2008-09-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD 9/2/08 Present: Lloyd Frink, Chairman, Frank Barresi, Vice Chairman, Allen Firstenberg, Scott Davis, George Dansereau, Richard Berube and Mary Ann Loncto, Secretary Others Present: Code Enforcement Fenton Mark Webber Ellen Webber Mike Martin David Barschi Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. It was noted that Counsel was absent. MICHAEL AND ERIK PERRY, 2794 WEST MAIN STREET First on the agenda was the public hearing on the request of Michael and Erik Perry, 27 Robert Lane seeking a use variance from Section 151-16(A) of the Zoning Ordinance to be able to use 2794 West Main Street entirely for office space which is not allowed in a residential zone – property is located in a R12.5 zone. No one was present for the hearing. Mr. Frink made a motion to suspend the opening of the public hearing until such time that an applicant makes an appearance. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. On roll call vote – Mr. Firstenberg – Aye, Mr. Barresi – Aye, Mr. Davis – Aye, Mr. Dansereau – Aye and Mr. Frink – Aye. MARK AND ELLEN WEBBER, 37 HIGH STREET Next on the agenda was the public hearing on the request of Mark A. Webber, 37 High Street seeking the following area variances from Section 151-16(A) of the Zoning Ordinance to be able to construct a two car garage on his property at 37 High Street – (1) sideyard – required is 5 ft. and proposed will be 28 inches and (2) maximum building area – allowed is 30% or 2700 sq. ft. and proposed would be 2,817 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum building area by 117 sq. ft. Secretary stated that Dutchess County Department of Planning had responded to the zoning referral with a “matter of local concern” comment. Mr. Webber presented to the Board a copy of the affidavit of publication from the Poughkeepsie Journal dated August 22, 2008 and the receipt from the post office dated August 20, 2008 for proof of mailing to property owners within 250 feet of subject property. Mr. Webber stated currently on the property there is a single car garage that is 28 inches off the property line – the proposal is to use the existing footprint but expand it into the yard and actually make it a foot deeper into the property – Mr. Webber stated the use of the new garage would be strictly private use – it is not intended to be used commercially at all. Mr. Webber stated that the 8' x 10' storage shed would remain as well as the 18' round pool. Mr. Frink went on to state that when everything is added together including the construction of the new garage Mr. Webber would need a variance for approximately 117 sq. ft. of lot coverage – Mr. Frink asked how this figure was arrived at and Mr. Webber stated he basically measured the house, deck, pool, current garage, storage and did a net of the proposed garage minus the current garage – added it all together and took the percentage of allowed coverage. Mr. Frink asked what the distance was between the rear wall and the rear of the shed and Mr. Webber stated he was not absolutely sure but when he constructed the shed he check with the Code Enforcement Officer for the setbacks and he is completely confident that it is code compliant. Mr. Webber stated he is considering a A-frame garage with a typical 3/12 or 4/12 roof slope – with a 10 ft. high average height. Mr. Webber also stated when asked that he would be using the proposed garage for the storage of vehicles and would retain the storage shed for lawn equipment, etc. Mr. Fenton stated that when the shed was calculated it was calculated as 8'x12' instead of 8' x 10' which