September 18th meeting of the zoning board of appeals.

We're here on a project at 668 Main Street in the R6 Central Multiple District.

And it involves uh area variances pursuant to sections 575 24B 2 and A and B of the Peace Go zoning ordinance relating to lot area and lot width for a proposed new three-unit residential apartment building on property located in the R6 Central Multiple Residence District.

And um do I hear a motion to open the public hearing?

Yeah, may, yes.

Second.

All in favor?

Hi.

Hi.

Okay, the public hearing is open.

And we see Joe Thompson up there.

Good evening, everyone.

Joseph Thompson architect for the property owner here tonight with Justin Tompkins, uh Tompkins Excavating.

Um it's 668 Main.

It's a it's a parcel that is accessed by easement off of Spring Street, even though it has a main street of Jess, it's actually directly adjacent to what I'll call a uh sister proposal at 660 main that was before the board previously for nine units.

And so it's been developed in a very similar style in the sense that the unit sizes are very comparable.

The architecture proposed is very comparable.

But the reason we're before the board tonight is to try to see if the board will consider relief on some pre-existing non-conforming conditions on the lot.

So this existing lot is a 75-foot width when a hundred is required, and the the area is underneath the 10,000 square feet as a minimum required, it's 9,000 and um change, so it's it's a little less than 10% underneath the the requirement.

And it also doesn't have any direct frontage on Spring Street, so it would need, I believe, a variance for the lack of frontage as well.

The the project was presented to both the planning commission and the zoning board of appeals several years ago, back in 2019, and very comparable variances were granted, uh, very comparable site plan approval was granted for the property for a two-family since that time it had sold uh new owners now acquired the property after it hadn't been developed and would like to revive it and seek to use R4 zoning underneath R6 to accomplish a three-family unit on the lot.

So what we have to add to our list is a 280A variance.

Which one?

Sorry.

Uh so um we looked at this issue with respect to the code.

So for purposes of town law two eighty A, um, that's actually different um than under the city law.

So under the town law, um a building has to have uh frontage directly on a public highway.

Under the city law and under the village law, access can be obtained over an easement or over a private road or an alley.

So um the um so the frontage requirement under the city code uh 575-17 says in all other districts other than the planned residential development district, eat lotch, each lot and structure thereon shall face a public street and have minimum frontage, not less than two-thirds of the minimum lot width, which this lot I believe meets.

The minimum lot width is a hundred, so two-thirds would be six six six.

Um so the the key issue here is the definition of street.

And street um under the city zoning code is defined as um I have it.

Do you want me to read it?

Yes.

Street is any public street, court, place, square, lane, or way set aside or used as a right of way for common street purposes.

So this would be a right, a common right of way used for street purposes.

So under the code, they technically do have frontage on the street.

So you're saying they don't need it or they so they do not need a variance for that condition based on those definitions in the code.

Um and so there's a separate lot to the east of this property, which also fronts only fronts on this easement, which has been there for a while and would you know basically be in the same situation.

So the variances that are required here are um because the lot does not meet the size requirements for the special permit for a three-family dwelling.

So the width in the um area.

That's all we're considering is the area.

I mean you can ask whatever questions you feel comfortable.

That's yes.

What's that about?

The easement and the the sidewalk situation, the that whole thing.

Right, because it exists.

We have a copy of something here, yeah.

But not all the pages.

What's the status of that?

If I if I may, with respect to the staff report, it was missing a couple of pages with respect to the easement that was submitted.

So the easement um is actually contains, I believe, uh, four pages and then uh three the the document in the county clerk's office that was filed, has uh four pages, four, five pages, and then uh a map and another document.

So that was um those were left the first two pages were left off, and then the last page, the last two pages with the map was left off.

So I had an opportunity to review those and I'll circulate it for the file.

Um but um the easement itself, and we have the full easement, I think just for copying purposes.

The two um the two pages were were were left out of the staff report.

Um, but it does provide for um access back and forth for vehicles and pedestrians to um to uh access the properties along the easement.

It also grants a right to place utilities within the easement.

Um the easement that was submitted is for the benefit of um lots, tax lots, um 1921.

Um it's now 23.1.