MINUTES
Board of Adjustment Hearing
June 26, 2019
The Clarkson Valley Board of Adjustment, pursuant to notices posted on the Clarkson Valley website, and on the bulletin board, met at City Hall in the Clarkson Executive Center to consider four agenda items.
Board of Adjustment Members present were:
Paul Mercurio, Chairman
Tom Berkeley
Dan Claxton
Jack Hauser
Dick Ulrich
The City Attorney, Mr. Patrick Butler attended, and the City Clerk, Michele McMahon recorded the Minutes. The Building Commissioner, Jack Schenck was there to represent the City. Board Member Terry Rosenstrauch was 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 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 trustees that were to speak this evening were sworn in. Paul Mercurio read the Notice of Public Hearing for the agenda items.
- To consider the request of:
Joshua and Mitzi Glaser
2055 Kingspointe Drive
to construct an outdoor room to encroach 5.72′ into the rear yard.
- To consider the request of:
Blake and Clare Borello
25 Clarkson Farm Drive
to construct a master suite addition to encroach 17.8′ beyond the 75′ front building line; a new garage addition to extend 5′ beyond the front building line; a detached-attached garage to extend 29.5′ beyond the rear building line and 15.8′ beyond the front building line; a new covered walkway to extend 9′ beyond the rear building line; and a new stone wall, auto court entrance to extend at the farthest point, 37.5′ from the front building line.
- To consider the request of:
Keith and Martha Jacob
15978 Kettington Road
to construct a pool that will encroach 18′ into the rear yard setback, and a fence that encroaches approximately 23′ into the rear yard.
- To consider the request of:
Brian and Emily Hecker
15988 Kettington Road
to construct a front porch addition that would extend 4′ beyond the front building line.
Mr. Robert Srote, principal with Schaub & Srote Architects, introduced himself and said the Glaser’s are proposing an outdoor room that would be 23′ long and 15.5′ wide. The project would encroach 5.72′ beyond the rear building line, however, they are requesting 6′ as a precaution. There is an existing pool, covered lanai, and fence that encroaches 15′ beyond the rear building line and 6′ beyond the side building line. Records indicate it did not receive a variance as it was proposed and approved to be located within the building lines. This occurred in 1992. The Glaser’s have a ponding issue to the east of the pool deck. They are hoping to regrade and alleviate that. They originally wanted to put the outdoor room to the left, but there is a 30′ wide Shell pipeline easement, which hampered that.
The Board Members reviewed the neighbors’ approval and had questions about the pools lack of a variance, but Mr. Srote said the homeowner moved into the house in 1998 and the pool was already in existence. He could not answer their questions regarding the pool. There were no further questions from the Board Members. The Chairman called for opponents or proponents, and there were none. No one from the city spoke on the project.
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.
Paul Mercurio read the proposal: to construct an outdoor room to encroach 5.72′ into the rear yard. He asked the Members for their factual determination of the proposal to construct the fence 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 an outdoor room to encroach 5.72′ into the rear yard with the following results: Yeas. Berkeley, Claxton, Hauser, Mercurio, and Urich. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared the Glaser’s request for a variance for the outdoor room as having been approved. Paul Mercurio then advised Mr. Srote, 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.
Paul Mercurio read the second agenda item and gave the floor to Darryl LaBruyere, owner of DL Design. He introduced himself along with the owners of the property, Dr. and Dr. Borello along with the general contractor for this project, Andrew Strong, owner of AHS Construction. Mr. LaBruyere said the project began with the in-laws in mind, who would get the existing master bedroom, and the Borello’s would move into the master suite. He said the couple will need someone to watch their growing family, staying there up to 24 hours at a time, while the Borello’s are working.The addition to the existing garage is optional, but they would love to have additional car space. Mention was made of the approvals from neighbors and trustees. He said the project would encompass 11% of the lot space.
Chairman Mercurio mentioned this is not a typical lot and discussion centered around the abnormal building lines. Andy Strong then handed out a new site plan that was easier to read than what had been previously submitted. Dick Ulrich stated that because of the lot, he feels this is a unique situation. There were no further questions.
The Chairman called for opponents or proponents, to which there were none. There was no comment from the City. 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.
Paul Mercurio read the Agenda item to construct a master suite addition to encroach 17.8′ beyond the 75′ front building line; a new garage addition to extend 5′ beyond the front building line; a detached-attached garage to extend 29.5′ beyond the rear building line and 15.8′ beyond the front building line; a new covered walkway to extend 9′ beyond the rear building line; and a new stone wall, auto court entrance to extend at the farthest point, 37.5′ from the front building line. The Factual Determination questions received the following responses: question (1) five are, (2) three will, two will not, (3) five will, (4) five will not, (5) five will not, (6) four will, one will not.
The Chairperson then called for a vote of approval/disapproval to grant the desired variance to construct a master suite addition to encroach 17.8′ beyond the 75′ front building line; a new garage addition to extend 5′ beyond the front building line; a detached-attached garage to extend 29.5′ beyond the rear building line and 15.8′ beyond the front building line; a new covered walkway to extend 9′ beyond the rear building line; and a new stone wall, auto court entrance to extend at the farthest point, 37.5′ from the front building line with the following results: Yeas. Berkeley, Claxton, Hauser, Mercurio, and Urich. There were no Nays.
The Chairperson declared the Borrello’s request for a variance to construct a master suite addition to encroach 17.8′ beyond the 75′ front building line; a new garage addition to extend 5′ beyond the front building line; a detached-attached garage to extend 29.5′ beyond the rear building line and 15.8′ beyond the front building line; a new covered walkway to extend 9′ beyond the rear building line; and a new stone wall, auto court entrance to extend at the farthest point, 37.5′ from the front building line as having been approved. Paul Mercurio then advised Mr. and Mrs. Borello 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.
Paul Mercurio read the third agenda item and gave the floor to Mr. Keith Jacob, owner of the property, who then stated when he and his wife purchased the property, they always had the pool in mind as part of the plan. He said the lot setbacks cause the hardship. He said if they adhere to the current setback rules, the pool would be 5′ wide and 40′ long, which would be a lap pool – not a swim pool. He said they originally brought the pool much closer to the house, 15′ away, but Prestige Pool thought that would pose a safety concern when the pool is covered. The hazard comes with the tie-down straps for the pool cover, which pose a tripping hazard when that close to the house. We pulled the fence in and pushed the pool out 20′ from the house.
Board Member, Jack Hauser, asked about the power lines, and the contractor, Brian Tabor, said the electric would have to be re-routed. Mention was made of all the bricks at the rear of the house, and that board member said it was difficult to envision where the pool would go. There was an existing deck on the premises that subsequently was disassemble, but they still have to remove the bricks. Dick Ulrich asked if there were any requirements for the minimum distance a pool can be from the house, to which Brian Tabor responded the general rule of thumb is 12′ accommodates an average table and 4 chairs; then you should add 4′ on either side to ensure a walking path; making the ideal minimum distance 20′.
Jack Hauser asked if the building commissioner had any problems with the request, whereupon Jack Schenck stated he did not, and said this presents a good, safe plan.
The Chairman called for proponents. Mr. Hecker, who was the 4th petitioner on this agenda, spoke as a proponent saying it is a very nice addition. He is a direct neighbor of the Jacob’s and said the way the woods are on the lot, it should not affect a thing. There is a 30′ easement on the east side; 10′ at rear and the Jacob’s received approval from all 4 neighbors. He said he wishes the Board Members would approve the Jacob’s proposal.
The Chairman then called for opponents, to which there were none. There were no further comments from the City. 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 there were not.
Paul Mercurio read the Agenda item: to construct a pool that will encroach 18′ into the rear yard setback, and a fence that encroaches approximately 23′ into the rear yard. The Factual Determination questions received the following responses: question (1) three are, two are not (2) four will, one 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 pool that will encroach 18′ into the rear yard setback, and a fence that encroaches approximately 23′ into the rear yard with the following results: Yeas. Berkeley, Claxton, Hauser, and Urich. Nays: Mercurio.
The Chairperson declared the Jacob’s request for a variance to construct a pool that will encroach 18′ into the rear yard setback, and a fence that encroaches approximately 23′ into the rear yard as having been approved. Paul Mercurio then advised Mr. Jacob 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.
Paul Mercurio read the fourth agenda item and gave the floor to Brian and Emily Hecker. Mr. Hecker explained he had two major issues in trying to design the front porch of their house. 1.) the amount of rainwater off the roof at the front porch; and 2.) the house sits exactly on the 75′ front building line. The door is exposed without a porch. The Hecker’s wanted to create a more pleasing look to their house and more appropriate to the neighborhood, and said this design offers all that, plus curb appeal.
The Chairman called for proponents, whereby Mr. Jacob spoke, saying he is the next-door neighbor and both he and his wife approve. The Chairman then called for opponents, to which there were none. There were no further comments from the City. The Chairman then 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.
Paul Mercurio read the Agenda item to construct a front porch addition that would extend 4′ beyond the front building line. The Factual Determination questions received the following responses: question (1) four are, one are not, (2) three will, two 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 front porch addition that would extend 4′ beyond the front building line with the following results: Yeas. Berkeley, Claxton, Hauser, Mercurio, and Urich. There were no Nays.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
Michele McMahon, City Clerk