Minutes of January 13, 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:
Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair Brian Drabkin, Chairman
James Kingston
Elizabeth Kawalchuk
Marijane Knudsen
Jennifer McKenzie, Alternate
Pledge to the Flag.
Chairman Drabkin was absent from the meeting, so Vice Chair, Mrs. Haugen De Puy acted as Chair for the meeting. Alternate, Jennifer McKenzie acted as a full member due to the Chairman’s absence.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that the minutes from the November 12, 2008 meeting were not saved properly due to computer problems. They’d have to be redone and tabled until the next meeting.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
FRANK VACARRO– 8 Sidney Street, Area Variance for illegally created 2 family dwelling on +/- .23 acres, R-1 District, Tax Map # 84.7-1-1
Mr. Vacarro was not yet present for his pre-application discussion with the ZBA.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that Mr. Vacarro is seeking and Area Variance for an illegal 2 family dwelling+/-.23 acres in an R-1 District on Sidney Street. Mr. Vacarro wasn’t sure if he was going to be able to attend the meeting tonight, so the Vice Chairperson spoke with Town Attorney, Mary Lou Christiana, Esq., and was advised to still hold the meeting as the applicant was in violation with the Code Enforcement Office and this application needed to commence for that reason.
Mrs. Kawalchuk motioned to give Mr. Vacarro until 7:20 PM before the ZBA would begin the Pre-application discussion without his presence. Mr. Kingston seconded the motion.
Vote:
McKenzie, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Drabkin, Chairman – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy, VC- Yes Kingston – Yes
Mr. Vacarro showed up to the meeting at 7:05PM along with Ted Fina, representative.
Vice Chairperson, Haugen De Puy restated that Mr. Vacarro is seeking and Area Variance for an illegal 2 family dwelling+/-.23 acres in an R-1 District on Sidney Street. She continued to note that this was an informal meeting where the ZBA would listen to the applicant’s case, ask questions and give guidance to the applicant.
Mr. Vacarro stated that this was the way the house was when he bought it. He just closed up a doorway between the 2 dwellings. It had two entrances when he bought it. He showed the Board the real estate listing from 2002 when he purchased the house showing the two entrances. He has made no structural change to the house. It’s the same as when he bought it.
Mrs. Kawalchuk, Board Member, questioned if this house was a 2 family dwelling when Mr. Vacarro purchased it.
Mr. Vacarro stated that he asked when he bought it and they said it wasn’t, so he just did it. Non family lives there now, but eventually he has 2 sons that will live there. There were 2 kitchens in the house when he bought the place and he’s just updated them. That’s all. He didn’t do any changes to the structure. It’s the same square footage as when he bought it. He then showed the listing again and tried to explain where it was located on Sidney Street. He stated that all the neighbors loved him and people are just jealous and that’s what happened here. According to the guy, someone said they turned him in because Mr. Vacarro claimed that he was rich and was bragging about it.
Mr. Fina was present along with Mr. Vacarro and Mr. Vacarro noted that Mr. Fina helped him out at his store when he bought it. Mr. Vacarro continued that there were 3 bedrooms and next time he would bring a floor plan as advised by the ZBA.
Mr. Kingston, Board Member questioned if Mr. Vacarro has gone to the Health Dept to see if the current septic system would support a 2 family dwelling? This is on +/-.23 acres and the Code requires 1 acre per dwelling.
Mr. Vacarro stated that he did not go to the Health Dept. The septic is clean.
Mr. Kingston noted that when someone applies for a 2 family, one of the first things they have to do is go and check with the Health Dept. to see if their system is adequate for a 2 family dwelling. According to the PB/ZBA Secretary, the Health Dept. has been requiring written documentation from certified engineers that the system is adequate for handling the second dwelling.
Mr. Vacarro noted that they don’t have a well. They have community water that they rent.
The Vice Chairperson was not aware of community water in that area. Where did it come from?
Mr. Vacarro stated that he had a well water contract.
Mrs. Knudsen, Board Member noted that when Mr. Vacarro’s sons move into the house that they should just take one kitchen out, and then they’d be fine and wouldn’t be considered a 2 family dwelling and that would alleviate the need for this variance and he would no longer be in violation.
Mr. Fina noted that this would be a big ordeal to do.
Mr. Vacarro noted that there was plenty of room for parking and there was so much grass to cut that all the neighbors didn’t have a problem.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that it wasn’t up to the neighbors and whether they didn’t mind this. It was the law that the ZBA was going by and the Density Control Schedule of the Town.
Mr. Vacarro noted that he knew of other places that had 3 family dwellings on 1 acre, but he wouldn’t say anything because he likes to sleep at night.
Mrs. Knudsen, Board Member, wanted to know how all this came about?
Mr. Vacarro noted that he has a business and people want to know how he pays all his bills and people don’t like him and want to know how he gets all his money. The gentleman who told him he was in violation told him that he shouldn’t have a problem.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair was still confused by Mr. Vacarro’s statements. Was there no separation of the living quarters?
Mr. Vacarro stated, no, no. One bedroom was on one side of the house and two were on the other side.
Mr. Fina stated that this was how it was.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that the Board had a descriptive of the property from the Ulster County Real Property records and it indicated that there was .23 acres with a single family residence on it. It reflects 1 kitchen, 2 bedrooms and 1 bath. Something had to be done. These records are from when Mr. Vacarro purchased the property.
Mr. Vacarro stated again that it was 2 bedrooms on one side of the house and 1 bedroom on the other side. He closed it up, but didn’t do anything different.
Mrs. Kawalchuk, Board Member, agreed with Mrs. Knudsen’s advice to remove one of the kitchens and then the applicant wouldn’t be in violation and wouldn’t need a variance.
Mr. Fina questioned if this was really a big deal to go through the variance? What if he just wanted his kids there?
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, stated that the law says, 1 acre per dwelling.
Mrs. Knudsen, Board Member understood about trying to do what Mr. Vacarro could to pay the taxes…
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, questioned if the applicant paid taxes on a two family dwelling or a one family?
Mr. Vacarro stated that he pays taxes on a one family dwelling. If he has to take the other kitchen out, he’ll just rent to a family with 10 kids than with no kids.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that the Board gave Mr. Vacarro ideas on how to present his case should he decide to move forward.
Mrs. Knudsen, Board Member questioned if Mr. Vacarro insured the property as a 2 family dwelling?
Mr. Vacarro stated that he did and could provide statements to the Board as proof.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, instructed the applicant that the applicant needed to build a case to show that he has done all of these things and needs to show proof that there were 2 kitchens when he bought it- get proof from the listing agent who sold the house. He needs to bring in proof that he insures it as a 2 family dwelling. She understood that the applicant feels that he bought the property in good faith and that it was a 2 family dwelling- so to help build his case, he needs to prove that. She then read the criterion in which the ZBA uses to make their decisions:
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;~~
· whether the application will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties;
· whether the request is substantial;
· whether the situation is self created;
· whether the request will have an adverse impact on the environment.
Mrs. Knudsen, Board Member, questioned how long his tenants have lived there.
Mr. Vacarro didn’t answer the question, but said that he only rents to clean and nice people.
Mrs. Knudsen noted that if tenants have always occupied the property as a 2 family dwelling that Mr. Vacarro should bring in written statements from the neighbors testifying to that.
Mr. Kingston, Board Member, questioned if the applicant’s neighbors would be able to do that?
Mr. Vacarro believed that an old man used to live in the house and used the other side apartment for when his kids came to visit—like a mother daughter.
Mr. Fina noted that they would go to the Health Dept. first to make sure everything was okay—other than that, from what he was hearing from the Board, if it couldn’t get okayed by the Health Dept. this would be a dead issue.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that the next step was for the applicant to fill out the application for the Variance and get it to the Secretary by Friday, January 16th to get on the agenda for the Planning Board Advisory.
Mrs. Knudsen again advised the applicant to get notarized testimony from long standing neighbors certifying that this has always been a 2 family house. Mr. Vacarro needed to build a case and submit documents proving that his situation is unique and warrants the variance. The Board needs to make sure it’s unique, because if they granted this variance, everyone would come in requesting the same thing. If Mr. Vacarro does what he’s supposed to do and bring in this documentation and if the ZBA approved the Variance, they’d be able to back themselves up because it is a unique situation.
Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, noted that after the Planning Board advisory, the next step would be for Mr. Vacarro’s Public Hearing, which they would set on February 10, 2009. She advised him to bring his paper trail because this was the meeting that really counted towards the record.
Ms. McKenzie, Alternate, motioned to set Mr. Vacarro’s Public Hearing for February 10, 2009. Seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuk, Board Member.
Vote:
McKenzie, Alt. – Yes Kawalchuk – Yes
Drabkin, Chairman – Absent Knudsen – Yes
Haugen De Puy, VC- Yes Kingston – Yes
Mr. Kingston also advised the applicant to take pictures of the inside and the property so the Board had a better understanding of the situation.
Mr. Kingston, Board Member, motioned to adjourn seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuk, Board Member. No discussion. All members present, in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Mrs. Haugen De Puy, Vice Chair, adjourned the meeting at 7:35 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary