|
|
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Monday,
July 12, 2010 7:30
p.m. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE: APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
July 12, 2010 INTRODUCTION OF MEMBERS:
CALL TO PUBLIC:
Agenda Items only – 3 minute limit APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR:
May 3, 2009 Regular meeting OLD BUSINESS:
ZBA Case # 02-09 – Daniel C.
Strong
NEW BUSINESS:
ZBA Case # 02-10 – John & Judith LaFleur
CALL TO PUBLIC: ADJOURNMENT: DRAFT MINUTES
MEMBERS
PRESENT: Dan Lowe, Dan Rossbach and Linda Manson-Dempsey **************************************************************************************************** CALL TO ORDER
Linda Manson-Dempsey called the meeting to order at APPROVAL OF AGENDADan Rossbach motioned to approve
the agenda as presented. Dan Lowe seconded.
Motion carried 3-0. MEMBERS PRESENT The members of the Zoning Board of
Appeals introduced themselves. CALL TO THE PUBLIC None. OLD BUSINESS ZBA Case #02-09—Danield C.
Strong, Annette
McNamara updated the ZBA members on this item.
The applicant has provided an affidavit of ownership, and the
neighbor has done the same. He
has also dropped the variance request for the accessory structure, and is
only asking for a 9’ variance on the east property line for a hot tub. Dan
Rossbach motioned for ZBA Case #02-09, Daniel C. Strong, 771 Hurley Dr., Tax
ID #4710-35-301-029, to grant a 9’ side yard setback variance to Section
8.04 E 3 a #2 on the east property line for a hot tub; applicant has dropped
the request for a variance on the rear yard setback, Section 8.04 E 3 a #1,
considering the following criteria: 1.
How the
strict enforcement of the provisions of the township zoning ordinance would
cause an unnecessary hardship and deprive the owner of rights enjoyed by all
other property owners owning property within the same zoning district.
The structure does not cause
any obstruction. 2.
The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property, which are not similarly
applicable to other properties in the same zoning district.
The
conditions and circumstances are unique because of the topography, the size
of the lake lot, and this location is most suitable for the structure. 3.
The
conditions and circumstances unique to the property were not self created. The
circumstances were not self-created; it’s a topography issue. 4.
Why the
requested variance will not confer special privileges that are denied other
properties similarly situated and in the same zoning district.
Variances have been granted to
similar situations. 5.
Why the
requested variance will not be contrary to the spirit and intent of this
zoning ordinance. Granting
this variance does not create a hardship for any other property owners.
6.
The difficulty shall not be deemed solely economic.
There
is no financial gain. Dan Lowe
seconded. Motion carried 3-0. NEW BUSINESSZBA
Case #02-10—John & Judith LaFleur,
|
|