Minutes of April 14, 2009 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman, Brian Drabkin.
Present: Absent:
Brian Drabkin, Chairman
Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair
James Kingston
Elizabeth Kawalchuk
Marijane Knudsen
Jennifer McKenzie, Alternate
Pledge to the Flag.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Board Member, Mr. Kingston, motioned to accept the March 10, 2009 minutes. Seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuk, Board Member. Mrs. Haugen-De Puy abstained as she did not attend this meeting. All other members present, in favor.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
FABIO CHIZZOA & LAURA FERRARA – 2’ Area Variance for fence height in rear yard, 215 Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map # 68.4-5-12.1 & 12.11, R-2 District
Mr. Chizzoa was present and explained that he operated an apple orchard known as Westwind Orchards at 215 Lower Whitfield Road. At the rear of his orchard the property abuts a residential neighborhood on Barry Lane and there are a lot of houses. His business is that of U-Pick and its organic and people come from all over and want a rural feeling and seeing those houses in the rear of his orchard doesn’t do that and this is why he is requesting 400’ of 8’ high fencing to block that view and separate the parcels. He presented pictures of the orchard and noted that they also keep bees and do ½ an hour classes with kids teaching them about bees. As the premise of his business is very natural, he’d like to further that by putting up the fence to block the view of the houses and keep it a more rural setting.
Mr. Kingston questioned what the monetary impact of the view of these houses was?
Mr. Chizzoa stated that he and his wife and son went to U-Pick farms for many years and people don’t want to pick apples and feel like they’re in someone’s back yard. He has +/-32 acres and people drive with their families for over two hours to visit his orchard and they don’t want to feel like they are spending their day in someone else’s back yard.
Vice Chairperson, Mrs. Haugen-De Puy, questioned how long the applicant has owned the orchard?
Mr. Chizzoa noted that he has owned it for 7 years now and last year was the first year that had the U-Pick for PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
FABIO CHIZZOA & LAURA FERRARA (cont’d)- 2’ Area Variance for fence height in rear yard, 215 Lower Whitfield Road, Tax Map # 68.4-5-12.1 & 12.11, R-2 District
the Apples. It took 5 years to take care of the trees that are between 30 and 50 years old.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy questioned if the houses were already there when he bought the property?
The applicant answered yes.
The applicant noted that they want to expand their organic crops in the future to include raspberries and grapes. He has +/-400 existing apple trees and about 100 of them are affected by the view shed of the houses at the end of Barry Lane. He wants about 400’ of fencing and the rest of the border of the property is natural growth—trees, white pines…The applicant noted that Board Member, Mr. Kingston, had visited his property today and suggested natural shrubbery as a hedge, but the applicant wouldn’t be able to do this because of the distance of the property line to a water source and because their well has a very low recharge rate. Plus it would take a long time to make a dense hedge to limit the view that he wants the fence for. The solid fence would give 8’ of privacy instantly. There are a lot of trucks, and cars, and tires. People drive 2-3 hours to come to his orchard. There is also debris and garbage that is on his property from the neighbors.
Board Member, Knudsen, advised the applicant to speak to the CEO about possibly raising the fence 2’ off of the ground and avoiding the need for a variance that way. The Board had to look at any angle and option to try and reduce or eliminate the need for a variance. She also believed that the issue with an 8’ fence is safety. After a few years with wind, erosion and drainage and the fence being so long (+/- 400’), she was afraid it might fall over.
Mr. Chizzoa noted that he would use the best type of wood and maintain it to prevent damage to it.
The Board advised the applicant to bring specifications of the fence to the next meeting.
When asked if Mr. Chizzoa has approached his neighbors to get their feelings about the fence, he noted that he hasn’t because he doesn’t know them.
Board Member Kingston noted that it might be helpful to get letters of support from them.
Board Member Knudsen agreed that neighbors like to know what’s going on.
The Board advised the applicant that he would meet with the Planning Board for their advisory opinion on April 21, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall and would have his Public Hearing on May 12, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall with the ZBA.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
THEODORE DEUTERMANN c/o Eric Bean– 2’ Area Variance for fence height, 246 Sammsonville Road, Tax Map # 76.1-2-1.1, R-1 District
Eric Bean was present on behalf of Mr. Deutermann and explained that he and Mr. Deutermann purchased the property in the fall of 2008 and noted that they waited out the winter to see where the snow removal of Samsonville Road would affect a future fence on their property. He also noted that the headlights from Samsonville Road shine right into their house. It’s a busy road and their property slopes downward from the road, so a 4’ fence in the front and a 6’ fence on the sides wouldn’t be affective to block the headlights and traffic. They spoke with Highway Superintendent, Wayne Kelder and he recommended keeping the fence 15’ from the edge of the road. There’s also a lot of truck traffic on the road as well as there are nearby mines. They also have a young Labrador and they have an electric fence for him, but he has still broken it a couple of times and has run into the road. They have nieces and nephews that also visit and they spend their time in their front yard and worry about the kids as well. They love the old farm house and are currently renovating it.
Vice Chairperson De Puy would prefer them to speak with someone from the County as Samsonville is a County road.
Board Member Knudsen agreed and advised the applicant to contact the Safety Office as everyone has their own rules and guidelines.
Mr. Bean noted that the fence would be +/-130’ on the side and +/-230’ in length in the front. They have a local guy doing it and he was well known for his good work in the area, so he didn’t foresee a problem with the safety or stability of the fence.
Board Members had concerns over the snow removal from Samsonville being pushed into the fence and causing it to weaken or fall over.
Mr. Bean presented pictures of the property and the slope to the road and how that affected them. He also noted that if the fence were to need maintenance they would take care of it. He’s looked around Town and he’s seen a few 8’ fences.
Vice Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that the ZBA has to establish a record.
Board Member Knudsen noted that the ZBA had to look at this as a balancing test- weighing the health and safety of the public to the benefit of the applicant and in doing so, the applicant needs to prove his case by exploring every avenue possible to show there is no other way to achieve his goal and that he has contacted the appropriate people to get feedback. The County and Wayne Kelder, Highway Superintendent, would be good people to get letters from. He should also bring in more pictures to prove his case at his Public Hearing.
The Board advised the applicant that he would meet with the Planning Board for their advisory opinion on April 21, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall and would have his Public Hearing on May 12, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall with the ZBA.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
SUSAN JARVIS c/o Howard Jarvis– 32 sq ft. Area Variance for sign size, 4736 Route 209, Tax Map #69.3-2-17.110, ‘B’ District
Howard and Tony Jarvis were present on behalf of this application. They noted that Howard Jarvis installed a sign to promote his business and he was unaware that he went over the square footage limit. The sign has 32 sq ft on each side and is only supposed to be 32 sq ft total. He covered one side and the other side is exposed, so he is no longer in violation.
The Board requested that the applicant bring in pictures at his next meeting.
The Board advised the applicant that he would meet with the Planning Board for their advisory opinion on April 21, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall and would have his Public Hearing on May 12, 2009 at 7PM at the Town Hall with the ZBA.
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JEFF & JODI SUBEH-, 30’ Area Variance requested for side yard setback to construct garage, 55 Markle Road, Tax Map # 68.13-2-49, R-1 District
Mr. and Mrs. Subeh were present on behalf of their application and explained that they are requesting a 30’ area variance to put their garage 10’ from their side yard property line. Mr. Subeh explained that this would be the only place to put the garage because he wouldn’t be able to pull his truck or work trailer or camper trailer into and out of the driveway if it were closer to the house and he’d have to back out onto the road, which was a safety concern. His other issue is that he wanted the garage to block out his neighbors because there have always been fights, and drug dealers in there and his kids have to witness all of it. He has spoken to some bounding owners – the Paley’s- and they have no problem with what he is requesting. The reason he couldn’t attach the garage to the house was because then he would lose his screened in porch. He was also concerned with creating a mold problem on the screened porch if he moved the garage too close to the house—then the sun would never get to it and dry the rain and moisture.
The Board suggested a few alternatives to try and lessen the variance and Mr. Subeh was adamant that he wouldn’t be able to fit his camper on his property if he had to put the garage anywhere but 10’ off of the side property line.
Vice Chairperson Haugen- De Puy noted that the ZBA can only look at physical features of the land, not things that an applicant owns as part of the hardship.
Board Member Knudsen questioned why the garage doors couldn’t open towards Markle Road instead of opening toward the house?
Mr. Subeh noted that he would still have a problem parking his camper trailer.
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
JEFF & JODI SUBEH(cont’d)-, 30’ Area Variance requested for side yard setback to construct garage, 55 Markle Road, Tax Map # 68.13-2-49, R-1 District
Board Member Knudsen reminded him that the camper didn’t weigh into the Board’s decision to give a variance. After looking at the application further Mrs. Knudsen recalled this coming to the ZBA a number of years prior to this for a very similar request.
Mr. Subeh noted that his father had previously owned the property and he recalls that his father may have come before the Board.
Board Member Knudsen recalled that the applicant’s father requested that garage in the same place and was denied. He didn’t prove to the Board that there was no other spot on the property for it. He also wanted to block out the neighbor’s house at that time.
Board Member Kingston noted that he visited the property and he felt that there were alternative places to put the garage. If Mr. Subeh really wanted to block the neighbor’s house, he should put up a fence and move the garage to conform to or conform closer to the Zoning Regulations as opposed to requesting such a big variance.
Board Member Knudsen advised the applicants to pull the old decision that his father had received years ago. Asking for 30’ is a substantial variance and it seems that there would be alternate places to put the garage.
Mr. Subeh stated that he did have another plan. He called it ‘Plan B’. He would only need a 9’ variance and could put the garage 15’ off of the screened in porch. This wasn’t ideal for him, or where he felt it would work best.
Board Member Knudsen noted that because the applicant would still need a variance with ‘Plan B’, he’d need to still go for an advisory opinion at the Planning Board’s April 21, 2009 meeting and come before the ZBA at their May 12, 2009 meeting for a Public Hearing. The applicant should also get pictures to better display his hardships.
Board Member Kingston motioned to adjourn seconded by Mrs. Haugen De-Puy, Vice Chair. No discussion. All members present, in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Drabkin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary