Laserfiche WebLink
5 February 1998 <br /> Page 12 <br /> patio has to he eliminated as has been the driveway in front. The access ay <br /> has been reduced to a 4 foot wide path. The Board of Appeals decision was <br /> that it would be accessed by three dwellings. Vere is an emoting path and <br /> they are adding a four foot path. <br /> Mr. Sherman asked if they are proposing to remove the landscape patio? � <br /> They are. He pointed to the plan and asked if this is the h yb ale lire? It <br /> was. He stated there are several.remaining issues. The new State Riverfront <br /> Protection Act calls for, in the second 10 feet, there to be no more than Soo <br /> s.f of alteration. 1 ft- Sherman asked if they have over that now? That was <br /> correct. Mr.-Sherman stated if the Commission is to accept this overage, they <br /> must be convinced an overall average of 100 feet is maintained for the setback <br /> from the river. Even with the patio removed, it is still not loo feet. There is no <br /> Language that gives a variance. It is incumbent upon the Commission to <br /> apply the Act and the regulations as written. The Commission does not have <br /> latitude. Mr. Doyle respectfu .y agreed. He quoted from the Act, `"fou <br /> shall allow on a lot that was approved prier to October of 1996".so we&600you <br /> shall approve a dwelling on that lot; you cannot deny that. He is not talking <br /> about an exemption for a building permit, he is talking about in the Rivers <br /> Act, it sags "you shall not deny". The question becomes what is reasonable, <br /> what do you do to take it to the maximum, reasonable, extent. He stated that <br /> is what they have done here. They have reduced it quite a hit. He cannot <br /> rotate the house in any manner without exceeding zoning requirements and, <br /> by deflnition, under the Rivers Act, it is impractical for the Commission to ask <br /> thein to seek a variance. Aft. Sherman asked where he finds that language? <br /> Mr. Doyle stated when the lot was created before 1996, they do not lose the <br /> right to build the dock. <br /> Mr. Sherman stated them is a section that states that you do not lose your <br /> right to build a dw fi.ng; he was staring at it and it says, notwithstanding the <br /> provisions of what he was citing about the 5000 s. f. and 109 ft. setback, shall <br /> allow the construction of a single family house he skipped the details about <br /> the lot, recordingdates and so forth as this is not disputed) and react the <br /> � <br /> applicable portion. However, it is still incumbent upon the applicant to prove <br /> that they qualify for the section and have done everything possible regarding <br /> the size of the house, orientation, etc. He stated they have not satisfied the <br /> burden of proof at this point. <br /> Mr. Doyle stated it becomes a game of semantics; what is reasonable? He <br /> stated, look at ghat is going on next door. Mr. Sherman stated that has <br /> nothing to do with this lot. W. Doyle stated he is not making a comparison <br />