BZA July 27, 2010 Dottore

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel, Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on July 27, 2010 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock,Sr., Tezeon Wong and Glen Quigley present.

 

All in attendance for this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Ray Fidel read the applicants request:

Todd Suszynski, agent for owner Thomas Dottore, requests dual area variances: #1) to construct a 352 sq.ft.  attached garage (to an existing house located at 12055 Butternut Rd.) 84 ft. from the Butternut Rd. Right-of-Way (vs. Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. setback from RoW) & #2) to construct a 24 x 24 ft. accessory building 10 ft. from the west side lot line (vs. Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 30 ft. side line setback).

The Chairman asked the applicant to state his case.  Mr. Suszynski said the Dottores had contacted him because they needed more garage and storage space for equipment and items now stored in a too-small shed and outdoors.  For the 1st variance he suggested adding a third 16’ x 22’ garage bay to blend in to the front of the present garage as the most economical of space and driveway function.  He noticed that both nextdoor houses were much closer to the road than the required 100 ft. from road Right of Way (RoW).  The 2nd variance would apply to replacing the existing shed (now 10 ft. from the side lot line) with a new 24’ x 24’ polebarn.  The adjacent hillside, woods, stream and garden don’t allow enough space to comply with the 30 ft. side setback.

 

Mr. Fidel asked the board to consider Variance #1 first and asked for comments.  The board consensus was that the 3rd garage bay would blend esthetically with the existing garage and between the 2 adjacent houses.  There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

Glen Quigley moved to accept Var. #1: for the 3rd garage bay as presented;  Bill Skomrock, Sr.  seconded the motion.

                Mary Lee Brezina                                                             yes

                Tezeon Wong                                                                    yes

                Bill Skomrock, Sr.                                                             yes

                Ray Fidel                                                                             yes

                Glen Quigley                                                                     yes

 

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance request #1 was granted.

For the polebarn variance #2, Mr. Fidel asked why they could not move the building to comply with the 30 ft. setback?  The approximate distance between the side line and the garden is 45 ft. leaving insufficient space for the polebarn.  Mr. Wong said that 10 ft. was a large variance request.  Mr. Skomrock, Sr. said the distance to the rear lot line as about 120 ft. with woods, hillside and stream.

 

Mr. Suszynski offered a possible 15 ft. side setback, acknowledging the angled lot line, for a compromise.  Mr. Dottore would use the building to store snowmobiles, tractors and stuff!  Ms. Brezina agreed that moving the building 20 ft. would shade the garden area.

 

Mr. Fidel asked if the lot had been surveyed.  Mr. Dottore replied that stakes were placed by the adjacent owner for the angled lot line.  Mr. Suszynski agreed to mark this angled line for inspection of the minimum 15 ft. polebarn foundation setback.

 

Mr. Wong asked the owners if they would amend their variance request to 15 ft. side line setback.  Mr. and  Mrs.  Dottore agreed to the amended 15 ft.

There being no more questions, Mr. Fidel called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the variance.

 

Tezeon Wong moved to accept Var. #2: for the amended 15 ft. side line polebarn setback as presented; Glen Quigley seconded the motion.

                Mary Lee Brezina                                                             yes

                Tezeon Wong                                                                    yes

                Bill Skomrock, Sr.                                                             yes

                Ray Fidel                                                                             yes

                Glen Quigley                                                                     yes

 

Mr. Fidel informed the applicant his variance request #2 was granted.

Mr. Fidel 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”. 

Mr. Fidel 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 applicant good luck with their projects.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 8:10 p.m.

Mr. Quigley questioned continued use of the continued  “… 30 day court challenge etc.” reading given the persons of standing ruling.  He will research and report back to the board.

 

Based on the following FINDING OF FACTS, the Board has voted to grant variance #1 for the 3rd garage bay as presented and #2 for the amended 15 ft. side line polebarn  setback as presented:

1)         The parcel could yield a reasonable return but the proposed        plans allow extra storage needed for car and accessory equipment.

 

2)            These variances are substantial but the garage addition would be seamless and the storage building setback is reasonable on this lot.

3)            The essential character of the neighborhood would not be substantially altered and the adjoining property owners would suffer no detriment as a result of these variances.

4)                  The variances have 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 these variances as the proposed additions integrate best with present use and require the least amount of disturbance to remaining areas of the lot.

 

7)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variances.  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 to the variances.

 

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA meeting at 8:15 p.m.

Marge Hrabak.  Secretary