BZA February 16, 2010 Bores

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Ms. Mary Lee Brezina, V.Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on February 16, 2010 with Board members, Glen Quigley, Tezeon Wong, Bill Skomrock,Sr. and alternate Ken Blair present.

 

All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in.

 

Ms. Brezina read the applicants request:

 

Robert and Linda Bores request dual area variances: 1) to construct a 140 sq.ft. front porch onto an existing non-conforming house located 66 ft. from the Grace St. Right-of-Way; the porch will be 56 ft. from the RoW (vs. Art V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. RoW setback) & 2) to build a 440 sq.ft. accessory structure 96 ft. from the RoW (vs. req’d 100 ft. setback & Sec. 5.02A permitting 1 detached garage & 1 accessory structure making this a 3rd accessory building at 15954 Grace St.). This is an expansion of an existing non-conforming structure requiring relief from Art. XIV, Sec. 14.04 A&B & 14.05.

 

Ms.Brezina asked the applicant to state his case.  Mr. Bores explained that a covered front porch would shelter visitors out of the rain and would also improve the appearance of the house.

 

Ms. Brezina asked the board to consider the porch amendment first.  She distributed photos taken earlier showing the placement of the buildings on the lot.

 

Ms. Brezina asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions, Ms. Brezina called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

Glen Quigley moved to grant the variance to construct a front porch as requested; Ken Blair seconded the motion.

 

Glen Quigley                 yes

Ken Blair                    yes

Mary Lee Brezina             yes

Tezeon Wong                  yes

     Bill Skomrock,Sr.            yes

 

Ms. Brezina informed the applicant his variance request #1 was granted.

 

She then asked the board to consider the variance to construct a third accessory building.  Mr. Bores pointed out the position of the second garage to the rear of the attached garage with doors facing north to utilize the existing driveway access.

 

Mr. Quigley confirmed this would be a pole building that would crowd others.  Mr. Skomrock Sr. asked about the peak direction.  Mr. Bores said the peak would run east-west and be least noticeable from the road.  Mr. Wong said he had no problem with the set-back as it was to the rear of the existing garage.

 

Ms. Brezina asked if the audience had any questions.  Mr. Yeacker said that zoning does allow outbuildings but not attached to the house.  He asked if this new structure were near the well – Mr. Bores answered no. 

 

Mr. Blair asked if 8 feet separation was adequate.  Mr. Bores confirmed it was not wide enough for a vehicle; he intended to have a rock garden there.

 

Ms. Brezina asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions, Ms. Brezina called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

Glen Quigley moved to grant the variance to construct a detached garage (a third accessory structure)as requested; Tezeon Wong seconded the motion.

 

Glen Quigley                 yes

Ken Blair                    yes

Mary Lee Brezina             yes

Tezeon Wong                  yes

     Bill Skomrock,Sr.            yes

 

Ms. Brezina informed the applicant his variance request #2 was granted.

 

Ms. Brezina read to the Appellant and audience, “Within 30 days after service of the minutes granting your request, if someone wishes to challenge this decision through the court, he or she may. The required permit can be issued once all requirements regarding this application are satisfied, although if you plan construction it is recommended you wait the 30 days before proceeding.  The challenge could reverse or negate our decision.  At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”. 

 

Ms. Brezina informed the Appellant and the audience that the 30-day period commences with the Appellants’ signing receipt of the signed minutes.  They will be mailed registered return receipt to the Appellant.  All persons receiving notice of the hearing will receive copies of the minutes.

 

The board members wished the applicants good luck with their project.

 

Ms. Brezina adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m.

 

Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the porch variance #1: to construct a 140 sq.ft. front porch onto an existing non-conforming house located 66 ft. from the Grace St. Right-of-Way;  the porch will be 56 ft. from the RoW (vs. Art V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. RoW setback)

 

1)  The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the porch addition would improve the home’s liveability.

 

2)   The variance is substantial (>10%) but reasonable in this neighorhood’s location.

 

3)   The essential character of the neighborhood would be enhanced, and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this variance.

 

4)      The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.

 

5)      The owner purchased the property without specific knowledge of these zoning restrictions.

 

6) The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance given the RoW change since the house was built.

 

7)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable; there were no adjacent property owners in attendance to object.

 

Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant the porch variance 2) to build a 440 sq.ft. accessory structure 96 ft. from the RoW (vs. req’d 100 ft. setback & Sec. 5.02A permitting 1 detached garage & 1 accessory structure making this a 3rd accessory building at 15954 Grace St.).

 

1) The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the garage addition would add needed vehicle and other storage area.

 

2)   The 4 ft. variance is not substantial but allows a reasonable location to the rear of the existing garage.

 

3)   The essential character of the neighborhood would be enhanced, and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of this variance.

 

6)      The variance has no effect on delivery of governmental services.

 

7)      The owner purchased the property without specific knowledge of these zoning restrictions.

 

2) The property owner’s predicament could not be obviated through some method other than a variance given the garage is now a third accessory structure.

 

3)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  Such other criteria, which the Board believes relates to determining whether the zoning regulation is equitable; there were no adjacent property owners in attendance to object.

 

The board members discussed issues addressed at the previous county zoning seminar. Items clarified were the 30 day rule & property owners with standing before the court and any conditions added by the BZA must be relevant to the case.

 

Ms. Brezina adjourned the BZA meeting at 8:10 p.m.

 

 

Marge Hrabak

Secretary