ZBA Minutes May 2011

Minutes of May 10, 2011 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                                         James Kingston                                                  
        Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair                      Elizabeth Kawalchuk
        Cliff Mallery                                                                                   
        John Dawson, Alternate

 

Because there was not a full Board, Alternate John Dawson was asked to join the Board.

 

Pledge to the Flag.

 

 

ACTION ON MINUTES
Board Member Haugen De Puy motioned to accept the April 12, 2011 minutes. Seconded by Board Member Dawson. No discussion.
Drabkin:        Yes                                                     Mallery:                Yes
Haugen De Puy:  Yes                                                     Kawalchuk:              Absent
Kingston:               Absent                                                  Dawson, Alt:            Yes
Motion carried.

 

DECISION
GEORGE STEFANOPOULOS –  Area Variance for proposed lot line setbacks, 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District

 

Mr. Stefanopolous was present on behalf of his application.

 

Chairman Drabkin noted that the draft decision was circulated to Board Members and reviewed by the Town Attorney.

 

Mr. Mallery motioned to approve the variance as follows, seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
 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.
  • The Board determined that to split the property in two and to have one house on each parcel, there is no other location to put the proposed property line that would meet the 40’ required side yard setback.  ~~
  • whether the application will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties.
  • The Board determined that this request will be consistent with the neighborhood as it is in a two acre district and these parcels will meet the acreage requirements of the R-2 District.
  • whether the request is substantial.
  • The Board determined that this was not a substantial request as the variance is the minimum amount per parcel required per parcel.
  • whether the situation is self created.
  • The Board determined that this was not self created as the property was purchased this way and the homes are pre-existing.
  • whether the request will have an adverse impact on the environment.
  • The Board determined that this variance would not have an adverse impact on the environment as there will be no physical change to the property.
Based upon the above facts established, the above balancing test, all written documents, and site visits, the ZBA voted to approve the Applicant’s request for two (2)–  18’ Area Variances for a proposed lot line setbacks at 46 Lower Granite Road, Tax Map #76.3-2-6, R-2 District of the Town of Rochester with the following conditions:
  • This variance is contingent upon the applicant providing a shared well use agreement to be reviewed by the Town Attorney as part of the Subdivision Review with the Town of Rochester Planning Board.
  • The applicant shall be responsible for all fees connected with the Town Attorney’s review of the shared well use agreement.
Vote:
Drabkin:        Yes                                                     Mallery:                Yes
Haugen De Puy:  Yes                                                     Kawalchuk:              Absent
Kingston:               Absent                                                  Dawson, Alt:            Yes
Motion carried.

 

CONTINUED PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
REGINE A. SECKINGER & BRIAN H. SCOTT– C/O Timothy Newton, 2’ Area Variance for a 6’high 224’ long privacy fence in front yard (Section 140-13A), 673 Samsonville Road, Tax Map # 68.2-1-20, R-2 District

 

Mr. Newton of Tri- County Fencing was present on behalf of the application.

 

Chairman Drabkin noted that this was a 2’ area variance request for a 224’ long privacy fence to shield the applicant’s home from automobile headlights. He noted that the Board had wanted to see three things from the applicant. One was a letter from Central Hudson saying that any aspect of this application was not in their right of way. The second was a map to scale and the third was for the applicant to show the Board that there wasn’t another way to go about achieving this.

 

Mr. Dawson questioned how far the fence was proposed from the road.

 

Mr. Newton answered that it was 32’ from the road. The scale of the map was 1” = 100’. The secretary made him a copy of the map to scale.
Mr. Dawson questioned if he could put the fence behind the trees?

 

Mr. Newton noted that he would. There were 4 big ones in back and 3 to 4 of them were about 8’ high in the front. Over 100 trees would be in front of the fence.

 

Chairman Drabkin noted that the drawing didn’t indicate that.

 

Mr. Newton drew ‘O’s for large pines and ‘X’s for 3’-8’ pines. There are a lot of trees.

 

Mr. Dawson noted that the trees did nothing to shield the glare of headlights. He checked this out and noticed that there was good tree cover until you went around a curve. He drove there during the day and at night to check this out.

 

Mr. Newton showed pictures showing cars pointed towards the house.

 

Mr. Dawson questioned if shielding the pond was an issue?

 

Mr. Newton noted that it was part of the problem.

 

Mr. Dawson questioned if the applicant tried to see if a 4’ fence which was allowed in that area would work on the berme area to shield the pond?

 

Mr. Newton responded that it needs to be 6’ high. He staked it out and it needs to be 6’ to achieve the privacy.

 

Mrs. Haugen De Puy noted that this seemed self created. This was something that was existing when they bought the property. She questioned if there was any way that they could put something up to represent a fence at 4’ high to test it?

 

Mr. Newton noted that he could put a sheet of ply wood up.

 

Chairman Drabkin read the Area Variance Balancing Test that the ZBA follows to make a determination.
  • 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.
Chairman Drabkin thought that this could be achieved by landscaping. The Board had an obligation to grant the minimum variance. If someone wants 220’ of 6’ high fencing and there is no other way to do it, they may grant it. In this instance the applicant doesn’t need a 6’ high fence along Samsonville road.

 

Mrs. Haugen De Puy was in favor of only granting the 6’ high fence where absolutely needed and landscaping the rest.
Mr. Newton stated that this was a bad place for planting. All of the roots and cement foundations would make it impossible.

 

Chairman Drabkin questioned how he planned on putting the fence posts in the ground?

 

Mr. Newton noted that he would drill them in.

 

The Board suggested different ways of plantings that would achieve the goal. There were ornamental grasses that grow 15’ tall. They could be planted on a berme.

 

Mr. Dawson noted that the map needed to be more complete and to scale to get a better picture of what was going on with this property.

 

The applicant noted that he could build a 2’ berme and put a 4’ high fence on that.

 

There was more discussion between the Board and the applicant on what the Board needed to see and how the applicant didn’t find their requests necessary.

 

If the applicant chose to move forward with the variance, he should submit the three items previously requested and an application to the ZBA.
 ADJOURNMENT
Board Member Haugen De Puy motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Board Member Dawson. No discussion. All members present, in favor.
        
As there was no further business to discuss, Chairman Drabkin adjourned the meeting at 7:50PM.  
                                                                
                                                        Respectfully submitted,
                                                                
     
                 Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary                                       As approved at the January 17, 2012 ZBA meeting