The ZBA exists to help ensure that when the zoning code doesn't fit the circumstance that a resident requires to adapt/improve their property there are some people with "common sense" who can look at the situation and provide guidance and "variances" to the zoning code. Clearly someone who has a 15 acre parcel in an agricultural district should follow different rules than someone who has a third of an acre in a highly dense neighborhood.
The other role of the ZBA is to take into consideration not only the immediate neighbors and how they will be affected by the change -- but the precedent that they are setting..... and the impact on other neighborhoods.
The five points that the ZBA must consider are (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created
Usually the Board reviews these points when moving to make a motion -- but that did not happen at the January 9 meeting.
At the meeting there were two public hearings on the agenda -- both requesting substantial variances on size and set-backs.
The First on Orange Court - a cul-de-sac of homes with about an acre and a quarter lots.
The applicant proposed an accessory structure of 1,464 feet where 800 square feet is allowed -- which is 83% larger than the code allows. During the public hearing - a neighbor commented that this is a very large structure and expressed concerns about the impact to the neighborhood, environmental impacts during the construction and after construction. Other neighbors expressed that they were comfortable with the size and the proposed development. The board approved with project with the requirement that a six foot fence be constructed along the property line.
The second public hearing was a request to reduce the size of required set-backs to install a shed and an inground pool on Helen Drive on a property of .36 acres.
For the 10X14' Shed where 20 feet is required - the applicant can provide 7.2 feet - requiring a variance of 12.8 feet for the side yard -- and where 40 feet is required for a rear property line, the applicant can provide 5.9 feet - requiring a variance of 34.1 feet.
For the pool -- the where 20 feet to a side yard is required - the applicant can provide 10.6 feet requiring a variance of 9.4 feet.
For the rear yard -- where 40 feet is required - the applicant can provide 9.3' - requiring a variance of 30.7 feet.
The board approved these requests, overriding concerns expressed by neighbors who attended the public hearing and brushed aside suggestions that the applicant's layout of the project be reconfigured to require less setback variances. The board did request that a 6 foot privacy fence be installed.
These are substantial variances, and the neighbors who purchased their homes assumed that the set-back variances in the code would be enforced and/or be minimal -- this changes their relationship to their yards and the use of them.
Комментарии