136
...
." .~ ...,..
.. -
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ACTION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. ................~}.~..........
Dated ..~~~.~....~.L.J.?.?..~...
Appellant .....~..~....~~.~~~....~~....................................................... Address...~~~.~....~.~..L..~.~Q.I.....I9.~....~.57
..........~.~.~....~.~~.~~.~....~....!~.......~.~.~.~.~.......................................................................................................................
At a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on ........................................r..llJ.'.uuY....8................................, 19.7.2....,
Appeal No.....}.~~........... was ronsidered and the following 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 ()If the Board, it was determined that strict application of the Ordinance
o WQuld 0 would not produce undue ha:rdship 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: ..................................................................................................................
.. S.. Attached aeaolution
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
b. The hardship created 0 is 0 is not unique and D 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 wauld D would not change the character of the district, because: .....................
..................................................................................................-...............................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance 0 be granted 0 be denied and
that the previous decision of the Enforcement Officer D be confirmed 0 be reversed.
2. SPECIAL USE PERMIT: By resolution of the Board it was determined that the request fora
S,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-
tercement Officer 0 be reversed 0 be confirmed, because: ................................................................................................
............................................................................................................ ......................................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
J. INTERPRET A TION: 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
a;ppeal: ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................. ..........................................................,.......................................
Z2~~
. Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Martin Leskow
Appeal # 136
-2-
February 8, 1972
A motion was made by Mr. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Cortellino, to
adopt the following resolution:
The variance is granted subject to the appellant following the
recommendations of the Dutchess County Department of Planning which
consists of changing the existing roadway pursuant to the Dutchess
county Department of Planning letter dated February 7, 1972 and the
attached map, which will alleviate the traffic hazard along Route 82,
lessen the line of siqht problems entering and leaving Route 82, and
alleviate variance ;equests for the other lots with the exception of
Lot fl.. 7.
The variance for Lot # 7 is hereby granted.
Motion Unanimously Carried
d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because:
3. OTHER REMARKS: ...."."""""""".."....,,................................................
(Use en,. sheets if necessary) sig""ture9~;!..?:f:..0!:4y
* The required plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal.
\ ' :' ..
\
'~/;!r"-'~'--'~ I /7 Ifr)) '!.f1 7[". ((g C'L/7j 0-~ [~) ~g ,~(J;.r ~ ;n [' r;-~~ 7.~
.' . ...;., j I' ...w UiJ t..,t;;.B . "...~. .. ..... """." ...._. . / ..' I, "."4 .."
j I / r....--..... ./ [fJ)..... L.t-r-~...I ..~. ff?\'--!.' ~'..' r,rr:-/~..,rlr~..... F.iJ) t'""-.,., f},7in ir; /'" i'r'. "'.rT i"'"', tTi':"":ll
! I" '-', ,~1JI ''' 11,'>.,\ ,"'. ri", /; 1.".,I('';J,4'k-....'-,1 "".,l/,', ; / ,::'~
. L ...1'.' ~. ""' ....;)1.."'..,;; ~J /.J r...:,,'.1 f.. .....:- . '.J '"' ., '" ... ,. '" ,,; ....."".,
L 1.1 L -'" '. '. . '.' " '.' . - .'. ~ .' ---~_........._- ..--...----,
. . .' '_~_~~'_"_'_"_'___'~~"_'___"""-"""_"_"'~'_" .....~_.h..H_.. . .J
~.._._M. .._.7 47 CANNON STREET POUGHKEEPSIC, NCW YORK 12601 485-9890
jidf'~""....:.t...", . . .~. B~!:~ ?~,.Ap'p~~ 's.. ,~...,. ....!.. "'-'_ ..._. ~., . ..... ... ....
~"'-"-L'~ ~~ _ -.,: ~", 'L
-
...."""
~', ....,- ,.' ,
To: Board of Appeals
Referral: 72-13 Town of Wappinger
Re: Leskow Subdivision - multiple variance requests
The Dutchess County Department of Planning has reviewed subject referral
within the framework of General Municipal Law (Article 128, Sections 239-'
and 239-m) and finds the decision In this matter primarily involves
matters of local concern.
The Dutchess County Department of Planning recommends the decision be
based upon local study of the facts In the case.
In the course of Its review the Department did, however, find that the
proposed accessways to the Leskow Subdivision constitute a traffic
hazard along Route 82. Notes to this effect appear on the attached
map which also presents an alternate solution which also eliminates all
but one of the setback variances (lot 7 - rear yard). This alterna-
tive would lessen the line of sight problem entering and leaving
Route 82, provide a quality townroad with fewer maintenance costs and.
provide a quality development for the residents.
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: February 7, 1972
-t.i~ L -.s~'-".~~._ .
Henry HeissenbutteI , Commissioner ~ ."
Dutchess County Dept. of Planning
C'I
(I
.V
-----~_._"_..,-'.-,...,..-~_.~------------.---_._--~._.---,--,,---.
. .. .
i.
-,.'
e_.
.. .
. .t
. ,
. '......._".. .
. .
"
t
"