Loading...
048 .. , ~. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOvVN OF VV APPINGER NOTICE OF APPEAL Appeal No. ............../................. Date ...!iP.:;.~.~...]-'.....J.~.~?. A.npellant COY~\~-T3X ::-CE:ALTY CORP. c/o Albert Hiller . . .................................................... ...................... .............................. ................... Address................................................................................. ......g.?~:.~.~.~::?:~.~?~~....g.?:::J?...:. .?.....~.~~....~.~~~.~.gg~.~.~y.."..~.~.~.~.~.~..~.....R.~~gP:~.~~.P.~.~.~.'-.....~.~~'!....X~.~~............... TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: YW"c-;'~'~ CON':\J-TEX reALTY CO'?.P. 1 f d' . f' . "--"( .IV! ................................................................................................................................................, appea rom a eC1SlOn 0 rue Zonmg (name of appellant) Inspec~or, d2.~ed ....P.'2..~~.s:b..~.::::...lQ.........., I 9...9..~......, and do hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for: [] A VARIANCE, 0 A SPECIAl: USE PERMIT, El AN INTERPRETATIO::\ OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, E9 AN APPEAL AS A,N AGGRIEVED .EER~O~(S) (check proper 'Cre SQU.tl;11'C'l8St. s~c\e 1310C;'< '- one), in connection with premises located at ..?:......~~.~.'7.~~.~?~0....~.?~.~............~?.~.....~.~...J..................f.lp......?Q........ (street & no.) (lot no.) (zoning district) Town of Wappinger, N. Y. APPLICp..B LE 1. PROVISION(S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE A~B~ .................................................................. (indicate SEE ADDEl\'DUM I ...... ..~;~i~i ~~.. '~~~'~i~'~ ..~ ~.. '~~b'~'~~~i'~~' "~~'~:i" '~~';~g~; ph)...... ....... ..... ................ ........ ......... ....... ...... ... .... ....... ...... .... ... ....... .... ..... .................... 2. TY.i')E 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 ADDENDUH 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 ADDE~"DUM I 3) The variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the district because: ~EE ADDEl\1DUM I 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: SEE F..DDElillill1 I d. AGGRIEVED PERSON(S) an appeal is requested because: SEE ADDENDUH I 3. OrEER REMARKS: SEE ADJ2KDA I a~d II ...................................................................................................... CON"J ,.,.-".,.. D .,...," 'T'''''''v CO'~ n '''VJ{y,L.C':}i)i:u:q ,'flt (Use extra sheets if necessary ) sigruJ.ture.....J!.Y..;..\/r!ae"'~.k[...11:'?.{!Lv 0/,,,( PRES IDENT '" The l-equin;d plan must accompany the Notice of Appeal. ADDENDUM I The Zoning Ordinance of the TO\VTI of Wappinger, adopted January 29, 1963, in its classification of districts, the estab- lis:~ent of districts, and the location of district boundaries, in particular as set forth in Sections 300, 310 and 320, of A~ticle III thereof, as the same applies to the premises of the ^-DC~.1..lan~ ~s vaaue ""P.i:"'" ..JL..,... (:), indefinite, and not amenable to an interpre- tation without the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The same, if applied in the manner determined by the Bui1d- ing Inspector of the Town of Wappinger, upon an application for site plan approval to the Planning Board of the Town of Wappinger, ~ade December 20, 1965, which resulted in a site plan inspection C~ January 8, 1966, would result in an arbitrary division of the premises of the Appellant. The said premises would be zoned, in part, RD-20, "Optional Dwelling Residential District", permitting t~e construction of multiple dwellings and for the remainder, R-L.-O, 1I0ne Family Residential District". The premises of the Appellant, vhlich have existed for many years as one unit, consisting of approximately 20 acres, would, if 8ulti-zocin3 of the same was permitted, be arbitrarily divided into different zoning c;assifications, and a consequent difference in pe~itted uses, with the zoning boundary in doubt, incapable of precise location. Such a bi-section of the premises would c2stroy the use of the entire land, or a good part thereof, render- ing it unusable, because of the proximate location of different '"1 -:: ',,- "~~ "I. "': Q ,:':'I. ,,"", J.'--_........ ~_'-~. Such an arbitrary and cap=~ciOUS division of the ADDEl'mm'l I (cont.) premises would result in a depreciation of the land value, a total destruction of a part of the land, and deprive tbe Appell- ant of its property without due process of law, and contrary to acceptable planning procedures for the proper use of the land. In addition, such a bi-section of the premises is not con- sistent with the aforesaid Zoning Ordinance, contrary to the spirit of the same, and inconsistent with numerous other parcels of land situate in said to~mship, and subject to said ordinance. The Zoning Map of the TOvm of Wappinger, New York, adopted January 29, 1963, which same accompanies the text of the Zoning Ordinance, is vague, ambiguous, indefinite, confusing, and the exp:anatory matter thereon is so entered, noted, placed and con- tained, as to create doubt as to in which district the premises o~ the Appellant are included. In particular, the zoning map of the Town of Wappinger contains thereon explanatory matter showing that the premises of Ap?ellant, zoned RD-20, "Optional Dwelling Residential District", h.:;:ve a depth of 900 feet from the boundary of the GB, llGeneral BusLlessli District, which same, in turn, is 300 feet in depth ~i,-"':""""-,1 _~u__ the edge of the right of way of New York State Highway Route 1/9. Consequently, the entire premises of the Appellant are si.tt:.ate in RD-20, tlOptional Dwelling Residential District" classi- fication. (Article III, Section 320.06). If it is contended the aforesaid factual situation, dis?layed by ~ne Zoning Xap is not correct, the ambiguity of the Zoning Map - 2 - l:.DDE:mlJ~/l I (CO'ilt.) affecting Appellant's premises is compounded. All dimensions of or from roads shown on the Zoning Y~p are taken from the edge or the right of way of said road unless otherwise dimensioned or described. (Article III, Section 320.06). The district boundary in the GB, "General Business" District, which is parallel to said Route #9, under the Ordinance, cannot be less than the suw of 40 feet (the same being the width of one-half of the right of way) plus 150 feet (the same being the minimum lot depth required in said GB, lfGeneral Business" District) within which the road lies as p~ovided for by Article IV, Sections 423 and 424 and Ar ticle III, Section 320.06 a. Therefore, the premises of the Appellant are e",-"".:tiri2ly zoned RD-20, "Optional D'tvelling Residential District" , except, however, the ordinance and the map are so ambiguous that it ~izht appear, despite the measurements set forth in the ordinance, upon \vhich the requirements for use districts are based, a small portion of the premises adjacent to Smithtown Road are zoned R-40, llCi....e Family Residential District". Such an interpretation, were it applied strictly to the premises, would result in a practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, which would deprive the Ap?ellant of the reasonable use of its land as provided for by A~ticle V, Sections 544, 544.1 and 544.2. If the latter interpretation was applied, the premises of Appellant would be zoned RD-20, "Optional Dwelling Residential District", for an approximate depth of 1,300 feet with the re- -. ,.. ..I "---"''"''J.I\-.,~-.. r.n Q--"'"'-: ...-.: h4-0,......"" "r)r'\""1~ '1-"""v~~r-", a d"'D~-1~ o.~ ::::.=-.;....C2:-, E_v~J.\...:~~b v.. v....;,..i,L.;.,....u.... v:j~;j "-\.\,J"::;;'~:I l.a .J.....Ii6 ""-.;. ~... .i- appro:l{ll2ately 150 fe2t. The latter parcel, if situated in a R-LtO, IIOne Family Residential Districtll classification would require a lot area of -3- ADDENDUA I (cont.) 40.000 sauare feet (Article IV, Section 422), with a minimum ~ ... lot width of 125 feet and a minL~~~ lot depth of 150 feet (Article IV, Section 422). Obviously, as an examination of the map will show, the premises could be utilized for only one lot, oddly shaped,. with a frontage of 266.66 feet, and a depth of 150 feet, and a consequent loss, of unusable land, with an area of less than one acre. The district boundary line, as an examination of the Zonin3 Map clearly indicates, does not follow the lot lines or the subject parcel. Good planning and zoning would indicate that these historical boundaries should be followed when estab- listing district boundary lines. Even if the boundary lines of the district do not follow these lot lines, then in the alterna- tive, they should follow street lines established. Thus, in the instant case, the district line should follow Smithtown Road, unless such district boundary lines are fixed by dimensions as sho~~ on the Zoning Map. The Zoning Map,as it relates to Appellant's property, does not contain indicated dimensions in its establishment of district boundary lines. (Article III, Section 320.01). whEREFORE, Appellant respectfully requests the Zoning Board of Appeals to make a determination that the premises of A?pellant, the subject of this application, should be zoned R0-20, ltOptional Dwelling Residential District", and/or in the ~-ter~ate~ that ~he same are for the most part zoned RD-20, -4- AD02:YDDX I (cont.) 1I0ptional Dwelling Residential District", and that it grant an adjustment or the strict application of the zoning regula- tio~s and provisions to provide that the entire parcel, the same being an irregular parcel of land, be zoned RD-20, "Optional Dwelling Residential District". ADDENDUH II r:.,;.......,~, -"'"" "l: ~ 0 d l.1".... u...ce r s J..one , JOSEPH E. LUDEWIG, Zoning Inspector and Building Inspector of the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, joins in this application in compliance with Article V, Section 543 of the Zoning Ordinance, for the purpose of // having the same determined by the Zoning Board of Appeals, and he does not admit, affirm or deny any of the statements set forth ip this application or in Addendum I thereunto attached. TOWN OF WAPPINGER .UPERYI.OR TOWN CL.ERK'S OFFICE MIL.L. STREET WAPPINGERS FAL.L.S, N, Y. 12590 EL.AINE H. SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK AND COLLECTOR O.....CE HOUR. COUNCILMEN JOSEPH H. FUI..TON .IU8TfCIi: 01' THE: PEACE LOUIS D. DIEHL LOUIS C. CLAUSEN VINCENT S. FRANCESE WILLIAM J. BULGER .UPT. 0.. HigHWAY. KNUD CLAUSEN " A. M. TO .. P. M. May 10, 1966 Conn Tex Realty Corp. 54 Montgomery Street Poughkeepsie, New York Gentlemen: ", At a special meeting of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals, held on April 26, 1966, the following action was taken on your application for a variance and interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and appeal as aggrieved persons. A motion was made by Frederick Koehler, seconded by Gordon Hirt, that: . 1. The Board of Appeals interpret the Zoning Map, which was adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger on January 29, 1963, as follows: The 900 ft. dimension shown north of Cooper Road and south of &~ithtown Road and to the east of Route 9 is measured from the edge of the right-of-way of the existing Route 9 as shown on said map. This dimension hereby establishes the eastern boundary of the RD-20 zone as 900 ft. easterly of the edge of Route 9 in this area. This interpretation is predicated on a scaling of said dimension on said map; and, upon the fact that all other dimensions in this area of said map are taken from the edge of the right-of-way of Route 9. 2. The request for a variance and/or an adjustment be denied on the basis that an adjustment is not applicable in this case, and a variance is not within the power of the Board to grant in this case since the request, in effect, constitutes a change of zoning rather than a variance. 3. The appeal be denied. The arguments put forth by counsel in reference to Sections 300, 310, 320.01, 320.02, and 320.06 have been examined and found to be unpersuasive. Motion Unanimously Carried Yours very truly, t!~K3fS::~4r- Zoning Board of Appeals ' DNK:sjp CC: Russell E. Aldrich Joseph E. Ludewig Town Clerk TOWN OF WAPPINGER .UPERVI.OR TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE MILL STREET WAPPINGERS FALLS. N. Y. 12590 ELAINE H. SNOWDEN COUNCILMEN .JOSEPH H. FULTON LOUIS D. DIEHL LOUIS C. CLAUSEN JU8TICE 0... THE: PEACE: VINCENT S. FRANCESE WILLIAM J. BULGER TOWN CLERK AND COLLECTOR OFFICE HOUR. .UPT. OF HIQHWAY. KNUD CI..AUSEN It A. M. TO . P. M. April 26, 1966 Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Wappinger 'Wappingers Falls, New York Re: Route 9, R.O.W. Gentlemen: At your request, I have checked,the width of R.O.W. along Route 9, between Cooper Road, and McFarland Road, on the east side. This is the R.O.W. line which is pertinent to the zoning boundary case now before you. The plans showing the R.O.W. in relation to the existing road are on file at the Resident Engineer's Office, New York State Department of Public Works, Route 9G, Violet Avenue, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. The plans show the road line to be located at varying distances from the centerline of pavement, ranging from 20 ft. to 37 ft. Since the road is 27 ft. wide, the distance from the east edge of the road to the property lines would correspondingly range from 6 ft. to 23 ft. with an average of about 12 to 14 ft. For scaling purposes to determine zoning boundaries, I am of the opinion that the tax maps which show the road boundaries are sufficiently accurate. Truly yours, Vincent C. Kelley Engineer to the Town VCK: sjp TOWN OF WAtlPINGER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO ABUTTING OWNERS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF Af'k>EALS OF THE TO~N OF WAPPINGER WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTION "543 OF THE TOWN OF W~P!NGER :lONING ORDINANCE. APP~~ # 48 - REQUEST OF CONN TEX REALTY CORP., 54 !iiMKET STREET t' POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK, FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 300, 3100 32001. 320020 AND 32006 DEFINING CERTAIN DISTRICT ZDNING BOUNDARIES, .~H!CH AFFECT A PARCEL OF LAND ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE ,OF SMITHTOWN ROADg OWNED BY THE ABOVE NAMED' CORPORATION 'k"JD DESIGNATED AS Lor 1801, BLOCK 20 ON THE TOVm OF WAPPINGER TAX MAP # 680 SAID HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 1966, AT THE WAPPINGER TmrvN HALL, BEGINNING AT 8:30 PoMo AT lNHICH TIME ALL INTERESTED PERSONS WILL BE GIVEJ.~ THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD~ SIGNED: David No Koffsky, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals DATED: ,April 11, 1966 sjp