Minutes of June 13, 2006 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM by Chairperson, Marijane Knudsen.
Present: Elizabeth Kawalchuk Absent:
Stanley Hudson
Marijane Knudsen, Chairperson
Robert Godwin, Alternate Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair
Pledge to the Flag.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy motioned to approve the minutes of the May 9, 2006 meeting seconded by Mr. Kingston.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER & KYRA GREWELING– 222 Towpath Road, two story addition to include attached garage, 7’ 6” from corner of garage to rear property line, 77.1-3-24.1, R-1 District
At 7:30 Mr. Grewling and Architect, Mr. Dupont, were present on behalf of the public hearing.
The Chairperson explained that this is where the applicant needed to present his case for the record and prove to the Board the need for this variance. It was also a time for the public to voice their opinions.
The property in question was +/- 1 acre and the existing house was 1,200 sf. There was a shed, driveway, septic, and well also on the property.
Mr. Dupont explained that the proposed addition was 24’ x 24’ and the lower half consisted of a garage and the upper portion was going to be their master bedroom suite. The house was modest the way it was set up now. They were not adding a bedroom to the house, just reconfiguring the layout, so the Health Dept. would not need to be involved. They were going to turn their old bedroom into a study or office space. They would also be adding a formal entry way via this addition. Mr. Greweling is a Chef by trade and they would be expanding the front of the house to make the kitchen bigger. This house was built in 1993.
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 2
ZBA MINUTES June 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER & KYRA GREWELING– 222 Towpath Road, two story addition to include attached garage, 7’ 6” from corner of garage to rear property line (32.5’ area variance)
Mr. Dupont further explained that currently the 1 car garage is off of the existing paved driveway, so to change a paved driveway location would be very expensive. There are also problems with the grade of the property which would only allow the placement to be as shown on the site plan. The Septic and well locations also would be compromised. They have looked at the property and this is the best setting for the addition. The existing garage would be demolished, and a few trees would have to be removed. The garage would be used for storage.
Mr. Dupont noted that he had prepared an economic impact letter and it would be between $19,000 and $28,000 to reconfigure the location of the addition and to move the driveway. That would also compromise the well and septic. He also stated that they have a letter from the rear neighbors who would be most impacted by this area variance, in full support of the proposal.
Chairperson Knudsen announced that the ZBA would take into record letter dated May 17, 2006 of support from rear neighbors, Oren & Maryl Kalus. She also accepted the letter dated June 13, 2006 from Mr. Dupont regarding the economic impact as part of the record.
Chairperson Knudsen further noted that she and Mr. Godwin had visited the property to get a better idea of the request.
The Chairperson felt that the issues raised by the applicants were valid.
Mr. Godwin felt that he could see a place to put the addition on the opposite side.
Mr. Dupont stated that they would have to replace the septic in order to place the addition in the area suggested by Mr. Godwin.
Mr. Godwin felt that this would be achievable. If they replaced their existing septic line with a cast iron pipe, they would be able to drive over it.
Mr. Dupont argued that this would be costly and the layout of the existing house didn’t fit with Mr. Godwin’s suggestion.
The Chairperson questioned if they moved the addition would they achieve their setbacks?
Mr. Dupont answered that, yes, they would, however there would be physical constraints that would make it tough to work with—the slope of the property and the layout of the house wouldn’t work as well as the plan they have presented to the Board.
The applicant passed existing conditions pictures around so the Board had a better visual. Mr. Dupont further explained that they would have to have overhead electric service.
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 3
ZBA MINUTES June 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER & KYRA GREWELING– 222 Towpath Road, two story addition to include attached garage, 7’ 6” from corner of garage to rear property line (32.5’ area variance)
Mrs. Haugen De Puy questioned what would the other cost factors be other than $250 mentioned by Mr. Godwin for a septic pipe?
Mr. Dupont read the economic cost estimate that he had submitted for the Board.
Mr. Kingston didn’t think paving over the septic would be a good idea. What if he needed to fix something?
Mr. Godwin suggested a manhole. They discussed the location of the fuel tank and Mr. Godwin felt that fuel trucks wouldn’t have to drive over the septic line if the driveway was relocated, so that wasn’t an issue.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy felt that a cement truck to bring in building material would be a pretty substantial impact on the septic line.
Mr. Godwin asked if they couldn’t move the garage closer to the house to minimize the area variance.
Mr. Dupont responded that the well would produce a problem and they wanted to go for the smallest variance to achieve what they wanted, and this is what they came up with.
Mr. Godwin inquired about a neighbor, Fred Wustrau.
The Chairperson stated that all bounding owners were notified of this public hearing.
Mr. Greweling noted that he did speak with neighbor Frank Wright and he had no problem. The other bounding owners, the Schoonmakers and Fred Wustrau were pretty far away from this addition.
The Chairperson announced that the Planning Board submitted letter dated May 19, 2006 giving a favorable advisory which was rendered at their May 16, 2006 meeting.
Chairperson Knudsen opened the hearing to the public. There was no comment.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and that the ZBA be Lead Agency for this project and that this application should have a Negative Declaration as there will be no significant adverse impacts to the environment. Seconded by Mr. Kingston. No discussion.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
Mrs. Kawalchuk motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Mr. Godwin. No discussion.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 4
ZBA MINUTES June 13, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
PETER & KYRA GREWELING– 222 Towpath Road, two story addition to include attached garage, 7’ 6” from corner of garage to rear property line (32.5’ area variance)
The Chairperson explained that the public hearing was closed that they now had 45 days in which to render a decision.
In order to grant a variance, the ZBA must consider if the applicant’s benefit to the detriment to health, safety and welfare of the community is substantial.~ The ZBA must consider whether the applicant can achieve this request by other means.~ There is testimony that the applicant, due to the slope of his land, the existing layout of the driveway and the location of the well and septic cannot achieve this by other means.~Applicant submitted letter dated June 13, 2006 from Architect, Rob Dupont on Economic Hardship to change the location of the addition. Does the applicant’s request create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties?~ Applicant submitted letter dated May 17, 2006 from the neighbors that would be most affected by the area variance, Oren & Meryl Kalus. No other members of the public or bounding owners commented.
Mr. Kingston motioned to approve the variance for +/- 32.5’ for a rear yard setback due to the hardships proven at the public hearing this evening. Mrs. Kawalchuk seconded the motion. Chairperson Knudsen contributed the following condition:
· All local, Town, County, and State permits are granted and regulations complied with.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Haugen De Puy felt that the applicants proved their hardship at this meeting.
Chairperson Knudsen noted that all bounding owners were notified, the public hearing was posted at the Town Clerk’s Office, on the Town’s website and in the daily freeman.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
PRE-APPLCATION PRESENTATION
LOIS KORTRIGHT– Area Variance for vacant property in which applicant is requesting to construct single family dwelling, property only has 25’ of road frontage on Rochester Center Road and Town Law requires 50’, Tax Map #68.3-2-25.112, R-1 District
Lois and Russel Kortright were present, along with the potential buyers of the property.
Mrs. Kortright explained that in 1989 she and her husband purchased the property and now they want to sell it to this couple with them tonight, but found out that they couldn’t build a house on it because it only has 25’ of road frontage on a Town Maintained Road (Rochester Center). This is a flag lot that they bought from William and Lydia Haynes. It’s +/- 2.75 acres. They had a survey and title search and now they found out from the Code Enforcement Office that they don’t have enough road frontage.
The Chairperson questioned if this was found to be a buildable lot through their title search?
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 5
ZBA MINUTES June 13, 2006
PRE-APPLCATION PRESENTATION
LOIS KORTRIGHT(cont’d– Area Variance for vacant property in which applicant is requesting to construct single family dwelling, property only has 25’ of road frontage
Mrs. Kortright felt that the laws had changed right around the time that they purchased the property and this may be the problem.
The Chairperson noted that these applicants have been paying taxes on this property since 1989 under the impression that it was a buildable lot. She believed that past applicants, Vinnie and Val Nigro had some of the same problems. She suggested that the applicants check their tax bill to see what they have been paying on.
The Chairperson explained that a 25’ area variance in this context was a pretty substantial request and people view that as if the ZBA does it for 1, then they have to do it for all. She suggested that the applicants consult with their attorney, Jim Barry, to see what the original 1989 title search revealed. She then questioned if the applicants had approached the adjoining neighbors to buy 25’ or a right of way that would give them a total of 50’ that is required? If they did and their neighbors said ‘no’, that would be something that would be considered a hardship.
Mrs. Kawalchuk didn’t believe that a bank would give a mortgage with that size of road frontage.
The Chairperson also advised the applicants to contact the Assessor’s Office and contact bounding owners to see if they would transfer land to them. They should also research their claims that the 50’ requirement changed in Town Code in 1988. She further suggested to see if their bank would accept the 25’ to give a mortgage.
Mr. Kortright believed that some banks would.
Mr. Godwin would also check the code.
Chairperson Knudsen explained the balancing test that the Board needed to adhere to—was it a substantial request? Would there be any adverse environmental effects? Would it cause an undesirable change to the neighborhood? Could the applicants achieve their request by any other means? She further explained that the ZBA was building a record. Things in writing were important. The applicants would go to the June 20, 2006 PB meeting for an advisory opinion and have their public hearing in July with the ZBA.
OTHER MATTERS
The Chairperson reminded everyone that they needed 2 trainings for the year. She then announced that Mr. Godwin had attended the GIS Training at Ulster County Community College over the weekend. If Mr. Godwin could collect this information to present to the ZBA, the ZBA would get together and it would be declared a training session.
Mr. Kingston motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Haugen De Puy. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairperson Knudsen adjourned the meeting at 8:30 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary