MINUTES OF September 17, 2013 the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town of Rochester Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Beatrice Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson John Dawson
Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair Troy Dunn
Charlie Fischer, Alternate
Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
Because there was not a full Board, Alternate Fischer was asked to join the Board.
PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
Robert Manley, Jr & Geraldine Manley, Area Variance, applicant lacks 1.83 acres for a second dwelling on a 2.17 acre parcel in an R-2 Zoning District, Tax Map #76.4-2-6.11
Geraldine Manley and her daughter, Valerie Nigro were present on behalf of the application.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that this application is for an Area Variance to add a second dwelling on a 2.17 acre parcel in a 2 acre district. The applicant would need a 1.83 acre variance. She then read letter submitted by Mrs. Manley dated August 19, 2013 into the record. In the letter Mrs. Manley states that when she bought the property in 1998 it was zoned as 1 acre per dwelling. Since then it had been changed to 2 acres per dwelling. The Chairperson Haugen De Puy invited Mrs. Manley to present her case to the Board.
Mrs. Manley noted that her husband has a very serious heart condition and her daughter has had many surgeries in the last 3 years and for her daughter to not live on her property would cause a real hardship for her. Currently her daughter lived next door to her. When she purchased her property it was +/-4 acres and she had subdivided it at the time, so she retained 2.17 acres and gave her daughter the rest and her daughter built a house right next door. Her daughter’s house is now too big for her with her medical conditions.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy questioned if it was possible to reconfigure the home to make it easier for her daughter to live in?
Mrs. Nigro noted that she was in the process of leaving her home. Her medical issues started in 2009. She noted that her current house is on one side of the driveway going to her home and her mother’s mobile home is on the other side. Her mother has a right of way to the driveway and enough road frontage to make another driveway to go to the proposed mobile home.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy questioned if there was an existing septic that Mrs. Nigro was going to hook into?
Mrs. Nigro answered no. She further noted that it would just be she and her husband living in the mobile home. Her other problem has been looking to find something to rent and there is nothing that they can afford. Her husband is retired and they can’t afford what is out there.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that she wanted to ask the Town Attorney if because this was a pre-existing lot if the 1 acre zoning that it used to be could be grandfathered.
Mr. Mallery questioned if there were any neighbors?
Mrs. Manley asked some of the neighbors if they would sell her some land so she could meet the 4 acres and they wouldn’t, but they didn’t have a problem with them adding a second mobile home to her current acreage.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy advised the applicant that she should get letters from her neighbors and bring in pictures to give the Board a better idea of what was there. Gathering this information helps the ZBA to build a record.
Mrs. Manley stated that it doesn’t show it on the map that she supplied to the ZBA, but she owns a contiguous 3.4 acre parcel. It also has a mobile home on it. Her son lives there.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that together, the lots equal +/-5.57 acres. If the lots were combined, and they added the proposed mobile home for Mrs. Nigro, it would still be lacking acreage, but much closer to the required 6 acres needed for 3 homes than the 2.17 acre piece having 2 homes on it.
Mr. Mallery agreed with the Chairperson and noted that this was part of their decision making process. To determine if a variance request was substantial. Putting 2 homes on 2.17 is more substantial than 3 homes on 5.57 acres.
At this time the Chairperson read the Summary of Area Variance Criteria for the Board and the applicant 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. Mallery suggested that Mrs. Manley contact her neighbors and just let them know what she was considering- whether she was going to move forward and apply for the area variance on the 2.17 acres or look into combining the parcels to request a variance on the 5.57 acres (a .43 variance vs. a 1.83 acre variance.). He suggested this because if they get to the point of a public hearing, it might be beneficial to the applicant to know and be able to anticipate what kind of feedback her neighbors might bring forward. It may save the applicant some time and energy.
The Chairperson noted that she would like to write a letter to the Town Attorney to get her opinion on the feasibility of the variances – on the 2.17 acres or look into combining the parcels to request a variance on the 5.57 acres (a .43 variance vs. a 1.83 acre variance.) and whether or not the lot is grandfathered. She also reminded the applicant to bring in pictures. She suggested that the applicant hold off on applying before the Board gets their feedback from the Town Attorney.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION/ POSSIBLE DECISION
ZBA #13-01APPL, Applicant- Joseph Grasso, Appeal Code Enforcement Officer Determination of Zoning Permit #132 of 2013- Ulster Green ARC Building Permit for 112’ x 91’10” One Story Single Family Residence, Tax Map # 68.3-5-5
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that they were down two members this evening, but still had a quorum to conduct the meeting. Since the Board had 62 days to make a decision after the public hearing was closed on this application, the Board agreed to wait to make the decision until they could have the other Board Members present to do so. They would reschedule the October meeting to October 2nd to be earlier in the month to ensure that the decision was done in a timely manner.
MINUTES
Chairperson Haugen De Puy motioned to table the February 19, 2013, March 14, 2013, July 16, 2013, and August 19, 2013 minutes until the October 2, 2013 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Fischer. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson- Yes Mallery, Vice Chair- Yes
Dunn- Absent Dawson- Absent
Fischer- Yes
Motion carried- 3 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 2 absent
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Fischer motioned to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Mr. Mallery. All members present in favor.
Since there was no further business, at 7:30PM Chairperson Haugen De Puy adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary