MINUTES

Board of Adjustment Hearing

April 9, 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

                        Jack Hauser

                        Shirley McKinney

                        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 Daniel Durbin, Patrick Jostrand and Michael Altepeter. 

The Chairperson asked Mr. Durbin and Mr. Jostrand if they had objections to any of the Members of the Board of Adjustment comprising the quorum?  To which they responded they did not.  Darryl Brody read the Notice of Public Hearing for the first agenda item regarding Mr. Daniel and Mrs. Shelly Durbin’s request to construct a front porch addition that encroaches 5.23‘ beyond the front building line.   

Mr. Durbin gave a very brief explanation to the Board stating first, his house faces north.  He said most houses on his street have circular drives, but his does not.  He also stated his house doesn’t have a porch.  He said that several times a year they are met with unsafe conditions because the ice at the stoop does not melt.  While he and his wife were having plans drawn for a front porch, his wife’s plans became more elaborate and more expensive and they ended up with this proposal.  

A call for proponents and opponents was made, to which there were 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) four are, one are not (2) three will not, two will (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, Hauser, McKinney, Newmark, and Rosenstrauch.  There were no nays.  

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

The Chairperson then read the second agenda item for a request from Mr. Patrick and Mrs. Julie Jostrand to construct a front porch that will encroach approximately 7’ and a garage addition that will encroach approximately 4’ into the required 75’ front yard setback.  Mr. Jostrand introduced himself and stated his request.  His house also faces north and in addition to having ice that is slow to melt, he has a washout problem under the stoop.  It was actually at the termite company’s suggestion that he have the entire front porch redone in order for Orkin to treat the foundation.  He further explained Orkin has been out three times for this problem at the front door area.  When contracting with the architect, it was suggested that it would be more pleasing to the eye to have the front porch bumped out, which then places it in front of the setback.  He then spoke of the difficulties of placing the garage addition to the rear of the house due to a mature tree and that construction would block a swale creating water and siltation problems for those living below his grade.  The addition to the front was deemed the most suitable way to mitigate those issues.  

After discussion, it was determined the application should be amended to read, not to exceed (with emphasis) 7’ for the front porch and not to exceed (with emphasis) 4’ for the garage addition.  And when the vote was taken, it would be with the understanding that a new site plan be delivered to City Hall showing exact dimensions of the encroachment for both projects -- before construction begins.  The Board Members all agreed and Mr. Jostrand stated his agreement.  

The Board Chairman asked Mr. Jostrand if he had a preference for Board Members to vote on the project as one issue or two?  Mr. Jostrand deferred to Darryl Brody’s choice, whereupon it was decided if the total project failed, it could be re-voted as two projects.  All Board Members all agreed and Mr. Jostrand stated his agreement. 

A call for proponents was made.  Mr. Mike Altepeter spoke, saying he would like to see a favorable response to this request on the point this project would enhance values.  He asked the Members of the Board of Adjustment to vote “yes”.  

A call for opponents was made, to which there were 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 to construct a front porch not to exceed 7’ from the front building line and not to exceed 4’ beyond the front building line for the garage addition: question (1) four are, one are not (2) three will not, two will (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 variances with the understanding that before any construction takes place, a site plan showing exact dimensions of encroachments for both projects will be submitted to City Hall, with the following results:  Yeas: Brody, Hauser, McKinney, Newmark, and Rosenstrauch.  There were no nays.  

The Chairperson declared the petition as being approved.  Darryl Brody then advised Mr. Jostrand that the variance granted by the Board is based upon the Board receiving a new site plan, 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 8:30 p.m. 

                                                            Michele McMahon

                                                            City Clerk

                                                            City of Clarkson Valley