2003-07-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING HELD 7/15/03 Present: Susan Ruder, Mike Kocan, Newell Russell Absent: Dave Crawford and Lloyd Frink Others Present: Jonathan Craporo Judy Morris Richard Swanson Philip Guttridge Tom Craporo Dawna Chase John Buckley Lou Viglotti Meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, 5 DUTCl~ESS AVENUE First on the agenda was the request of Habitat for Humanity of Dutchess County seeking the following area variances to be able to have a single family house at 5 Dutchess Avenue which is in a R2F zone: (1) Required lot width is 75 t~. and provided is 37 ft., (2) Required lot area is 10,000 sq. ft. and provided is 6,771 sq. ft. and (3) Required sidelines at 10 ft. and applicant cannot conform to the required, therefore the ZBA will have to make a sideline determination. Variances were previously approved at the July 9, 2002 meeting. At that time the ZBA determined the sideline would be the west side yard setback would be up to and including two feet from the adjoining property line. Applicant was asked to produce copies of legal notices sent and proof of publication from the Poughkeepsie Journal. He stated he did not have this documentation with him because it was at another office. He would provide documentation to the Zoning Office. It was stated that any application voted on this evening would have to have all three members voting the same because of the fact that two members were missing. Before applicant gave any presentation Mr. Russell stated he had voted nay the last time this variance was requested and he felt that he would be voting the same way this evening. He went on to state that while he feels Habitat for Humanity does great work - he did not feel comfortable with only granting a 2 fi. sideline variance on the west side. He felt that if someone does eventually come in to develop the adjoining lot - and requested the same variance - 4 ft. between houses is not enough. Because of the fact that documentation still needs to be received by the applicant - the Public Hearing could not be closed. Applicant stated they were not aware of the fact that there was a 90 day period in which you had to apply for a building permit. During the time the previous was granted - applicant had to close the deal with the previous homeowners and since have been working out details for construction. Applicant went on to state that nothing has changed from the previous application. The only change was that Habitat is now the owner of record instead of the Simons.