Reference Desk

 

Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes - October 28, 2009

THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHESTERFIELD

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

October 28, 2009

On October 28, 2009, a regular meeting of the Chesterfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Township Hall located at 47275 Sugarbush, Chesterfield Twp., MI 48047.

1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Stepnak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL: Present: Marvin Stepnak, Chairman

Carl Leonard, Vice-Chairman,

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary Brian Scott DeMuynck, Township board liaison

Paula Frame, Planning Commission liaison

Gerald Blake

James Klonowski

Ms. Christine Anderson, Township attorney from Seibert & Dloski, attended the meeting.

Mr. Tom Yaschen, newly appointed member to the ZBA attended the meeting as an observer

Mr. Shawn Shortt from the Building Department did not attend the meeting that evening.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Chairman Stepnak explained the procedures to the audience.

4. ZBA PETITION #2009-16: Gerald & Tracy Ulewicz who reside at 49340 Bayshore, Chesterfield, MI 48047. Request is for a 4.80 side yard setback on the east side of residence and a 4.18 side yard setback on the west side of said residence, in the R-1-A zoning District, which requires a 10’ side setback. Location is above. Approved 8-26-09.

Petition was approved on 8-26-09 but has been remanded back to the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to allow the petitioner to submit a plot plan to the correct scale that is required by the ordinance.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the petition had been sent back by the court.

Ms. Anderson stated that was correct. She explained that Judge Viviano remanded the matter back to the ZBA in order to correct a procedural deficiency and that deficiency was the scale that was used on the plans submitted to the ZBA. The Zoning Ordinance requires a scale of 1 to 20 and she believed the original plans were on a scale of 1 to 40. She explained that now, if she was correct, the petitioner has now brought in drawings with a scale of 1 to 20 showing all the dimensional requirements necessary and showing the dimensions between the adjacent property and the structure.

Petitioner stated that basically that was it, he was here presenting the paperwork at 1 to 20.

Mr. Leonard had no questions at that time.

Ms. Orewyler asked if the petitioner was planning to build the house on the exact same foot print as the previous home?

Petitioner answered that was correct.

Ms. Orewyler asked if the new home would be any wider to increase the non-conformity with the variance?

Petitioner replied no.

Mr. Blake had no questions at the time.

Mr. Klonowski had no comments.

Ms. Frame asked if the petitioner could clarify that all he has changed was the scale of the plans?

Petitioner answered yes, that was correct.

Mr. DeMuynck stated that his questions had been answered.

Public Comments:

Mr. Gary Gendernalik, 52624 Laurel Oak Lane, Chesterfield, MI 48047 addressed the board.

Mr. Gendernalik introduced himself and explained that he was there on behalf of Rebecca Johnson and Carl Melchior, the neighbors to the northeast.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that with reference to this matter, he stated it was remanded by the court not only in reference to the scale that was inaccurate in the previous submission, but the order stated that the parties and board members may address the substantive matter of the variance request. He stated that was one of the issues he planned to address that evening. He explained that in essence, as the note was attached to the board, once the petitioner's tore down the three floors of their home; they lost their non-conforming status. He stated that the ordinance states that once that occurs, the non-conformance is not to be continued. He mentioned that the Building Department or the Planning Department has a form that tells residents what the side yard setbacks are. He mentioned that it was asterisked on this document, from the Planning Department, which stated in the R-1-A district, the side yard setbacks are 10' on each side. in essence 20'. He stated that these people have, in essence, a fifty foot wide lot where their house sits. So to build on that lot, they would have to build with 10' side yard setbacks; they could build a 30' wide house. He stated that was not an unusual structure for that community or adjacent communities. He expressed that now, when looking at their submissions that were given to the Building Department which he obtained with a FOIA request; he stated that on the second page of the document it shows the floor plans for the first floor. He added that it was noted that the existing walls were to remain and that was referring to the garage walls and the wall immediately adjacent to the wall, which is the common wall between the garage and the house. So, that notation clearly indicates that the other walls were going to come down. He continued that when going to the second page on that submission, the building plans, it clearly shows that the first floor decking and the floor joist were going to be removed. He added that if the petitioners were going to remove the decking and the joist, then obviously the walls were coming down because the walls sit on the joist and the deck.

Mr. Gendernalik brought some drawings, and paperwork to the board pointing out different aspects of the plans he obtained with the FOIA.

Chairman Stepnak explained that the board was fully aware of what was being presented to the board.

Mr. Gendernalik presented two files with a number of photographs of the petitioner's and his clients property at different stages of the building process.

Ms. Anderson asked if Mr. Gendernalik had copies of these submissions for the board?

Mr. Gendernalik answered no, he would retain the items and provide her with copies.

Ms. Anderson stated that if he could not give the copies to the board, then they could not consider them in the decision process.

Mr. Gendernalik then stated he would give them to the board tonight. He could always get them later. He then presented the board with another file with additional photographs of before any of the processes began. There were also photos of the shed, pictures of the surrounding property, photos of the demolition process, and photographs of various stages of construction.

Mr. Gendernalik presented the board with a Chem Tech survey of his client's property which reflects the location of his client's property with relationship to Bay Lane. He stated that it shows the petitioner's shed 2.9' at one dimension and 3.5' at the other. He put a star on the plan to show that location. He explained that the ordinance requires that the shed should be four feet off the property line. He stated that was obtained by a variance and then put in the wrong place. He commented that in the public notice it referenced that it was allowing the petitioner to submit a plot plan to scale and it did not give notice of the fact that people could come in to speak to the substantive nature of this proceeding as to granting or denial of the variance or the granting of the variance with conditions. Therefore, he thought that the notice may have been somewhat tardy as to that conclusion.

Chairman Stepnak asked which notice Mr. Gendernalik was referring to, the public notice that was in the paper?

Mr. Gendernalik responded that it was on October 7, 2009.

Chairman Stepnak stated that it was a standard protocol notice.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that he obtained two surveys from the file that were submitted by the petitioner that were 8.5" x 11". He added that the one has a stamp that it was received on 9-18-09 with a hand written note that it was received by email and they would have to bring in the original that day. He stated that the date on the drawing from Lehner's is dated 9-22-09. Therefore, he explained that he does not know if the 9-18-09 date is accurate or the 9-22-09, but there seems to be some inconsistencies. He explained that the smaller drawing does not show all of the significant structures in proximity to the property under consideration for the variance.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board receives packets and the board is required to visit the sites. Some individuals knock of people's doors and others that review from the street. He mentioned that personally he reviews properties from the street. He stated that basically it was standard protocol that the board members review the site before they come to the ZBA meeting. He commented that the board has been at the site many times. He then asked where Mr. Gendernalik was going with the different dates on the surveys and things of that nature?

Mr. Gendernalik answered that he was just preserving a record for his client's perspective. He continued that the notice and the court order stated that it was to show dimensions for significant structure. He stated that it does not show all the significant structures on their submission on either this one or the larger one. He explained that on the one submission there is a note that this was the only reason for the submission to be remanded back to the ZBA, but he repeated that the remand was as to the substantive issue of whether or not the petitioner was entitled to a variance and if he is not entitled, and/ or if he is entitled to a variance on one side versus the other and/or whether or not this board imposes conditions on the granted variance. He made an additional comment that was inaudible.

Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Gendernalik handed her a Survey A and a Survey B. She asked aren’t those the surveys from the previous submission?

Mr. Gendernalik stated that they couldn't be because they have a date from the surveyor of 9-22-09 in their logo box.

Ms. Anderson stated that with respect to the larger survey, Mr. Gendernalik indicated that there were some significant structures missing.

Mr. Gendernalik explained that he was getting to that right now. He then presented that board with an aerial of the neighborhood that was done by Macomb County. He stated that the property in question basically lies on the terminus of Bay Shore Drive and Bay Lane. He pointed out the home, the shed, the neighbor's house, the neighbor's garage and various other structures and properties of the neighborhood. He stated that from the file, the large survey drawing dated 9-29-09 shows the garage on the petitioner's property and the house that was demolished and rebuilt and the porch. He elaborated that this submission, shows a portion of his client's house on Lot 18, the petitioner's house is Lot 17 and the neighbor to the southwest is Lot 16, it shows their house, but not their garage. He thought the judge in his order of remand requested that it show on the request because the Township's ordinance states that the drawings be at a certain scale and that the survey shows structures in that area. He commented that obviously, the house and the shed and the garage are significant. He stated that his client was also concerned with separation of the properties. He added that was why there are setbacks with reference to fire and safety issues. He stated that in a typical variance request there is usually a reference to an alleged hardship. When they look back on the August 26, 2009 meeting minutes when Mr. Robert Kirk, the attorney on behalf of the petitioners spoke. He stated on page 9 of 15 in those minutes Mr. Kirk spoke on behalf of the petitioner and at the end of the minutes on that paragraph at the top of the page it states, "The practical difficulty involved was a self-created hardship in regard to the site and at this time he requested that the board consideration." He added that Mr. Kirk stated that, 'The petitioner would not be enlarging the home size; he would just be building a second story." Mr. Gendernalik stated obviously that was not a fact because the petitioner demolished the first floor and when the demolition occurred and the Township put in a stop work order because the petitioner did not have a permit for the demolition. When the stop work order was entered there was a directive based on a review of the file to put the facility in a safe condition, so that people on the premises would not be confronted with a hazard. He stated that in the photographs in files 1, 2, and 3, it shows that when the petitioner’s got to a certain point with the demolition and the stop work order went into place, the petitioners put down a blue tarp to preserve the status quo. So, he reiterated that the board already has the minutes from August 26th, when the petitioner's attorney admitted that it was a self-created hardship. If that is the case, the petitioner cannot get the variance because the ordinance states if the hardship is self-created they are not entitled to it. He added that secondly, if the petitioner demolished his place or it is changed for any reason, by more than 50%, than he would not be entitled to the non-conforming status. He stated that any building has to be in conformance with the current zoning requirements. He asked Ms. Anderson if she also wanted that submission as part of the ZBA record.

Ms. Anderson explained that she wanted anything he wanted as part of the record.

Mr. Gendernalik gave Ms. Anderson that paperwork.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that on the Building Department's records from 7-27-09 there is a hand written note from inspector S.S., he assumes that would be Mr. Shawn Shortt, that reflects that the demolition had occurred and the petitioner's were to put it in a safe condition. Then he notes that the variance was required and non-conformity was void now that the exterior walls have been removed.

Mr. Gendernalik submitted that as part of the record to Ms. Anderson.

Mr. Gendernalik quoted Section 76-567. Non-conforming structures and buildings. Subsection 2. "Should such structure or non-conforming portion of the structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement cost at a time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." He stated that it would be a mandatory provision, and clearly, in this matter, more than 50 percent of the structure by way of replacement costs was destroyed as the photographs clearly show that the only thing remaining was the garage and part of the foundation. He continued that at the stop work order stage, part of the first floor deck was still in place, but then the petitioners proceeded when they got their first building permit, they continued the demolition of the first floor deck and the floor joist. As the photographs indicate in the three file folders that were submitted. He explained that during their initial construction phase, the petitioner's had two large machines, one an excavator on crawlers and the other a back hoe with a front end loader. They had all those things there and they could have continued to demolish their foundation and build a new home, because in essence, that was what they were doing. He thought that the petitioner's might have done it surreptitiously because that was what it appears has transpired from his client's perspective. However, he stated that the petitioner's did not have the appropriate permits and they demolished the house and lost their non-conformity. He went on to say that because of that and the mandatory provisions in the ordinances the petitioner's should not be allowed the variance. The petitioner's have asked for two variances for the side yard setback on each side and obviously the ZBA now must decide on the substance as to whether or not to grant one or both of the variances requests. He reiterated that the petitioner's created their own hardship and that was acknowledged by their own attorney. He added that the ZBA could grant the variance on the other side, and not on his client's side. He stated that the petitioner's proceeded at their own peril with the ongoing construction. The decision was made on 8-26-09. He stated that his client filed her appeal at the Circuit Court the next day. The Township was served with papers shortly their after and within a few days he was retained and he wrote to the Township as to the procedural and substantive issues and asked that the work be stopped. He was aware of the fact that Mr. Kirk represented the petitioner and any correspondence he sent to the Township was also sent to Mr. Kirk, so his client would be aware of the litigation. Therefore, he reiterated that the petitioner's knew they were proceeding at their own peril. He explained that when he got a court hearing in front of Judge David Viviano, they were present and they did not decide to intervene and their attorney was there. He stated that the Judge stated that he was remanding the matter back for substantive issues and if the petitioner's proceed, they would be proceeding at their own peril. He stated that when they were here before, there was some discussion as to the porch on the lake side. He stated that the minutes reflect that that porch was going to be in conformance with the 10' side yard set backs on both sides. When the petitioner's construction started on that aspect, he and his clients were aware of the fact that it was not 10' off because their submissions show the dimension of their old house foundation from the side yard and from the surveys. He stated that when he counted over the blocks, the concrete blocks, they could see that they were not over by 10'. He continued that at that stage, they had only poured the footings for the porch. They immediately gave notice to the Township that they were in non-conformance as to that aspect. That issue came before the ZBA two weeks ago and they asked that it be tabled because these things are all inter-twined. The board decided not to and they have now proceeded to work on the porch. He reiterated that they have done that at their own peril. He stated that they do not feel on a substantive basis that the petitioners have demonstrated a hardship that was created by anyone but themselves. So they are not entitled to the variance. The Township ordinance in Section 76-615 (g) as to the review of a variance request it states: "The Zoning Board of Appeals shall approve, with or without conditions, or disapprove the application and shall communicate its action in writing to the applicant, the Township Board, the Building Administrator and the Township Planning Commission within one week from the time of the meeting at which it considered the application. He explained that in other words if the board granted a variance, that they could grant it with conditions. He stated that he had been in front of the board on many occasions when they imposed conditions. In this particular situation, he reiterated that their primary argument would be that the petitioners were not entitled to any variances for the two side yard setback requests. However, by any chance, the board does make a contrary determination, they would suggest that the conditions that would be imposed would be that the non-conforming shed be moved back about 62' and that the playscape would also be moved because there was plenty of room to put them in closer proximity to the petitioner's home.

Chairman Stepnak asked where Mr. Gendernalik suggested the shed be moved on the petitioner's property?

Mr. Gendernalik pointed to a spot on the plans. He mentioned that the shed sits on a ratwall and it was a fairly new construction. He stated that the shed would probably be bolted to the cement floor. The petitioner's could unbolt the shed, put it on PVC pipe and roll it across the yard and place it on a new footing, slab and foundation.

Chairman Stepnak asked if everyone on the board understood where they proposed the petitioner move the shed?

Mr. Gendernalik also suggested that the petitioner move the porch because the porch sits on four concrete blocks and they could be moved inward. Then the petitioner's could comply with the 10' setback and still have a porch.

Ms. Anderson addressed Mr. Gendernalik and stated that in order for this board to impose any conditions on a variance request, the conditions would have to be related to the variance request itself. She asked how moving the shed and moving the playscape have any relation to the variance request?

Mr. Gendernalik answered that because they are non-conforming structures and they are in the wrong location. His clients want relief because these items should be four feet from the property line and according to the survey, they are not four feet off. He stated that if someone was asking for relief for certain things, he has seen the ZBA before impose conditions that may be directly or indirectly related to the variance request. He has also seen situations where people put up a shed and did not pull the right permits because they were in the wrong location and a determination was made that the shed had to be moved. He thought it would be related because the petitioners have non-conforming activity on their property.

Ms. Anderson stated that she still did not understand how the shed was related to the setbacks for the house. She explained that if the shed is in the wrong spot that is an enforcement issue all on its own.

Mr. Gendernalik explained on that issue his clients have brought that to the attention of the Building Department and they have not taken any action because the shed is still sitting there in the wrong place. He stated that it would be related to the non-conformity of the use of their property. He repeated that the petitioner's lost their non-conforming status when they tore down the home...

Ms. Anderson stated that was why the petitioners were at the meeting that evening. She also mentioned that Mr. Gendernalik stated that it was not unusual to see 30' wide homes on narrow lots. She asked if he had any documentation he could show the board with 30' homes on R-1-A lots.

Mr. Gendernalik answered yes, in that neighborhood there are 40' lots where homes are meeting the side yard setbacks. He stated that in his written submission, he referenced the Schaffer home down the street at the terminus of Schneider and Bay Lane. He mentioned that in the Ken Smith situation, twice he went to court and both times he was successful because, they did not meet the 10' side yard set backs. as to their submission. Both times the court stated that they were not entitled to the variance, maybe on procedural issues, but that would be part of the substance. He commented that if someone goes by there now, they finally built their addition but they put it in 10'. Ken Smith when he wanted to build on to his house, the Fire Department wrote a letter stating they did not want him to build on to the side yard because of fire safety. He was denied and if you go to his house, he has a long narrow lot. He acquired more property to the north east. Therefore, if you visit the neighborhood, there are long narrow lots with long narrow houses on them.

Ms. Anderson stated that the procedural problems in the Ken Smith matter were the same ones that originally existed in this case that have now been corrected by the submission of the new survey.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that when the Schaffer’s built their home, they built in conformance; that was his point. He stated that after two go rounds, they built in conformance with the 10' set backs for their addition with no variance.

Ms. Anderson asked if they were building brand new or were they building on an existing foundation?

Mr. Gendernalik answered that they had an existing home and they built towards the water and they built on new foundation and there may have been a porch in that area that was eliminated. But in this situation, he repeated that, the petitioner's went right down to the foundation and the Township building inspector indicated that they lost their non-conformity status.

Ms. Anderson explained that was not in question. She stated that was why the petitioner's were here. If the petitioner's had not done that and lost that non-conforming status, they would not be in front of the ZBA for a variance.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that the petitioner's created their own problem. He reiterated that the petitioner's created their own hardship and that was acknowledged by their own attorney and it was in the ZBA minutes and that cannot be ignored.

Ms. Anderson commented that it could be disagreed with.

Chairman Stepnak stated that just because an attorney makes a comment does not mean that the board would not consider all the issues. He commented that people say things and basically the board looks at the whole package. He understood and appreciated

Mr. Gendernalik bringing that to the board's attention.

Martin Grashik, 49334 Bayshore Street, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Mr. Martin Grashik asked why there was a discussion about a shed being put up. He recalled signing a petition and the other neighbor also signed the petition and they both agreed that it was okay for the petitioners to put up the shed. He asked how Mr. Gendernalik was now bringing the shed up in the picture. He thought they were here to solve a problem, and here we are starting all over again.

Harold Lemmer, 49300 Bayshore, Chesterfield, MI addressed the board.

Mr. Harold Lemmer stated that he was confused. He came down to support the petitioners because of a technicality and he cannot believe that this thing is going this way. He has lived on that street his whole life all 32+ years. He thought that his house, his brother-in-laws house and Milewski's home are the only houses that have the 10' side yard setbacks. The majority of those homes were built after the tornado and were built on the old footings. There are some homes down there that are only 4 or 5 feet apart. He does not understand because these people did get the approval. If there is a problem with the shed, that was not a problem with what the judge said and what the notice was sent out for. He stated that there is not a neighbor down there that objects to the variance. The petitioner's are doing a beautiful job and are not blocking anyone's view. He made additional comments in favor of the board granting the petitioner's variance.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the only reason he brought up the shed was because it was on the transmittal letter from Mr. Gendernalik's office. He mentioned that he did get some comments from Ms. Anderson about how the shed would be taken into prospective to the project. He explained that Ms. Anderson informed the board that the shed should not really be part of the variance because it was a totally separate issue. He asked if she had any more comments on the matter?

Ms. Anderson stated that in her opinion, if there is something wrong with the shed and it is not in compliance with the ordinance, that would be a separate enforcement issue. The shed is on the plans as it needs to be if it is important with respect to this variance. She explained that if the board feels that that structure has some relation to their decision on the variance or it is somehow necessary that it is on the plan they may take that into consideration.

Mr. Gendernalik stated that obviously his clients object to it and they feel it impacts on their property. That was why they were there and that was why they went to court. He commented that when somebody stands up and states that no one objects to the variance, obviously his clients are. He stated that they live directly next to it. He stated that as Chairman Stepnak mentioned everything was taken into consideration when making a decision. He commented that the persons in the closest proximity obviously have some concern with what the ordinance states, what has transpired and what their rights are and the obligations of the Township when they have mandatory language that states it shall not be continued unless it is in compliance and the compliance is a 10' setback.

There were no more public comments.

Chairman Stepnak stated that, at that point, the board would not entertain any more comments from the public.

Petitioner stated that he has been completely opened and has complied with every decision the board has made. He stated that with regard to the shed that was decided last year.

Chairman Stepnak stated that they had discussed the shed because it was brought up in the information from Mr. Gendernalik's office. He stated that basically the petitioner was just waiting to go on with his project.

Mr. Leonard just wanted to address a comment that was brought up about the 50% rule. In the ordinance regarding non-conforming structures and buildings. He quoted that Section 76-576 (4) states: "Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition any nonconforming building or structure, or part thereof, declared to be unsafe". One of the comments he brought up back on August 26th was where the builders got into the old structure and realized that there were problems. He stated that was one of his comments and typically there were reasons for the petitioners to take things apart. He explained that no one wants to remove good materials and throw them into the trash. He commented that for someone to take out some bad materials there was a reason why they had to dig into it a little bit. He explained that out in the field things have a different look to them, many times a lot of things are not noticed until the builders are out in the field and sometimes it can be a can of worms.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board has always considered the waterfront as an old cottage community. The board has always looked favorably on individuals that wish to remodel or bring their buildings up to code. He stated that some of these homes were built in the 20's or 30's and now an individual comes in and wants to bring the property the building up to code. He explained that building codes have changed and materials have changed and the board feels to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community, when someone goes in and wants to rebuild something on the waterfront, they feel it is a plus/plus for the community.

Mr. Leonard commented that going back to the shed. He thought that if moving the shed would bring peace between two neighbors; it might not be a bad idea. He does not think the board has any reason to deal with that situation. He just thought that it might be something good neighbors would try to work out.

Petitioner stated that he did try to work that out a year ago before he did anything. He had proposed the spot that Mr. Gendernalik talked about. However, his neighbors at that time stated that they did not like that spot because they planned to build a gazebo in that area. He then told the neighbor he would move the shed back toward his home, which he did to give the neighbor move of a view.

Chairman Stepnak stated that he does not believe the shed has any bearing on this matter.

Ms. Anderson stated that Mr. Gendernalik has put it out to the board that the garage on Lot 16 does not show up on the survey that the board has in front of them. She explained that if the board thinks that showing that garage on the survey would be necessary for their decision, if they feel they cannot make a decision on the variance without seeing that garage on that survey, then she recommended that the board table the matter this evening. However, if the board feels that they have enough information, if they feel that they have been out to the site and have a good working knowledge of the site, and the depiction of the garage on the survey lends nothing to the board's decision, then she would advise the board to make that decision that evening.

Chairman Stepnak stated that the board has looked at this for a third time. They are familiar with the site and have seen many pictures of the site and if any of the board members want to review the pictures, they are in front of him. He understands the scale question that was part of the judge's directive, but the board members have been out at the site numerous times.

Motion by Mr. DeMuynck to approve ZBA Petition # 2009-16 requesting a 4.8 side yard setback on the east side of the residence and a 4.18 side yard setback on the west side of the residence. He stated that based on documentation and information that he has received that was presented that evening and at prior meetings, the conformity with the ordinance would be unreasonably burdensome. The applicant would not be receiving a privilege not available to other property owners. The variance would do substantial justice to the neighborhood and the applicant. The property is unique in that in most R-1-A zoned properties in the Township are more than 50' wide. When the home was originally built it complied with the existing Township zoning ordinance. The applicants are constructing this home within the exact same foot print and upon the existing foundation as the previous home. Narrow waterfront lots have traditionally presented unique situations and problems for municipalities. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause a practical difficulty for the applicant. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by other property owners with lots zoned R-1-A within the Township. When the zoning ordinance was amended to require 10' side yard setbacks, the applicants home was already built and the home to be constructed sits behind the adjacent neighbor's home farther from the lake and therefore will not impact the neighbor's view of the lake or use of their property.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Chairman Stepnak then polled the board for additional comments or concerns.

Mr. DeMuynck stated that he agreed with his vote.

Ms. Frame had no additional comments and she agreed with the motion.

Mr. Klonowski stated that he concurred.

Mr. Leonard stated that he concurred.

Ms. Orewyler stated that she also agreed with the motion.

Mr. Blake stated that he agreed.

Chairman Stepnak stated that he agreed with the motion and believed that it was approved on August 26th and the board was just clarifying their decision. He commented that all the members were polled and agreed with the motion that was presented to them that evening.

5. OLD BUSINESS:

There was no old business.

6. NEW BUSINESS:

There was no new business.

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PRIOR MEETING:

Motion by Ms. Orewyler to approve the minutes from the 10-14-09 ZBA meeting

Supported by Mr. Blake

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

8. COMMENTS FROM THE FLOOR:

Chairman Stepnak stated that on a sorry note, the board was going to be losing Mr. Leonard who was moving to the Planning Commission. He mentioned that Mr. Tom Yaschen was going to be taking Mr. Leonard's spot on the board. He also stated that Mr. DeMuynck would also be leaving the board.

Mr. Leonard thanked the board members. He stated that he had been on the ZBA for eight years, he learned a lot and he enjoyed working with his fellow board members. He would miss the members of this board, but he was looking forward to his new position with the Planning Commission.

Mr. DeMuynck stated that he was assigned to the Parks and Recreation Board. He thanked his fellow board members and stated that it had been a pleasure working with everyone. He thanked Mr. Leonard for helping him learn a lot of things and answering a lot of questions he had about building.

Chairman Stepnak thanked Ms. Anderson for attending the meeting.

9. ADJOURNMENT:

Motion by Chairman Stepnak to adjourn at 8:09 PM.

Supported by Ms. Frame

Ayes: All

Nays: None Motion Granted

Nancy Orewyler, Secretary

Grace Mastronardi, Recording Secretary

 

 

 

 

Go To Top