Newbury BZA meeting August 21, 2012

The Newbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals public hearing was called to order by Mr. Ray Fidel Chairman, at 7:30 p.m. on August 21, 2012 with Board members, Mary Lee Brezina, Bill Skomrock, Sr., Chris Yaecker and alternate Ken Blair present.  Ms. Endres presented photos for board review. All in attendance who wished to speak at this hearing were duly sworn and asked when testifying to state their name and confirm being sworn in. Mr. Fidel read the area variance request:

Terry Crislip & Linda Lewicki request an area variance to locate a 10 ft x 12 ft shed 89 ft. from the Whitewood Dr. Right-of-Way and 6 ft. from the east side lot line in the front yard (vs, Art. V, Sec. 5.05 req’d 100 ft. from R-o-W & 30 ft. side setback & Sec. 5.02 C6b disallowing front yard placement). The property is located at 11161 Whitewood Dr. in the R-1 district.

Mr. Fidel asked the applicant to present his case.  Mr. Crislip said he had his driveway replaced and added a pad for a shed (paid a shed downpayment) not realizing he needed a permit for the accessory building.  Ms. Lewicki said they chose this location for a new shed to house the snow-blower for easier accessibility because the lot slopes away to the rear making it difficult to reach such equipment in their rear accessory building.  They had approached the neighbors who had no objections to the site showing the snow-blower on the screen views.  The style of the shed would have an overhang with a window with flower-boxes.

 

Mr. Fidel asked the board for questions or comments.  Mr. Blair said he viewed the site and said “ the board had probably approved worse “ in the past.  Mr. Skomrock Sr. said the property line shown on the aerial view must be wrong.  Neighbors confirmed finding the survey pins showing the correct property lines.  Mrs. Bizsak added information that the original lot had been 5 acres that were then split in two.  Mr. Skomrock, Sr. cites the topo map dropping off severely making the shed placement the only logical choice (slightly before the line of the house) for the applicant and the neighbood.  Ms. Brezina agreed it made more sense to house the equipment in a small shed accessible to the driveway.  Mr. Bizsak agreed there was no room to go around the house to access the rear.  Mr. Yaecker asked if there was a mortgage or re-finance that would have required a survey?  Mrs. Bizsak said they found the survey pins for the lot split. 

 

Mr. Fidel agreed the applicant chose the only logical site given the topo restrictions.  He asked for any additional questions from the audience.  Mr. Cox, an Auburn Rd, rear neighbor, said he was here because he was unsure of the requested variance limits but had no objections.

 

Mr. Fidel asked the board for additional comments or questions.  There being no more questions, he called for a motion stating that a yes vote would grant the area variance as requested.

 

Ken Blair moved to approve the Area Variance as requested; Bill Skomrock Sr. seconded the motion that passed by unanimous vote. 

 

            Ken Blair                                                         yes

Bill Skomrock, Sr.                                           yes

            Chris Yaecker                                                 yes

            Mary Lee Brezina                                           yes

            Ray Fidel                                                        yes

 

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 challenge could reverse or negate our decision. 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.  At the time you receive your permit you must also comply with all other requirements of Newbury Township zoning”.

 

Mr. Fidel adjourned the BZA hearing at 7:45 p.m.  As the applicants left, Board members wished them good luck. 

The board established the Findings of Fact:

1)      The lot could yield a reasonable return without the variance however the owner needs this variance to place the shed for winter equipment access on this topo-restricted lot.

2)      The variance on the east is substantial but not for the front setback.

3)      The essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered nor would adjoining properties suffer substantial detriment as a result of this variance.

4)      The variance would not adversely affect the delivery of government services.

5)      The lot owner purchased the property without knowledge of the zoning restriction.

6)      The owner’s predicament could not feasibly be obviated without this variance as it is the only logical location for the shed.

7)      The spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.  There were no neighbors in attendance to object to this variance.

Mr. Fidel adjourned the meeting at 7:55.

 

Marge Hrabak Secretary                    

 

 

 

Signatures of the Newbury Board of Zoning Appeals:

 

 

_________________________                                              ____________________________

Ray Fidel, Chairman                                                               Chris Yaecker

 

_________________________                                              _________________________

Ken Blair, Alt.                                                                        Mary Lee Brezina      

 

_________________________                                              __________________________

Bill Skomrock, Sr.                                                                   Marge Hrabak, Sec’y  BZA

                                                                                                Date: ____________________