2004-01-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD 1/13/04 Present: Lloyd Frink, Chair, Susan Ruder, Vice Chair, Dave Crawford, Newell Russell, Attorney Viglotti and Mary Ann Loncto, Secretary Absent: Mike Kocan Others Present: Shannon LaFrance Betsey Bergmann George Kolb Kristen Kelly Trustee Enson Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Frink stated there was a published agenda for the evening but made a motion that the Zoning Board of Appeais go into Executive Session for a status report on pending litigation. Ms. Ruder seconded the motion. On roll call vote - Ms. Ruder - Aye, Mr. Frink - Aye, Mr. Russell - Aye, Mr. Crawford - Aye. The Board reconvened at 7:53 p.m. BETSEY BERGMAN, 98 CARMINE DRIVE First on the agenda was' the discussion regarding reopening a hearing on the request of Betsey Bergman. seeking a variance to be able to operate a business at 98 Carmine Drive. You are not able to operate a business in a residential zone unless you live there and then there is certain conditions that must be met. Ms. LaFrance representing Ms. Bergman stated that Ms. Bergmcm has' taken some pictures and has' had a petition signed by ne(ghbor*' indicating they have no objection to the business being operated from 98 Carmine Drive. It was stated that this documentation would be pertinent to tonight's presentation. She we,t on to state that Ms'. Bergman is not a lawyer, is- not familiar with land ttse and no familiar with the Village's zoning law. When her attorney went through the application with Ms. Bergman (the application that she had presented to the Board the previous' month) it was clear that Ms. Bergman did not understand all the questions on the application and did not present the necessary facts. With this being said Ms. LaJrrance stated s'he is asking that the Board rehear the case instead of Ms, Bergman having to file a new (~plication. Mr. Frink stated if the Board granted a motion to rehear then a new notice wouM have to be published and a public hearing advertised. Mr. Frink stated he intend, to keep this appearance for discussion purposes only. He went on to state that he has' read the correspondence that has gone back and forth bern,ecu the applicant and Mr. Flower (Code Enforcement Officer) and he wouM like to dis, cuss all/ss, es. Ms. lxdrranc'e stated that it is very difficult for a layperson to understand the term "use variance" much less know the criteria for correctly filing the paperwork. She went on ta state she outlined all the criteria that must be met in order for a use variance to be gra~tted in a letter to the ZBA dated January 9, 2004. (Copy of this letter on file in the Plam#ng/Zoning offices). She went on to state in December when this application was. originally before the ZB,4, Ms. Bergman did not fully understand the applicatio~ or the extent Q£ information the ZBA needed to render a decision on her