Minutes of December 14, 2010 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 Jennifer McKenzie
Marijane Knudsen
James Kingston
Betty Kawalchuk
Because there was not a full Board, Alternate Jennifer McKenzie sat on as a regular member.
Pledge to the Flag.
ACTION ON MINUTES
The Minutes from October 12, 2010 were tabled.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS – Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax
Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District
Board Member Knudsen motioned to re-open the Public Hearing. Seconded by Board Member Kingston. All members present in favor.
Chairman Drabkin noted that since the last meeting the ZBA has sent correspondence to the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) regarding the condition of the property in question on October 13, 2010 and received a response from CEO. The CEO issued the applicant a violation dated October 26, 2010.
On November 5, 2010 the ZBA requested an update from the CEO and received a response on the same day. The CEO advised the applicant that the violation had not been remedied.
On December 3, 2010 correspondence was received from James Rodden of the Ulster County Health Dept. stating that the UCHD had no objection to the applicant subdividing his property.
On December 13, 2010 correspondence was received from neighbor, Jan Pomerantz, stating that she had no objection to the subdivision of the property, but that she had an objection to the property looking so crappy. Also submitted photos demonstrating her opinion of “crappy” showing boats, cars without wheels, and broken fences.)
Letter dated September 23, 2010 was received from the Town of Rochester Planning Board noting that they had rendered a favorable advisory at their September 21, 2010 meeting.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS (cont’d) – Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District
Board Member Kawalchuk questioned if anything was done to the property?
Chairman Drabkin noted that the CEO indicated in his memos that the violation had not been removed yet.
Mr. Stefanopolous questioned what violation they were referring to?
Chairman Drabkin noted that they were referring to the violation issued by the CEO dated October 26, 2010. He continued to note that the ZBA is not an enforcement agency. Their job is to review the variance. His belief was that this variance was in the best interest of the Town- but how could they grant it when there were violations on the property? He has spoken with Dennis Doyle from the Ulster County Planning Board and Mr. Doyle indicated that the Town must have laws on the books that preclude the ZBA from having to deal with the violations.
Mr. Stefanopolous noted that he had spoken with the CEO and Mr. Stefanopolous had thought that he remedied the problem.
Chairman Drabkin noted that we have received a letters from neighbors and we have corresponded with the CEO and now we have choices to make. We can turn the application down. We can keep the Public Hearing open. We can make a decision to grant the variance with conditions to clean up the property.
Board Member Knudsen noted that on the violation from the CEO it indicates that the applicant is operating a repair business without permits. She’d like to see something from the CEO saying that there is no business on the property. She also noted that the letter from the Health Dept. was vague. What did the applicant ask to receive this response?
The applicant noted that the ZBA had asked him to contact the Health Dept. to see if they had a problem with the variance and he gave a copy of the letter from the Health Dept. He gave a copy of the map to the Health Dept. showing what he wanted to do.
Board Member Knudsen noted that the applicant presented a letter dated November 1, 2010 asking the Health Dept. that they were seeking a variance to separate their property into two parcels and they wanted the Dept. to inspect the property regarding the well and septic. From looking at the response from the Health Dept., they didn’t mention the well- it doesn’t look like they did their job.
Board Member Kingston noted that this wouldn’t be the first time that he’s ever seen two dwellings share one well.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS (cont’d) – Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District
Chairman Drabkin didn’t know if it was relevant. He’s not adding another dwelling- he’s just dividing it. It will be the same as it was before.
The applicant noted that after the property is separated he will install a separate well.
Chairman Drabkin noted that even if he didn’t and he sold it as is there are other circumstances where properties are serviced by a shared well.
Board Member McKenzie noted that a mortgage company might not give a mortgage for a property with a shared well.
Chairman Drabkin stated that this was not a concern of the ZBA.
Board Member Knudsen noted that if they granted the variance, they could condition that a new well must be installed. If they granted it without that condition, it could create a problem in the future.
Chairman Drabkin noted that they could condition the variance on the applicant executing a shared well agreement instead of going through the expense of drilling a new well. He questioned the Board on how they wanted to proceed from here.
Board Member McKenzie stated that the violations should be taken care of.
Chairman Drabkin noted that at this point it should either be turned down or the applicant should be given another chance to clear the violation.
Board Member Kawalchuk was in favor of keeping the Public Hearing open.
Board Member Knudsen stated hat this isn’t the first time there have been maintenance issues with the property. They have correspondence from the CEO and neighbors and Board Members have driven by the property. The variance goes with the land. Whichever way the ZBA does this, they are setting a precedence and unless the property is cleaned up, she’s not in favor of granting the variance.
Chairman Drabkin agreed. If they deny the applicant, he can always re-apply.
The applicant noted that he has cleaned up the property. The boat is still there, but he didn’t think the CEO was specific about that. He didn’t know that was part of the problem.
Chairman Drabkin noted that the ZBA is not in receipt of a confirmation from the CEO that the violation has been remedied.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS (cont’d) – Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District
Board Member Knudsen suggested that the applicant go directly to the CEO and ask what needed to be done for a letter saying the problem has been remedied.
The applicant noted that when he received the violation he went to the CEO and spoke with him and he said to clean up the place and vehicles.
Board Member Kingston noted that it appears that the applicant has a history of violations and the property is currently in violation. The ZBA isn’t an enforcement agency- but if they conditioned the granting of the variance on cleaning up the property it would be like spitting into the wind.
Chairman Drabkin suggested turning the variance down and having the applicant come back in 6 months to see over a period of time that the violation remained cleared. Based on the history, he’d like to see some time pass to see that it stays clear and that the work on the vehicles that disturbs the neighbors has come to an end.
Board member Kingston noted that the neighbors have a right to the appreciation of their property. If a neighbor’s property is in disarray, it brings the other neighbor’s property values down. Their concern with the appearance denigrates the value of their property. One of the ZBA’s jobs is to make sure that the property does not detract from the neighbor’s values. If it looks like a junkyard…
The applicant understood this, when the CEO came to his house, he didn’t get a specific answer on what needed to be done. He said he’d come back and check it out, but the applicant didn’t know that it wasn’t taken care of. He questioned if someone could tell him what the violation specifically was?
Board Member Kingston instructed the applicant to see the CEO directly and speak with him.
Board Member Knudsen noted that she would like a letter from the CEO stating that there are no longer any violations on the property. She also wanted to be certain that there weren’t any questions of commercial activity and wanted that cleared up with the CEO.
Board Member Kingston questioned if the Boat in front of the applicant’s house could float?
Mr. Stefanopolous answered yes.
Board Member Kingston questioned why it was in front of the house by the road if it could be stored behind the house?
The applicant noted that it was easier for them to deliver it there.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS (cont’d) – Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District
Chairman Drabkin noted that the neighbors are not against the variance, they were against the fact that the property was not being kept nicely. If he knew he had to have a Public Hearing and he knew that his neighbors weren’t happy with the appearance of his property, he would go out of his way to clean it up.
Board Member Knudsen motioned to continue the Public Heading until the April meeting and see if the applicant can remedy the violation and she wanted it determined if there is a commercial use on the property. She wanted pictures of the cars being gone, the boat being taken care of and the property cleaned up.
Board Member Kingston agreed that the boat and broken down cars if they are being worked on, should go in the back yard.
Board Member Knudsen reminded the Board and the applicant of the criteria they needed to look at 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.
Motion seconded by Board Member Kawalchuk.
Vote:
Drabkin: Yes Knudsen: Yes
Haugen De Puy: Absent Kawalchuk: Yes
Kingston: No McKenzie, alt: Yes
Motion carried.
ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Kingston motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Alternate Board Member McKenzie. No discussion. All members present, in favor.
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Drabkin adjourned the meeting at 8:05PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary