02/05/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

land to 237-25-008 to accommodate the existing driveway. He noted the home located on parcel A faces/fronts Masticlc Road not Parlc Lane like the other 8 homes within the cul-de-sac. Adding the home to the cul-de-sac does not enhance nor fit into the neighborhood, requires a variance and will be a non-conforming home. Ms. Rudolph questioned if Mr. Weideman was saying he did not object to the variance and he answered yes. Mr. Weideman said the way the lot and home is today everything is conforming and aslced why the owners couldn't just quit claim the ownerships. Mr. O'Malley said he nor board members could answer such questions. He explained the boards review process.and how they should proceed. He also clarified that parcel B required the lot width variance- not proposed parcel A-which does not require variances nor review by the board. Although the width of parcel B is preexisting the request for the lot split requires the width be addressed. Mr. Weideman questioned if parcel A would have a Parlc Lane address if the split is approved. Mr. O'Malley said the question could not be answered. Mr. Lemp aslced how/when parcel B receive a variance and why a variance was required again. Ms. Rudolph said the parcel as it exists today is grandfathered for the width however splitting the lot requires that the Mastick Road width meet today's codes or a variance be granted which is what is currently being requested. Mr. Mitchell explained the Masticlc Road entrance requires a width variance as the lot is not 80 feet wide at the 50 foot setback from Masticlc Road right of way. The Park Lane 50 foot setback distance from the right of way exceeds the required 80 foot width and does not require a variance. Mr. Fatsie said the first PDC notice they received stated both newly created parcels required variances for lot width. The clerk advised that the notice stating both parcels required variances was a clerical error. Mr. Fatsie said there were other ways to accomplish ownership without a lot split. Splitting the lot will affect not only the value of the lots being split but those along Park Lane as well. Ms. Tyrone aslced once parcel B is created could the vacant lot be sold and a new home built on the lot. Mrs. Diver said such a question should be directed to PDC. Ms. Tyrone voiced neighbors concerns are once split the vacant lot will be sold and developed. Ms. Drossis said she had no intention of building a home as she already has a very large home behind the vacant lot. Mr. O'Malley advised that the board could only address the variance as requested they could not address questions pertaining to the lot split or future land use. Ms. Bratton asked why her home was not notified as she abuts the property in question. A brief discussion ensued regarding requirements for legal notices and although Ms. Bratton's home did not about the applicant the clerlc said she would add Ms. Bratton to all future notices. Everyone present who did not receive a notice was invited to submit their contact information to receive all future notices. Mr. O'Malley said if improper notification was given the matter should be re- doclceted however if proper notification was given the board should proceed. Ms. Rudolph noted that although the Bratton's were not notified they were present therefore the board should proceed and Mrs. Bellido agreed. Mrs. Sergi said if the clerk was confident proper notice was given the board should trust proper notice was given. Mr. Mitchell advised that he had discussed the issue with the clerlc prior to notices being sent out and proper notice was given. Ms. Drossis advised that the Thomas and Bratton parcels don't own the driveway they were given an access easement to use the driveway which belongs to parce1237-25-007 not 237-25-008. Mrs. Sergi said that the variance is substantial but the condition is preexisting and the only way to eliminate the variance is to purchase additional land. The character of the neighborhood would not be altered as the width is preexisting. There is no way to obtain the required 80 foot width and the home located at the baclc of the lot only has access at Park Lane. There is no driveway from home to Masticlc Road. Ms. Rudolph agreed with Mrs. Sergi's assessment. Mrs. Diver said she was ambivalent as the condition was in place for years. The character of the neighborhood would not suffer or be altered by granting the variance. Governmental services 2