1999-04-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD 4/6/99 Present: Susan Hodge, Chair, Floyd Frink Vice Chair, Harry Greco, Bob Lewis and Bob Morris. Others Present: Anthony D 'Arrizo William Karr A1 Weitlich Matthew Alexander Joseph Mastroianni Meeting was called to order at 7:31 p.m. Mrs. Hodge welcomed Mr. Morris as a new member of the Zoning Board of Appeals. ANTHONY D'ARRIZO AND M,4TTHEWALEXANDERt 3 ANDREWS PLACE First on the agenda was the application of Mr. D'Arrizo and Mr. Alexander, 3 Andrews Place seeking a use variance to be able to operate an antique store on premises. Property is located in a R7.5 zone. Secretary read legal notice which appeared in the March 29, 1999 edition of the Poughkeepsie Journal. Mr. Frink stated he had reviewed the certified mailings and all had been sent out. Ms. Hodge stated she wouM like to begin by reading a letter from the Dutchess County Dept. of Planning dated April 6, 1999. (A copy of this letter is on file in the Planning/Zoning Offices). This letter states that New York State Law requires that applicants prove all four of the following criteria before the Board may grant a use variance: (1) that the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return on his/her property as shown by competent financial evidence; as the applicant states in the application, the property could be rented out to tenants or could be occupied by a professional office. This means that the applicant is not being deprived ofal[ economic use of the property. The fact that it may be cheaper and more convenient for him to locate an antique store there is not relevant. Neither is the statement that "it would be hard to find reliable tenants who did not want to rent a whole house or apartment and it might attract unstable and/or troublesome people to the neighborhood "(2) that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; it is unclear why the applicant feels that the alleged hardship is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. It wouM appear that the applicant is citing that adjacent properties do not have enough parking to support a professional office. While this may be the case, stating that his hardship is that he has too much parking on his lot would not appear to be a hardship. (3) that the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; if granted, a precedent would be set to allow businesses to locate away from the central business district in areas that are more residential in nature and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created; the hardship is self created. The fact that the applicant wants to locate an antique store in a residential zone when there is space available in the central business zone is a matter of preference and not a restriction that has been placed upon him.