Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

152 Page 4 -- January l 0, 2004 DECISION: Affirmed. Heitzman was not entitled to the variances. Heitzman wanted to construct a larger, significantly taller residence on a small noncompliant lot where the maxirnum lot coverage was already exceeded. The cottage was located in an area consisting of structures that were pre- dominantly small, single-story r~sidences that were very close together and located on largely noncompliant lots. The town was attempting to limit further development of the area, and it concluded granting the variances would lead to an undesirable change in the character of the community and have an adverse impact on physical conditions in the neighborhood. The town reasoned an increase in lot coverage and den- sity would be inconsistent with the community's efforts to 1/mit noncompliant growth. Other residents, testL,Sed the proposed construction would constitute an undesirable visual intrusion and have a negative impact on the area's visual aesthetics. The requested variances were substantial. ]~n fact, the proposed structure would exceed the max. irnum allowable lot coverage by 15 percent. Heitzman claimed new construction, requirements rendered rebuilding the cottage unfeasible. However, a viable alternative e~sted because the zoning code permitted Heitzman to rebuild on the original footprint. Citation: Heit,~man v. Town of Lake George Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept., No. 93739 (2003). see also: Citizens Against illegal Zoning v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Town of Rochester, 276 A.D.2d 897 (2000). see also: lfrah v. Utschig, 774 N.E. 2d 732 (2002). Plat Approval -- Registered deed contains no reference to. contingent woodland buffer Township denies swimming pool that would encroach upon it MICHIGAN (10/23/03) -- In 1993, the township planning commission ~anted tentative plat approval for a property contingent on several restrictions. One of these was a 60-foot woodland buffer area along the side of a public road. The site plan ~br the property, which was drafted by the developer, included reference to the woodland buffer. However, the developer recorded a declara- tion of restrictions for the property that did not include reference to the wood- land buffer. Although the township sent a letter to the developer mentioning the wood- land buffer, the final plat, which was approved and recorded with the register of deeds, did not contain any reference to the woodland buffer. In 2000, Urbanick purchased the property from the developer. Urbanick applied for a permit to build a swimming pool. However, the pern-fit was de- reed because the proposed pool would encroach on the designated buffer area.