HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-05 TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
July 5 , 2000
s
AGENDA : ( 1 ) Joel and Jane Bender
( 2 ) Arthur J . Lecoq 6
d
MEM . PRESENTo Chairperson Charles Hanley , Anne Everett , Nick LaMotte ,
and Oars Kelemen .
ALSO PRESENT : Henry Slater; Joel Bender , Jane Bender, and Arthur Lecoq ,
LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus
# *# R *4# ** # *Yrp ** RR * *�'+kA *i. 4#tk *sir # *�w ** * ,Ni *+t * *# #4rk * *A*drR *fM # *## ** f #.► *ik
( ! ) BENDER
Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Joel and Jane Bender of 1806 Slaterville Road ,
who were requesting a variance to install an 8' X 8 ' garden shed at 49. 8' +/- from the
g ( )
center of Slaterville Road where 70 ' are required . Chair Hanley read the application
dated 6- 1 -00 as well as a letter dated 6-28-00 from David A. Herrick , both the
application and the letter are on file . Chair Hanley stated that there was no community
reaction of any kind in the file and opened the floor to the Bender' s .
Joel Bender. I have some photographs that I took today .
( Mr. Bender presented photographs that support the statements he made in the
application he filed with the Town, showing the peak of the roof of the shed. )
0 . Kelemen : The shed has been placed there already ?
J . Bender: Yes it has _ At the time ( Henry Slater contacted us ) it wasn 't
d
completely done . In the mean time I finished it because I
found out that through the rain we were having it was
warping . So i needed to finish it and get the roof up and get
it treated otherwise it would be more damaged . It' s just
setting on the ground . The second picture is right at the turn
around of the driveway , about halfway down between the
house and the road .
A. Everett : Looking at your fine pictures , they are deceiving . Here it
looks as it you have a lot of bare land , but actually you don ' t .
J . Bender : Because of the perspective. It you look at this not as one full
picture but as a series of things where you take a 35-
millimeter picture slice off it .
A . Everett : So , what I ' m saying is , although it appears as if he has a lot
of bare land here , that's not the way it is at all . The driveway
is very steep and the little building is really obscure behind
the trees , I ' m surprised Henry saw it .
H . Slater Kevin, saw it.
J . Gender: Kevin saw it, and at the time he stopped he said that if the
traffic hadn ' t been stopped he wouldn ' t have seen it .
Chair Hanley : I ' Il open it up to the Board if anyone has questions .
0 . Kelemen : Joel , I ' m just curious as to why you chose not to build
directly behind the house , which is also flat.
2
Bender: Because we had stuff for the driveway ( to go into the shed )
and I didn ' t want to wheel the snow blower around the house
to get down to the driveway to be able to use it. There is a
little bit of a level spot in front of the turn-around . But that is
also where our leachfield is and I didn 't want to build on top
of that .
A. Everett : After visiting the property I can see that although it appears
as if there may be an area east of the house that might be a
good location and it would be within the zoning , given the
fact that your driveway is so steep and you do have a
snowblower and a lawn mower, the position of this little shed
Ois probably the most helpful spot for you to have access to
them in the snow.
Chair Hanley : And you said that it ' s not permanent now, but you intend to
make it?
J . Bender: It' s not permanent in that it isn ' t set in concrete, but we don ' t
plan on moving it .
H . Slater: I ' d like to point out that the structure does not require a
building permit but it does require zoning conformance so it
requires a zoning permit.
A. Everett : Henry why is that ? It appears just to be a little tiny ( building ) .
Chair Hanley : Because it ' s under 12 ' K 12 ' right?
3
H . Slater: Yes , that' s why it doesn ' t require a building permit but the
way the ordinance is worded it states " all structures" and it
fits the definition of structure so it conforms to the zoning
setback .
A . Everett : How large a lot is this ?
J , Bender: 1 , 37 acres .
Chair Hanley closed the hearing portion of the Bender application at 7 : 45 PM$
instructing Joel and Jane Bender that they could wait for the decision or call Henry
Slater in the morning .
NI�,NNAINNN^I14IIrNyNN/\. V NANV NiYV NNNNN.I,NNNArNNVNNMNNNANIMN 'YNMVAINIrNMAeNNNVNNh,.S/NIV IV
FINDINGS - ( 1 ) BENDER
O0 , Kelemen : In the Bender' s situation I don ' t see that their shed is going
to impact safety or be a detriment visually . It' s probably the
best location for it and I don ' t think it ' s going to be a
hardship for any of the neighbors . So I ' m in agreement with
the applicant .
N . LaMotte: I don 't have any problems with it, considering particularly the
minuscule size of the structure .
A, Everett: This is a very steep lot and although there may be some
possible options on the one side this is the ideal location
given severe weather conditions , etc. , and it is very
secluded . So I have no problem with this .
• it,
Chair Hanley : A.
R . Marcus: I think you may want to comment on the small size of the
structure . You may want to comment on the fact that it' s
screened - to a large extent - from public view by existing
vegetation .
A. Everett : It appears to be on top of a small bank .
Chair Hanley : So for A I have :
The small size of the structure and the height of the
existing vegetative screen, mane this structure all but
invisible from the roadside.
Do I hear a motion?
OA. Everett: So moved .
0 . Kelemen : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor .
All : Aye .
Chair Hanley : B .
A combination of factors; the topography of the site, the
ease of use in regards to the location of the existing
driveway and the placement of the existing structures
on the site .make this the most feasible solution.
Do I hear a motion ?
A . Everett : So moved .
LaMotte : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor .
Alf : Aye,
Chair Hanley : C .
0 , Kelemen : Not substantial .
Attny . Marcus : Henry , the distance is 90 feet ?
H . Slater: No , 70 feet .
0 . Kelemen : So the distance is substantial .
Chair Hanley: Although the relief sought is substantial the impact is
minimal ,
Do I hear a rnotion ?
N , L aMotte : Mayne we need to add another sentence here stating w, y
the impact is minimal .
Attny . Marcus : As noted in finning A .
Chair Hanley : Although the reaief sought is substantial the i,•npact is
minimal as noted in findings A and B.
A , Everett: So moved .
0 . Kelemen : Second .
Chair Hanley_ All those in favor.
All : Aye .
Chair Hanley: D .
As stated in finding A, the Zoning Board finds no
Or
- adverse effect yr impactor; the neighborhood,A. Everett . So moved .
0 . Keiernen : Second ,
Chair Hanley : All those in favor?
AII : Aye .
Chair Hanley:
N . t_aMotte : I would say it was ( self-created) considering the fact that he
demonstrated that there were other locations .
Chair Hanley. The di#sic !t eras se0t treater!.
A. Everett: So moved .
N . i-aMotte : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor .
All : Aye ,
Chair Hanley : We find this is an exempt aotion under 617 . 5 C - 12 & 13
Based on the findings do I hear a motion?
A , Everett: I make a motion that we grant Joel and Jane Sender the
variance as requested .
0 . Kelemen : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor .
All : Aya.
x
i e'3 �61 a Iwr V C , Fs. r _E3d V %.0a+'a1 -%1 a7 a3 . 5!% �
Y , ... . ■ ■ •.r ■ a.r ■ � ■ ■.r �, * v a v ] � ay e.rr Sri--iet � � ■ a-tii i r. s� 3.W :s,l
e �
July 5 , 2000
AGENDA : ( 1 ) .noel and Jane Bender
( ) Arthur J , Lecoq
MUM, PREE EENT& Chairperson Charles Hanley , Anne Everett, Nick LaMotte ,
and Oers KeEemen .
ALSO PRESENT o - Fe ;-� rY, Sig # t,
E� ,noel Sander , Jane Bender, and Arthur Leceq
LEGAL NC UNSEL : Randall Marcus
4eY4 N4e'*N+k'JkN4e *V4e^k*He *4e *.k *,k ** *** * ##+kHrN,k*# **-A ***** itl. *k * ***AT***
{ ; LO
Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Ailhur J . Le cq of 935 fydan Road , who is
requesting - ermission to Install a replacement ri� g � p Mobile homy which would be closer than
the required 1r: feet from the side lot ! line and 253 feet from the rear lot Fine _ Chair
Hanley read the appiication as well as a letter from David A_ Herrick dated 6- $- p ,
both the application and the letter are on file , Chair Hanley also stated that there xvag
no neighborhood reaction .
A, Lecoq ; E appreciate being considered for a variance , l ou ! d push
this back further with Wout getting into uriderg ;ounb Fines but it
w ;old be quite an undertaking to do that_ E ' m just about
reader for retirement so l hate to spend another .55 , 000 dollars
if l don 't have to , The unit I ' d like to prat on there is a 1995
-%Mth a shingled roof and vinyl siding and it Y011 make it look a
• lot batter .
Chair Hanley: Okay , then again l will open it up to the Board for questions .
0 . Kelemen : It appears that part of your problem is an existing right of
way that was granted to you ?
A . Lecoq : I can go back to 1960 . Originally Carl James ovmed it and it
was a storage area for old used trailers . There are three
drilled wells and one artesian on that particular lot . This was
the original start of the source of the water that went down to
the park . There use to be a big beautiful ball field there with
a row of trees and everything and then when Bob Reylea
purchased it from Pair_ James they developed that. I didn 't
Ounderstand that l didn' t have the right of vvzy. 1 thought that
L
when the land was passed on to me that the right of way
was there . This Bob Reylea knew it at the time and after the
bank had given me the paperviarork on a loan for the property
I had 20 , 000 dollars spent and at that time Mr. Reylea
contacted the savings banks lawyers and told them that I
didn 't have the right of way. So at that point for two years I
couldn' t do anything .
0 . Kelemen : That mystified me a little bit. At one point you did have the
right of way in your mind and then someone else bought it
and you lost that right of way?
9
A. Lecoq : The first right of vvay was through a legal maneuver by Mr.
James at that time . He is now deceased . He apparently
owned at that time 51 % or 52 % so he could go back and
somehow it was conveyed through Mr. James ' ownership
still of the property to allow me to have a right of way for my
utilities . But this was after the utilities on the opposite side
'•1'Jere already put in . I put almost 4 , 60E in a septic system
that I used about 6 months and I found out that I couldn ' t
have city water without city sewer . They told me I had to
have both at that time . It ' s complicated because of the first
ownership of the park . After Mr. Reylea knew that I didn 't
have legal right of way he waited until I had the house built
and then he contacted the bank and told thenri I didn ' t have
legal right of way . So then it want through two years of legal
business and I do have now a 16-foot right of way . Even
now it' s a terrible hardship because more than once I have
been dragged out of my vehicle ( and told) that I ' m going the
}
wrong way . I Ve contacted the law enforcement agencies
and they said it' s something I ' ll have to contact Mr_ Ray
about . It hasn 't been a fun period to live to be honest about
it. I can 't do much about it . I ' m going to get what I got and
because of the problem with the right of way it would help
out a little if I have my son there .
N . LaMotte : I ' m very much confused Randy. Can you help me sift
through this?
R . Marcus.- I ' m doing a little guess work because without seeing the title
documents that Mr. Lecoq has referred to it' s not really clear
to me how there would have been a right of way that came
to an end . Now it is possible that the original right of way
was granted in some respect with a termination provision .
Either it was granted for a period of time , or perhaps it was
granted for the length of time someone was aliv® , or some
other condition that caused it to come t0 an end . At some
opoint. . .
A. Lecoq : Can Is intervene just for a second ? At the time that the land
was conveyed to me Helen Amdur was the Towns attorney .
She never caught it and also the savings bank never caught
it . I was told I had a legal case and that I could sue. I never
took that option because I was told I had the right of way .
After I had the house partially built then this gentlemen , Mr.
Reylea , dropped the bomb on me . But they never caught it.
They presumed I had the right of way and they gave me a
commitment letter to spend 42 , 000 dollars on constructing a
house and then when I went for my first draw they said " i ' m
sorry , you ' re land locked you can 't get a nickel . " This is what
ended the first supposed driveway.
0 . Kelemen : This current right of way though , is in fact set in stone?
A , Lecoq : Yes it is sir. Through Carl James , when he was alive and
also John Lapinto . He found the loop hole in there when®
Mr . James had owned more than 50 % of the property yet
due to what ever the contract was . Apparently he went back
through and granted me the right of way by still owning the
paper work, I can ' t tell you the whole legality of it but this is
what transpired and I do have a legal document saying I can
have that right of way now and forever. They call it a
osixteen400t lane .
A. Everett: Who maintains it?
A . Lecoq : Jim Ray ,
A . Everett : Is it part of the trailer park?
A . Lecoq : Yes . And if any work on that road is done or whatever, I
have to share half the expense .
A , Everett : For your part?
A. Lecoq : Yes .
A. Everett : Because it goes back quite a distance?
A . Lecoq : Yes .
Chair Hanley: When did that take place , the final disposition on the right of
; 2
way?
A_ Lecoq : I would sayaround 1972 or 1973 .
A. Everett : You mentioned utilities . Are they underground?
A. Lecoq : Yes .
A . Everett: Okay and where do they come from ?
A. Lecoq : They originate at 366 and they head back, actually between
the old fire station and they run parallel to Gary Richards
property . They run back, in that direction and then they shoot
at an angle back to the trailer and of course my house is
picked up there also . That was put in when we had the
problems with getting the right of way from Mr. Relyea . At
that time he said " there is no way" that he would allow me to
be hooked up to those particular utility lines which are on
the west side of the property . I could have easily done that
and it wouldn't have cost a lot of money . Now I have to
maintain all the underground lines which run from that point
out which sometimes can be rough as far as the sewage and
cables and stuff like that because it' s quite a ways out there
and I have to maintain it myself.
A. Everett : How deep are those lines?
A . Lecoq : They are 8 or 9 feet down .
R . Marcus : We have proof of notification to the neighbors , including Jim
i
`— Ray?
Chair Hanley: According to this Jim Ray was notified .
R . Marcus : Cornell also ?
Chair Hanley : Actually there is no okay by Cornell . What does that mean ?
H . Slater: If they are on the list they received a notice . He , is one
from Cornell .
Chair Hanley: That one is checked , okay .
H . Slater: They don 't send 4 , if they have 4 properties they send 1 with
a list of the 4 properties .
A. Everett: There is a drainage swale .
A . Lecoq : That is what T. G . Miller called it. It' s a drainage ditch that
has been there for years and was updated . I updated it
because of several conditions that existed with plumbing _
A. Everett: It appears as if it is maybe 10 feet from the ditch and it is a
substantial swaie maybe- .be 10 to 15 feet it' s kind of deep .
That would preclude the mobile home being moved forward
any great distance .
A . Lecoq : Yes it would . If that were moved forward I would say there
would be flooding under it .
A. Everett: There a just a lot of big trees in the back.
A. Lecoq : Yes there are . It isn ' t feasible to go much closer that I can
see , The further back I go there are just other problems .
14
0 . Kelemen : Mr. Lecoq you indicated that you had talked to the
neighbors and that they were willing to give written approval .
Are these neighbors renters or are they actual owners of the
property?
A_ Lecoq : Two of them are owners and two are renters of .Jim Ray.
0 . Kelemen : The reason I ask is , and maybe I should ask. Randy , for
future reference , do renters really have any weight in our
decision making , or should they? Because they can be gone
when their lease runs out .
Attny . Marcus : That ' s right . The notification requirement is to the owner and
it' s the owner whose opinion would have impact on your
weighing and balancing of the issues . I think it is valid to
take a tenants perspective into account if they are
expressing something about the property .
Chair Hanley : The original mobile home dates from when?
A_ Lecoq : 1962 .
Chair Hanley : The house dates from?
A . Lecoq : That was built in 1972 . It was held up a couple of years with
what happened .
Chair Hanley : With the financing problems?
A . Lecoq : Yes sir_
Chair Hanley: Henry , so the mobile home and the lot itself is before
15
zoning ?
H _ Slater : Correct . According to our staff, the pad is in excellent
condition and doesn' t warrant replacement.
A. Everett: So it' s 8 . 5 feet from the back property line so you ' re asking
for a sixteen and a half-foot variance . Is that correct?
H . Slater: Well , that' s a good question . Where is the front lot line,
where is the rear and where is the side ? dust for consistency
sake I looked at route 366 to Dryden Road as the front . I
had to pick something for the front so I picked the closest
legal road and used that as the front . You might make a
case that the side is the back and the back is the side or you
can Gail it anything you want I guess .
A. Everett : Since we don ' t have a proper road we don' t have to consider
the center of the road do we?
H _ Slater: Weil , he' s in conformance with the center of the road any
way you look at it , if you look at the nearest public road .
R. Marcus : Anne is saying that if you were to count the 8 feet from the
center of the lane you end up with more of a set back .
H . Slater: This was somewhat unusual .
Chair Hanley: If he had simply had the trailer exactly he same size as the
old one . . .
H . Slater: He would have had a non -conforming home . So he couldn ' t
16
'NJn .
0 . Kelemen : Are you going to extend the pad as well or is the trailer
going to hang over it?
A. Lecoq : I did have something , I ' m sorry I didn ' t bring a copy of it .
What I tentatively want to do is to re-rod the existing pad
because it is twelve feet wide and the new one will be
fourteen and I ' m going to take 5f31ths re-rod and drill it into
the side of it. Then I ' m going to pour six inches of cement in
there . It will be as strong or stronger than the existing pad .
Then I ' m going to do the same thing on the front . The front
probably +mill be a minimum six inches thick . I ' m going to put
Oin gravel . The original pad I put 12 or 14 inches of #2 stone
and that trailer never went out of plum . Actually if you looked
at the hitch of the mobile home I ' m only going to go beyond
that Ditch 3 . 5 feet .
O . Kelemen : The hitch sticks out from the trailer X number of feet?
A. Lecoq : Yes .
H . Slater: Common accepted practice called boring and pinning for
marrying existing and new concrete together. It' s very
effective .
A . Lecoq : I know this is a different situation . If I had life to live over
again I would never build there . But it' s home now.
is 17
A . Everett : I noticed there was a car parked behind the mobile home
and it didn 't have a license plate .
A. Lecoq : That belongs to my wife and in all honesty I just moved that
out. It was inside the Morton building , but I ' m working on the
floor right now to put cement in the Morton building .
A. Everett : So it is still operable and usable?
A , Lecoq : Yes it is , and that will be gone soon .
Chair Hanley: Anyone else?
O . Kelemen : There will be no drainage impact during the extension of the
pad will there?
A. Lecoq : No sir.
Chair Hanley : All set everyone?
A. Lecoq : I would like to add that I did do that ditch according to DEC
specifications . I contacted them before Is did any work at all .
It is what they wanted me to do as far as the type of stone
that was in that. That' s why it' s spread out like this _ It' s got
different layers to hold the soil . It should hold the banks if
we get more than an influx of water, l can 't get flood
insurance though , that' s another thing . I was flooded back
during the last flood and they won ' t give me flood insurance .
Chair Hanley closed the hearing portion of the Lecoq application at 812 PM ,
instructing Mr . Lecoq that he could wait for the decision or call Henry Slater in the
18
morning .
NN NNN NNn. !YNN NNNNNN NNN"V NNNNNN NNNN NN"V 1rNN"'V NNNNVNN NNNNNNNNNN NNN .' rNN 1INN'YNN
FINDINGS - (2 ) LECGQ
A. Everett: I have no problem with it . The property is a nice clean
property , and the replacement of that mobile home with a
new one will certainly enhance the property. I don 't feel
there is any other place that it can be put. The fact that
those utilities are buried underground is quite significant and
there is a large area of pine trees on the back line and that
area is just like a forest on the back and to the side . So I
have no problem with this .
OIV , LaMotte : Henry, where do I find a provision ordinance that grants an
owner the right to upgrade a mobile home ?
H . Slater: Article 1000 .
N . LaMotte : This is what zone ?
H . Slater : RC
N . LaMotte : This says " same size or larger . " So if you ' re going to replace
it with a larger one isn' t it common sense that you would
have to extend the pad and so on ?
H . Slater: In the same sense it has to conform .
Attny. Marcus : This is talking about use requirements and what we are
looking at are area requirements . " No variance allowing
19
enlargements shall be granted by the Zoning Board unless
the this of regulations ordinance
g s d� na ce can be substantially
complied with . " So article 14701 is saying that you still need
compliance with setback or a variance that is legitimately
granted .
O . Kelemen : Are we talking about basically a 2 . 5-foot extension to the old
footprint?
H . Slater: He was non -conforming to begin with but that was through
no fault of his own .
Chair Hanley: Keep in mind that he did try to answer all five requirements
so in the interest of time savings , if you think we can use
any of that feel free .
A.
A . Everett : It's definitely an improvement ,
O . Kelemen : It' beneficial to the surroundings .
A. Everett : He' s replacing a 1962 trailer with a 1995 trailer.
N . LaMotte : Is someone living in the old trailer now Henry?
H . Slater: it' s not fit to be lived in .
Chair Hanley : Okay , so I have :
Replacing a 38-year-old trailer with a 1995 model that meets
HUD standards will result in an improvement of the
character of the existing neighborhood .
20
iv . i_afL'�QiiC : IS There anyway five can work in ir`+ere ii to idea thn# ; in I ; ;
, reximity to the mobile home park ?
Chair Hanley : The new trailer's proximity to an existing trailer park will
not change the essential nature of the neighborhood.
Replacing a 38 years old trailer with a 1835 model,
which meets HUD standards, will result in an
improvement to the character of the existing
neighborhood.
Do I hear a motion?
A_ Everett : So moved .
N . t.aMotte : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor.
All : Aye .
Chair Manley : Be
U . Kelemen : Existing pad .
A . Everett : Underground utility lines .
Chair Hanley : There is no other alternative method that is feasible Id
the applicant to pursue because of the existing
underground utility lines, the location of the drainage
swale and the location of the existing pad. The
monetary cost of moving the existing pad and utility
lines would create a financial hardshlp on the applicant.
21
•
u s ;tear a motion ?
0 . Kelemen : So moved .
A . Everett : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor.
All : Aye . _
Chair Hanley: C .
Attny . Marcus : In situations similar to this you have said that because you
have an existing structure the increase of non-conformity is
not substantial .
Chair Hanley : Because of the pre-existing non -conformity the requested
relief is not substantial .
A. Everett : Do vwe have to identify what it is?
Attny . Marcus : That' s up to you .
H . Slater: I would . It' s beneficial right? You ' ve got one foot of side lot
relief requested v�4tere 15 is required , and 3 . 5 where 25 is
required .
A. Everett: Where do you get the 3 . 5 ?
H . Slater :" He ' s going to extend it 3 . 5 feet beyond the hitch . He 's got 4
feet of it already so he's just going to extend it an additional
3 . 5 feet to the rear .
A . Everett: F I thought the hitch was over here .
H . Slater: He' s extending the 1 -fQgt?
22
Oh . so he' s asking for 3 . 5 additional to the side and 1 foot to
the rear? I thought it was the reverse .
A . Everett: I think it' s more on the back .
H . Slater: That's what I thought .
A. Everett : The hitch is over here and he said it' s 14 feet from the end
of the hitch . Then this says 8 . 5 .
H . Slater: Oh , he' s extending it 2 feet . So if he is extending this pad
width wise 2 feet the full length then he is asking for 2 feet
here and 1 foot there .
A. Everett : Why are you saying just 2 feet . Why wouldn't it be 25 feet?
Why wouldn 't you go 6 . 5 feet from 25?
0 H . Slater: Because if you do that it would be assuming that he was
asking for 18 . 5 feet . But he 's not asking for 18 . 5 feet
because he was no where near conformance to the 25 feet
to begin with . He ' s asking fcr an additional 2 feet right?
Attny. Marcus , I think what you might say is that "The existing structure is
non -compliant by 8 . 5 feet and he is asking for 6. 5 feet. '' That
is assuming that he is adding that other 2 feet onto the back
side .
H . Slater: He is because there is a concrete patio pad on the front
side ,
Chair Hanley: Given the pre-existing non -conformity the requested relief of
23
additional foot from the sido setback of thL existi !
structure and 2 additional feet from the rear setback of the
existing structure is not substantial ,
Attny. Marcus : That' s the idea . If you want to clean it up , when you got to
" from the existing structure , ' its 1 additional foot to the side
from the existing structure or as compared to the existing
structure_
Chair Hanley : Given the pre-existing non.conformity the requested
relief of 2 additional feet to the rear as compared to the
existing structure and 1 additional foot to the side as
compared to the existing structure is not substantial.
Do I hear a motion ?
A. Everett: So moved .
4 . Kelemen : Second .
Chair Hanley: All those in favor.
All : Aye .
Chair Hanley : D .
Since no neighborhood opposition was expressed in
any form at the hearing and in light of the findings of
fact in A , the Zoning Board finds no adverse effect or
negative impact on the physical environmental
conditions of the neighborhood or district.
_4
Do I hear a motion ?
0 . Kelemen : So moved .
A. Everett : Second .
Chair Hanley : All those in favor.
All : Aye .
Chair Hanley : E.
A . Everett : Pre-existing .
Attny. Marcus : If you simply want to look at the fact that you have a 38 year
old trailer and it` s a practical idea to replace it so as to
maintain the usefulness of that portion of his property with
those utility connections then I would say it is not his doing .
oA . Everett : Didn 't he have to replace it with a conforming home?
H . Slater: Yes . You can' t replace it with another non-conforming home
because that is against the regulations . He couldn 't have
come up with a 12-foot mobile home that conforms so he
was in a tight place one way or the other.
A. Everett : I don ' t thinly it was self-created .
N . LaMotte: Sight some of these statements that have just been made
and see what we can come up with _ We may be aiming
toward a verdict of not self-created .
0 . Kelemen : How about it was self-created but he really had no
alternative .
s .� 5
N . LaMotte : If he doesn ' t have an alternative then was it self-created?
Attny . Marcus : He could just not replace it .
Chair Hanley: What do you want to say?
0 , Kelemen : The benefits of the upgrade outweigh the impact of the self-
created or the neon -conformance .
Chair Hanley: Although self-created the benefits of the upgrade vastly
outweigh the non -conformity extending .
H . Slater: How about extended from the pre-existing non -conforming
slab?
Chair Hanley : Extension of the non-conforming pre-existing slab ?
Although self created, the benefit of the upgrade vastly
outweighs the non-conforming extension of the pre-
existing slab .
Do I hear a motion ?
A. tcverett : So moved .
0 . Kelemen : Second .
Chair Hanley: All those in favor.
All : Aye .
Chair Hanley: We find this is an exempt action under 617 . 5 C - 12
Based on the findings do I hear a motion?
0 . Kelemen : So moved .
N _ LaMotte : Second .
26
% • +-. _� : .- !. ICU 11its _ _ _ [ _ V
vi eiaii i � Cit 1iC; . 7"�11 U iose in Ica , or ,
TI ie mina-tes from May 2 , 2000 were approved as corrected by a motion from Anne
Everett , and a second from Oers Kelemen .
?7