MINUTES

Board of Adjustment Hearing

January 17, 2008 

The Clarkson Valley Board of Adjustment, pursuant to notices posted, met at City Hall in the Fru-Con Building to consider two agenda items.  

Board of Adjustment members present were:

              Darryl Brody, Chairperson

              Walter DeGrendele

              Stan Green

              Phyllis Newmark

              Terry Rosenstrauch 

The City Attorney, Mr. Patrick Butler attended and the City Clerk, Michele McMahon recorded the Minutes.  The Chairman asked if all Board Members had a chance to view the properties, to which they responded affirmatively. 

After the meeting was called to order and protocol established, those members in the audience wishing to address the Commission regarding the agenda items were sworn in.  They included Marty Carrow and Ashish Upadhyay. 

The Chairperson asked Mr. Carrow and Mr. Upadhyay if they had objections to any of the Members of the Board of Adjustment comprising the quorum?  To which they responded they did not.  The Chairperson spoke about Mr. Carrow’s previous hearing before this Board and asked the one member not present at the December 10th meeting if he had a chance to read the Minutes and if he understood the necessity for Mr. Carrow’s subsequent hearing.  Mr. DeGrendele stated that he felt he was up-to-speed.  Darryl Brody read the Notice of Public Hearing for the first agenda item regarding Mr. and Mrs. Martin Carrow’s request to consider the submittals requested with the advisory vote of approval to construct a retaining wall 23’6” beyond the side building line and to review the updated site plan.   

Mr. Carrow, who lives at 9 Fairlake, briefed the Board of his previous hearing and how the retaining wall was not requested at that time.  He said neither he nor his contractor was sure of the final grade, but the wall would be no higher than 5’.  Mr. DeGrendele mentioned the neighbor’s (Stopke) comment regarding the previously approved addition, which stated that they approved of the Carrow’s petition as long as provisions were made to contain the additional storm water runoff.  Mr. Carrow reported he and Mr. Roberts were working with the City’s Building Commissioner and Rick Stopke to address that issue.   

A call for proponents and opponents was made, to which there was none.  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.   

The Chairperson, Darryl Brody, asked the Members for their factual determination of the first proposal 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 with the following results:  Yeas: Brody, DeGrendele, Green, Newmark, and Rosenstrauch.  There were no nays. 

The Chairperson declared Mr. Carrow’s petition as being approved.  Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Carrow that the variance granted by the Board is based upon the plans submitted on December 10 and at this evening’s meeting, which are to be made part of the Application.  Any change in those plans will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting and at the December 10 meeting. 

The Chairperson then read the second agenda item for a request from Mr. Ashish Upadhyay to construct a deck approximately 8’ to 10’ beyond the 50’ rear setback at 16814 Kehrsbrooke.  Mr. Upadhyay introduced himself and stated his request.  After some discussion, it was determined the deck plans were clear, however, the site plan contained no exact measurement for the variance being requested.  The Board Members explained to Mr. Upadhyay what was required of him and his surveyor.  Mr. Brody polled the Board Members to determine if there would be a problem with voting on this proposal with the determination that Mr. Upadhyay’s contractor not exceed 10’ beyond the rear building line and a new site plan be presented.  The Board Members and Patrick Butler felt that because the application read “not to exceed eight (8’) feet to ten (10’) feet”, it would be appropriate to take a vote.  Mr. Upadhyay stated he would contract for a revised site plan. 

A call for proponents and opponents was made, to which there was none.  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.   

The Chairperson, Darryl Brody, asked the Members for their factual determination of the second agenda item for the deck not to exceed ten (10’) feet beyond the rear building line: 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 with the following results:  Yeas: Brody, DeGrendele, Green, Newmark, and Rosenstrauch.  There were no nays.   

The Chairperson declared the petition as being approved.  Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Upadhyay that the variance granted by the Board is based upon the Board receiving a new site plan showing exact dimensions of deck and the amount of footage that exceeds the rear building line, which will then be made part of the Application.  Any change in those plans other than discussed at this meeting will negate the variance that was granted at this meeting. 

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.  

                                   Michele McMahon