which now constitutes a
legal non-conforming use.
When contracting for the purchase of the said premises, the appLi-
cant contemplated the use of the premises for the instaLLation of mobile
homes, which usage was not then precluded by the restrictions of a
zoning ordinance. However, the. applicant refrained from the instaLLatio
of such units as it was impractical to incur such expense until such time
as he acquired title to the premises.
The land in question is encumbered by a Central Hudson Gas and
Electric Corp. right of way that intersects the premises. That a sub-
stantial portion of the land has access to a public road only by crossing
such right of way. That, accordingly, the applicant is prevented from
the development and use of a large portion of the 4 acres, as he cannot
.
provide prospective single family owners with access to a public high-
way as required by Section 280-a of the Town Law.
That the portion of the premises that is afforded with access to
the public highway is c:>mprised of approximately 1. 3 acres. That it is
.-!
,"
"'
upon this area that the non-conforming mobiL home is now located. That
upon the belief that installment contract executed prior to the enactment
of the zoning ordinance provided him with the right to install additional
trailers on the premises, the applicant placed two additional mobile
homes on the parcel after acquiring title thereto.
That strict application of the zoning ordinance produces undue hard
..
ship to the applicant, as he would be restricted to only one building ~ot.
This would cause him severe economic loss and deprive him from any
reasonable return from the property. That this hardship is not self-im-
posed, as the applicant was contractually obligated to acquire the premi-
ses by an agreement executed prior to the zoning ordinance. That the
contemplated usage was the inducement to enter such agreement and is
the only feasible use of such property.
That applicant seeks a variance from the provisions of the ordinan e
to allow him to keep and maintain the two additional mobile homes that
are now located on the premises. That if he is required to remove the
same, it will cause him severe financial loss and deprive him of any
reasonable use of the premises. Conversely, a grant of this variance
will enable applicant to retain said premises. .
2. a. (2)
The hardship created is unique and is not shares by all properties
alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this district because:
It is the only property in this area that is likewise encumbered by
a right of way, which deprives the owner of the use of a substantial por-
tion of the premises for single family development.
2. a. (3)
The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would
not change the character of the district because:
The two additional trailers located upon the pren~ises are barely
visable and do not result in additional traffic or other such burdens.
-2-
,
I
f
~
~! .
.
Ii'
!'
~
~i
"
...
-
In addition, the 3 units are situate on 4 acres of Land and do not
overburden the premises with residential structures. ALso, other mobiL
homes are Located in the immediate vicinity.
,
-3-