Minutes of Meeting
December 7, 2006
1. ROLL CALL
Present: William Doolittle, John Stetson, Anna Giacobbe, Jeff Dittl and Charles LaMendola
2. PURPOSE:
This was a Public Hearing of the Town of Trenton Zoning Board and a Regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
3. PROCEEDINGS:
The Public Hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:05pm to hear the following case:
APPEAL# 6030 JAMAL EMAD, 8246 TRENTON FALLS RD, BARNEVELD, NY 13304, PARCEL# 212.000-2-3, ZONING RA; APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE FOR SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL TO CONSTRUCT A PERSONAL RESIDENCE
Doolittle stated that the reason for the public hearing was that the original request by Emad’s to subdivide their property for the purpose of building a new personal residence based on detailed plans and site drawings had changed, and now the Emad’s wished to subdivide their property for purposes of holding a vacant lot available for re-sale. Doolittle stated we understand that your request is to keep the approved variance (5/22/06) in place. Building and site plans were reviewed at that time, and review of prior approvals by the Zoning Enforcement Officer, were considered and provided to the Planning Board, which recommended approval. Doolittle continued, from the Board’s point of view the request has changed in that Emad has purchased a home in another area and is no longer planning to build as indicated at the prior hearing.
The Emads indicated that they want to hold the parcel and make it available for sale with their former residence, which is on the remaining portion of the original property. Emad stated that he has the right to give the land to his son and that he may not be selling the two parcels together. Gina Emad stated that they are trying to keep their options open. Emad stated that since the decision has already been made, why should it be revoked? Doolittle responded that this meeting was called because the original request has changed and the justification for the prior decision no longer exists.
Emad stated he is not guilty of anything that there are many ways he could use the land, but that he hasn’t done anything at this time. Emad stated he has 40 acres in Boonville and he hasn’t touched it. Giacobbe stated that we realize you are sincere in your thoughts but that the situation was presented differently that it now appears and we are here to serve a purpose. LaMendola stated that you have many options and that we are not the enforcement body. You are suggesting other alternatives for the property than previously presented. It was the ZBA’s job to look at the situation as presented at that time. LaMendola stated that with a lack of clear and decisive information about how the land is to be used, a proper decision regarding this proposal can not be determined.
Stetson asked whether the Emads had considered how much the value of the existing home would be reduced by having an adjacent vacant lot. He stated that what you’re selling is a house; front lawn and garage while most people moving to the country want land for gardens, horses, and peaceful enjoyment. Emad stated that before he came here the parcel containing his home was 33 acres; it was destroyed by subdividing, and now the ZBA is telling me I can’t subdivide my own property. Stetson provided a brief history of the 33 acres that Emad was referencing.
Stetson stated that the approval in May was based on claimed personal hardship in that Emad described that he had been planning for years to build a personal residence on the property; that he finally decided to proceed, and that now the zoning has changed. At that Public Hearing, Emad stated that he had no other option to stay in the area, and therefore a variance was granted for that specific purpose based on the site development and building plans as presented.
Gina Emad stated that we have the variance and we want to hold onto it. Stetson advised that the Emads would be creating a non-conforming vacant lot. The existing house can be sold, but the vacant lot would still be non-conforming.
Doolittle stated we now understand that your present request is to keep the land subdivided without proceeding with the development as previously planned. Doolittle stated that there are 2 letters of correspondence in regards to this appeal, one is from Kitty Squire and the other is from Susan Doolittle. The letters were reviewed and made part of the file. LaMendola stated that it is a fair conclusion that you don’t know what you are going to do. The ZBA must assume however, that the basic purpose for a variance once granted will be followed through. The variance was for a specific reason and now the direction/purpose has changed. The ZBA can, however, consider other options in the future. Paul Emad stated that his father is the only one who can build on this land. Doolittle asked if there were any other questions or comments. The Public Hearing adjourned at 8:00pm
The Regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 8:10pm.
Doolittle stated that we will discuss the public hearing for Emad and reach a decision. Stetson provided the attached “Summary of Emad Appeal” as a basis for the Board’s consideration of the issues involved. The Zoning Board had further discussion and made the following determination and decision.
- DECISIONS:
APPEAL# 6030 JAMAL EMAD, 8246 TRENTON FALLS RD, BARNEVELD, NY 13304, PARCEL# 212.000-2-3, ZONING RA; APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE FOR SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL TO CONSTRUCT A PERSONAL RESIDENCE
On December 7, 2006, the Town of Trenton Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously to revoke prior approval dated May 22, 2006 due to a change in circumstances. The decision was made following a Public Hearing with the Applicant on the same date. The hearing had been precipitated by the Applicant’s verbal request to the Chairman in early October seeking authorization to sell the parcel created by the 5-22-06 decision. This latter request was discussed at Zoning Board meetings on October 24th and November 21st, The Board reviewed all information provided by the Applicant and related correspondence. After additional discussion, on motion made, seconded and carried with all members voting “aye”, the Decision of May 22, 2006 was revoked based on the following:
1. Justification for the variance previously approved for the Applicant no longer exists.
- The benefit sought by the Applicant has been achieved by another method. Applicant has purchased a home elsewhere as a primary residence and now wishes to sell both parcels created by the previous decision.
- An undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and by granting the variance will create a detriment to nearby properties. The planned site development and residence construction will not occur as promised to the Board. An undersized vacant lot will be created, and neither parcel will meet the area requirements for the R-A zone.
- The requested variance is substantial in that the subdivided parcels are each approximately 3.5 acres or 70% of the allowable acreage in the R-A zone.
- The alleged difficulty was self-created because the Applicant abandoned his stated intention to build and occupy a personal residence on the site soon after the previous variance was granted.
5. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
Doolittle stated that we will review the Minutes from the 11/21/06 meeting. On a motion made by LaMendola, seconded by Giacobbe and all members present voting “aye”, the minutes were approved. Hanno decision needed to be revised and a correction sent as the application number was recorded incorrectly.
Doolittle stated that there is no additional new business for discussion. The next ZBA meeting will be on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 @ 7:00pm. The meeting adjourned on a motion, seconded and carried with all members voting “aye” at 9:00 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gina Hamlin
Clerk
|
Public Hearing and Regular Meeting
|
