605 Vestal Parkway West Vestal New York Telephone (607) Ext. 201 Fax (607)

Transcription

1 605 Vestal Parkway West Vestal New York Telephone (607) Ext. 201 Fax (607) ZBA BOARD MEMBERS: Chairman - Mark S. Johnson Mark Tomko Tom Smallcomb Ray Ferraro Steve A. Milkovich, Jr. Attorney - Matt Butler, ESQ. Alternates: Ken Cramer Dave Leonard TOWN OF VESTAL In the Matter of the Application of Chris & Rita Doolittle DECISION For variances as required by Chapter 24, Article IV, Division 2, Section (b) (4) (a), (b) and (c) of the Code of The Town of Vestal, Broome County, New York (Zoning Ordinance) At a meeting duly scheduled for January 22, 2009, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Vestal held public hearing to consider the application Chris and Rita Doolittle, regarding premises situate at 316 Maple Street, (tax map no.: ) for variances as required by Chapter 24, Article IV, Division 2, Section (b) (4) (a), (b) and (c) of the Code of The Town of Vestal, Broome County, New York (Zoning Ordinances), pertaining to a previously constructed carport being located less than 10 feet to the rear of the principle structure and being built directly on the property line; having a previously constructed storage shed less than 10 feet to the rear of the principle structure and not having the required 3 foot setback from the side property line in an RA- 2, One and Two family Residence District, so as to be permitted to construct additions on the principle dwelling. Appearing in support of the variance requests were the applicants, Chris and Rita Doolittle, and their attorney Patrick J. Kilker, Esq. Page 1 of 5

2 No one appeared in opposition to the application. After due deliberation, the Zoning Board of Appeals makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: The Doolittles are requesting this Board s permission to allow their carport and storage shed to remain in their current location. Both structures were placed in violation of the Code- The carport is located in the front of the home rather than 10 feet to the rear, and is also situate on the property line; the storage shed is also not located 10 feet to the rear of the principle structure and is also situate on the property line. The applicants explained that they were in need of a car-port due to Mrs. Doolittles health problems. She had fallen during a previous winter and needed a covered place to park their vehicle. They explained that the car-port is structurally reinforced to withstand snow loads. They advised that the car-port has been in place since 2003, and that none of their neighbors object to the car-port s location, or for that matter, the location of their storage shed. This home sits back from the road approximately 117 feet and is really not visible from the road. They also advised that they were wrongfully advised by others that building permits were not needed. With regard to the storage shed, the applicants advised that there had been a ramshackled old shed in that location previously, but that it was torn down due to a mold infestation. Mrs. Doolittle actually became seriously ill due to exposure to the mold. Mr. Doolittle took it upon himself to tear down that hazard and replace it with a shed that was more functional and more appealing to look at. Amish Woodworks told him that a building permit was not needed for the shed. While he did not buy the shed from Amish Woodworks, he continued under that false impression. Page 2 of 5

3 Board Member Mark Tomko expressed concern regarding the carport as he thought it would create a precedent. It was discussed that there were several other similar car-ports in Vestal, and that this one was set far away from view. The new shed is 12 feet x 20 feet, and is in same location as the prior shed, and is set on a gravel bed with concrete posts. The applicants explained that there is no other viable place for the shed, as moving it would restrict access for their snow blower, tractor, etc. They would also need to remove fences, gardens and a fireplace. This board notes that the shape of this lot, as well as most in that neighborhood, is not uniform. This is a situation where much went wrong in terms of communication and disinformation. However, the need for both the shed and car-port are obvious. It does not appear to be a case where anyone would be affected by these structures continued existence. The Board is, in fact, in receipt of several letters from neighboring property owners stating that they have no objection to the variance requests. Attorney Kilker reiterated that this property is unique in that it is set far back from the road, thereby ameliorating any possible issue of the eye-sore argument. This Board is in possession of Broome County s 239 l and m review. Broome County has not identified any significant countywide or intercommunity impact associated with the variance requests. The hearing was opened to the public, and neighbor, Richard Demars of 320 Myrtle Ave stated he was in favor of the variances. He stated that the carport and shed would not create any negative impact on the neighborhood. In fact, he stated that the new shed is like the Taj Mahal compared to the previous one. While this may be a self created hardship, the applicants obvious need for the variance, and their unintentional violation of the Code warrant the relief requested. Page 3 of 5

4 Board members Mark Johnson, Chairman, Thomas Smallcomb, Ray Ferraro, Mark Tomko and Steve Milkovich stated that they had visited the site and were familiar with the character and nature of the area. A motion was made by Tom Smallcomb to grant a seven (7) foot side yard variance for the carport, and allow it to remain in the front yard. And to grant a six (6) inch +/- rear line setback variance, and a seven (7) foot +/- rear building setback variance from the residence to a back yard shed. The motion was seconded by Steve Milkovich. A vote was called and: Therefore in consideration of the above, and in balancing the factors of 1.) Change in character of locality; 2.) Alternate methods to achieve what the applicant desires; 3.) The degree of variance sought; 4.) Effect on the physical conditions existing in the locality; and 5.) Any selfcreated difficulties, the requests for a seven (7) foot side yard variance for the carport, and allow it to remain in the front yard. And to grant a six (6) inch +/- rear line setback variance, and a seven (7) foot +/- rear building setback variance from the residence to a back yard shed, are hereby GRANTED by a 4-1 vote. The votes were cast as follows: Chairman Mark Johnson-Aye, Thomas Smallcomb-AYE, Ray Ferraro-AYE, Mark Tomko-NAY and Steven Milkovich-AYE. In the event that construction is not commenced within four months from the date hereof, then the variance granted by this Decision shall be deemed revoked. The Code Enforcement Officer is herewith authorized to take the necessary action to carry out the provisions of this Decision, and ensure that the construction is performed to the requirements of the Code. Page 4 of 5

5 Dated: March 23, 2009 OF THE TOWN OF VESTAL BY: Mark S. Johnson, Chairman Page 5 of 5