ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 1
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF ORCHARD PARK, Erie County, New York, minutes of the April 20, 2004 meeting held at the Basement Public Meeting Room, S4295 South Buffalo Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Henry Jarocha, Acting Chairman
Donald Holmwood
Robert Lennartz
Deborah Chimes
Jo Ann Litwin, Alternate
EXCUSED: Remy Orffeo, Chairman
OTHERS PRESENT: David Holland, Assistant Building Inspector
J. Michael Wolf, Deputy Town Attorney
Rosemary Seivert, Zoning Board Secretary
The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance and the Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., stating that if anyone appearing before the Board was related through family, financial or business relationship with any member of the Board, it is incumbent upon him to make it known under State Law and the Town Code of Ethics.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE March 16, 2004 REGULAR MEETING:
A motion was made by Mrs. Chimes, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to accept the minutes of the March 16, 2004, Zoning Board meeting and the reading of these minutes is hereby dispensed with as each member of the Board has previously received copies thereof.
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
JAROCHA AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LITWIN AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE RESOLUTION WAS DULY ADOPTED.
The Acting Chairman stated that all persons making an appeal before this Board would be heard in accordance with the Town Laws of the State of New York, Article16, Sections 267, 279 and 280a, Subdivision 3, and the Town of Orchard Park Zoning Ordinance. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board of Appeals may present to a court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal, specifying the grounds of the illegality. Such petition must be presented to the court within 30 days after
filing of the decision in the office of the Town Clerk. The Acting Chairman Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 2
stated that site inspections of all cases presented tonight were made by:
CHIMES AYE
JAROCHA AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LITWIN AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
The Chairman
NEW BUSINESS
1. ZBA File #6-04, Barbara & Brian Ruestow, 7901 Michael Road, Zoned R-2 (Part of Farm Lot 473, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#154.13-1-2), requests an area variance to construct an accessory storage building with a building area of 2,400 square feet. Building area of dwelling is 1,487 square feet. Accessory area shall not dominate principal use area, Section 144-5B.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Brian Ruestow, petitioner
Mr. Ruestow presented plans for a proposed storage building and explained to the members that demolishing his existing storage structure would be more economical based on its age and condition. He told the members that he would place the contents of the demolished structure in the new building.
Mr. Holmwood verified that the building to be demolished is a two-story building, 42’ x 22’, and that it presently allows the petitioner 1,600-sq. ft. of storage space. In addition to this structure, a 16’ x 24’ garden shed exists on the property, giving the petitioner approximately 320-sq. ft. additional storage space. He further verified that the residence is 1,487 sq. ft. Mr. Holmwood noted that the applicant would have an additional 600 square feet available to him if the variance were granted.
Mr. Lennartz told the petitioner that the zoning of the area had been created for a purpose and that he feels the size of the variance being requested is significant. He asked the petitioner to justify this request. Mr. Ruestow told the members that his family has no garage to store his four family vehicles and an additional vehicle that he intends to restore. He told the members that he did not feel the structure would have an effect on the neighborhood.
Ms. Litwin told Mr. Ruestow that it is a positive idea to remove the deteriorating barn, but that the Board is concerned that the proposed storage building will overshadow the residence. However, she did understand the need to have a garage for the vehicles.
Mrs. Chimes asked Mr. Ruestow to describe where the proposed building would be placed on the property in relation to the current buildings on his 12-acre property. Mr. Ruestow stated that the proposed storage building would be setback approximately 300’ from the road, which is over 100’ beyond the residence. Mr. Ruestow verified the proposed building location on the survey.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 3
Mrs. Chimes further verified with Mr. Ruestow that four vehicles are presently kept in the driveway. The building that is intended to be demolished contains the restorable vehicle, hand tools, power tools, and other workshop type items. It was further learned that the plan presented for the proposed building is a suggestion of what Mr. Ruestow intends to build. He stated that the rising cost of steel might force him to build a wood structure. He further told the members that there would be one doorway for ingress/egress to the building.
Acting Chairman Jarocha asked Mr. Ruestow to describe the topography of the proposed building site and asked if there will be any impact to the drainage of the area. Mr. Ruestow told the members that he has a deep rectangular lot with a natural drainage slope. He stated that runoff water flows south to north, towards Michael Road and then to a ditch on Angle Road. He also told the members that the majority of his lot is wooded and that he believes the building’s proposed location will not have any effect on the neighbors.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The Acting Chairman stated that a correspondence had been received from Mr. & Mrs. Fred Haas, 7793 Michael Road, Orchard Park, New York, giving their support of the variance being requested. He also stated that a petition had been submitted by the applicant containing the signatures of six immediate neighbors that support the variance request. These neighbors reside at 7914 Michael Road, 7900 Michael Road, 7887 Michael Road, 7910 Michael Road, 7920 Michael Road and 7921 Michael Road.
Mr. Lennartz stated that he felt the variance request was excessive and that he would not have supported this request. However, because the immediate neighbors support the request and because the applicant has no garage to store his cars, he would support the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 4
Acting Chairman Hank Jarocha agreed with these thoughts.
Mr. Holmwood stated that he found it difficult to support the request and felt it was excessive.
Mrs. Chimes verified with the petitioner that there would be no business operating from the proposed building and that that lawn equipment is kept in the garden shed.
Ms. Litwin made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, that the area variance be GRANTED with a stipulation for the following reasons:
1. The hardship was not self-created.
2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood or the area.
3. This is a large parcel and much equipment is needed to maintain it.
4. The demolition of the building is a positive idea.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
JAROCHA AYE
HOLMWOOD NAY
LITWIN AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (4) AYES AND ONE (1) NAY, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
The area variance is GRANTED with the following stipulation:
1. There is to be no business activity carried on out of this building.
2. ZBA File #7-04, Verizon Wireless & Crown Atlantic Company LLC., 6243 Benning Road Cell Site. Zoned A-1 (Part of Farm Lot 66, Township 9, Range 7;SBL#198.00-3-4./B). Requests Zoning Board of Appeals approval to install an emergency generator at an existing tower site. ZBA approval is required per Section 144-53B.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Dennis Burdick, Verizon Wireless
Mr. Burdick explained the need to have a back up generator at the cell tower site, citing power failures or unforeseen emergencies. He told the members that
the Board has previously approved this same generator at two other sites. One is located on Armor Duells Road, and the other is located on North Freeman Road. The proposed generator is to be installed within the existing fenced in area above
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 5
ground, with a diesel fuel tank beneath it located on a concrete pad. Mr. Burdick noted that prior to the meeting a detailed site plan and photo of the proposed generator had been submitted for the members to review.
Mr. Lennartz asked Mr. Burdick questions regarding the diesel fuel tank and he expressed concerns that he had with spillage during the refueling process. He also asked if a leak from the tank would create contamination to the environment. Mr. Burdick stated that he was not aware of any problems with generators having a leak within the first wall, or with spillage during the re-fueling of the diesel tank. He explained that the tank was lined with a double wall and that if a leak did occur an alarm system would alert a technician. He told the members that a technician responds within fifteen minutes to the site. In addition, material is used inside the unit to assist with a spill if penetration occurs. A company known as “Clean Harbor” has been contracted to assist with any major catastrophe.
Acting Chairman Jarocha established that testing would be performed once a week, on Wednesday’s, between 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. Mr. Burdick noted that there are adjacent neighbors along Benning Road, however the generator is located approximately 2,000 feet perpendicular to the road.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the variance.
PROPONENT:
Ms. Beverly Hammersmith
6243 Benning Road
West Falls, NY 14170
Ms. Hammersmith stated that she is the property owner. She confirmed that the nearest residence is located approximately 3,000 feet away. She stated that she feels the area is secure and safe and supports the variance request.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
OPPONENT:
Mr. Ernest Kupinski
6740 Milestrip Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Kupinski discussed the tank design further with Mr. Burdick, noting he is concerned with the possibility of a spill or leak.
The Acting Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 6
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
The Acting Chairman stated that he did not believe that the generator location would be a problem to the area.
Mrs. Chimes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Jarocha, to GRANT the request for the emergency generator for the following reasons:
1. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way.
2. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the environment. It will help the environment in an emergency situation and the environment is protected with the double wall lining of the tank and alarm system of the unit.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
JAROCHA AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
LITWIN AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
2. ZBA File #8-04, Repp Associates Inc., 3810 Taylor Road, Zoned I-1 (Part of Farm Lot 32, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#161.00-5-30.2). Requests an area variance to construct (2) non-conforming additions. First to construct a 60’ x 40’ building addition with an 11’ rear yard setback and a 37.5’ front yard setback. Minimum rear yard setback required is 20 feet; minimum front yard setback required is 50’. Second, to construct a covered entry way with a 22.8’ front yard setback. Minimum front yard setback required is 50’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations. Note: This is a revised request for a variance previously granted on 10/16/90, ZBA File #40-90.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Jeff Day, Representative for Repp Construction
Mrs. Marie Repp, Petitioner
Mr. Day explained the plans for the proposed 40’ x 60‘ addition, noting that the building will be used for storage. He told the members that there would
be no parking in front of the building and that the parking area would be
located at the side of the building. Mr. Day stated that the second variance request is for the entranceway, as the petitioner desires to give the building
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 7
a face-lift.
Mrs. Chimes discussed the proposed plans with Mrs. Repp. She established that the pillars in the front would be used to create a covered entryway to achieve an aesthetically pleasing look. Mrs. Repp confirmed that railroad tracks are located to the rear of the property and that a garage is located on the right (north). Therefore, the addition could only be located on the left (south) side of the property. Mrs. Repp told the members that each property owner has had to obtain a variance in order to build on that side of Taylor Road, due to constricting factors created by the railroad tracks.
Ms. Litwin verified that the proposed addition is a continuation of the existing building and that the addition is to be used for storage. The showroom area will not be increased. Mrs. Repp noted that the addition had been pre-approved in 1991.
Acting Chairman Jarocha stated that he had been a part of the approval process with the original building. He complimented Mrs. Repp on a beautiful building. He further noted that the railroad tracks located at the back of the building prevent placing the addition to the rear of the lot. The proposed location is the only alternative that exists for the applicant. He further confirmed that the proposed addition would be built to look the same as the existing building.
Mr. Lennartz complimented the petitioner on the property.
Mr. Holmwood stated that he feels the petitioners’ building is one of the nicer buildings in the Town of Orchard Park.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the variance.
Mr. Albert Covino
3825 Taylor Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Covino supports this request. He described how the Repp’s are wonderful neighbors and take great care in maintaining their property.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for or against granting the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 8
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mrs. Chimes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Lennartz, that this is an Unlisted action and that a Negative Declaration under SEQR be made based on the submitted short EAF.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS MADE UNDER SEQR.
Mr. Lennartz made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Chimes, to GRANT the area variances for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood; it is a continued improvement.
2. The benefit cannot be achieved in another way due to the limitations on the sides of the property.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect on the environment or the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty is not self-created.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
HOLMWOOD AYE
JAROCHA AYE
LENNARTZ AYE
LITWIN AYE
THE MOTION BEING UNANIMOUS, THE MOTION IS PASSED.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 9
3. ZBA File #9-04, Wendy L. Barrett, 6098 Seufert Road, Zoned A-1 (Sub Lot #2, Zittel Estates; Part of Farm Lot 17, Township 9, Range 7; SBL#197.00-3-80.3). Requests an area variance to divide a parcel leaving a sideyard setback of 23.59’. Minimum sideyard setback in an A-1 zone divided after 12/89 is 30’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Wendy Barrett, petitioner
Ms. Barrett told the members that she owns 7.2 acres and that she desires to split her property and create a new building lot for herself. She further explained that she would like to build a home and locate it at the front of this new lot and remain consistent with the existing homes on Seufert Road. Ms. Barrett told the members that if she were to locate the home further back on the property that she would not need a variance.
Mrs. Chimes asked if the petitioner purchased the additional land that will be needed to create the proposed lot. The petitioner stated that she has not. Ms. Barrett explained that she was waiting to have her request for the variance granted before purchasing the property. She told the members that the owner of this property was present and that he has agreed to sell Ms. Barrett the 37 feet that she needs. Mrs. Chimes and the petitioner discussed the lot line and frontage requirements further.
Mr. Holmwood established that the depth of the petitioner’s existing lot is 1,100 feet. The proposed plans show that the depth of the new lot would be 341’. Ms. Barrett told the members that she might extend the depth of the new lot to 1,100 feet, but at the present time she has no plans to do so.
The Acting Chairman verified that the petitioner intends to locate the proposed home approximately 100’ from the road in order to have it be in line with the existing homes on Seufert Road.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of the granting of the variance.
PROPONENT:
Mr. John Iafallo
6114 Bunting Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Iafallo stated that he owns the lot adjacent to Ms. Barrett and supports her request for the variance.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 10
OPPONENT:
Mrs. Lucille Weitz
6047 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Weiss stated that she had understood that when Mr. Zittel divided the land that there could be no more subdividing of this property. She is concerned that the other lot owners will wish to do the same if Ms. Barrett is allowed to do so.
Mr. George Preshoff
5721 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Preshoff stated that the Planning Board approved the division of the Zittel property several years ago. Ms. Barrett is now proposing to split one of these lots and make it into two lots. Mr. Preshoff noted that there have been no variances granted on Seufert Road and he does not want to see a variance granted now. He feels that Ms. Barrett should expand her existing home. Mr. Preshoff stated that he has lived on Seufert Road since 1967. He told the members that he had to rent 5 five acres of land in order to have a horse, because at that time, there was no system to make an appeal for a variance. Since that time, variances are now being allowed and he disagrees with this practice. He further feels that the 500 foot variance notification is not fair. He believes the notification to residents should extend beyond this.
Mrs. Sandy Werner
6185 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Werner noted that she was representing her son and herself. Her son resides at 6145 Seufert Road and was unable to attend the meeting. Mrs. Werner stated that they are concerned that if the variance is allowed a precedent will be set. She also expressed concerns for the septic systems and the environment.
The Acting Chairman told Mrs. Werner that each appeal is reviewed on an individual basis. He further explained the purpose of the Board to Mrs. Werner. In addition, Attorney Michael Wolf told Mrs. Werner that no precedence is set, as each case is judged by its own merit.
In regards to Mr. Preshoff comments, the Acting Chairman confirmed with the Recording Secretary that notices are sent to residents living within 500’ of the subject property 10 days prior to the meeting. The notice advising of the public meeting is published in the town’s official newspaper, the “Citizen”. The Secretary noted that the minimum resident notification was raised from 350’ to 500 feet.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 11
Mr. George Moore
6020 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Moore noted that he believed the Planning Board had stipulated that there could be no further division of this property. In addition, he expressed his concerns for the drainage problems. He feels that further division of the property will make the drainage situation worse.
Mrs. Kathy Henning
6199 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mrs. Henning expressed her concerns regarding the increase of traffic and the number of houses on Seufert Road. She noted that there are blind grades and she worries about the safety of residents that walk on the road.
Mr. Ron Markowski
6134 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Mr. Markowski asked if the Zittel property had deed restrictions in place to prevent further splits from occurring with this property. The Acting Chairman explained that this information was not known and that the Board was reviewing the request for the variance. Mr. Markowski discussed how he would like to prevent a request of this nature from occurring in the future. He further noted that he wants the area to stay as it is.
The Acting Chairman, Building Inspector and Deputy Town Attorney explained to the residents how the Zoning Board of Appeals considers all information that is presented before rendering a decision regarding a variance request. It was noted that the Board has the option of adding stipulations to their decision. The Acting Chairman states that several issues have been expressed during this meeting that are Planning Board and Town Board concerns. The Zoning Board of Appeals does not address these issues. Mrs. Chimes also discussed with the residents the procedure that needed to be followed by the Board. She stated that the neighbors concerns were valid, but that the Zoning Board of Appeals was not the correct Board to assist them. The residents were told to contact the Planning Office and request to be contacted if Ms. Barrett is scheduled to be on the Planning Board agenda.
Ms. Chris Weitz
6047 Seufert Road
Orchard Park, NY 14127
Ms. Weitz described Seufert Road as a “country road” located on the backside of
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 12
Chestnut Ridge Park. She stated that it is one of the few remaining areas that consists of open green space. She told the members that she does not want to see this change.
Mr. Lennartz noted that the variance request has difficult issues. The applicant is required to have 160-foot frontage. The issues raised by the audience are Planning Board concerns. The proposal is to have the homes be 80 feet apart. The existing zoning law allows for 60 feet of separation. He sympathizes with the argument for open space, but does not feel that it is the responsibility of the Zoning Board of Appeals to make that particular decision.
Ms. Litwin noted, that after listening to the neighbors speak, she has deep concerns. She feels that she must take into consideration what the Town of Orchard Park intended for the area. She knows that it is not the Zoning Board of Appeals job to do the planning of the town. However, the Board must look at the results and if the petitioner has created the hardship. The Board, also, looks to see if the variance will affect the surrounding areas and the residents. She believes the concerns voiced by the area residents are valid.
Mr. Holmwood stated that he feels that this is a difficult situation for everyone. He stated that it is not the Zoning Board’s responsibility to make the decisions that the residents have questioned. Their decision is to be made strictly based on the size of the lots that are acceptable. He described how growth cannot be stopped, and “what was”, is not always possible.
Mrs. Chimes stated that this is a difficult position. If the house were located several feet back, there would be no need for a variance. She noted that the other items such as, “were there deed restrictions?” are Planning Board issues.
Acting Chairman Jarocha stated that he agrees with Mrs. Chimes. He further suspects that Mr. Zittel divided the land the way it was for certain reasons. In addition, as much as we are here to grant relief, we are also here to protect the existing character of the neighborhood. He noted that there is no need for a variance if the house is moved back.
Mr. Lennartz noted that the proposed home needs to be moved 6 feet back. If the petitioner moves the home she will not need a variance. However, all the issues voiced at this meeting will remain the same and Ms. Barrett will still need to go before the Planning Board. Mr. Lennartz feels that if the variance is granted it will not have a negative effect on the neighborhood. He stated that the petitioner would have the home located where she desires and the case will return to the Planning Board for review.
Mr. Lennartz made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the area variance for the following reasons:
1. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 13
2. The lot that is being in created is in full conformity with the zoning rules and regulations that are in affect for that particular parcel.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no effect on the environment of the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty was not self-created.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES NAY
JAROCHA NAY
HOLMWOOD AYE
LITWIN NAY
LENNARTZ AYE
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (3) NAYS AND TWO (2) AYES, THE MOTION IS DEFEATED.
Ms. Litwin made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Chimes to DENY request for the area variance for the following reasons:
1. The hardship is not unique. If the petitioner desire a larger home there are other lots available in the Orchard Park area, or she could add on to her existing home.
2. The request could be detrimental environmentally to the area drainage and sewage.
THE VOTE ON THE MOTION BEING:
CHIMES AYE
JAROCHA AYE
HOLMWOOD NAY
LITWIN AYE
LENNARTZ NAY
THE MOTION BEING FOUR (3) AYES AND TWO (2) NAYS, THE MOTION TO DENY IS PASSED.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 14
6. ZBA File #10-04, Earl D. Wray, 14 Short Drive, Zoned R-2 (Sub Lot 7, Map Cover 1854; SBL#183.08-4-13). Requests an area variance to construct an addition with a front yard setback of 33’. Minimum front yard setback for an R-2 lot of record is 40’, Section 144-9B, Schedule of Height, Lot, Yard & Bulk Regulations.
APPEARANCE: Mr. Earl Wray, petitioner
Mr. Wray explained that his residence is located on a dead end road containing eight (8) lots. Mr. Wray told the members that he has a debilitation disease and that he desires to construct an addition to make his home handicapped accessible to meet his present and future needs. Mr. Wray explained his proposed plans to the members and submitted a petition signed by his neighbors supporting the variance request. He told the members that he did not know if he would begin construction this year, or sometime in 2005. He further noted that he had no formal architect plans prepared, as he was waiting for the outcome of his variance request.
The members discussed the proposed plans with Mr. Wray. Mr. Lennartz confirmed with Mr. Wray that the request being made was sufficient for his needs, even though no formal plans had been presented.
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak in favor of granting the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairman then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would wish to speak against the granting of the variance.
(Twice)
NO RESPONSE
The Acting Chairman then asked if the Secretary had received any additional communications either for, or against, granting the variance.
The Secretary stated no communications have been received.
Mrs. Chimes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Holmwood, to GRANT the area variance with a stipulation for the following reasons:
1. The addition will not change the character of the neighborhood in an undesirable way.
ZBA Mtg. #4 Reg. Mtg. #4 April 20, 2004 Page 15
2. The benefit that is being sought cannot be achieved in another way.
3. The request is not substantial.
4. There will be no adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood.
5. The difficulty was not self-created.
This variance is granted with the following stipulation:
1. The variance is granted for twelve months.