HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-01 i
TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 1 , 2000
AGENDA : ( 1 ) Mary Davidson (formerly Mary Lynch)
(2) Michelle S . Berry
MEM . PRESENT: Chair Charles Hanley , Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , and Nick
LaMotte .
ALSO PRESENT . Andrew Morse, Henry Slater, Ron Beck, Attorney Guy Krogh ,
and Mary Davidson .
LEGAL COUNSEL: Randy Marcus
( 1 ) Mary Davidson
Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Mary Davidson ; formerly Mary Lynch of 150 Ed Hill
Rd , Ms . Davidson was requesting an area variance that would allow a 15' fronts a to said
4 . 9 9
property, which has a 1600' easement. Chair Hanley read the application as well as a letter
from Henry Slater to Pat Longakre of Wagner Reality . Both the complete application and
the letter are on file . Chair Hanley stated that there was no neighborhood reaction in the file .
G . Krogh : Mary Lynch , now Mary Davidson , is present with us tonight. I
appreciate having the opportunity to speak; I ' ll try to keep it
brief because I think the application is very basic. I want to
focus on when an area variance can be granted . The history of
this property is as follows : It went to a family named Ink in 1969
and then to Lynch in 1985, you have that before you . The
" � house that is situated on that property has been there since the
late 1800' s. It' s been there forever. Its been used since the
1800 ' s as a single-family dwelling . It' s located in a very rural
9 Y 9 rY
part of the town . It' s mostly cornfields and farmland and
depending on how you want to slice 500 acres out around that
house , you are only going to have 2 or 3 neighbors . What has
happened is that Ms. Lynch , now Mrs . Davidson has remarried
and moved with her husband to Texas. A relocation company
has acquired equitable title , thus relieving her of the technical
burden of reselling . However, now they are refusing title unless
she can get a variance to clear up the problems . So under the
area variance rules we want to look at the benefits to the
applicant . This is a single-family residence , which she used for
many years as a single mother. If she doesn 't have a variance
it ceases to have any value whatsoever as a residence . I know
that one of the purposes of zoning is to enhance and protect
the value of land thus you need to consider what the negative
effect on her land would be and any negative impact on
neighbors. I suggest that there would be none . Like I said , the
house has been there since the 1800's , if it was going to have
a negative impact it would have occurred by now. I don't think
that there is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood . The
house has been in non-conformance with the zoning
regulations for 31 years. There hasn 't been a major problem
2
with it in 31 years . I live on the road ; I have never had a
problem with it. I ' m not aware of any neighbor hbor that would be
objecting to existence of the house with a variance. This is rural
farmland , very low density. The other five factors that your
ordinance says you should consider are "undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood , U again it is basically
cornfields , it' s a very low-density single family residence area .
One of the other factors is whether there is any other feasible
method to clear it other than through use of a variance .
Normally you might acquire some of the land up to the roadway
and maybe you can get it back on the sale . But you are talking
about a relatively old house that has limited value and it' s 1600 '
from the road . The amount of land you would have to purchase
would exceed the value of the house . It' s just not economically
feasible to do it and attempt to resell it. In term of whether or
not the variance is substantial I would submit it is really not
substantial . You ' re talking about an area where there are very
few driveways ; it' s on an open section of relatively straight
roadway . It' s gat a slight downhill grade but your visibility is a
good quarter mile in each direction at a minimum . The only
thing that is being sought to be waved here is the frontage
requirements on the roadways . The land is surrounded
basically by small houses , widely spaced . I ' m sure some of you
they are financing . Apparently they inherited some problems in
the past because of that policy not being tYPicallY employed in
such a transaction and so they have begun to look at all
avenues of possible conflict when they finance a property or
when they propose to sell a property. Because of the risk they
run if they should have to foreclose and become the owner of
that property.
S . Berg : So if she sold this for cash and just shook hands on it, it never
would have come before us ?
H . Slater. Very likely that would be the case .
Attny. Marcus: I think you have to add that as Henry explained , the lending
institutions have over the recent few years become more
sensitive to the these issues. So have members of the bar.
There are many attorneys out there that are simply not as
sensitive as others to zoning matters or to state statutory
requirements such as section 280A. So it's entirely possible
that a given piece of property could change hands even if it
weren't' just a handshake and there were attorneys involved . If
you happen to have attorneys involved who just weren 't
sensitive to an issue like this. It' s happening less and less as
time goes by , but it certainly still happens .
Chair Hanley : So you acquired the house in 1985?
M . Davidson : Correct.
6
Chair Hanley : And was that the nature of the deal ? It was a private deal , no
® attorneys were invol
ved ?
Ived .
M , Davidson : I had an attorney . We had a contract written out between the
Inks and myself. Soon after that I went to the Credit Union and
got a mortgage and paid the Inks off because the interest rate
was lower. It' s had a mortgage through the Credit Union since.
G . Krogh : The original acquisition was owner financed . The Inks took
back a mortgage so it did happen roughly in the manner they
suggest. Later, when interest rates went down , Mary went to a
bank , Lord knows why it wasn't picked up then . Again , I think
the issue is that the house has been there since the 1800 ` s so
maybe no one thought about it.
M . Davidson : They only asked me if it had a deeded driveway . I showed them
all my paperwork and they said fine and gave me the money . I
wasn't aware that anything was wrong .
O. Kelemen : You indicated that there was only one violation and that was the
frontage requirements . Seems there is also a second one ,
which is 10 feet to 15 feet. You indicated in your document that
the 10400t easement would be widened to 15 feet. Has that
been accomplished ?
G . Krogh : It hasn't been accomplished but the owner of the underlying
land has already agreed to do that. So , if we fail to do that then
7
I guess we can 't sell , but we are pretty confident that that is
99 PP
going to happen ,
Chair Hanley: Who is the owner of the underlying land?
A . Morse: I own it. You ' re going to get the 15-foot.
0 . Kelemen : When do you think this might take place?
G . Krogh : The easement?
0. Kelemen : The widened easement .
G . Krogh : Whenever I draft the paperwork and get his signature. We are
trying to solve everything with as few filings as we can . We
have to make the Relocation Company happy . They have an
attorney out of Syracuse who is going to be calling me
tomorrow. The 15-foot easement is just a matter of me drafting
it and it will get filed . I can proved a copy to this Board if you
wish , or to Randy .
0. Kelemen : Can we handle this by a condition?
Attny . Marcus : You can place any condition you want. I just have a question
about that. Is the grant that' s going to be made just an
easement?
Attny . Krogh : It' s proposed to be an easement. The land that surrounds this
house on all sides is farmland that is currently farmed . Without
the ability to cross that 1600-foot strip , its value as farmland
would be pretty much diminished . I ' m not a farmer, I don ' t know
but I have to imagine that it's a major pain for a tractor to have
to drive around a house every time it wants to get to the other
side of the field . The proposal is to maintain it as a right of way
so that it keeps the value of the land as farmland .
Chair Hanley: Are you sir not interested at all in selling a strip to the road .
A. Morse : I ' m not going to sell a strip to the road . That' s 125 feet times
1600 . 1 gave that land in good faith and had no idea that there
was any political aspect to giving that piece of property to a
couple of kids years ago . That' s what I did , I gave it to them .
Chair Hanley: Is that the Inks you are referring to?
A. Morse : Yes . When Inks moved out Mary bought it from the Inks.
S . Berg : Just so it is clear to everybody , I believe that the reason we
have to go from 10 to 15 is for access by emergency vehicles .
Is that correct?
Attny . Marcus : That is the underlying reason for the state requirement.
Chair Hanley : But 280A also requires it .
Attny. Marcus: That' s what I ' m saying , 280A says 15 feet is the minimum . The
reason it says 15 feet is for emergency vehicle access .
Attny. Krogh : There is a state law requiring that 15 feet so we have agreed to
widen it to at least 15 feet. It depends on what this Board wants
to do and then we will see whether or not it is possible .
Attny. Marcus: It' s probably worth pointing out that section 280A that Henry
sent everyone a copy of. 280A has a minimum requirement of
15 feet in width at the road edge and from there through to the
property. 280A also has a requirement that that 15 foot wide
strip is owned in conjunction with the property. Not that there is
a right of way over it. That it' s owned by the owner of the
property . That' s why I was asking this question if there was
intended to be conveyance of the title , the ownership interest
as opposed to just a right of way which is a grant of the right to
use the property .
S . Berg : That' s the second part of the variance then?
Attny . Marcus : That' s exactly what I ' m saying . If you did go through and read
the provisions of 280A you recognize that you as the Zoning
Board are authorized as opposed to the Town law that you
usually operate under to review any variations from the state
law. It specifically says that you have to review it using the
same criteria that you use for the area variance anyway, which
Guy appropriately addressed in his presentation . So you are
really looking at two different variances . One is the variance
from the Town law that Henry pointed out in his original
description of what is going on , which is going from 125 feet
minimum down to what amounts to zero and the second is the
variance from 280A to allow for the possibility of the right of way
to use this 15 foot wide strip as opposed to owning it.
S . Berg : This is a flag lot without the flagpole.
I0
Attny. Marcus: These are sometimes referred to as lollypop lots because it ' s
d of a l just a dot of land on the en on access
� a long s road
Attny . Krogh : That is exactly what we referred to it as , a flag lot. They are all
over the place and one by one they are being dealt with in the
manner we are trying to address them here . It's not just this
town ; there are tons in Lansing too.
N . LaMotte : Chuck, I believe you raised the question about selling . Where
you talking about the fifteen feet or the full 125 feet? Mr. Morse
I think was addressing the issue of the full 125 feet.
Chair Hanley : I was thinking more a smaller increment of that. Creating
something more like a normal flag lot as we have done in the
past.
0 . Kelemen : So you ' re suggesting maybe that they would be able to
purchase 15 feet and maybe give easement?
Chair Hanley: Something along those lines .
0. Kelemen : So he doesn' t have to go around it?
S . Berg : That would eliminate one of the variance requests .
Chair Hanley: On the relief form 280A do we go through the same procedure?
Attny. Marcus : Technically yes , but because these are completely intertwined I
don 't think you have to do two sets of findings. Your fact are
going to be identical with resect to either concern . Either the
ownership verses easement or the 125 verses 0 feet of
frontage . So I don't think you have to go through the findings
tt
twice . I think you are just going to have to look at the criteria
ke
eping both of those things in mind .
S . Berg : I have one more question . Have you considered purchasing
the 15 foot easement from Mr. Morse and then giving him
easement to that 15 feet.
Attny. Krogh : We actually just discussed it because I saw the question
coming . I have two real problems with it. One I was aware of
one I was just informed of. I think you create a bigger problem
than you solve going that route . From a title perspective in
order to have a right of way of the property especially when it is
leased farm land I think you could run into a problem in terms of
a clout on title by having an easement that a third party
pursuant to a lease can utilize . I ' m sure I could work out
something that will hold up under real property law but I ' m not
sure it would be something that every attorney in town would
accept. There are some that it would slide by and others I know
that would say, "wait a minute any future owner or this property
has a right of way over out access . They are going to be
dragging tractors . How do we know we aren 't going to get a guy
a
who runs a plow over it?" I think there is going to be a problem
there and I can think of a few attorneys off the top of my head
that would absolutely reject that. The second problem I
understand and Mr. Beck has informed me of it. If you do that,
12
® then to allow farm access you would actually have install at
least two more driveways . So that the equipment could get in
and out in order to be able to successfully have access plus
you would lose all the acreage from the driveways for farming .
S . Berg : I don ' t understand the extra driveways .
R , Beck: You have a 1600400t driveway . Our access now is through that
driveway . If we can no longer use that driveway then I have to
build one on both sides of it to access the land on both sides .
S . Berg : If you had an easement to use the driveway . . .
R . Beck : That' s what he is saying , that is the problem with the title . I tend
to agree with that.
Chair Hanley: Is that the way you see it too Randy?
Attny , Marcus : From my view it is six of one half a dozen of the other. If you
have ownership by the farm owner and an easement by the
landowner, there are two different parties with two different sets
of interest. If you flip it around and you have the ownership by
the owner of the house and an easement by the farm the end
result if the same it' s just a matter of how it' s worded . The use
of that area is going to be the same . I don't see any physical
difference . I don 't see how there is any real legal difference
either. I ' m not exactly in agreement with Guy on the issue of
what concerns people who are leasing the farm would have .
Because if the easement rights across the driveway said you
13
could use it wa just the single owner of both sides could use
J Y a g
it I think it eliminates the question . You have to have agreement
from the property owner for something like this to come into
existence .
Chair Hanley: We will now close the hearing section of this application and
move on to the next. We will return to this application for a
deliberative session . You' re welcome to wait or you can call
Henry in the morning .
TOWN OF DRYDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
AUGUST 1 , 2000
AGENDA : ( 1 ) Mary Davidson (formerly Mary Lynch )
14
(2) Michelle S . Berry
MEM . PRESENT : Chair Charles Hanley, Stuart Berg , Oers Kelemen , and Nick
LaMotte .
ALSO PRESENT , Andrew Morse, Henry Slater, Ron Beck, Attorney Guy Krogh ,
and Mary Davidson .
LEGAL COUNSEL : Randy Marcus
#*# RR# R*# RARR*# 4*# #A #**#*#RA# R*# R*RR# R##*#*BAR*#**R*RRR#**R## BARK*R*# BARK*#
(2) Michelle Berry
Chair Hanley opened the hearing of Michelle Berry of 48 Brooktondale Rd . who was
requesting a variance to expand her existing kitchen and bedroom . Chair Hanley read the
application , which is on file . Chair Hanley noted that there was no neighborhood reaction of
any kind .
M . Berry: In addition to what you have in front of you I do have neighbors
►Y Y Y 9
reactions . The lady that lives to my right, Hope Manville actually
wrote a note . The person across the street from her, Rob and
Marybeth Ozbome have spoken to me and wanted me to
convey that they have no problems with what I ' m ( proposing ) . A
neighbor across from me directly uphill to the left, said that it
was all right with them . The actually had to go through this
process when they wanted to add on to their house .
Chair Hanley : Anything else you wanted to add?
M . Berry : Please. It' s bumping out 3 feet and I have showed you pictures
from the side of the house , what that would look like. All the
15
homes in the neighborhood probably don 't satisfy the 70400t
from the centerline and ours has been there for 50 years and
we are only asking to bump out three more feet in a concave
section of the house . That was the most logical area to proceed
with the addition . There were other problems with using the
other sides of the house .
Chair Hanley : I ' ll read into the record then on of the letters submitted July 31 ,
2000 . " Dear Mr. Slater, I am the closest neighbor to Michelle
Berry and support her request for a variance . " That is signed
Hope Mandiville of 52 Brooktondale Rd . If there are no more
comments then I will open it up to the Board for questions .
S . Berg : I just want to understand the way this is going to look. In
particular, I understand from the pictures that if you look at the
pictures , the middle of the front indents and I know that is going
to come out three feet past the other parts of the house? The
question is what is going to happen to this roofline?
M . Berry: It' s going to extend out three feet also and instead of sitting
back in what use to be the little patio it will now extend out.
S . Berg : So it will match the rooflines next to it?
M . Berry: It will stick out the three feet. As it is now there are three
sections and there will continue to be three sections . As a
matter of fact I brought the blueprints if you want to see (how
the completed building will look) _
16
S . Berg : Please .
The blue prints were displayed and clarification was made
about where the new rootline would be and what the extenuation would look like .
Chair Hanley : In terms of future findings , by moving out to join with these
other two units it helps with the framing elements of the new
addition right?
M . Berry : Yes .
S . Berg : Other than the letters that have been presented there were no
other letters?
Chair Hanley: No other reaction at all .
H . Slater: For the record , Mr. Ozborne called me , but I advised him that
he should give something in writing because talking to me is
® hearsay and inadmissible. But I did also tell him a non-negative
was probably not bad either. But apparently he didn 't chose to
write something , but I did talk to him and I can confirm what the
applicant is stating is true it' s just inadmissible.
Chair Hanley: Is there an estimated cost for the whole project?
M . Berry : I know what I ' m going to have to pay. Estimated project cost, I
put 45 , 000 because that was just for the two bedrooms . There
is also a wall to be put in and piping to be done so it gets higher
but just for the three feet bumping out those two rooms (it's
45 , 000) ,
17
Chair Hanley : Anyone else? Okay then I will close the hearing portion . You
are welcome to hang around or call in the morning .
*,rws+rkir*rr,r»*,t, s. r*wwx+., :www*x�w,► rw.r,rrtt+.s*w.t*, arw,►w,►�*, +rw+wa,e+.*a*,rrvr,e*,tirww ww* t,t,rr,►�*,t*
( 1 ) Lynch-Davidson
Chair Hanley: Can I get a quick sense of the Board ?
S . Berg : I don 't have a problem with it. But I would probably prefer that it
was only variance instead of two . Even if it was sold for a dollar
and access was given to the farmer it would eliminate one of
the two issues . I would feel more comfortable with that.
18
N . LaMotte: I don't have any serious problem with it. I ' m having some
40
question in my mind and perhaps the attorney can answer that.
That is the issue is whether or not ( Mr. Morse ) is adamant
about turning over title for the 15 feet. He was obviously very
firm in his statement about conveying 125 feet , The question
that has crept up on me is whether that same (feeling ) is
involved with the 15 feet.
Attny . Krogh : I can answer because that is what I talked to him about in the
parking lot. He absolutely wants to keep his land . He doesn 't
want to chop it up . He doesn 't want to surrender even the 15-
foot ownership . He would rather have it be a right -of-way so it
doesn't risk his farmland . He doesn 't risk the right-of-way . He
40 doesn' t release it. He is pretty firm on that ground .
N . LaMotte : Okay , you have answered the question for me .
S . Berg : But he is willing to increase the easement from 10 to 15 feet?
Attny. Krogh : Yes ,
O . Kelemen : I don 't have a problem with it at all . I would also feel mA ' OffiWb
comfortable (with only one variance) but if Mr. Morse is that
adamant about it then that is not a solution . I think it should be
conditional that there be a 15 foot easement.
Chair Hanley : I have feelings similar to what Stuart has said . It worries me
down the road that we create all these . This is a unique
property . The 15 foot deeded easement would make it so much
I
19
cleaner. I feel like we are passing on a problem that some other
Board will deal with in a messier situation if perhaps it' s not
farmland around there in 50 years .
N . LaMotte : If we proceed with variance that is clean , that is there .
Chair Hanley: It' s just that it seems to be a cleaner solution than granting two
variances . Okay, A :
Is there anything in that applicant's statement that we can use
and adapt?
Attny . Marcus : As pointed out in the presentation , the house or the lot has
remained in this current configuration for 31 years and there
hasn ' t been any objection presented to the town about the
circumstances of this lot. There ' s about a half dozen ways of
saying that. The reason I point that out right u front may not be
Y 9p
as obvious as I ' m thinking it is . Usually when you are looking at
a variance request you are looking at something that is being
proposed , something that hasn 't been done yet, and you' re
trying to evaluate what the future impact is going to be of a
physical change being made. Particularly under this heading of
the valuation of the possibility of an undesirable change to the
neighborhood . So this is a different situation . Regardless of the
issues related to ownership and the actual width , the physical
situation has been this way for 31 years . There is no proposal
to change the physical situation . So this is somewhat different
20
than the vast majority of the circumstances you are asked to
review.
Chair Hanley: Does this say that?
"The lot has been in non-compliance for over 30 years with no
problems detected by any of the neighbors and no negative
reaction expressed to the Town . "
Attny. Marcus: I would say no problems detected by the code enforcement
office . The rest of it relates to the neighbors .
Chair Hanley: "The lot has been in non-compliance for over 30 years with no
problems noted by the code enforcement office and no
negative reaction expressed by any of the neighbors .
S . Berg : I have a question . Henry I guess this is more directed toward
you , if there were 125 foot of frontage on the road , how far
back would that have to go ?
H . Slater: It would have to be off the road easement area to be a
dedicated parcel of land that would address where the
easement is . Actually that is only partially true. Because if it' s
an easement road they actually own to the center of the road
but if it' s a deeded road then what I said is correct. In this case I
think that the road is probably of a sufficient age and it' s a
deeded easement. But it always makes sense to put it at the
edge .
21
Attny . Marcus : In answering your question Stuart, if you have inches worth of
125 feet of frontage and it would satisfy the zoning
requirements .
H . Slater: I always recommend a foot so you can measure it and in case
there is an error where the line is . Then you have some sort of
forgiveness if you should find yourself on the wrong side of that
error.
Attny. Marcus : You may recall from a previous discussion of flag lots, there are
actually legitimate subdivided lots that have been created in the
town of Dryden specifically with that configuration that you' re
describing .
S . Berg : My point of bringing that up is this : if we are talking about 1 foot
by 125 feet and we are talking about deeding that right-of-way
and then giving easement to the farmer you effectively have
the same thing and a solution that is feasible .
Attny . Marcus : It' s feasible except that you have heard from the owner of the
driveway and he is not going to sell it. I don 't disagree with you
Stuart.
S . Berg : I ' m just saying that there are relatively feasible solutions.
Attny . Marcus : Mechanically it could be done that way .
Chair Hanley: Is that enough for A or do we need more?
Attny. Marcus: I think it is always worth noting when you are referencing this
undesirable change in the neighborhood that you have no
22
neighborhood objection _ The point I was trying to get across is
that you may want to have an additional statement that says ,
° no physical change is being proposed by the applicant. °
S . Berg : When you go from a 10 foot to a 15 foot easement is the
driveway going to change at all?
Attny . Krogh : Ironically the driveway is already 15 foot wide . In fact it may be
a little over 15 . It's from the years of gravel being put on it and
Ron ( Beck) running tractors up it. There actually wouldn' t be a
change by increasing the easement. We would be just
conforming the easement to what already exists .
Chair Hanley: It now reads: " No physical change in the property is
proposed by the applicant. The lot has been in non-
® compliance for over 30 years with no problems noted by
the town code enforcement department and no negative
reaction expressed by the neighbors. Positive support
from the neighbors was expressed at the hearing with no
negative reaction from any of the neighbors of any kind . "
There was a motion by Stuart Berg and a second by Nick
LaMotte with all Board members in favor.
Chair Hanley: Be
Attny. Marcus : I don 't know what you can put down here aside from the fact
that the owner of the adjoining property has stated that he
wouldn't sell it.
23
S . Berg : If it hadn' t happened yet, this is where you would do it
differently.
Attny. Marcus: That' s exactly right. The conveyance of this property as it sits
was made in 1969 . The same person has owned the adjoining
property all along .
S . Berg : My opinion is that it can be achieved but it is not feasible
because the owner of the land that they would have to
purchase will not sell .
Attny. Marcus : And that' s the only alternative .
N . LaMotte : To me you are contradicting yourself when you' re saying it can
be achieved but it can't.
Chair Hanley : " Since the neighboring property owner will not sell any
additional land to the applicant there is no other feasible
method for the applicant to pursue other than the area
Variance and the variance from section 280A. °
A motion was made by Stuart Berg and a second by (Vick
LaMotte. All members were in favor.
Chair Hanley: CO
" The relief requested is substantial . "
Motion by Stuart Berg and second by Oers Kelemen . All
members were in favor.
Chair Hanley : D .
"See A. "
24
members were in favor. Motion by Stuart Berg and second by Oers Ke/emen . All
Chair Hanley : E .
Attny. Marcus : You may want to point out that the original conveyance of this
property in this format was less than three months after the
original adoption of the zoning ordinance . As Mr. Krogh pointed
out that it is not a legal excuse , but as a practical matter I am
confident in saying that less than three months after the
ordinance was adopted there were probably a lot of
conveyances of property that were not in conformity. There was
probably a lot of lack of understanding and knowledge of the
ordinance requirements.
S . Ber : Had the arts that we are talking about in the ordinance been
9 P 9
there since 1969?
H . Slater: Absolutely. No question about it. I would also point out that it
was a different person than the applicant.
Chair Hanley: " Since the creation of this property occurred less than 90
days after the adoption of zoning, and the property has
changed hands twice in the intervening period with no
party discovering the noncompliance, the ZBA finds
reason for flexibility in deciding that the alleged difficulty
was not self-created . "
�5
members were in favor. Motion was made by Stuart Berg, a second by N. LaMotte. All
Chair Hanley: Do I hear a motion based on the findings?
S . Berg : I would like to make a motion that we approve the applicants
request for relief from the frontage , and ownership
requirements from town law section 280A, conditioned upon
the easement being increased from 10 to a minimum of 15 feet
in width .
O . Kelemen : Second .
All members were in favor.
*** !## !#* !R! !## R*####R*R!R!## R*R !## ### *R!## #*R ** !*# RRlR# !## RRRR!*#RR**!###* A **!#!#* AR# ###!* RRR
(2 ) Berry
Chair Hanley: Can I get a quick sense of the Board?
N . LaMotte: I see not problems with it.
O. Kelemen : None what so ever.
26
S . Berg : No concerns .
Ol
Chair Hanley : A.
"A letter of support from one neighbor and no negative
reaction was offered at the public hearing . The
construction of this home precedes the adoption of zoning
and parts of the home are already in non-compliance with
the setback requirements and the minimal changes
suggested by the applicant would produce no undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood."
A motion was made by S. Berg, a second by N. LaMotte with all
the members in favor.
Chair Hanley : B .
Side setback requirements , location of the septic system
and basement stairs and the topography of the property
make this the only feasible method for the applicant to
pursue . "
A motion was made by 0. Kelemen, a second by S. Berg with
all members in favor.
Chair Hanley: C .
"The additional 3 feet of non-compliance is not
substantial . "
A motion was made by 0. Kelemen, a second by S. Berg with
all members in favor.
27
Chair Hanley : D .
The new front elevation of the structure will further
enhance the ` homey' residential character of the home. "
A motion was made by N. LaMotte, a second by S. Berg with all
members in favor.
Chair Hanley : E .
"We find the difficulty was self-created . "
A motion was made by S. Berg, a second by O. Keiemen with
all members in favor.
28