ZBA Minutes – June 2016

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com

MINUTES of June 16, 2016 the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town of Town of Rochester Community Center, Accord, NY.

Chairperson Haugen De Puy called the meeting to order at 7:00PM.

Pledge to the Flag.

PRESENT: ABSENT: Charlie Fischer Beatrice Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson
Steven Fornal
Troy Dunn
Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair

Also present:
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.

As Chairperson Haugen De Puy was not present, Mr. Mallery Chaired the meeting.

PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
Ronald Santosky, 14 Project 32 Road, 15’ Area Variance Required for side yard setback for a 22’ x 24’ carport, Tax Map #76.4-2-16, R-2 Zoning District.

Mr. & Mrs. Santosky were present on behalf of their application.
Mr. Mallery explained that at the Pre-Application meeting the Applicant tells the Board about their situation and the Board tries to offer suggestions on possible alternatives, and they ask questions to get a better understanding of the situation.
Mr. Santosky noted that they wanted to build a car port. He brought new maps to the meeting and submitted them to the Board.
Mrs. Santosky noted that they have a lot of property in the front of their home to the road, but it slopes. She would say about 40 yards.
Mr. Dunn noted that this property was zoned R-1 at one time. In 2009 it changed to R-2. They have to look at the intent of why this was changed to R-2? The intent was the same for R-1 and R-2—to protect from intrusive, and incompatible uses. This is not changing this zone or parcel in a negative way. This was always R-1 until 2009 and up until then, R-1 had a side yard setback of 25’—which the applicants have. For the sake of discussion, they could describe this lot as “grandfathered”. The aquifer is not an issue here. He believes that from the perspective of what the Town has done, they have taken the applicant’s property rights. They were R-1 and could meet those set backs, and now they went to R-2 and cannot meet those setbacks. What has happened is that a substantial loss of property rights have been lost since the 2009 Code change. He sees no issue with this application.
Mr. Fornal noted that the ZBA has to deal with the Code as it is currently written and the amount of setbacks that need to be met are based on today’s code for an R-2 Zone. The ZBA’s determinations are legal and set precedent. That Code change affected the whole Town, it isn’t unique to individual properties.
Mr. Dunn agreed that the ZBA would be setting a precedent and he believes that anyone else who is in the same predicament should also be “grandfathered”.
Mr. Mallery explained to the applicants that when the ZBA issues a decision, they are doing so by following a balancing test:
1. whether the applicant can achieve this request by other means.
2. whether the application will cause an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties.
3. Whether request will have adverse environmental effects.
4. whether the request is substantial.
5. whether the situation is self-created.
He questioned how far the car port would be away from the property line.

Mrs. Santosky answered 25’.

Mr. Mallery noted that a 15’ variance was a little substantial.

Mr. Dunn stated that was because of the Code change placed on them by the Town.

Mr. Fornal stated that that hardship was placed on all residents.

Mr. Dunn noted that it was precedent setting, and he would standby applying it to anyone else in another similar situation.

Mr. Fornal noted that the ZBA was bound to make determinations based on physical constraints of the property, not zoning changes.

Mr. Dunn disagreed and noted that as long as there were scientific justifications and the applicant was not putting in a well or septic—there would be no impact on the aquifer.

Mr. Fornal noted that they were talking about the substantiality of the set back, not the effect on the aquifer.

Mr. Fischer noted that he took a look at the property and noted that there is a tree line between the neighbors and the Santosky’s and he doesn’t see it as a big impact. The area where they want to put the car port is already black topped and already where they park their cars.

Mr. Fornal noted that per the Code, accessory structures can’t be in the front yard. He sees that as this being the only place this can go as a better reason for the variance.

Mrs. Santsosky noted that by the septic, the land drops off. It’s in the same kind of set up as other properties in the area. Their neighbors received a variance to put their sheds where they are.

Mr. Mallery questioned if they’d be able to put it closer to the house?

Mrs. Santosky answered no, because they wouldn’t be able to circle back around. The car port was already proposed to be about 10’ from the corner of the house. They would need to leave that through area for access. The property drops 3-4’ on the side with the septic, and the garage behind the house has always been there.
Mr. Santosky noted that it will be a nice car port and will be good for the area and will increase the value of his home. The car port will be wood with a shingled roof.

Mr. Dunn motioned to schedule the Public Hearing for the July 21, 2016 Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Fischer. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen-DePuy- Absent Mallery: Yes
Dunn- Yes Fornal: Yes
Fischer- Yes

Motion carried.
4 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstain, 1 absent

Mr. Mallery explained to the applicants that the Public Hearing is where there case is formally presented and made a part of the legal record.

Mr. Fornal encouraged the applicants to emphasize the physical constraints of the slope of the property and around the well and septic areas as well as reasons for this being the only spot to put the car port.

Mr. Mallery noted that each case granted, should have its own unique set of circumstances so the ZBA isn’t setting a precedent that would affect the masses.

MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. Dunn motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Fischer. No discussion. All Members present in favor.

Since there was no further business, at 7:25PM Vice Chairman Mallery adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary