ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
btetro@townofrochester.ny.gov
MINUTES of the February 21st, 2019 Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Harold Lipton Community Center, Accord, NY.
Chairman Mallery called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.
Chairman Mallery recited the Pledge to the Flag.
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Cliff Mallery
Steven Fornal
Charles Fischer
Erin Enouen
Bruce Psaras
Also present:
William Barringer, Alternate. Brianna Tetro, Secretary.
CONTINUED APPLICATION
Peter & Lyn Tschirky
Area Variance
222 Queens Highway, Tax Map #68.19-2-48, R-1 Zoning Distrct, .0.5 Acres.
• Proposing to construct new garage. Garage does not meet 25’ set back.
Peter and Lyn Tschirky were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Mallery explained what the application was all about to refresh the Board.
Mr. Tschirky stated that he had a survey done of the property as there wasn’t one
provided before and that he had down-sized the garage plan and variance that he had originally asked for previously.
Mr. Tschirky further explained that the well and septic were not on the map because they were not visible to the surveyor but that the well was located in the front of the house and septic in the back of the house.
Chair Mallery asked what the new variance that the applicants were asking for would be.
Mr. Tschirky stated it was in the 9 ft. X 11 ft. Range.
Ms. Enouen added that it was a 25 ft. Set back.
There were no further questions or comments from the Board.
Mr. Fornal made a motion to classify the application as a Type 2 under SEQRA. Mr Psaras seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Chair Mallery: Yes Mr. Psaras: Yes
Mr. Fornal: Yes Mr. Fischer: Yes
Ms. Enouen: Yes
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Fornal made a motion to authorize the secretary to prepare a legal notice for the Public Hearing scheduled for the next regular scheduled meeting of March 21st, 2019. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Chair Mallery explained to the applicants the Public Hearing process.
Mr. Fornal stated the Board would have a decision for them at the next meeting.
Mr. Tschirky asked what it meant to have a Type 2 action.
Mr. Fornal explained that it meant there was no impact.
There was no further discussion.
PRE-APPLICATION
Melanie Hulse
Code Interpretation of #140-43
#140-43 reads: Use of Existing and Non-Conforming Lots of Record: A principal structure may be erected in any non-conforming lot of record, existing at the time this law is enacted; provided no front yard is reduced in size and no side yard is reduced to less than 50% of the requirement for the district in which it is located or 20 feet, whichever is greater; and a sewage disposal system meeting the New York State standards including well and septic isolation distances, can be placed on the lot should public facilities be unavailable.
40 Sidney Street, Tax Map #84.7-1-40, R-2 Zoning District, 0.449 Acres
• Proposing expansion of single family residence on an undersized lot.
Ms. Hulse and Mr. Paul Jankovitz were present on behalf of the application.
Chair Mallery explained what the pre-application was about.
Mr. Jankovitz stated that he had an question regarding #140-43. He explained Ms. Hulse’s parcel was an undersized lot in a 2 acre zone and he was under the impression that that particular section, #140-43, would apply to Ms. Hulse’s lot. Mr. Jankovitz continued to explain that there are two front yards and that would permit a 20 ft. Side yard setback verses what was usually required in an R-2 zoned district.
Mr. Fornal explained that #140-43 in the zoning law was meant for a vacant property, however, the Town Board had removed the word “vacant” from the code so as it read it would apply to Ms. Hulse’s property
Mr. Jankovitz stated that Ms. Hulse had spoken with her neighbors and they would be okay with any work to the property that she would want to do. He further discussed to the Board that if they would look at the layout he had drawn up, and with all the set backs, it left very little property that would be useful if all the restrictions in the zoning code would be applied. Mr. Jankovitz said that the only thing that the property did not exceed was the precentage of coverage, but everything else did not meet the criteria. He noted that Ms. Hulse had a community well and septic which limited her buildable area even more and he asked if she could move forward with her project.
Chair Mallery started to Mr. Jankoviz and Ms. Hulse that this was a pre-application and at that particular stage it was just a discussion, if the Board was comfortable and a decision could be made, the Board could schedule a Public Hearing and at that time any additional information could be presented then the public would comment and the Board could make a decision.
Chair Mallery explained as he read the language that it didn’t say vacant.
Mr. Fornal gave Chair Mallery a new copy for #140-43 that had been changed and updated.
Ms. Hulse said that she had also saw that there was something in language about principal residence and that the property was not just her primary residence but her only residence.
Chair Mallery stated that it said a principal structure may be erected and the question would be what would erected mean? Would it imply a vacant lot or would it mean an addition could be made to an existing structure? That was the only thing that wasn’t clear to him.
Mr. Fornal asked if they were going to demolish the west side of the home?
Mr. Jankovitz stated yes.
Mr. Fornal explained they were going to demolish right down to the foundation.
Mr. Jankovitz said that Ms. Hulse wanted to get rid of the unusable porch space in front of the home and expand the rest of the house.
Chair Mallery asked for tax purposes, would it be considered a new structure or an addition to an existing structure?
Mr. Jankovitz said he didn’t know but a part of the house would remain.
Mr. Fornal stated it was an increase in square footage and that would play into the taxes.
Mr. Fornal explained that since the word “vacant” was no longer in #140-43, that it was rather clear that Ms. Hulse could go to 50% or 20′ whichever was greater.
Mr. Jankovitz stated that as he interpreted #140-43, it would apply to Ms. Hulse’s lot and that there was a hardship which is why she wanted to be able to change the set up of her home.
Mr. Fornal stated that Ms. Hulse bought the lot “as-is” it really removed the hardship angle.
Ms. Hulse said she was sort of stuck between where the well and septic were put in when it came to the build able area.
Chair Mallery asked as the house sat at that moment, what were the west-side set backs?
Mr. Jankovitz said the house on that side had a 40 ft. Set back.
The Board asked for clarification on the map where the new house would be and where the old house was at the moment, which Mr. Jankovitz explained.
A Board member asked what the front yard requirement was.
Mr. Jankovitz stated it was 35 ft. He stated again that Ms. Hulse had two front yards.
Mr. Fornal explained that Ms. Hulse was on a corner lot, and going by #140-43, they couldn’t lessen the front yard.
Mr. Jankovitz stated they weren’t planning on going closer to the front but they actually planned to go further away from it. He also explained that they weren’t going to increase anything in the front or rear yards and the biggest issue was that they planned on going about 9 1/2 ft. Greater over to the side yard.
Chair Mallery asked why they couldn’t go more into the rear yard.
Mr. Jankovitz explained it was because there was a septic system there.
Mr. Jankovitz reiterated that they were just looking for an interpretation and if it would apply to Ms. Hulse’s structure.
Mr. Fornal stated they could do the full application for the Code Interpretation and then would have to the next ZBA meeting and they would need to have a Public Hearing.
Chair Mallery asked if they were looking for an interpretation and the Board had an interpretation to give them, was there really a need for a Public Hearing?
Mr. Fornal stated that since it was an action made by the Board there needed to be a public hearing.
Mr. Fornal made a motion to classify the application as a Type 2 under SEQRA. Ms. Enouen seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Chair Mallery: Yes Mr. Psaras: Yes
Mr. Fornal: Yes Mr. Fischer: Yes
Ms. Enouen: Yes
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Fornal made a motion to authorize the secretary to prepare a legal notice for the Public Hearing scheduled for the next regular scheduled meeting of March 21st, 2019. Mr. Fischer seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Mr. Jankovitz asked for clarification on what would be presented at the Public Hearing.
Chair Mallery explained the process.
Mr. Jankovitz asked how the Board would come to decide if #140-43 would apply to Ms. Hulse’s case.
Chair Mallery stated that the issue would be the elimination of the word “vacant” in the code and that there was a structure there, and weather or not “erect” would imply on vacant property or just adding on to an existing structure would change the interpretation.
Ms. Enouen asked if they were going to use the existing foundation on the west side of the house after the demolition.
Mr. Jankovitz said no.
Mr. Fornal explained why the word vacant was initially put into the code and then taken out.
The Board discussed more about the process of the demolition.
Ms. Hulse asked what would happen at the Public Hearing.
Mr. Fornal stated it didn’t mean it was a public vote, it would still be up to the Board. The Public Hearing would just be for information.
There was no other relevant discussion.
OTHER MATTERS:
Discussion over the ZBA Procedural Guidelines.
The Board discussed and went over the ZBA Procedural Guidelines. There were several edits suggested and made. It was decided that the Secretary would edit the document and then send it to the Board with the recommended revisions visible to the members. Nothing else was decided or discussed about the ZBA Procedural guidelines.
Accepting the minutes of meetings
The Board had a discussion regarding accepting the minutes of each meeting as this hadn’t been done in quite some time. It was decided that the Board members were more comfortable accepting meeting minutes rather than approving them. All members present were in agreement.
Google Drive Security (*Secretary note: this item was not listed on the agenda)
Mr. Fornal stated that he noticed the afternoon of the meeting that a Board member was able to make changes to a document uploaded on Google Drive and that that didn’t seem to be something they would and shouldn’t be able to do. The Secretary stated she would look into the Google Settings and see what was going on.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mr. Fornal made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:10pm. Mr. Psaras seconded the motion.
All in favor. Motion carried.
5 ayes, 0 nays, 0 absent, 0 abstentions.
Respectfully submitted,
Brianna Tetro, Secretary
Accepted: 3/21/2019