The Clarkson Valley Board of Adjustment, pursuant to notices posted on the Clarkson Valley website met at City Hall in the Clarkson Executive Center to consider three agenda items.
Board of Adjustment Members present were:
Darryl Brody, Chairman
Jim Barry
Tom Berkeley
Jack Hauser
Phyllis Newmark
The City Attorney, Mr. Patrick Butler, and Building Commissioner, Jack Schenck attended and the City Clerk, Michele McMahon recorded the Minutes. Board Members Karen Koshak, Paul Mercurio and Alternate Member Terry Rosenstrauch were unable to attend.
The Chairman explained to the petitioners they are present tonight to ask this Board to grant a variance from the Clarkson Valley Code at Section 405.060.E.3. establishing that no building (or structure) shall intrude upon the area required for front, side and rear yards; and Section 405.080 regarding garage openings by proving practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in carrying out of the provisions of the code due to topographic or other conditions.
The Chairperson then asked the petitioners if they had objections to any of the Members of the Board of Adjustment, to which they responded they did not. He then asked the Board Members if they had an opportunity to view the properties to which all stated they had. After the meeting was called to order and protocol established, the petitioners, architects, contractors and neighbors that were to speak this evening were sworn in. Darryl Brody read the Notice of Public Hearing for the agenda items.
- To consider the request of:
Mark Davis of Davis Group, LLC
16440 Walnut Rail Road
to construct a new 1/2 story addition over existing garage with front bay window to extend 0.92′ beyond front building line on southwest corner of main structure and a master bedroom extension encroaching 1.2′ beyond building line on northwest rear of main structure and to grant a variance for a new (attached) detached front-facing frame garage.
- To consider the request of:
Mr. and Mrs. Todd Schneider
2004 Kingspointe Drive
to construct a fence to extend 50′ beyond the 75′ (rear) double-fronted building line.
- To consider the request of:
Handy Home Buyers LLC
2100 Wilson Ridge Lane
to construct a swim pool and fence approximately 25′ beyond the 50′ rear building line.
Board Member Barry made an observation regarding the petitioner’s packets which lacked the explanation of the nature of the hardship. He stated he would like the application be denied in the future if the hardship is not fully stated. There was a motion, a second and a voice vote all in favor.
Robert Srote, Principal of Schaub & Srote Architectural Firm, introduced himself and explained they are requesting two variances to the front building line. The breezeway will connect the house and existing garage to the garage addition, which will be tucked into the hillside. They are requesting a front entry due to the severe topography. Chairman Brody brought up the previous request at the last hearing with a request to allow encroachment. He said he is unsure why the Davis’s are requesting 30′ to which Mr. Srote said the reason is you need 30′ for the turn radius out of the garage.
The Chairman called for opponents or proponents, to which there was none. The Building Commissioner made no comment.
The City Attorney, Patrick Butler explained to the Board Members the intent of the zoning code and read the merits and conclusion portion contained therein. Through discussion, it was decided to make three separate requests of this proposal.
Darryl Brody read that portion of the Agenda item concerning the bay window to extend 0.92′ beyond the front building line on the southwest corner of the main structure. He asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct a bay window to which: question (1) four are, one are not, (2) five will not, (3) two will, three will not, (4) five will not, (5) five will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a bay window to extend 0.92′ beyond the front building line on the southwest corner of the main structure with the following results: Yeas. Barry, Berkeley, Brody, Hauser, and Newmark. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared Mr. Davis’ request for variance for the bay window as having been approved. Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Davis and the architect for this project, the variance granted by the Board is based upon what took place tonight. Any change making the variance greater than what was presented will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting.
Darryl Brody read that portion of the Agenda item concerning the master bedroom extension to encroach 1.2′ beyond the building line on the northwest rear of the main structure. He asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct the master bedroom extension to which: question (1) four are, one are not, (2) five will not, (3) four will, one will not, (4) five will not, (5) five will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a master bedroom extension to encroach 1.2′ beyond the building line on the northwest rear of the main structure with the following results: Yeas. Barry, Berkeley, Brody, Hauser, and Newmark. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared Mr. Davis’ request for variance for the master bedroom extension as having being approved. Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Davis and the architect for this project, the variance granted by the Board is based upon what took place tonight. Any change to the master bedroom extension making the variance greater than what was presented will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting.
Darryl Brody read that portion of the Agenda item concerning the (attached) detached front-facing frame garage. He asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct the front-facing garage to which: question (1) three are, two are not, (2) five will not, (3) four will, one will not, (4) five will not, (5) five will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a new (attached) detached front-facing frame garage with the following results: Yeas. Barry, Berkeley, Brody, Hauser, and Newmark. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared Mr. Davis’ request for variance for the front-facing garage as having being approved. Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Davis and the architect for this project, the variance granted by the Board is based upon what took place tonight. Any change to the front-facing garage making the variance greater than what was presented will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting.
Darryl Brody read the second agenda item and gave the floor to Todd Schneider who introduced himself and handed out photos of the property. He explained he and his wife purchased the pie-shaped property a few weeks ago and they have not moved in yet. He said the original builders constructed the house all the way up to the rear building line. What is important to note, he said, is the property abuts Horseshoe Ridge Road in the rear with a severe drop in grade. We are proposing to construct a fence with a 50′ variance from the 75′ required (rear) double-fronted building line – splitting the difference. The fence would be situated on the flat part of the lot. Our son has Down syndrome and we really need that fence to keep him away from Horseshoe Ridge Road. He then described the type of fence.
The Chairman called for opponents or proponents, to which there was none. The Building Commissioner had no comment. The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board Members regarding the intent of the zoning code or merits and conclusion portion contained therein to which they responded they did not.
Darryl Brody read the Agenda item to construct a fence to extend 50′ beyond the 75′ (rear) double-fronted building line to which: question (1) five are, (2) five will not, (3) five will, (4) five will not, (5) five will not, (6) five will.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a fence to extend 50′ beyond the 75′ (rear) double-fronted building line with the following results: Yeas: Barry, Berkeley, Brody, Hauser and Newmark. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared the Schneider’s request for variance for the fence as having been approved. Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Schneider the variance granted by the Board is based upon what took place tonight. Any change making the variance greater than what was presented will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting.
Darryl Brody read the third agenda item. Philip Vincent with Handy Home Buyers introduced himself, apologized for being late and was sworn in. He said he is a real estate investor who purchased the property last year and has put a few hundred thousand dollars into the house. It’s a baseball diamond-shaped lot and the back yard is unfortunately the home plate. He said his hardship is the lot has two 75′ building lines plus the 50′ rear. There is so much space in the front but none in the rear. Even with 1.02 acres. The deck is odd-shaped and was originally constructed beyond the building lines. He said at this point, he would additionally like to apply for a variance for a privacy fence which he understood is not allowed by code.
The Chairman called for opponents. Mr. Fred Hillebrand stood and read his statement into the record, saying he is opposed to the swim pool and fence as it is situated right along his driveway. The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board Members regarding the intent of the zoning code or merits and conclusion portion contained therein to which they responded they did not.
The Chairman called for proponents but there were none. The Building Commissioner had no comment. The Chairman asked if there were any questions from the Board Members regarding the intent of the zoning code or merits and conclusion portion contained therein to which they responded they did not.
Darryl Brody read the third Agenda item to construct a swim pool and privacy fence approximately 25′ beyond the rear building line to which: question (1) two are, three are not, (2) three are, two are not, (3) one will, four will not, (4) four will, one will not, (5) one will, four will not, (6) five will not.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a swim pool and privacy fence to extend 25′ beyond the 50′ rear building line with the following results: There were no Yeas: Nays: Barry, Berkeley, Brody, Hauser and Newmark.
The Chairperson declared Mr. Vincent’s request for variance as denied. Chairman Brody told Mr. Vincent he may come back at a later date with a different proposal if he would like.
The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m.
Michele McMahon
City Clerk
City of Clarkson Valley