| open from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Brennan asked if trucks will go to the |
|
| back of the store to drop products off for the coolers. The applicant replied no. |
|
| Mr. Brennan then asked if there will be any parking in the rear of the store, to |
|
| which Mr. Dallo answered no. Mr. Brennan inquired if the coolers are in place |
|
| today. The applicant responded yes. The coolers measure 12 feet, so they |
|
| must be moved 10 feet back to allow two additional feet in front for access. Mr. |
|
| Brennan commented he understands the situation and asked if the applicant if |
|
| he could work with a lesser variance than 6.5 feet. Mr. Mojaradi explained that |
|
| the rear property line is angled. The applicant needs a minimum of 4.5 feet, but |
|
| doesn't want to build the addition on an angle. The setback is narrower on the |
|
| west side of the building, therefore in order to have a straight line for the addition, |
|
| 6.5 feet is necessary, but he could get by with a minimum of 4.5 feet. Mr. |
|
| Mojaradi added that the property owner is trying to bring in more merchandise |
|
| and improve his kitchen so that liquor sales become a smaller percentage of his |
|
| business. Mr. Dallo explained that the area near the coolers is used to store |
|
| empty bottles and cans and sometimes prevents access to the coolers. This is |
|
| the reason for the requested 6.5 foot variance - to give the applicant an |
|
| additional two feet more than what he absolutely needs for the proposed addition |
|
| in order to store the empties. Mr. Brennan clarified that the Board needs to find |
|
| a practical difficulty or hardship, and this seems like a convenience issue. |
|
| Mr. Duistermars clarified that the property is zoned B-1 and asked what the side |
|
| and front setbacks were. Mr. Delacourt indicated the front setback is 25 feet |
|
| and the interior side can be reduced to zero under certain circumstances. And |
|
| because this is a corner parcel, the east side setback would need to be at least |
|
| 25 feet, with a total of 50 feet for both side yard setbacks. Mr. Duistermars |
|
| confirmed that the proposed addition totals 945 square feet, and if the back wall |
|
| of the structure were brought into compliance it would reduce the 15 feet down |
|
| to 8.5 feet based on the dimensions, or 536 square feet. Mr. Duistermars asked |
|
| why the applicant couldn't put the additional square footage on the west wall of |
|
| the structure rather than the north wall. Mr. Mojaradi said the coolers are almost |
|
| 12 feet deep and are in a line next to each other insulated as one unit. They |
|
| would not fit on the west wall, and the applicant can't afford to purchase new |
|
| coolers in a different size or configuration. |
|
| Mr. Mojaradi pointed out the biggest problem is that the owner purchased the |
|
| property without checking all the details and finding out he could never expand to |
|
| the front. The only way for the owner to expand while meeting the zoning |
|
| ordinance is to gut the entire building, build all the way to the west property line |
|
| and redirect the parking towards the side street, 20 feet away from the |
|
| neighbor's yard. Parking would also be allowed to the north of the store. Mr. |
|
| Mojaradi feels this would be a lot more detrimental to the neighbors, and stated |
|
| what is proposed is a very good compromise. |
|
| Chairperson Colling asked for the distance between the west side of the building |
|
| and the property line. Mr. Delacourt replied between 25 and 30 feet. |
|
| Chairperson Colling summarized that an addition could be put on the west side |
|
| of the building, but that still wouldn't solve the problem with the coolers. The |
|
| applicant has storage issues that have been mentioned tonight and the coolers |
|
| are a singular unit, whether or not the owner wants to replace them or use what |
|
| he has is his choice. The fact is the applicant has come to the Board with a |
|
