HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.222W-Bleeker.004-78
DATE .
APPEltAllT
....'" .
nrucc Ki!JtJ cr
ADVRESS
PIIONE
ADDRESS
LASE 110. ''"'??--y
22'2 W. nleeker
q~'i-l(J10
mill E R
Bruce Kistler
~::Jm('!
Janet Kistler
(OCATIOll OF PROPERTY 222 W,. Blecker
.
...
.
,
,Lot 11,vlest 20' Lot N, nlock 50, Aspen
lStreet & Number of Subdivision BIt. & lot Ho.)'
Building P~rmit Appiication an~print~ or any other pertinent
data must accompany this application, and vill be made part of
CASE NO. IH--'(
:THE BOARD WILL RETURN THIS APPLICATION IF IT DOES NOT CONTAIN
ALL THE FACTS IN QUESTION.
.
, ,
, ," DESCRIPTION 9F PROPOSED. EXCEPTION SHOHING JUSTIFIC~TIn~lS:
Building side lot set back of 2.5'" in lieu of 5' set back is required
to facilitate off-street parking requirements within garage which is
a part of the proposed structure. 'See attached statement.
1
,
".
" Will you be represented by counsel?
Yes No X. 1/
SIGNED: /~//~;;::, '/;:
Ap.pellant '
, ..
PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE BUILDING ,INSPECTOR'
TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REASON
FOR NOT GRANTING:
~
APPLICATION IS MADE ~OR AN AMMENDMENT TO A BUILDING PERMIT TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF'IoAN ATTACHED GARAGE, BEDROOM, BATH AND DRESSING
" "' ROOM TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 2.5 FEET OF A SIDE PROPERTY LINE:
The required side yard setback is 5 feet. Section 24~3.4 Area and Bulk
Requirements. R-6 Zoning District
.
.
,
,
.
.
'...'\,
,
PERNIT REJECTED, ,DATE
APPLICATION FILED
MAILED
H. Meyrinf~
Signed
DECISION ~/ DATE
DATE IF flEARING
,
t
Chief Buildin~ Insppctor
S ta tu s
SECRETARY
. '
"
..''/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Case No. 78-4
BEFORE THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY THE REQUESTED ZONING OR USE VARIANCE
DESCRIBED BELOW:
pursuant to the Official Code of Aspen of June 25, 1962, as amended, a
public hearing will be held in the Council Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colo-
rado, (or at such other place as the meeting may be then adjourned) to
consider an application filed with the said Board of Adjustment requesting
authority for variance f~om the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter
24, Official.Code of Aspen. All persons affected by the proposed variance
are invited to appear and state their views, protests or objections. If
you cannot appear personally at such meeting, then you are urged to state-
yo~views by letter, particularly if you have objection to such variance,
as the Board of Adjustment will give serious consideration to the opinions
of surrounding property owners and others affected in deciding whether to
grant or deny the request for variance.
The particulars of the hearing and of the requested variance are as follows:
Date and Time of Meeting:
Date:
Time:
May 11, 1978
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
Name and address of Applicant for Variance:
Name: Bruce Kistler
Address: 222 W. Bleeker
Location or description of property:
Location:
Description:
222 W. Bleeker
Lot M, West 20' Lot N, Block 50, Aspen
Variance Requested:
Application is made for an amendment to t abuilding permit to permit the con-
struction of an attached garage, bedroom, bath and dressing room to be con-
struc~ed within 2.5 feet of'a side property line. The required side yard set-
back 1S 5 feet. Set back is required to facilitate off-street parking required.
Duration of Variance: (Please cross out one)
1l:~R<<RX
Permanent
THE CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
BY 1~~;=~1:;~
r~~~) .
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Variance - 222 W. Bleeker
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned supports
the application of Bruce Kistler for a 2.5' side lot
set back variance for the construction of an addition
to the residence at 222 West Bleeker.
I further believe that the hardship created by
strict enforcement of the side lot set back requirement
is unnecessary and to grant the variance will in no way
adversely affect the neighborhood or the comprehensive
plan.
The construction of the proposed improvements
pursuant to the requested variance will, in the opinion
of the undersigned, enhance the neighborhood whereas
construction \vithout the variance would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
9t,,;L e ~
L.o~
D
,
6L S-I
~
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Variance - 222 W. Bleeker
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned supports
the application of Bruce Kistler for a 2.5' side lot
set back variance for the construction of an addition
to the residence at 222 West Bleeker.
I further believe that the hardship created by
strict enforcement of the side lot set back requirement
is unnecessary and to grant the variance will in no way
adversely affect the neighborhood or the comprehensive
plan.
The construction of the proposed improvements
pursuant to the requested variance will, in the opinion
of the undersigned, enhance the neighborhood whereas
construction without the variance would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Very truly yours.
s Vwu fl ~Tef6
U I'J
L. #I~.s
A I B. C -I- U. 6.ty'
L...,1 ,L;)
~
E,-
.:J C)
y
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Variance - 222 W. Bleeker
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned supports
the application of Bruce Kistler for a 2.5' side lot
set back variance for the construction of an addition
to the residence at 222 West Bleeker.
I further believe that the hardship created by
strict enforcement of the side lot set back requirement
is unnecessary and to grant the variance will in no way
adversely affect the neighborhood or the comprehensive
plan.
The construction of the proposed improvements
pursuant to the requested variance will, in the opinion
of the undersigned, enhance the neighborhood whereas
construction without the variance would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Very truly yours.
~'hw
G /0 ~ LorN, .Lar 0
.
#. ~a' ~.;r p
./;1, .
r.::l
,.
...
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Variance - 222 W. Bleeker
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned supports
the application of Bruce Kistler for a 2.5' side lot
set back variance for the construction of an addition
to the residence at 222 West Bleeker.
I further believe that the hardship created by
strict enforcement of the side lot set back requirement
is unnecessary and to grant the variance will in no way
adversely affect the neighborhood or the comprehensive
plan.
The construction of the proposed improvements
pursuant to the requested variance will, in the opinion
of the undersigned, enhance the neighborhood whereas
construction without the variance would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
Very truly yours,
~
Lor
G
"
~3~.
d-/
CONRAD M, CLARK
P. O. BOX 566 ASPEN, COLORADO B1611
April 21, 1978
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Variance - 222 West Bleeker
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the undersigned supports the
application of Bruce Kistler for a 2.5' side lot
set-back variance for the construction of an addition
to the residence at 222 West Bleeker Street.
I further believe that the hardship created by strict
enforcement of the side lot set-back requirement is
unnecessary and to grant the variance will in no way
adversely affect the neighborhood or the comprehensive
plan.
The construction of the proposed improvements persuant
to the requested variance will, in the opinion of the
undersigned, enhance the neighborhood whereas con-
struction without the variance would be detrimental
to the neighborhood.
C. M. Clark
CMCjens
LoTS' k', L ,HI- S41
, ~
'"-, '-'''''
The following constitutes landowners whose properties are adjacent
to the land of applicant.
Block
Lots
C. H. Clark
Box 566
Aspen, CO
50
K & L
Eugene E. Saltzberg
Box 3298
Aspen, CO
50
E 10', Lot N, Lot 0,
W 20' P
Nichols De Wolf
233 W. Bleeker
Aspen, CO
51
A, B, C
Nick E. Gust
S. Dolores Gust
219 .". Bleeker
Aspen, CO
51
D
Grettam Kettlekamp
3408 Morris Avenue
Pueblo, CO 81003
51
E
Esther Benninghoff
233 W. Hallam
Aspen, CO
50
A, B, C, & W. 6.64' of D
Barry Lefkowitz
George A. Vicenzi
Box 2238
Aspen, CO
50
E 23.63' of D
W 13.54' of E
--;"-- ~
~
PROPOSED E::CEP'rION:,
,
Applicant proposes to construct an
"
--'
addition
to. existing
single family uwelling at 222 West Bleeker. A building permit
has been issued for construction of the improvements which comply
with the set back requirements of the code. Applicant proposes
to amend the permit application upon approval of'the requested
variance.,
.
The addition is described as follows:
1st floor - garage and mud room
2nd floor
, "
bedroom bath, dressing.room
.,
Applicants existing dwelling is located on Lot M and
the W. 20' of Lot N, Block 50.
In order to have a fully functional 2-car garage, which is
the primary purpose of the addition, a garage with an IS-foot door
would be required. In order to establish a garage with an IS-foot
door, applicant requests a side yard set back variance of 2.5
. , feet for the addition. Presently only a l6-foot door could be
used.
.FACTS:
(1) On August 22, 1971 in Case 71-13 the Board issued a
"
variance to W. H. Loughran allowing the construction of a single
family residence on Lot M and the W. 20 feet of Lot N, Block 50,
and on November 4, 1975 issued a clarification of the off-street
parking requirements pursuant to a letter from applicants (Exhibits'
B, C, and D).
. "
(2) O~:April 30~ 1976 a covenant was placed on the pro-
perty restricting' improvements on the E. 10 ,feet of Lot N.
(3) Immediately across Bleeker Street from the subject
property are four single family residences with side yar~ set
.
.
backs which allow the structures to be built within five feet of
.
one ~mother.
.
(4) Pursuant to the parking requirements established by
resolution of, November 14, 1974, applicants have maintained four
parking spaces on their property. Although it is possible to
provide parking for two cars within a garage with a 16' door,
..
some difficulty o~inconvcnience would be eKn~rienced which
. '~,." . . ,~.
might, as a practical mutter partially defeat the purpose of
the off-street parking requi~ements.
(5) Th'e proposed, parking structure was considered by
the board at the time the clarification of parking requirements
was issued. . ,
,
, (6) The existence of the 5' side yard set back require-
.
ment creates a practical difficulty for the full enjoyment of a
substantial property ,right.
(7) By granting the variance no change in the character
· ' :'of the neighborhood will result and therefor there is no need
,
to balance the effect of the grant of the relief ,sought on the
'neighborhood against the deprivation,of the use of the property
by the owner.
(8) The interests of justice will be served by granting
",:, the variance.
(9) Due to the configuration of the lot and the improve-
ments located thereon, special circumstances apply to the property
including:
1. Compliance in law and in spirit with parking
"
.
requirements by providing convenient garage park-
ing as opposed to inconvenient parking in a
narrow garage structure.
2. Restrictive covenants applying to adjacent
, , ,
property creates',a de-f~cto set back of approximately
tt, between the existing structure at 214 W. Bleeker
and the proposed structure. These circumstances
do not apply to other properties in the vicinity
because other properties are not subject to off-
.
street parking requirements.
(10) Applicants acquired the pnJperty subsequsnt to the
issuance'of the original variance, and after construction of
the improvements at 222 W. Bleeker and t~crefore the special
circumstances do not result from actions'of the applicants.
(11) Granting the variance is essential to the enjoyment
of a substantial property right enjoyed by other properties in
" '
. t~,C:~ v!C:!~~~L ~~t: ~'''.n~~9;/l:l:~he: f;ulJjf?<: ~ !?ro(>c,r":;'~. bc:c:<:~se:.<:>~, special
""'....'
circumstances and conditions,
~9~~ly the~~~~hof ~~?:subj~~t
...- -:.- - :
t~t c::~~~~~~~~ p:~~~~~a~~dif~~cultY,in the enjoyment of the
substantial pr~~e:~~~:~~~t of bu~l~~?~_~~<::~ny'~~i~~~:~~r~~~g~
~~~u~~~:~. .
- '...- -- ---~~
- -
------.."'---""-.- ,
.....::
~~=;:l~~ =~~~.r~e~e::~=
-...~:: ::
. O~ (12)
\
Granting of the variance will not adversely affect
.
the purposes of any applicabl~ g0neral plan.
----- -- --
_ _(13)
-----_.-
A ~?__~~~~~~ PE!:~i~: l1~s b~~-? ~~sued permitti~g the
iidd~!~~~_~~thin_the 5' set back required by the ordinance. If
this 'applicatjon_j?:~:ant~d ap~~~<:ation
for~amendment_to.the._
. - - "--- -.
.
'.
p~r~~~ ~ill_be ~ade.
If the variance.is denied~the applicant
- -. - - - -
!~ll:~~vertl1eless=proceed with the constru<::~~~nauthorized ~y
~Q~ . J?e:r~i t ~ .
--~
-----~--
-- - ---
-
~
. ".'- - -, '.
-~. --- -----
-~---- -.-
._.:::.......;.;-i="
- --.-..
:::-;;;..;,... =-.
;"'7~;;"'''''''-
--------
"
----.----
.. =--~.::::.--_:::
,~
_--7
-..--- -
-- - -. - - - -- --- - - - --
-
----- --
-- _. -' -
-"- ~.
-- -----
-- -~"-
--- _ _..-
- -- - ~ -
- ,- .
- -.-_._-
_.;;..
.. .
~..-- --'-
.'
. -....-- . - --."""-
"-.......~.:--..;...=--._.~
.:.... a~...;
~_. - ~ -
;:--,~......-
n_.......:..
.....-_._- --
o.J'-_.__~_~
.. .
.
....---.. -~-----
.... "='"::. .....__ ~~h::;'___':
~.....---., -- --
:-._ '-'''._......_4~':
.- --.---_.
---. .. "--- -.. ..
-==-"-::'.,-":,,
":"......_-':'- ;-.--..
1.n; 2.~
r-.....--.i:::O.:::.
.....-------
~ -: -,,....-.,.~=-- - .=--
-.;.-----~ --.-...-.-
?:::=.:::.::~
a
r:2.:-:'-~:','
----~-
- - -.
'- -- - - -
. -
----~~-_.._-
- -
- -- - - - - - .
- . . .
....'c ::::---- -- - .-=.
----------.-
.-..---------
- - .
, _4___.__
- -.... --
. ,
-- - -'
--------
.. - - .-
.-------
-.. ..-
-- - - - -- -
-=--..
---....._~.-._---
- - -.
-----.--..-----
.
....
,~
=
_.__.._-_.~_.
--- -_.
-_._-..-- ----.-
- " -..
----.-,. -
.. - -
- .. - --- --
s:.:.:- - ---:
.
,
. ..
.
,
_.. --
--....._,.:':: ~ - '," - -
:'~2'..:':':-"':-i.
.._~_._--
. ,
-- -~-~'.'- "-- --,"----
::;:~.S :':--"':'::':'::.
.: - ~ :.:~-_.
--".-.j,:tT:.~',.,._ -
- ~.-;-.,-::~"';.' '":. ,
..... ~ -_.
- ... - - _. .-
- - -.. &
-----....--.-.:=..
....- - _..- - - ..
_. ... ...-. &
-,
.
.
. ~r> \ ' , ~'....:::.. ("~:-..'''::::.~'',.:_- ...., ---,;." - -- -.--.' ~._.-,.-~ cl:. ....-- -"-
. t.""~";" ..:.::::..:-..::.:.... ___ __ ___ __ ......_.......... ... 'r.. - +-....;._\-...;..-..;"_ q........__~::.
, "\. :.... .,': - y...--~' ,~:..,..,
;:;:'::-::::':"7 ;-,As :~uPl2l~m1:-rt~<ll )nforrni.ltiofj al2p1ic~/1~J~~~m~_~~: ::..:::: ,,_ ,
1:::: . :::::CCch._~, :S~etch ~ shO\~ing _ location of ~xisti~.g_al1d
. -proposed structures.
-....~.
-...-
r'~-,-:c.-i.-_. :::
0../........._ __.. ____
Variance ISsued' b-'w:-iC'Loughran:"- -,,-
:::':':-::l.;::>
B.
s-:.=~=:..~.:-;:. .
C. Clarification resolution.
,
D.
.- "- -. -. ....-- - . . - _. - .
L~tter requesting ~larifica~ion.
...- --
----~
,
E. Covenant restricting use of 10' strip.
- - - -
--- ----.
- - - _. -- .-- - - - ~ . - -. - -- . - - - - -
F. Z,lemorandum of Law reia ting to the matter'ln
..__Ql!es1;,i.on, ___. ==.::.:..:.::c~ _' .." ,._,~:':-_:';,~_.
- - - - .
- .
------- --_..
----- - - - .
....-......, -'--
.....7.....-............---........ _....~
------_.-. -- --
~..-=.........,'=-.. ~ -'- --.:.-=--
-
_~ _ _ __~4_._._
.'
, .'
;
.'
"
'.
~
~
.
.
.
.
.
4
.
.
, .
..... Cf).SE NO... 71 -,13..,...., ..,....... .;... '....... ..._" ...... .. ".._._.'..'-,-_'._.._._......._.__
#'.".. ..~
'-" , '....,1.._
... "Paterson' moved that a variance to 'build a single fi1milydvl(~lling on'...-.--_.~
J.ot ?1 nnd Hcst 20' of Lot N be grnntedfor thc.follmving reasons:
o. ........ ..... .=.f,.~_..,..~...-.........,.._._._..._..-..-_.__....._...........T..',-,..-.'-0.- 0.' _..: ...~.._____.._.__...____
(a) That the sped"i~'i :doridifionsand circumstances surrounding this re-
quest do" no't result from ;]'c,tionsof 'this :3pplic'ant, in that"npplicant ".---'---
acciuire~. the entire parcel on August 24, 1946, long prior, to the. .. .'_., .
enactment of the Zoning Cod~; the property uas purchased because it in-
._cluded Lots M and N which dpplicant then planned to develop at.some..future..
qate; all attempts to acquire the necessary additional square footage
....-lVerc unsuccess Eu!. ' .' . ..-. ,'. . .... .. .. ' ..... .. .....__ . _ _, ,__. __, __
. - (b)'" That special conditions or circu:nstances apply ~tocthe -propert)'...-.-......
lVhich does not apply to other properties in the same vicinity and zone,
~"am6ng'wnichare:' "even- afte'r"constI-u'ction "6ftnfi proilDsed "sEiu.cture "ther-e'-
will be but four residential buildings on the Bleeker Street side of Block
"--50 '1~hich"'fo'ilo',~s' 'the' intent c-f 'th'e;" ordi~~nce; . 'the site- '{s:eq~ai'-to--:-......._--
~_.5/6ths__o,f .wha t.is. required, .for. either ..a. one_or.. two family"d"lelLi.ng ..,_.111"
. this particular case the Board feels that the reduced lot size of
_':'5,000 sq.. ft. .warrants...limitation...to-- a .single ..family dwelling,-vlhich~..
Jrovides substantial justice for the property owner in allolVing him
---:uti-liza tion-o f-h'is-land,' and "wo uld' ,'pro t~c t~. the' neighborhood-from""over-.--.u--
. crowding. ' '., ' 'S . , . ' '
-~._-~-~--;:-_._---_.- "-~--':~'-. ---- -.~ "-.--- - .---.-------.- ._---_.__._--~---:--
(c) That the granting of the variance i essential to the enjoYment of a
---siibsbi'ntial-prop'erty- right -- eiiJoyed--bj other 'prop'ei-tie~; 'in'-the- 'same'" --,.-------
.:'-_vi.~i~~t.y.u?!1d. .zo!l.~,__bllt. denie~_ .t.~.J:h,e.- applicant, because__qt...!=h~__spe~.i:al,.._._.____....
and extraordinary circumstances in: that: :th~' propetty'is amenable to
___development. for..a. .single. family dwelling; .by .depriving"applicant.oLthe_____
valuable property right,.to "apply~his: lands to, reasonable use "the -....
-...z~>ning.code, has.imposed upon . him a. practical.. difficulty 1vhich ' can. be,-,--:-..-
relieved. only by the granting of' a varianc~. '
----------.----.----.-- -------.----..---. -_.-.... -_.-.-- ----..--------------------..-------
. . '1
(d) ,A variance to build a single family home is within the intent and
--'purpose'''of.the''Code 'and that' it's 'granting'tdll 'riot' (l)-'adveise'ly--affect-'-
the health, safety or welfare' of the immediate corrnnunity~ (2) increase'
-'~ 'c'o'nj estion' in' the 5 treets or "pI a'c e" added 'orundue 'burdens -'on -i:he"-"" -,----,----
, - . . .
,_~.~llI!icipal. services>, or . (3). overcrowd lanq or create undue..concentration,___.
of population. The Board takes note ~i-.!!:~19E.~-,,_ th.C)t four ofK.~t:re~.
__pa?:~~l"!g,',~pac:,~s .1vilJ,. !>~ ,p;r.:oyided..,for.A::his ,dwelling, and..2lA ,W.,-,-B~,g~ke::,:.:..-""':-'--':.-
by the applicant and make that a condition ax for granting this variance.
. .--.-.-..--.------._~__.... .-.-...._~~......._.._. -. ____r.... ...___._" ....,..
--.----.--.-.-....-....-.. ---. ....-...--...--.---....-...... ........._- - - ......-..-.--.. -..-.-......-.. - - -_.._----~-.....-.----:-_._--
Seconded by Dukes. Roll call vote - Paterson aye; Lavagnino aye; Dukes
bb d .. . . d '
---aye;:Hu ar 'aye....hMot~on carr~e .""" ....,...'.- ,.... ._._......._...__....u......,______,_
..... - .-..-.~ .- - ...... -. .
. .- ... "r_"_' ..... ........-.-. _._...._.___.. ....._._._ 0....___.._____-__.___
..... _... ..._ ....... -....0
.
.- .. -.. ---.---...-.----...-. .---.-------
. .
, , .
.. .," - .-........___ ..__..... _ ...._____ h _
k
~
.. . "'If l~/J'" " ...--.:--
C''";:.t 7
. -, ..
. .. .-...- -.- ._. _. ...-. .._~- .. .
,/~~/7/' ..,.. ._.,-,.....
.. - _. .... .--..--- - - ---......--.--'7
l,
". .
- ..,.--.... _.~........,. -.. .-- .....-...........-.---.--.. -
..
0'.'- ....... .. _.__ _.....__... _____........ ,_
.. .
. .
,.......... .'..... ... ".'.0. ',. ...... _...... .... __..__._........._._..._.._._.
. I 0 . . . , '. . .. ... , ., ' , . '.. .... ,... I . "00. . .,......... .:. t ' . .., ;. I' . , 0 .; . . . ' ._.,;. ", " '0'.'........, 0 00. .,.,. 0....
.
;..... t '.""'~(l'. I.' L U.
egularNeeting
.
.
,r'.....
.
"""
'-'
....,..~.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 leaves
Board of Adjustment
November 14. 1974
he ~eeting was called to order,by Chairman John Dukes at
red Smith. Gilbert Colestock, Remo Lavagnino and Charles
Iso present was Clayton Meyring and City Attorney Sandra
'.
,
3:05 p.m. with nc.mbers
Paterson present.
Stuller. "
HS.Stuller explained that the only thing that Steven'
Heater. station manager" had been culpable of was to not
apply for a change in the tower until August. Lavagnino
also noted that he didn't contact the Board, either~
Ms. Stuller said that the tower wouldn't be moved until
, a year and a half later from the original variance ,time.'
and 4id they wish to extend to him a grace period?
Colestock asked ,whether they had heard from Gilmore
on his variance since it had been ti€d to' the other
variance?: Ms. Stuller replied that it was her under-
standing that ~rr. Gilmore could not proceed with his
plans b2cause of financing. Lavagnino said that if _
they are going to take that long to.move the tower, he
would like to see them report to the Board in J~,uary.
,Colestock added that he would like, to see negotiations
with contract:ors fo:;:: removal. 1ols. Stuller thought that."
-they would be able, to comply with those conditions~
r "Attorney Bruce Kistler had sent a letter to the Board
members explaining the situation and proposing 7 parking
spaces on the two lots.' I1s. Stuller asked that they
clarify for him the earlier variance. Had they intended
that there be two sites-located 2 on each lot 'or 4, on one~
Dukes remembered that they had specified 4 on 222 N.
Bleeker. Lavagnino asked if the lots'were legally
separated and she replied that it was a single OImership,
with subdivided lots. ,Paterson thought that what was
~oposed was a better distribution of cars than before,'
if it could be done. Ms. Stuller said that Kistler's '
concern was did they want 2 spaces on 214 and that he
contended that 214 would always be single family.
"ion Paterson moved that in clarification of variance 71-13
in regards to the parking at the J.L. Willians property,
it is st~pulated herein that ~ parking spaces be provided
at 222 a"n'd 3 p;lrking spaces be provided at 214 Iv. Bleeker
I -as sho~..n on d::u-..;ing!i subwitted ~;ov~~~:- G, 197'; by tha .
i applic;lnt. Colestock secqndcd. Roll Call Vote: Smith,
~es; Lav<lgnino. yes; Paterson, yes;". Colstock, yes;. Dukes,
yes. Motion carried. .' .
.. '. ..
E NO. 74-43 Attorney J.D. Nuller appeared for his clients,'Aspen !vesl:,
efl l'lest Condominiums to ask' for an ;lllOl~ance of 2200 sq ft lot area for a tOtd:
W. Cooper ,of one (1) one bedroom and .five (5) two bedroom units
constructed two years ago. Applicant pu:;::chaseu property
to makc un<luthorized unit~ conforming. Prescnt 20ning
requirin9 ':1Il cxtr.:t 2~OO sq ft of lot <lrCLl \~ilS pLl::;~;cd
during consumation of purch;lse. Application comes under
.
PPROVAL OF MINU?ES
'.
~D' BUSINESS:
;PN. TOI~er
'.,
"
,
ughran - Williams
operty ,
- ..,.- - - -
- .
The Secretary pointed out a mistake in the pame of
Loughlin 1'1hich should be "Loughran". Colstock pointed
. out that the date on the minutcs was wrong and it should
be October 17. Paterson moved to approve the ~inutes as
amended and Lavagnino seconded. All in favor, motion
carried.
. .
..
., ..
" ~~
.....-
Sec. 24-3.4 "Area and Bulk
min. lot area per dwelling
-
Requirements" R/l-IF district
unit. Permanent basis.
"
Mr. Muller explained that in April of 1972, Bob Stevens
applied for a building permit to build the Aspen West ar.
on the permit he put down lots R & S and gave a total
number of units of 4. There was no check bet~een the
building department and what was put on the Condominium
Declarations at the Court House. The Declaration shown
to the OImers had' G units shm-In with lots Q. Rand Sand
all 6'10ts'were sold. At the time of the 'purcha"e, the
zoning would have permitted the building of 6 units.
Within the Declaration w~s an unusual provision, that
Stevens had the right at anytime within 7 years from the
date to sever lot Q and build up to 6 units on it. In'
December of 72 Stevens applied for a building permit to
create t~o units already built on lots Q, Rand S for a
total of 6 units. 11r. Huller noted that the fees were
paid and recorded. In 1974 when the Associatio~ found
about the extra units built, they contacted him and he
discovered while they were within the zoning density wit
3 lots and 6 units, which was permitted, they did not
Own outright Lot Q and should Stevens elect to sever
it they I~ould ,be non-conforming.' The City Attorney':anc'
Building Inspector advised him that if they purchased'.
lot then they would have no zoning problems. They,:
negotiated and purchased the lot from Stevens but in or
to purchase it, they had to get all ,the signatures of t
owners, some of whom they didn't get sign~tures until
, after, the new zoning came into effect. He argued that
the owners had tried to handle the problem, but because
of, some of the OIvners not living in Aspen, they couldn",
consumate the purchase until too late.
.
"
..
"
Smith asked about the Dent:i:st Office which I.ras a 1 bedrc
condominium and whether it was a permitted use. ,He a1sl.
asked about the Koch'Townhouses and Aspen East. The .~
City Attorney was familiar with Dr. Simpson's problems
stemming from Stevens but not with the other one. She
advised the members that Dr~ Simpson would be coming to
them for a variance to make his basement unit employee
housing.
,
0,
Ms. Stuller explained that she was aware of the .problems
cause by Stevens but their problem is xr.at they are.
confronted with the people who bought from him and a~e
asking for relief. She outlined the possible steps that '.
~uld be taken against him: sue him in Municipal Court .
but that would only be a small fine; take it to the Boare
of Appeals and revoke his contractors license but in this
case every time a variance is grarited, it eliminates the
cause for revocation since there are no pending:illegal-
ities; or they can ask people to start a claim at the
District Attorney's office for felony fraud. She noted'
that one person so far had been talked int.o that: cou::-se.
Lavagnino argued that since the action had to take place
should b~ reason enough for revocation.
Smith questioncd whether Stevens could legally scll thc
lot since it was in the Condominium map and declaration
and Hs. Stullcr s~id he couldn't if it was used t6 suppo~
the density. Nr. Nuller suid that Stcvens had said that
he coulcln' t s~~ll it but he could keep them off of it.
,until thczoning changes.
o .
. ,
. '
....... C,..,MnCnl 1.1 ". Ct. .
'.
".....
/-'11'\.
-....
, .
'-"
REC,orm OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
November 14, 1974
tegular Meeting
"
.
.
'.
:ltion
~
.
~view of 73-5,
)aring Fork Assoc.
)tion'
lard Comments
2vens Investigation
Board of Adjustment
The que~tion was a~ked whether the problem'could have bee
prevented by a lawyer and Mr. COlony said tht he did not
'think it .could have ,been prevented, since the building
permits were issued for ,separate names and lots.
Since the units had already been built, Colestock was
concerned that this would change how adjacent property
owners felt sincp. a letter of opposition had come in
opposing it because "we feel Owners should conform to
zoning restrictions" - AM Rosen Der Berghof #2D. A
speaker from the audience, Mary Baldwin, rea~ notes from
Nancy S~~ner Ward who owns lots A, B, and C, 101 w.
'Cooper, also in opposition because of zoning requirements
and also congestion in the area. Ms~ Anita Colony.
who along with her husband are the managers for Aspen
West, assured members that there would be adequate parki~
,this winter. Smith noted that current code provi~ed for
9 parking spaces plus possibly 3 more for the dentist's
office but members thought thatlO would be sufficient.
Smith moved to grant the requested variance to Sec. 24-3.,
to permit the existing building on 9,000 sq ft of lot are
because the hardship was. caused by other than applicant.
applicant had taken action to obtain a clear title to
the required land, construction was completed prior to
the adopticn of the new code. applicant agrees to, provic9
10 parking spaces and no new construction is to be
permitted. Lavagnino seconded. Roll call vote: Smith.
yes; Paterson, yes; Colstock, yes; Dukes, yes. Motion "
carried. . ',' "
Mr. Ingham appeared before the members and explained that
nothing had changed since the variance had been granted
and nothing was hung from the beams. Mr. Lavagnino
thought that he had seen an Aspen Jewelers sign hung on,
the beams but Mr. Ingham said it was only temporary until
a new sign could be made.
Lavagnino moved that they'grant that the temporary
, ~atus of 73-5 be changed to permanent in that no .
~omplaint has been heard in the last year and a half
and the conditions remain the same. Paterson seconded:
All in favor, motion carried.
, "
Smtih said that the landscaping was disappointing and
members agreed. He also asked who enforced the sign
code since the Aspen Pizza Company's sign was extremely
large. ,.
.
Colestock wanted the City Attorney to investigate how
they could get the appropriate board tie in with the
building permits and the ~iling Of the deeds to prevent
a situation such as they had had. A memo was to be sent.
In regards to Rob Stevens. Colestock felt that th~ people
had been duped by him and that they had COr.le to the
Board for help and they couldn't be' refused because of
Steven's illegal activities. He noted that there had
been actions in two already and possibly more to come.
because of him. lie asked' that a letter be sent to the
City Attorney and that Stevens be investigated by the
P & Z, Council and the Hoard of Realtors since Stevens
has his license to sell Real Estate. Smith said thilt
~ ~. . .. " . .
<,
" ,
'-
,
"
-~. . .
- "
.
. -
1-:,"
":1'
.
l......:-
'. .
, ,
" ,
,-.
.'
. '."
. ~ . ,
......, ," ..
..'
~n(!y~nUUj.u J,OUK J.nr:.o or.:ncr cases ana see ,how things wert::
deeded. lIe thou'Jht thilt thc City should prevent any
more' 'oopholes such ilS Stevcns' "\Cund from bcinr; in thc
code;' Members noted that Stev,(:!'n::; had a hearing the 24th
of December on the anncxation of his Shadow Mountilin
propcrty and that this should be looked into for future
.-. problems. ..
'Lavagnino moved to adjourn and Paterson seconded. All
in favor, meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
'0
..
. .-" ".
, ,
.,L/'-/__- .L~tr
Deputy City Clerk
, /1-:-;)./- 7( "
.
'. .;.
'--"d';;,-c/-~, ~
.J ~~-~' ~~', :
:/" , - , ~77--b
~,,~. tU:-77': -/ ' _
7VJV~.' /7(/.17;/
~'z(
~
. -'"
-h~
.-'.
"
:
:",~~,~
, ' ~ ," tl;iz, el:Jc--
'~~'~ 7 ,',',','
'j,
.'
~ '...- .
',..'"
.-..-....
"" " '--" .
. .. .,'., . -. ~ " ' . . '.~ . ."--
. . . "
. :', .. ~'l- :: ~ -: :'..' .;'
, ' ,
-. .. ~- "',.
. ,.~' ~ .
." ;"
-',
,- -
-. ,~ - '..
,"
'".;-- ..
.. ".
"
k
.
,'1.'.
. , "
. . .
., .
.'
: ..'-
.. ,
, '
. ,
..
'''" .
,.... ".
: ',:.
"
.. '::~. ..
. I.. .,.... .;,
.. - . - ..,.." .-....
" ~~c
.. .
..
.. .\.
". ..... .. " ~ .
..
-.
....'..
. .
, .' ." '::-''': ~ "'.~ -:-t i' .....' I,.... . .' "
~ ,.~
" ..... t.. \ ...' ....,., '. . ~.'
~. . ...., ., '-'
. '
,.
'~. 'f
"I "
~ . .' ,
." ,
" .
. ,-4'-
.
'. .-.'
.
. '
: , / tl
:-!('IJ
R. 'J'J1LLIAMS PROPERTIES
"
, -
'...
, 0 P.O, DaK J10l
A.pen 81611
(JOJ) 025-71J3
',,'
,-,
" ,
November 6,' 1974,
i
"
". ,"
\
\
" '... '.
','
Mrs. Sandra Stuller,
City,Attorney
Ci ty ,of Aspen .
P.O. Box V
Aspen, Colorado 81611
.
", .'
Re: Residence at 214 N. Bleeker
Board of Adjustment Case :71-13
W. H. Loug~ran
'J
Dear Sandy:
.
In reply to your letter of October 22, 1974, the
following is submitted:
1. In 1972, pursuant to variance'No. 71-13
J. R. Williams Properties, a long-term lessee of Lots M,
Nand 0, and the west 20 feet of Lot P, Block ,50, construc-.
ted a residence on Lot M and the west 20 feet of Lot N
(222 vl. Bleeker). At that time there ex'isted a duplex
structure on the balance of the property (214 iv. Bleeker).
The entire parcel was then owned by H. H. Loughran and
Carolyn Loughran.
2. On September 15,1973, J. R. Nilliams Properties.
purchased 222 and 214 H. Bleeker fJ;om Hr., and Mrs. Loughran,
. '" and my wife and I purchased 222 from '-J. R. Williams Prop-
'. ,'erties, all \vith the full knol'lledge and \.1il1ingness of both
parties to comply with the variance conditions.
"".
~'
"
3. The variance issued in Case No. 71-13 con-
tained the following landguage with ,~~spect to 'the parking:
.
"The Board takes note of the fact 'that four off-
street parking spaces will be provided for this
dwelling (222) and 214 W. Bleeker by the applicant
and make that a condition for granting this variance."
.
As is indicated by the attached sJ~etch, five instead
of fourpa~ing spaces Here provided to serve both d\,'ellings.
One on the 214 property and four on the 222 property.
.,:' .
. "
.
.
Ii'
E:)cD
.2. ~
~-.
~~_.
-. ""_.
p~ .~~ ~-....:~- .:~:.r-::-'.-:-1"'I;."--: ~~'~:=-l-:.:-~~.--: :.:'"'~~.
,. , .... ~,,'-.' j' ,
.. ...... .'-'..
..4_'. ,.'-
,
"",\0'
--...--
....1(....:- ::~.
. .. "~'
~ :- -. . ..
'. .~
. .:....
-..J ','.-
., -
,
._..... I .
,. ,,:.
t-" ','.
-' .
'.
;
"
I
.
'.
;;,:J ,
,~
'.
.
,"
7" ,-
.'
"
"
"
,-
.,
.. .
.'
-'~
......
,
. ~...:....~. ~ .
. ",.
, ,
,. '<<
, .
, ..
.
" . .' . . ~. . . .. \ - .. '\ . ...'::- '. ~...
, - ~. . -.. ~ - ......- ;.:.- t... __.\..ri...",. . \ jJt...- ; _:
. . I ~ .
~ ! . -
.. "
, '--
" .
"
. .
,
"
",
r,
'. .'....'
,
.. ..:-~' ~ '(
,
......:t,
"
,
."i
""
,.~
. .
, ,
"
, :
'f . .~
"
. ~ .\'., -;," ,.
.
, .-.
.:.~ ',.'> ....~~
:. '
". '.
.,' ..... .,~~ '10. ",
......
, ....-....
~ . ...:"
.
-"
.,<:
,",:,"-
-'j'-
.,"'J
.' ,
,
,
':
.
"
. ,
'.,
, .
'='""--. -'- ~ t"" .....~_.
:..--~:"
-;-
......
,
\
."
.
r
M~s. Sandra St~ler
Page :r~10
'"
....) .
Nov~~ber'6, 1974
. '
4. As a matter of practice, since the completion
and occupancy of 222 W. Bleeker i~ March 1972, we have al-
ways parked our vehicles and our guests frequently park
their vehicles behind 222 W. Bleeker. This virtually re-
, moves all parking associated with 222 from the street.
This seems to me to satisfy the purpose and intent of the
'condition, namely not to add street parking conjestion as
a result of the construction and occupancy of 222 \'1. Bleeker.
No occupant of 214 W. Bleeker has, as a matter of
practice, used any of the parking available to them behind
222 W. Bleeker. There exists a physical inconvenience in
such use due to the proximity of the entrance to the 214
parking area.' ,.
, .
5. The condition of the variance did not expressly
require that parking be equally divided betHeen' the tl-1O houses.
I believe that there \'las and \\1ill be full compliance Hith the.,
intent and spirit of the', condition' if one par}~ing space is
maintained on ~he 214 property for the use of its occupants
:and three at 222 for the use of that property. It should be
noted that additional parking could be added to 214 by re-
moval of a wooden fence as is sho\oJn in the attached.. 'ske1=ch.
.'
." "
'6. J.'R.' Williams Properties proposes to sell
214 W~ Bleeker. It is offered at a price of $12s~000.
J,' R. Williams Properties considers that property to be
economically unfeasible as a commercial investment at that
figure, and thus, its use \'lhen sold, ,in all probability, "
would revert to a single-family d~elling.
_.-.'~ "'
'.,
7.' I propose to construct' an addition 'to the
residence at 222 W. Bleeker to provide garage parking for
two automobiles along with a mud room on the first floor,
a dressing room, bath and additional bedroom on the second
floor. Maximum parking of seven vehicles between the two
houses is shown on the attached sketch depicting the pro-
posed garage addition.
"
8. I request that the Board clarify ele parking
'conditions set forth in the variance in order that there be
no guestio~.as to compliance resulting from either the sale
'10
..;....
"
" .,
~
...
'~T-'~'-.--~~~-'~~"""'~~~-'-
-~ ....
-"'":"".... , ~.'
-.~~-~-_. ..,
..
:-:- .
,t'.." .."
; "
. .
.- ,
... r .
.~ .
" '
". ."
.... ~
. .,..
,.
-
'.
'.
, .
. .
I
'.
:...:J
,
...
. "
"
."
. .'
-'~
, .
" .. "
..
.'.l
,.
.... ':.
..., ~.,
._ f.
.
.
. ."
:. '...
'. ;.,~: '., :
:- .~. ,~~:.
..to"
. '
, ., . ..., ....~... :,C ~ ., ;... I,..".;,:','
.
..:~:'~ ~ .~_.
.-' .
~;t
'.
"
'.'
"
. . " ... .,', .,
..
" '
..,'
.
.
.
\
"
1''''
, "
.-
"
.. - - '. - - .
t'liii: sand'ra sfuller.
~agri 'fhree
~;'
"':,~" :::--........ :"..
,',.
,....
November 6, 1974
.
of 214 t'l'- 'Blecker .orthc -con:> tructioi1 of the proposed
garage addition to 222 W. Blecker, giving due considera~
." .' - - - -, . . .,. .
t~on to the pract~~al needs assoc1ated w1th the propertles
and the convenience of persons'affected by the condition.
- '
~:.:~~. ~ ,9. _ In'anyevent,all parties stand ready to fully,,:
complY,~lith the 'terms of the variance as such may be reason-'
ably interpreted.
-----
~-~----~. ---- ---
'-- -_.~
~ - ,".
- ,
. _.
...... - '.-. ---
---~--- -
-- - -. - - - -'''''- .
- ----- - _..-- -----
.._-........,-- -_. - --- -- - --
-:-..,..----... --..- -...----
- -. ~ -' ~
cfci:.::'~.:Iio-~d;f Adjustme;t :.~::~-:
--- ---- - -' - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -..
- -.,- -.
......... --.-
_ _ r _.
. ,
---- ----.--
-r.----;::
--' --
--'--.--~- --;-.::;.-.-.=..
,.~---- --_.~
.
-
---..-.-'
-- -.- - .- - .
. .
- -'------ ---
-- . - - - -
- --. '---'- - --- . ,--~-- -------
--- ---
-
--- -..--,
,.
--- --..-". ..-----
--_.. - ---".'--- -..- - -~ ---
.. - .- - _. -. +
.'
.,
: ?~o;.:.s~ ~~ C~~~
res:..:.s::::-=.
- - - --. -'
__~ ~~~:=~e2~~= ~~
t\'.~9 2.::-:::::-.-:'.:'~-=-~.s
. .. .
=-_0:-.=- :.::-=-::..:: .:.----
Co ~=e:=3:_:-:- ::~:::-:'.
. . -'
---- -~.- ---.
- .:.......-. ~---''-
.':" -,---
:~.=:::i:::.'.:..:-:-.
. . -
----.. -- -- ,-..--.
, . -
,,~,.."~O '~ ~~-..-
..'-'-~...- --. -~_.._.
~-=--:.:..=--~:..-
p---~
----~- ---.. ---..
. .- - - .'
....._---,_. ---- ----~-
- -
- - -' ---
- -.
---.---
,-. -~.'- . -. . - .
--..-----.-- .-,
-'- _. ~ - - .. - --
7-'--- --..... _.
~
.
..
C'lid1--C--- -,.,
/ ~ce Kistler
'.
I
, <,
. -
,
','
,
. " ~
"
".'1- '-.-.' '''--'. '-', ..
. ~
... "
.'
I
.
'.
_.'
.'
,.~
l'
" ,
,
, ' .' '. ~
~."'."~ ....,...-........
'0
'--
, "
.
.'
.' .
...\ ...'~ ....
.
, .
,"
.1
,
.
. -', -,
I l I', ':
,., ',~ 3~
:J I i"j I
I I I
· '1..
'V
.
,
:2 2.'2..
/,
",',
-',-.
'.
--'
,
.
-S-o
,., "
.~
1--1
17i
I -I
I J
\..r
,ALlJ::'Y,
...
,T~,~::~'
, ,
)
, : I
,.,.'-~...
'oJ
,
l ' J I
;2.\4
'- . ..
.(,..0
.
,
,
'13LE[}(["'R .51:
..
PR[!S[I"~rrp?\Rt.( l !\I G
.,.
. , ~ -...-.". .._~
'.
~ ,
.,
.
".
'.
.
.~ --:-~----;-:--~ -_. ----~: -----~.
,.:
r
,...,-
~
.
, ,
.
. .".
.
- '~
, .
" '
~...:. ~ '..
,.
"
,
":'
..'
~\
,
.
, .
.
. '
. i
'1~
.
'.
'.
."
"
.1.
,
.
1
.
CUUhV..1...l.. t.'\ltt UU~
i-=-
Qj
~
~
~
~
~~ f ~~J?
.~ugene E. Sal t,zberg r g
<:>
"'"
C,.:)
~,
~
r
'-
~'"'" '
""".....
. DECL~RAtION OF COVEN~NTS
,
WHEREAS Eugene E. Saltzberg is the' owner of the following
described real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado:
East 10 feet pf Lot N, Lot 0, and the ,West 20
feet of Lot,P. Block 50, City and Townsite of
Aspen, and
WHEREAS, said Eugene E. Saltz berg desires to establish a
covenant to cover and bind the owners of such land for the
period specified below,
THEREFORE. Eugene E. Saltzberg has and does hereby declare
and publish the following covenant, condition and restriction.
which shall run with the above described 'land, and which shall
be both a burden and benefit to declarer, his heirs, executors,
personal representat'ives and assigns and upon any other person,
firm or corporation acquiring any interest in said lands:
.
..:... .
,
So long as Bruce Kistler and/or Janet F. Kistler, or'
the devisees, heirs, executors or personal representa-
.tives of either of them, shall own or hold any interest,
either legal or equitable. in Lot 1-1 and the West 20 feet
of Lot N~ Block 50. City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado, no fence. hedge or other obstruction
shall be constructed, placed upon, cultivated. grown or '
otherwise permitted within the property described as
the East 10 feet of Lot N, Block 50, City and Townsite
. of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, without the express
written consent of said Bruce Kistler, Janet F. Kistler
or their devisees, heirs, executors, or personal repre-
sentatives who shall hold any interest in the said Lot M
and the West 20 feet of Lot N. Block 50, City and Townsite
of Aspen. This covenant shall automatically expire and
become null and void upon the disposition of all interest
in said Lot }1 and the ~vest 20 feet of Lot N, Block 50"
City and Townsite of Aspen, by said Bruce. Kistler and
Janet F. Kistler or their devisees, heirs, executors or
personal representatives.
has
IN'WITNESS WHEREOF, the foregoing Declaration
been executed this 30th day of April, 1976.
of Covenants
"
.,..
STATE OF COLORADO )
) "ss.
County of pitkin ).'
The foregoing in!Jtrum~nt
.,',,~....day 'of April, 1976, By Eugene
.' . ., ..... . ...., '~'. ;
.,.......:........;;. .:.:. y
....", ~
.. ..".. .. ..
. :'. ~ . "1.... ...'
.. ". .,)'.-\'."
: " ," ..
:.i< : ~.~~: :~. .,~:.. :,.
" .1,.: ':'.. . . . ., ..
-.......:...- -'.,.;:'.......,
\: >. . .'.,. tly'..C~mmission expires:
.. . ,.... ,',' .
. '.: ,"::' ...:.dj:Cr,;:.!i1!~)Ioa C:iD:IC,3 rJ~Y !71 !~78
, "
: . \ I .~. \l.
.',
W~5 acknowledged b~for~mc this 30th
E. Salt~erg.
~---
::0
...
p
o
..
Po
lD'
P-
lIO
'fT
~
..
....
....
'd
...
-
~
.,.
p
'<
...
.
~
...
...
'"
Lo
'c
~
....
CD
:x:
III
::1
lD
~
co
n
o
...
Po
lD
...
~
r.>
o
lD
"0 .
n
.....
o
::1
z
c
'"
G-
lD
...
:::
~
,"
e;,
C'::'
.t~..
" .
.
F. L1\N:
c
.,......,
.....""'~
The standard for granting of a side lot set back variance
is "fractical ~ifficulty," Rathkopf, Law of z6ning and Planing
45-24.
.
"In Matter of Bronxville v. Francis, the Appellate Divi-
sion stated that the Ne~l York courts have "consistently held"
that the requirement of "unnecessary hardship" has application
only to a vatiance in'the use'of' premises and that, in the absenc~
of statutory provision to the contrary, an area variance may be '
granted on proof of practical difficulty only. The basis for
this lesser requirement with respect to area variances is stated
to be that in such case, there is no change in the character of '
the zoned district (and, therefore. no need to balance the
effect, of the grant of relief upon the character of the district
against the deprivation of the owner's property).
Although the New York courts, following the rule of Matter
of Bronxville v. Francis, invariably state that in an area var-
iance case only practical difficulty need be proved. in none of
the area variance cases has the court given a definition of
practical difficulty. apparently relying on the fact that in those
cases which involve substandard lots~ the practical difficulty was
obvious."
And at 45-28 Rathkopf provides criteria for the granting of
a variance under the "Practical Difficulty" Standard:',
'"
"An analysis of the reported cases in which the emphasis
was put upon the aspect of "practical difficulty" indicates that
the criteria set forth in Appeal of Clark are the criteria
,customarily adopted. The questions properly ,before the board.
o,f ,appeals on an application for a variance from "area restric-
tions",' as such non-use restrictions have herein been collectively'
termed, are: "
1. Whether compliance with the strict letter
of the restrictions governing area. set backs, front-
age, height, bulk or denisty would unreasonably prevent
the owner from using the property' for a permitted pur-
, pose or would render conformity with such restrictions
unnecessarily burdensome.
2. Whether a grant of a the variance applied
for would do substantial justice to the applicant as well
as to other property owners in the district, or whether
a lesse~ relaxation than that applied for would give
substa~tial relief to the owner of the property involved
and be more consistent with justice to other,prope~ty.
, ' '
owners.
3. whether relief can be granted in such fashion
that the spirit of the oruinance will be observed and
public safety and welfare secured.'
.
In considering'these basic questions. the board should take
into consideration the nature of the zone in which the property lies,
the char.:lcter of the immediate vicinity'and the uses cont.:lined
herein, whether, if the restriction upon the applicant's property
were removed, such removal would seriously affect such neighboring'
property and uses, whether, if the restriction is not removed, the
restriction would have a tendency to credte hardship (to any extent)
to the olvner in relation to his efforts to make normal improvel1\L~nts
in the character of that use of the property which is a permitted
use under t~e use provisions of the ordinance.
"
, '
. ...
In these Cii"',es, it, is a prcrequi!Jite r""'9 relief that the
condition for whh_ rclaxation of the rC!JtrMions' of the ordinance
is so'ught, arc unique or peculiar to the applicant's property? In
New York it is not. This is the other point madc by thc Appellate
Div~sion, Second Department, in Matter of Bron'xville v. Francis,
supra. The lower court in that case, had annulled the grant of
the 'floor area variance by the board of appeals, on the ground
that' the restrictions of the ordinance bore equally heavily on
other property owners in this district. The Appellate Division,
modifying the lower court's dec~sion, stated that where an area
variance is concerned, neither "unnecessary" hardship nor "special"
hardship need be csta};1lished. ' In ,the later case ,of Turiano v.
Gi1christ the same court held, in a case involving a substandard
lot, and in which,a 'variance of the minimum lot area and minimum
lot width provisions of the ordinance were applied for, that
plaintiff need not establish a condition unique and pecuIIar to
his property or unnecessary hardship in connection therewith."
.
In Krueger v. Zoning Board of Appeals 368 NE 3d 45 63
(NY 1975) the owner had two lots with a house. He sold the one
with the house and was left a lot 150 x 87 feet in an area where
the minimum area is 100 x 150 feet. The variance was denied.
The court determined that in undersized lots where the hardship
,
is self created, a .denial of a variance is not always proper and
in such a case the Board must show that the denial would serve a
"
legitimate purpose. This would be in maintaining the character.
of the area. The facts showed that the average lot in the area
was,between 80 and 90 feet. The Court held that enforcing the
. ordinance would not serve to benefit the community and the denial
of the variance was improper, citing Fulling v. Polumbo 21 N.Y.2d
- 30.
In the case before the Board, it likewise can be readily
.'
s~en that enforcing the side yard set back ordinance would in no
way benefit the community. There exists in effect a buffer of
10 feet betwee~.properties. There are four houses immediately
across the street with only five feet between them. The location
of the proposed improvement would be almost 20 feet from the adjacent
improvement. With a larger garage, the off-street parking require-
..
ments will be better lierved.
,
,
"