ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

January 16, 2007

The Zoning Board of Appeals met on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. in the classroom located in the lower level of the Municipal Center. Acting Chairman Kish, Members Vakirtzis, Haug and Smith; Alternate Members Sullivan and Mather; Deputy Building Inspector Dave Buckley and City Attorney Pisanelli were in attendance. Member Munoz and Alternate Member Worthy were absent; Chairman Dunne was not in attendance.

Mr. Kish outlined the format of the Board's proceedings for the benefit of the public. The meeting was then opened on a motion by Ms. Haug, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Kish noted six members were present and four votes would be needed in order to grant a variance.

Mr. Kish called for corrections/additions or a motion to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2006 meeting. Ms. Smith made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2006 meeting as submitted, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

ITEM NO. 1 REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY WILSON SORIA, 160 WASHINGTON AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-32-404825, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION REQUIRING RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(c) FOR A 10 FT.-1¼ IN. SIDE YARD SETBACK (15 ft. required)

The public hearing on the revised application submitted by Wilson Soria, 160 Washington Avenue, to construct an addition requiring relief from Section 223.17(c) for a 10 ft.-1¼ in. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Manuel Quezada, of Emil Bandriwsky Architects, described changes that were made to Wilson Soria’s plan since the last meeting. Due to the number of concerns raised, an accessory apartment is no longer being proposed which eliminates the need for a rear parking area. The addition was shifted away from the property line and reduced in size. A variance for a side yard setback is still required but it is much less than previously requested.

John VanTassel, 87 Overlook Avenue, explained last month he expressed concern about how far the addition will extend into the back yard. The plan shows that the addition will only be approximately 31 ft. from their bedroom and yard. Other properties in the area do not have additions impeding into their back yard space. Mr. VanTassel appreciated the change in plans but four or five other owners moved when their families started to grow. He reported Mr. Soria has only lived there for a year and knew his family was growing before he purchased the house. Mr. VanTassel expressed his opposition to the addition because it will bother him and other neighbors.

James O’Blaney, 67 Overlook Avenue, provided copies of the tax map to show the lot layout of the area. He objected to the addition because the house will be out of harmony and symmetry with others in the neighborhood. The existing house is already larger than his, and the addition will make it twice the size on a smaller lot. After a lengthy discussion with the applicant about the addition, Mr. O’Blaney felt the spirit of the neighborhood would be broken and hoped the variance would not be approved.

Christine VanTassel, 87 Overlook Avenue, strongly objected to the addition because it will be in the way of their living space. She felt their quality of living and life style would be compromised if approved.

Mr. Buckley explained the variance request is for the side yard setback only and the proposed addition meets the rear yard setback requirement. The required side yard setback is 15 ft. and the request is for 3 ft. ¾ inch variance. Mr. Vakirtzis suggested moving the addition over so a variance is not required. Mr. Quezada reported they looked at doing that but it improves the interior layout. Mr. Buckley reiterated the applicant does not need a variance for the rear yard setback and a rear addition can be constructed through a valid building permit without approval from this board.

Mr. Soria explained the property provides plenty of space for an addition. He felt a bedroom, living room and play area would not adversely affect the neighbors because he will not be going over his property line.

Mr. VanTassel responded that it is not a personal attack yet it will change the way they have lived for 25 years.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Kish verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Ms. Haug made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to grant the requested side yard variance, seconded by Ms. Smith. On roll call Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Smith, Ms. Haug, Mr. Kish and Ms. Mather voted in favor of the motion; Mr. Vakirtzis voted against the motion. Motion carried. Variance granted; 5-1.

ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JOANNE PRECOUR, 105 WESLEY AVENUE, TAX GRID NO. 6054-25-530996, R1-10 ZONING DISTRICT, TO CONSTRUCT A 16 FT. X 40 FT. ADDITION REQUIRING RELIEF FROM SECTION 223.17(c) FOR 11 FT.-9 IN. REAR YARD SETBACK (35 ft. required) AND 11 FT.-3 IN. SIDE YARD SETBACK (15 ft. required)

The public hearing on the application submitted by Joanne Precour, 105 Wesley Avenue, to construct a 16 ft. x 40 ft. addition requiring relief from Section 223.17(c) for 11 ft.-9 in. rear yard setback and 11 ft.-3 in. side yard setback was opened on a motion made by Mr. Vakirtzis, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Joe Precour, representing his sister Joanne, explained the existing house is only 535 sq. ft. and he would like to bring the house up to code to better suit the area. The neighborhood consisted of cottages and shacks and this is one of last remaining small structures. An old dilapidated two car garage, which is only one foot from the property line, will be taken down to provide space for the addition.

Joy Neary and Janice Antonio, 97 Wesley Avenue, voiced their opposition to the proposal. They reported Mr. Precour came into the neighborhood 6-7 years ago and purchased, renovated and resold several houses in the area. He either sold or rents the house he owned and no longer lives in the neighborhood. They reported that his brother-in-law lives in the subject house and it is run down and messy. Ms. Antonio and Ms. Neary expressed concern that the addition will be too close to their house and complained about the other neighbor who recently expanded their living space. Overall they feel their property is being closed in by the neighbors and objected to the requested variance.

There were no further comments from the public and Mr. Kish verified with the Board secretary that no correspondence had been received regarding this appeal. Mr. Vakirtzis made a motion to close the public hearing, seconded by Ms. Smith. All voted in favor. Motion carried.

Ms. Smith made a motion to grant the requested variances, seconded by Mr. Sullivan. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Variance granted; 6-0.

There was no further business to discuss and Ms. Smith made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Haug. All voted in favor. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:15p.m.