***** UNAPPROVED MINUTES *****

JAMESTOWN ZONING BOARD OF REVIEW

Minutes of the April 23, 2002 Meeting

A regular meeting of the Jamestown Zoning Board of Review was held at the Jamestown Library, 26 North Rd. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:04 p.m. The clerk called the roll and noted the following members present:

Richard Allphin

Thomas Ginnerty

Don Wineberg

Raymond Iannetta

Richard Boren

Joseph Logan

Kathleen Managhan

Also present: Brenda Hanna, Stenographer

Pat Westall, Zoning Clerk

Fred Brown, Zoning Officer

Bruce Leach, Counsel

MINUTES

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Ray, and Richard B.

Minutes of the March 26, 2002 meeting.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Raymond Iannetta to accept the minutes of the March 26, 2002 meeting as presented.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

CORRESPONDENCE

Copy of a letter to Tenley Vanderwal from Michele Musselman dated April 11, 2002.

A letter from William Kelly dated April 15, 2002.

Dutton

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Raymond, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Richard Boren and seconded by Don Wineberg to DENY the appeal of Michael P Dutton and Jean Ann Dutton, whose property is located at 1350 North Main Rd., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 1, Lot 243 pursuant to Sections 408 and 503 of the Zoning Ordinance from a determination of the Zoning Official dated October 17, 2001 regarding the appellants' right to have portable sheds on the property and an accessory apartment on the property.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a RR80 zone and contains 80,000 sq. ft.

2. On 7/3/01 the Duttons applied for a building permit for a proposed horse barn. The application was denied.

3. According to testimony, the horse barn was not for purely agricultural purposes.

4. Shortly after the denial, the Dutton's purchased 2 portable sheds on skids. Each shed is 10 feet by 12 feet.

5. On 10/17/01, the zoning enforcement officer served a notice of violation upon the Duttons indicating that an accessory structure was installed without a required building permit.

6. There were 3 abutters (2 abutters and one represented by counsel) opposed to the application.

7. Section 401 of code requires that no structures shall be erected until a permit shall have been issued by the zoning enforcement officer.

8. No such permit has been issued.

9. Definition 108 entitled "Structures" provides that a structure is a combination of materials to form a construction for use whether installed on, above, or below the surface.

10. Definition 9 entitled Agricultural Structures is a structure necessary to conduct agricultural practices, including barns and sheds.

11. A portable shed, whether on skids or not, is a structure, whether agricultural or not, and needs approval by the zoning officer for a building permit.

With respect to the garage with a dwelling unit above, the decision is based upon the following findings of fact:

12. In June 1988 the Duttons applied for a building permit to construct a garage.

13. A subsequent tax field evaluation in 1993 noted, "Ranch over garage".

14. The Duttons have no recollection whether any permits were applied for the "Ranch over garage" including electrical, DEM, or sewer.

15. The Building Official is not estopped from raising the alleged illegal use.

16. There is in fact an illegal use of a one-bedroom apartment over the garage.

17. This conversion is a violation of Article 3, Table 3-1 Permitted Uses D Residential.

The motion to deny carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

Bucklin

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Raymond, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Don Wineberg and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to grant the request of William Bucklin for Duanna M. Hodges, whose property is located at 620 East Shore Rd. and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 2, Lot 36 for a variance from Article 3, Section 311 (Maximum Size of Accessory Structure) to construct a storage shed of 1565 sq. ft. wherein 600 sq. ft. is allowed as shown on plans submitted.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a RR80 zone and contains 145,081 sq. ft.

2. The size of the shed relative to the lot size is minimal.

3. There were no opponents.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0

Roberts

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Raymond, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Raymond Iannetta and seconded by Richard Allphin to grant the request of Barbara H. Roberts, whose property is located at 28 Marcello Dr., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 7, Lot 38 for a variance from Article 3, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct an addition to an existing single-family dwelling which will be 13' from the western property line (Marcello Dr.) 30' required and 8' from the southern property line, 10' required as shown on plans submitted.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a R40 zone and contains 16,732 sq. ft.

2. The existing home is 2,350 sq. ft.with a one-car garage that is approximately 28 feet from the front line where 30 ft. is required. If the garage were placed on the opposite side it would impede the neighbors view and not be in character with the surrounding neighborhood.

3. The hardship is due to the unique characteristics of the cantilevered placement of the existing home and the narrowness of the property.

4. The granting of this variance will permit both neighbors to maintain their current views and will not alter the character of the surrounding neighborhood.

5. No abutters spoke against the request.

6. The hardship is not a result of a prior action of the applicant.

The motion carried by a vote of 4 - 1.

Thomas Ginnerty voted against the motion.

Jamestown Place

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Richard B., and Joseph.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Joseph Logan to continue the application of Jamestown Place to the May 21, 2002 meeting at the request of John Murphy, attorney for the applicant.

The applicant is waiting for Development Planning Review and action from the Planning Commission.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

Heath

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Raymond, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Don Wineberg and seconded by Richard Allphin to grant the request of Steven & Mary Heath, whose property is located at 87 Columbia Ave., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 9, Lot 141 for a variance from Article 3, Section 302 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct an addition to existing shed which is 2' from rear lot line instead of the required 10' as shown on plans submitted.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This variance is granted with the restriction that there are no plumbing, heating, bathroom, or kitchen facilities.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a R8 zone and contains 10,998 sq. ft.

2. The proposed use of the addition is storage, table tennis, and a studio.

3. The present shed carved into ledge, average height present peak 5' above ground level, proposed addition 9' above ground level.

4. The present shed is 300 sq. ft., proposed addition = 430 sq. ft.

5. Added sections are 3' from the rear lot line although the existing shed is already 2' from the rear lot line.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

Piccoli

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Richard B., and Joseph.

A motion was made by Joseph Logan and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to grant the request of David L. Piccoli II, whose property is located at 584 East Shore Rd., and further identified at Tax Assessor's Plat 2, Lot 84 for a Dimensional Variance from Article 3, Section 302, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct an addition on an existing house, 11 feet from south side lot line, and 9 feet 4 inches from north side line, which addition shall be in excess of 35 feet high as shown on plans submitted.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This variance is granted with the restriction that the proposed structure not be higher than 36 ft. (1 foot above the height restriction of the zoning ordinance).

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a R80 zone and contains 61,820 sq. ft.

2. The property is very narrow (107 ft. at the road) compared to its depth (over 612').

3. The side setback on the south side is only 1 ft. beyond the present footprint at only one point. No more relief is necessary on the north side.

4. One abutter objected in writing. No one spoke in favor.

5. The orientation of the dining area (which encroaches 1 foot more than the present footprint) minimizes the view impact on the abutter to the south.

6. Tall trees screen the roofline from the abutters on either side.

After considerable discussion a motion was made by Joseph Logan and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to amend the motion to read as follows:

A motion was made by Joseph Logan and seconded by Thomas Ginnerty to DENY the request of David L. Piccoli II, whose property is located at 584 East Shore Rd., and further identified at Tax Assessor's Plat 2, Lot 84 for a Dimensional Variance from Article 3, Section 302, Table 3-2 (District Dimensional Regulations) to construct an addition on an existing house, 11 feet from south side lot line, and 9 feet 4 inches from north side line, which addition shall be in excess of 35 feet high as shown on plans submitted.

This Board has determined that this application DOES NOT satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a R80 zone and contains 61,820 sq. ft.

2. This Board does not approve of any part of the building being higher than 35'.

3. Because it is not clear how the applicant will meet this restriction in regards to the setbacks requested, we also deny the setback requests.

4. However, we encourage this applicant to reapply with new plans and therefore section 505 will not be a bar to this application.

The amended motion carried by a vote of 4 - 1.

Richard Boren opposed the motion.

Balloch

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Richard B., and Joseph.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Joseph Logan to grant the request of Hugh and Susan Balloch (Altamira Limited Partnership, owner), whose property is located on Racquet Rd., and further identified as Tax Assessor's Plat 10, Lot 100 for a variance from Article 3, Section 311 (Maximum Size of Accessory Structures) to retain a 5000 sq. ft. carriage house which will exceed the size limitations of Section 311.

This Board has determined that this application does satisfy the requirements of Article 6, Section 600; Section 606, Paragraphs 1 through 4; and Section 607, Paragraph 2.

This variance is granted with the following restrictions:

1. That subsequent to the completion of the proposed new residence, all kitchen facilities shall be removed from the carriage house.

2. That the carriage house shall not be used for habitation once the main residence is completed and occupied.

This motion is based on the following findings of fact:

1. Said property is located in a R80 zone and contains 2.1 acres.

2. That the subject carriage house accessory structure represents significant historical and architectural value to the community.

3. That the owners plan to reside in the carriage house during the time for construction of their new residence, hereafter vacate and remove the kitchen facility.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

Osprey Creek

Seated: Richard A., Thomas, Don, Raymond, and Richard B.

A motion was made by Thomas Ginnerty and seconded by Raymond Iannetta to continue the application of Osprey Creek to the May 21, 2002 meeting due to the lateness.

The motion carried by a vote of 5 - 0.

ADJOURNMENT

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn at 11:15 p.m.

The motion carried unanimously.