Minutes of July 11, 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:
Marijane Knudsen, Chairperson
Robert Godwin, Alternate Stanley Hudson
Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair
Pledge to the Flag.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mrs. Kawalchuk motioned to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2006 meeting seconded by Mrs. Haugen-De Puy.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Yes Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Mr. Hudson recused himself from this application and sat in the audience.
Alternate, Bob Godwin took his place on the Board.
At 7:30PM, Chairperson Knudsen called Mr. & Mrs. Kortright forward for their Public Hearing.
Mrs. Kortright was present on behalf of her application along with her husband.
Chairperson Knudsen explained that the Public Hearing was the place for the applicants to give their presentation and for the public to present their input as well. All bounding owners were notified. She then explained that 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.
Mrs. Kortright noted that they are requesting an Area Variance as they own a parcel that only has 25’ of road frontage on Rochester Center Road (a town maintained road). She was told by the building dept. that the town law says that parcels created after zoning was established need to have 50’ of road frontage in order to build a dwelling.
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 2
ZBA MINUTES July 11, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
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
Mrs. Kortright continued. This property (+/-2.75 acres) was purchased from William and Lydia Haynes in 1989 and has been vacant such that time of purchase. Mrs. Kortright submitted their title search for the property from Chicago Title Insurance Company dated July 13, 1989. They also submitted a survey from Messinger & Jackson dated December 17, 1985 with the most current revised date being June 1, 1989. Applicants submitted Deed dated July 13, 1989. They also submitted a letter from Attorney James Barry dated June 15, 2006 that noted that this lot had been created by Thomas Jackson, a local surveyor familiar with Town Laws and that Mrs. Kortright bought this property with the understanding that it was a buildable lot. They were not alerted of any violations from the original Title Search in 1989.
Mrs. Kortright also submitted letter dated July 10, 2006 from bounding property owner Reid Bader stating that he was fine with the land being used as a residential lot and didn’t have any problems with their access.
Letter dated Ju7ne June 19, 2006 from Carolyn Mesceda and Donald North, bounding owners, also stated that they had no problems with the lot being used for a residence.
Mrs. Kortright then presented paid tax bills receipts from the past 17 years to display that they paid taxes on this property in the good faith that it was a building lot. The taxes are paid up to date and the tax bills show that taxes are being paid for a vacant residential lot.
Mr. Godwin noted that he had looked through the Town’s Zoning Code from 1988 and couldn’t find any laws about needing 50’ of road frontage.
Chairperson Knudsen noted that Carmine Nigro had a similar case a few years ago where he had been paying taxes on 2 acres in good faith and he wanted to divide it in two pieces and once it was surveyed found that he was a 10th of an acre short of 2 acres.
The Board recalled this as well.
Chairperson Knudsen opened the hearing to the public.
Bounding Owner, Carol Smith, was recognized to speak. She lived on City Hall road and her property went to Rochester Center Road. She approached the Board table and Board members helped to orient her with the map and the surroundings. She wanted to be sure that her property wasn’t being affected by this request. She was satisfied with the Board’s guidance and noted that she had no problems with this request.
Mr. Godwin questioned if this access was adequate to handle emergency vehicles.
Mr. Hudson was recognized to speak from the audience. He was familiar with the property and assured the Board that it was adequate.
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 3
ZBA MINUTES July 11, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
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 on Rochester Center Road and Town Law requires 50’, Tax Map #68.3-2- 25.112, R-1 District
Mrs. Kawalchuck motioned to close the Public Hearing. Motion seconded by Mrs. Haugen- De Puy.
No discussion.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Recused Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
Mrs. Haugen- De Puy motioned for an Unlisted Action under SEQRA and that the ZBA be Lead Agency with a Negative Declaration as no significant or adverse impacts on the environment would be involved. Seconded by Mr. Kingston. No discussion.
Vote: Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Recused Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
Chairperson Knudsen explained that the Planning Board had rendered a favorable advisory at their June 20, 2006 meeting.
She further explained that the ZBA had 45 days to render a decision. She then asked the Board if they were prepared to move forward at this point.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy motioned to grant the 25’ area variance as it is a flag lot and Mrs. Kortright has presented substantial evidence that she purchased this property 17 years ago with the understanding that it was a buildable lot. She presented letters from neighbors, Attorneys, Title Insurance, Tax bills paid for the last 17 years for a vacant residential lot. Conditions should be that all applicable local and state codes be met. Motion seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuk.
Discussion:
Chairperson Knudsen felt that the ZBA did a substantial amount of review in considering this Area Variance. The Board considered the weighing of the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community,~The Board considered if perhaps the applicant could achieve this request via another means; whether the request is substantial and the possible adverse effects this might create on physical or environment conditions.~ Included in this discussion was drainage, road width, access for emergency vehicles, impact on utility services and basis safety.~ And lastly, the Board discussed if this was indeed a self created hardship.
Board members were appreciative of Alternate member Godwin’s review of the old code.~ This review clearly confirmed the information submitted by the applicant.~ In good faith, and using as many professionals as possible, the Applicants purchased this lot 17 years ago.~ In good faith the Applicant, obtained a survey, title insurance and utilized the services of a local attorney.~ In good faith, the Applicant diligently paid their taxes for 17 years.
T/ ROCHESTER PAGE 4
ZBA MINUTES July 11, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING
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 on Rochester Center Road and Town Law requires 50’, Tax Map #68.3-2- 25.112, R-1 District
IT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THE BOARD HAD GREAT CONCERN AND SPENT MUCH TIME IN DELIBERATION WITH REGARD TO THIS REQUEST.~ There was much reference made to the variance granted to the late Carmine Nigro.~ Mr. Nigro, in good faith and following much of the same rules as the applicants paid taxes on a parcel that was also not within the zoning ordinance.~
The Board was extremely clear in indicating that the applicant presented a case in which through no fault of their own, owned a non buildable lot per Town Code for lack of the 50’ road frontage requirement.
Vote:
Godwin, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Hudson – Recused Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy – Yes Kingston – Yes
Mr. Kingston motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuk. All members present in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairperson Knudsen adjourned the meeting at 8:00 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary