1988-02-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HELD AT MESIER HOMESTEAD, WAPPINGERS FALLS, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 2, 1988 Present: Chairman Frank Savelli, Robert Smith, Sterling VanWagenen, George Casey, Attorney Louis Viglotti, Deputy Zoning Enforcement Officer Anthony Pacio, Code Enforcement Officer Phil Galioto, Recording Secretary Peggy Fasciani. Absent: Kenneth Kane Others Present: Samuel Iannone, Three Star Anodizing, Wappingers Falls Harold Reilly, 107 East Main Street, Wappingers Falls Louis Snell, 19 Monroe Drive, Poughkeepsie Chairman Save~li called meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. Upon motion by Mr. VanW~genen, seconded by Mr. Casey, minutes of meeting held January 5,. 1988 were approved as written and received by all members by mail. Motion unanimously carried. ZONING BOARD APPOINTMENTS In view of the fact that Kenneth Kane has attended only one meeting since his nomination to the Zoning Board of Appeals, it was the consensus of this Board to make a recomxaendation to the Board of Trustees to appoint a new member to the Zoning Board of Appeals to replace Mr. Kane. It was also the recommendation of this Board that Robert Smith, whose term expires on April 1, 1988 be reappointed as a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. LOUIS SNELL, 51 MARKET STREET, WAPPINGERS FALLS Chairman Savelli advised next order of business would be continuation of public hearing held January 5, 1988 on request of Louis Snell, 19 Monroe Drive, Poughkeepsie, seeking a variance for property located at 51 Market Street, Wappingers Falls. Daniel Leary, attorney representing Mr. Snell, confirmed that the Zoning Board of Appeals at the last meeting advised that applica- tion for an area variance was contingent upon one piece of evidence- a letter from an abstract company regarding the insurability of the lot for mortgage purposes. He presented as evidence a letter from Feld- man-Jacobson Abstract Corporation, 94 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, addressed to Louis Snell, which stated that exceptions would be taken because of various problems with the rear property in regard to ease- ments and other areas. Mr. Reilly advised that a hardship has to be significant and that an economic injury must be demonstrated for an area variance. Louis Viglotti examined the Feldman & Jacobson Abstract Company letter and the plot plan. He pointed out.h~e exceptions taken to the reading of the survey. Mr. Reilly reiterated that if the applicant elects to build on the property, there is no demonstration of any difficulties in selling the property.