MINUTES OF May 21, 2013 the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town of Rochester Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Vice Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair Beatrice Haugen- De Puy,Chairperson
Troy Dunn
Charlie Fischer, Alternate
John Dawson
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
Because there was not a full Board, Alternate Fischer was asked to join the Board.
PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
GAVIN ANDERSON– 32’ side yard Area Variance request for 18’ x 40’ shed at 137 Cooper Street, Accord, Tax
Map # 69.1-2-36, R-2 District
Mr. Anderson was present on behalf of his application. He noted that he was looking into putting a shed on his property to store his tractor and lawn equipment. The property is sloped and this is the one spot that it is flat and this spot is where he currently stores that equipment outside. It is close to the neighbor’s property line, but the neighbor is fine with him putting it there. The structure is made out of a shipping container and is covered he will cover it with wood and give it a pitched roof to look like a shed. It will be 18’ x 40’ and he will have a carport on one side- that will be open. He will also store firewood under the open overhang. It would be about 11’ in height.
Mr. Dawson noted that he looked at the property and it is sloped.
The Board reviewed the photos that were submitted by the applicant.
Mr. Dawson noted that the drop off is about 25’ on the road side. It slopes up on the neighbor’s side about 10-15’. The only person this would be affecting is the neighbor that Mr. Anderson had indicated would not have a problem with the shed.
Mr. Anderson noted that he could get a letter from his neighbor if that would help.
Mr. Mallery noted that he too drove by the parcel and it was a fairly small property with young trees.
Mr. Dawson agreed and stated that the trees all along the line of the property line between the proposed shed and the neighbor would block the view of the shed.
Mr. Anderson noted that he could do more plantings that were more year round for screening.
Mr. Dunn questioned if the applicant relayed to the Building Inspector, Jerry Davis, that this was a shipping container?
The Secretary was aware that Mr. Anderson did tell the Building Inspector that it was a shipping container, but the only reason he was allowing it was because Mr. Anderson was going to re-side it and give it a pitched roof and it would end up looking like a shed and not a rectangular box which was what a shipping container looked like.
Mr. Dawson believed that they put it in zoning so that people could do that.
Mr. Dunn made the Board aware of Section 140-13E. “Railroad boxcars, manufactured home units and recreational vehicles shall not be used for purposes of accessory or principal structures in connection with any use. The use of storage trailers or bulk/shipping containers as an accessory use in connection with a, commercial or institutional use shall be permitted with Site Plan Review where the trailers or containers can be substantially screened from view with evergreen plantings, fencing or earthen berms as may be required to accomplish the purpose. The use of storage trailers or bulk/shipping containers as an accessory use in connection with agricultural production shall be permitted as an accessory use provided all accessory use setbacks are met.”
Mr. Mallery noted that it did mention the need for proper screening. He questioned what Mr. Anderson’s tractor was used for?
Mr. Anderson answered that his tractor was used for his construction business.
Mr. Fischer thought that the law contradicted itself.
Mr. Dawson believed that it was supposed to be allowed. It always has been and if the Building Inspector doesn’t see a problem with it. Railroad cars and tractor trailer bodies were not supposed to be used, but shipping containers should be.
Mr. Dunn thought that the use here was the concern. He doesn’t see this being allowed as per the law.
Mr. Mallery noted that it will be a storage facility not for industrial use.
Mr. Dunn didn’t want to open up a can of worms by allowing one person to do something the Board was opening it up for other people as well.
Mr. Dawson noted that the way the law read, whether or not it was permitted was dependent upon what it would be used for.
Mr. Dunn noted that no where in that section does it say that they are permitted.
Mr. Dawson noted that the only thing the ZBA is supposed to look at here is the setback variance request.
Mr. Dunn agreed.
Mr. Mallery noted that they shouldn’t look at it as a shipping container, they should look at it as a garage. Mr. Mallery then went through the criteria in which the ZBA basis there decisions as follows:
(a)whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
(b) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
(c) whether the requested area variance is substantial;
(d) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
(e) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision
of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
(f) The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the granting of area variances, shall grant the minimum variance
that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character
of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Mr. Dawson didn’t believe it would change the characteristic of the neighborhood. There was only one neighbor and he didn’t have a problem with it. He noted that it was the nature of that road to have structures placed like this because of the sloping constraints.
Mr. Mallery agreed. He then questioned if there was any other way that the applicant could achieve this without asking for a variance or lessening it?
Mr. Anderson noted that even if he built a smaller building he would still need a variance. That is the only spot that is level to use on the property.
Mr. Dawson noted that all the properties slope uphill on that road.
Mr. Dunn would like to go and take a look at the property to get a better idea of things.
Mr. Mallery noted that he looked at it today and it was very neatly kept.
Mr. Dawson noted that the applicant also has to work at avoiding the septic location as well, so that too is a factor in the placement of the shed.
Mr. Anderson noted that the whole lot is sloping.
Mr. Dawson noted that he didn’t think there was much more the applicant could do to lessen the variance. He could turn it the other way, but then it would be too close to the road.
Mr. Dunn questioned if it would fit parallel to the driveway?
Mr. Anderson answered no because the driveway continually goes up in grade.
Mr. Mallery noted that the area that is already level has already been built up with a rock foundation. He also noted that if he turned it around, it would expose more of the shed to the neighbor.
Mr. Anderson noted that it still wouldn’t meet the 40’ that is required if he did that. It would be further than the requested 8’, but not 40’.
Mr. Mallery re-iterated that the Building Inspector’s issue is with the setback not being met, not the shipping container.
Mr. Dunn noted that it being a shipping container was not the ZBA’s issue. If the Building inspector said yes and referred it on, then that was it.
Mr. Dawson noted that to him, personally, if the neighbor was good with it and he got a letter stating that, that Mr. Dawson was good with it.
Mr. Mallery questioned if anyone else saw any other way to do this?
Mr. Fischer noted that he didn’t see any other way. If the shed was put the other way, he wasn’t sure if the trailer would be able to get into the shed.
Mr. Dawson noted that upon his drive by of the property he too noticed that it was really tidy.
Mr. Anderson noted that he was planning on siding it to have the appearance of a stockade fence.
Mr. Mallery explained that the ZBA had to view the aspects of the case against the balancing test of criteria that he read allowed earlier.
Mr. Dawson noted that he believed that this would fit in and look nice on Cooper Street when it was done.
Mr. Mallery questioned if anyone was directly across the street from Mr. Anderson?
Mr. Anderson noted that his neighbors across the street are catty corner. He hasn’t spoken to them yet.
Mr. Dawson noted that it would be good for him to get letters from all of his neighbors.
Mr. Mallery noted that his neighbors may prefer the shed to the tractors out in plain sight.
Mr. Dawson noted that he could screen the shed with white pines.
Mr. Mallery wanted to know if the Board wanted to hold off on scheduling the Public Hearing until everyone had a chance to view the property and if the Board wanted to hear from the Building Inspector regarding the shipping container?
Mr. Dunn didn’t feel it was necessary to get feedback about the shipping container. The Building Inspector signed off on it, and they are only looking at the setback.
Mr. Dawson motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the June meeting. Seconded by Mr. Fischer. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson- Absent Mallery, Vice Chair- Yes
Dunn- Abstain Dawson- Yes
Fischer- Yes
Motion carried- 3 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstain, 1 absent
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Dunn motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. All members present in favor.
Since there was no further business, at 7:30PM Vice Chairman Mallery adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary