ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTER COUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
torpbzba@hvc.rr.com
MINUTES of June 18, 2015 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: Beatrice Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson Cliff Mallery, Vice Chair Charlie Fischer
Steven Fornal
Troy Dunn
Also present:
John Dawson, III, Alternate. Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that as Mr. Mallery was absent, the Alternate would be seated for this application as a regular member.
CONTINUED PRE-APPLICATION PRESENTATION
ROMAN BOHONOWYCH- 16 Sidney Street, Kerhonkson, Area Variance required for 26’ as per Section 140-42C for front yard setback, Tax Map # 84.7-1-43.111, R-2 District
Mr. Bohonowych was present on behalf of his application.
At separate times, Chairperson Haugen De Puy , Mr. Fischer, and Mr. Fornal all visited the property since the last meeting.
Mr. Fornal questioned when the bungalows in this neighborhood were originally built?
Mr. Bohonowych answered in the 1940s. He wasn’t really sure.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy believed it was closer to the 1960s, but prior to zoning.
Mr. Dunn stated that he did not visit the property.
Mr. Bohonowych stated that he bought his house in the 1980’s. The applicant submitted a copy of the survey map from when he purchased his home.
Mr. Fornal noted that when the applicant originally purchased his home, the home was only 11-12’ away from the property line. Since that time, the applicant bought additional property from his neighbor which increased the distance from the applicant’s home to the property line. This information makes a big difference.
Mr. Bohonowych noted that his neighbor sold him the property and they did a lot line adjustment that gave him an additional 19-20’.
Mr. Fornal noted that this parcel is odd, in that the way in which the road is laid out, he believed that this could be construed as a side yard setback. The point is that the applicant brought in the original survey and this basically shows that the applicant would like to revert close to the original setback distance of when he purchased the property. It’s almost like he’s not even asking for a variance, just to put it back to how it was originally purchased.
Mr. Bohonowych agreed and noted that the setback would be returned back to what it was when he bought the house 30 years ago.
Mr. Fornal belived that this could be looked at more like a 1 or 2’ variance.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that when she visited the property, the trees in between the two properties were mature and screened the neighbors well.
Mr. Fornal noted that the slopes and septic are issues if he were to try and move this addition to another part of the house as to not ask for a variance. This is new information that is presented that will definitely add to the Board’s facts and findings when rendering a decision.
The chairperson agreed with Mr. Fornal.
Mr. Fornal noted that the applicant could level out some of the rolling slopes, but it would still interfere with the septic. The addition would seem to be problematic without putting it in this location. After visiting the site, he also noted that this would be an improvement to the current conditions of the neighborhood.
Mr. Fischer agreed and didn’t see a better way for the applicant to achieve his goal.
Mr. Bohonowych invited Mr. Dunnn
He explained that he was looking for a variance for a +/-384 sf addition on his house. It was originally a bungalow and part of the Granite Estates Subdivision off of Sidney Street. All of the homes are non-conforming and he’s owned his home for about 35 years. He’s made some improvements inside and outside through the years. His plan is to take the covered porch and tear it down to create additional living space. He is intending to install a handicap bathroom, a closet, and a laundry room and he would switch the front entrance to the front of the house. The house was originally 6’ from the property line in this area, but the neighbors did a lot line adjustment with him and gave him an additional 10’ of land. He then bought two more contiguous lots and made his parcel larger. He’s looking for permission to build the addition as he would like to start this project in the next year or so. There is nowhere else on the property to do this. There is a stone deck off to the left side of the house. He showed where the road came up and where his driveway was on the map. He continued to note that between the front of his house and his neighbors house where he’d like to do this addition is a 10’ hemlock hedgerow and they can’t see each other’s homes now and wouldn’t when the project was done. He’s talked to his neighbors and they don’t have any problems with this. There are many abandoned homes in the neighborhood, so this would actually be an improvement to the area.
Mr. Fornal questioned why this couldn’t go more towards the end of the house with the stone deck?
Mr. Bohonowych showed the Board the layout of the house as it existed. The stone deck is off of the living room, so from an architectural standpoint, he believed this would destroy the floor plan of his home. There was also an underground stream in that area that would be a problem. From an appearance point of view, this was the only option for the addition. The existing covered porch would become the bedroom and it would open up into a handicap accessible closet and bathroom. He supplied pictures of the exterior of his home and property to show the Board.
Mr. Bohonwych noted that the porch that he wanted to remove was currently about 20’ x 16’. He’d like to come further out than that—maybe 18-20’ instead of 16’. The house is already too close to the property line, that’s why he would need the variance. This would make the home closer to the hemlock hedgerow he mentioned earlier.
The Board noted that Mr. Bohonwych needed to give them a solid number of feet that he would be away from the property line so that they would know how much of a variance he was asking for.
The applicant noted that he needed some reassurance that this would be approved before he would spend the money for his contractor to give him more concrete answers.
Mr. Mallery noted that the dilemma is that it’s up to the applicant to ask for a specific amount of feet, and that’s what the ZBA has to go off of.
Right now Mr. Bohonowych had a very rough estimate because he wasn’t sure how much space the contractor would need to pour footings and what the walls would need. He thought he would need about 10’ but he wasn’t 100% sure.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy noted that the Board needed an actual measurement to go off of to begin processing the case.
Mr. Dawson explained to the applicant that the ZBA was collecting all of this information because they were building a case. They would also need the applicant to state all of the reasons that this addition couldn’t go anywhere else but in this exact spot.
Mr. Mallery agreed and noted that one of the things the Board must look at when making a decision is whether or not the applicant can achieve his goals by some other means.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy read the balancing test that the ZBA must use in making decisions:
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 the request is substantial.
4. whether the situation is self-created.
5. whether the request will have an adverse impact on the environment.
The applicant would need to answer all of these questions to build his case to show why he needs this variance. The ZBA is building a record so that if anyone were to challenge it, their decision would not be arbitrary and capricious.
Mr. Mallery noted that it appeared the applicant was in good shape with most of the criteria except if there was anywhere else to put this on the property. He needed to prove that this was the only place it could go.
Mr. Bohonwych noted that he didn’t want to spend the amount of money it would take to build it elsewhere.
Mr. Fornal noted that when the ZBA makes a decision they are setting a precedent. They don’t want to have other people in a similar situation come in and the ZBA would just have to give it to them because they gave one to Mr. Bohonowych.
Mr. Bohonowych noted that he’d have to re-run his septic lines to put the addition in another location and it might not be possible because of the slab that he has that the living room is sitting on.
Chairperson Haugen De Puy explained to the applicant to mention all reasons why he has chosen this spot, proving that this is the only place to put it.
Mr. Bohonwych stated again that there were several abandoned homes in the area that are just deteriorating. He would be providing an environmental improvement to the area.
The Chairperson noted that the Board would need to see more detailed measurements to set the public hearing. They notify the neighbors within 500’ and put it in the paper and need to have that measurement to put in the Notice of Hearing.
Mr. Fornal suggested that the applicant could do a narrative to add to the plan giving more definitive measurements as the applicant was concerned with the costs for a professional to get involved at this point.
Mr. Bohonowych noted that he could have his building, George Sherman, do a little drawing.
The Board discussed when they would set the public hearing as the applicant stated that he would be in Alaska for most of the summer and the applicant did not think he would be ready for the June 18th meeting. They noted that they would have to schedule the public hearing at an actual meeting, so they encouraged Mr. Bohonowych to get his additional information together and to let the Board know the dates that he would be available for the Public Hearing.
ACTION ON MINUTES
Mr. Fornal motioned to approve the February 19, 2015 Minutes. Seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion.
Vote:
Haugen- De Puy, Chairperson- Abstain Mallery, Vice Chair- Abstain
Dunn- Absent Fornal- Yes
Fischer – Yes Dawson, alt- Yes
Motion carried.
OTHER MATTERS:
The Board discussed the fact that they were not comfortable with Mr. Bohonowych’s answers as to why he could only put the addition in that one particular spot. There looked on paper to be a significant amount of room in at least 2 other locations. They discussed having the secretary call the applicant and make appointments for them to visit the property, two members at a time.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
Mr. Mallery motioned to adjourn the meeting seconded by Mr. Dawson. No discussion. All Members present in favor.
Since there was no further business, at 8:10PM Chairperson Haugen De Puy adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange, Secretary