7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
August 2007 minutes
The Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Rd., was called to order at 7:30 p.m.
All present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Robert Cleverly present
James Bowes present
Ronald Abold present
John Virginia, Chairman present
Laura McBurney, Vice-Chair present
Also Present: Vera Cavallaro, Secretary
Tony Germano, Attorney
David Pringle, Code Enforcement Officer
MINUTES
Mr. Bowes asked that the dimension described in the Emmons resolution be verified and Mrs. McBurney corrected a typo on page 1.
Motion
Mr. Abold moved to accept the July minutes as amended, seconded by Ms. McBurney. There was no further discussion. Motion carried; unanimously
RIVERIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC
River and Daboll Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 045-01-01.2 AR-80 Zoning District
Mr. Virginia continued the Public Hearing for Riveridge Development LLC until September 17, 2007 at 7:31p.m.
Mr. Virginia waived the reading of the Public Notices.
BROTHERTON
1253 Gallagher Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 38-01-07 AR-80 Zoning District
Mr. William Brotherton was present to address the Board.
Mr. Brotherton said that he would like to put an 8' x 40' addition on the back of his house just to make the house larger.
The Board discussed with the applicant how since the new Town Code was put in place the river side of the house is now the front yard.
Mr. Virginia and Mr. Pringle had a discussion on how this lot is a legal non-conforming lot.
Mr. Virginia stated that the applicant needs a variance of 10.2 feet.
Mr. Virginia asked if there is anyone that would like to speak either for or against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following Resolution # Z-07-14
William Brotherton of 1253 Gallagher Road seeks an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the location of a proposed addition. The property is located in an AR-80 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 038-01-07.
Mr. Brotherton spoke in favor of the application and described the addition which is 8 feet by 40 feet with an entrance extending off it. The side yard setback variance is required because the addition is to be located within 10.2 feet of the east side property line. Mr. Brotherton explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of his property based on topography and existing improvements.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA's public hearing, which was held on August 20, 2007 pursuant to public notice.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the house and proposed addition on the property.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. There is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than a variance and the benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of an addition measuring 8 feet by 40 feet within 10.2 feet of the east side property line in accordance with the map contained in Mr. Brotherton's application packet. Any additional structures shall require additional review and approvals.
Ms. McBurney seconded the Resolution. There was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ? ___ _____
Robert Cleverley ? ___ _____
Laura McBurney ? ___ _____
Ronald Abold ? ___ _____
James Bowes ? ___ _____
DOMBROWSKI
7512 Canton St. Tax Map Parcel ID# 31-01-26.1 AR-80 Zoning
Mr. Jonah Dombrowski was present to address the Board.
Mr. Dombrowski said that he would like to put a 22' x 26' garage in the back of his house about 5ft away from the side property line next to the corn field.
Mr. Virginia asked why they could not put the garage on the other side of the house.
Mr. Dombrowski said that there is a 6 to 7ft drop off and he would like it so they could drive into it from the driveway which is on the other side.
Mr. Virginia asked where the septic system is located.
Mr. Dombrowski said on the back side of the house on the other side of the deck and the leach field is towards the corn field.
Mr. Pringle said that he went over this with the applicant with a couple different scenarios and he believes this one was the best because it is a pretty narrow lot.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the Public Hearing.
Ms. McBurney proposed the following Resolution #Z-07-15:
Jonah Dombroski of 7512 Canton Street Road seeks an area variance from Section 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the location of a proposed detached garage. The property is located in an AR-80 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 031-01-26.1.
Mr. Dombroski spoke in favor of the application and described the garage which is 26 feet by 22 feet. The proposed garage is to be located at the rear of his house approximately 5 feet from the north side property. The side yard setback variance is required because the garage is to be located closer than 15 feet to the North property line. Mr. Dombroski explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of his property based on topography and existing improvements.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA's public hearing, which was held on August 20, 2007 pursuant to public notice.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the house and proposed garage.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. There is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than a variance and the benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of a garage measuring 26 feet by 22 feet within 5 feet of the north side property line in accordance with the map contained in Mr. Dombroski's application packet. Any additional structures shall require additional review and approvals.
Mr. Virginia seconded the Resolution, there was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ? ___ _____
Robert Cleverley ? ___ _____
Laura McBurney ? ___ _____
Ronald Abold ? ___ _____
James Bowes ? ___ _____
CRANDON
E. Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 050-04-50 AR-80 Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-45
Mr. Virginia stated that this item is tabled at the applicant's request.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant changed their plan on their subdivision of property and no longer needs a variance at this time but they might come before the Board at a later date.
RESSEGUIE
Canton St Tax Map Parcel ID# 053-01-09 R-40 Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-45
Mr. Abold recused himself from this discussion.
Mr. Resseguie was present to address the Board.
Mr. Resseguie stated that the last time he was in front of the Board the Board granted him a side yard variance and since it was tight he hired a surveyor to come in and spot the house.
Mr. Virginia asked if it was the same surveyor that surveyed it originally.
Mr. Resseguie said yes, and he looked at it and didn't like it so he asked the builder to put it back 20ft which they did but that still wasn't enough and then the surveyor came back and did the map that the Board is looking at today.
Mr. Virginia stated that the side yard setback seems to be ok per the original variance and the front yard setback needs to be 38.99, so the applicant needs relief of 11.1ft.
Mr. Virginia said the neighbors all signed showing that they have no objection to the variance.
Mr. Resseguie said that he kept building because the neighbors had no objection.
Mr. Pringle said that the surveyor measured from the center line of the road instead of the property line.
The Board and the applicant discussed the surveyor.
Mr. Pringle stated that there are 6 or 7 houses that are closer to the 50ft required in that area.
The Board discussed amending the previous resolution to include this one.
Mr. Virginia asked if there was anyone that wanted to speak either for or against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Virginia proposed the following Amended Resolution #Z-07-07:
John Ressiguie, owner, of 6641 Canton Street seeks an area variance from Sections 200-45 of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the side yard setback and front yard setback requirements for a proposed house. The property is located in an R-40 District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 053-01-09.0. Applicant proposes to construct a house on the parcel which is currently under construction. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 20 feet for each side yard setback and a total of 50 feet in an R-40 District. A 50 feet front yard set back is required. Mr. Ressiguie's proposal provides for a 25.8 feet setback on the south side of his house and a 38.99 feet setback from the front line as measured from the westerly road line of Canton Street.
Mr. Ressiguie spoke in favor of the application. He described the plan and the circumstances under which the house is to be constructed.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners and a survey map prepared by R. J. Lighton, dated August 6, 2007 showing the property.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR as it involves an individual setback variance related to a single family residential use.
2. It is determined the requested variances will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed house will be located 25.8 feet from the south side property line and 38.99 feet front line setback. Due to the lot's topography and other physical limitations, there was no feasible method to pursue other than the area variance so that the improvements are located consistent with the site. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. The benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of a home with a south side yard setback of 25.8 feet. Additionally a variance is granted for a 38.99 feet front yard setback as measured from the westerly line of Canton Street.
Ms. McBurney seconded the Resolution, there was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ? ___ _____
Robert Cleverley ? ___ _____
Laura McBurney ? ___ _____
Ronald Abold ___ ___ ?
James Bowes ? ___ _____
Mr. Abold rejoined the meeting.
PENN DETROIT DIESEL - ALLISON LLC
7044 Interstate Island Rd. tax Map Parcel ID# 052-03-02 IND Zoning District
Variance from Section 200-74 D (2) (e)
Mr. Richard Hyman was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board has a letter about two options and option two the highway superintendent Ed Parks has agreed with.
Mr. Pringle said that he was up there and looked it over and the applicant has supplied some photographs of the trucks trying to negotiate the turns and it is strictly a safety issue.
Mr. Bowes asked about the dimension as shown on option 2 is 80ft and is that in addition to the driveway that already exists.
Mr. Hyman said yes.
Mr. Bowes said that the total width of the entrance is going to be 80ft plus whatever the existing driveway is.
Mr. Hyman said that the driveway is currently approximately 60ft.
Mr. Virginia said that the applicant is asking for a total of 140ft driveway.
Mr. Pringle said the only problem with a driveway that wide is that it gets confusing for people going in and out and they should define the driveway.
Mr. Virginia said that they should stripe it.
Mr. Pringle said yes, so that when people are entering and exiting at the same time they know where they should be.
Mr. Hyman said that they most certainly will do that.
Mr. Abold asked if the width is needed because of the width of the road in front of it.
Mr. Bowes said if the tractor trailer comes in and they can't make the swing than they have to back up.
Mr. Hyman said that the challenge is that there is not enough room to make the turn and clear the building and they would like the trucks to be able to head towards the back and not back up traffic on the road. What happens now is that the guys that are not as good of drivers will come in and they can't make the turn so they are backing up onto the road and blocking or stopping traffic.
Mr. Virginia asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against this matter.
Mr. Virginia closed the Public Hearing.
Ms. McBurney proposed the following Resolution #Z-07-13
Penn Detroit Diesel - Allison LLC of 7044 Interstate Island Road seeks an area variance from Section 200-74(D)(2)(e) of the Town of Van Buren Code related to the maximum size of a proposed driveway. The property is located in an Industrial District and is identified as Tax Map parcel 052-03-02.
Mr. Richard Hyman spoke in favor of the application and described the entrance driveway and general site layout. Mr. Hyman explained in detail to the Board the physical limitations of the existing entrance and the reasons for requesting an 80 feet width entrance rather than 60 feet as specified in the Code for a total width of 140ft.
There was no objection to the proposal at ZBA's public hearing, which was held on August 20, 2007 pursuant to public notice.
In support of the application, applicant submitted an Application for Variance, Agricultural Data Statement, Notice to Surrounding Property Owners, location sketch and survey showing the location of the business driveway on the property.
Based on the foregoing, the Board resolves as follows:
1. This matter is Type II under SEQR.
2. It is determined the requested variance will not produce any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Neighbors express no objection to the variance. There is no other apparent method to achieve the benefit applicant wishes to obtain other than a variance and the benefit to applicant outweighs any detriment to the neighborhood or community as a result of granting the variance.
3. A variance is granted to allow for the location of an entrance driveway measuring 140 feet in width in accordance with the map contained in the application packet. Any additional changes shall require additional review and approvals.
4. Lane delineation shall indicate entrance and exit lanes as approved by the Codes Officer.
Mr. Virginia seconded the Resolution, there was no further discussion. Resolution carried on a roll call vote that follows:
Roll Call Vote:
Aye Nay Other
John Virginia ? ___ _____
Robert Cleverley ? ___ _____
Laura McBurney ? ___ _____
Ronald Abold ? ___ _____
James Bowes ? ___ _____
WARNER
New State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel ID# 032-01-06.0
" Interpretation of Section 200-39 B (front yard exceptions)
Mr. Warner was present to address the Board.
Mr. Virginia said that he has driven by the property and has a couple of questions; the map shows an approximate location of a New York State wetland boundary and the Board is going to need an exact location of that wetland.
Mr. Pringle said that the wetland doesn't matter because the applicant is not building a house.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant needs an interpretation of exceptions for front yard exceptions because what has happened is Mr. Warner wanted to go to the Planning Board for a subdivision and at the pre-agenda meeting the Board told Mr. Warner that they could not because this lot would not be a legal sized lot by width and depth even though hundreds of flag lot subdivisions have been done before. The code allows a lot to be a minimum of 60ft wide at the road and its width is determined at the building line so if Mr. Warner sells this lot and they decide to build on it and they would like to build it back to where the lot widens out that would be establishing the lot width but the Planning Board says that they can't build back there because they have to be 60ft off the road because houses have already been built on that road and have
established the front building line and that section of the code is left over from the old code and it was never addressed. If the Board looks at the definitions in the code 200-39 lot width states the distance between the side lot lines measured at right angles to lot depth, at the front building line. Mr. Geiss is saying that 200-39(b) front yard exceptions applies, where 50% of the lots have been established, so if every lot is set at 60ft than Mr. Warner's house needs to be set at 60ft. but if the Board reads 200-39(c) it says frontage on a public street. No dwelling shall be erected on a lot which does not have at least 60ft of frontage on a public or private street. So it says a flag lot can be done in one section of the code but they can't put a house on it to establish a building line which therefore the lot width can not be measured therefore it is illegal lot.
Mr. Pringle said he proposes that Chapter 200-39 (b) does not apply outside a residential development; when Ryan Homes comes in like in Harbour Heights and Village Green, when they build a development they establish a building line because in the AR-80 District there are houses that are 100ft, 200ft and some are 60ft off the road.
The Board discussed areas in the AR-80 district that are similar.
Mr. Virginia said that his concern is that if they set the building line too far back because it could get misplaced in the wetlands.
Mr. Pringle said that the Board needs to establish the lot width without building a house.
Mr. Virginia said if they go back 200ft then it becomes a flag lot and if they assume that the building line would be someplace in back of that the lot would be 230ft wide.
Mr. Pringle said that there is nothing saying that they can't build out front if they want to.
Mr. Virginia said in the 115ft.
Mr. Pringle said if they want to build a house up front where it is 115ft wide the Planning Board is saying no that if they build that house there where the code states the setback is supposed to be the lot width is measured now where the house is built so it would be an illegal lot; in the definitions the Town needs to take out at the front building line.
Mr. Virginia said or at the building line in a dedicated tract.
Mr. Pringle said in residential developments once they establish a setback if Ryan Homes starts building houses at 40ft instead of 30ft once they get to a 50% build out every other house has to be at 40ft and they can't go back to 30ft once they establish a 40ft setback.
Mr. Virginia said that his problem with this is the Board could say the building line is 210ft from the road boundary which would be 10ft in back of that property line or the Board could say 50ft in back of that line to give a buffer.
Mr. Pringle said forget about Mr. Warner's lets say they could find others out there because every month someone comes in and wants to do a flag lot, where does he address the lot width and where does he measure lot width from.
Mr. Virginia said he thinks that would be back where the flag starts.
Mr. Pringle said that the Code states that it must be measures at the building line.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board makes the building line in the back of these flag lots or they will have to come in front of the Board for every one.
Mr. Pringle said that these flags lots have been done by the Planning Board before.
Mr. Pringle said the lot will be a legal lot; the problem is the way that the code is written it is just not wide enough per the code.
Mr. Abold asked if anyone has contacted the two neighbors on each side.
Mr. Pringle said not yet.
Ms. McBurney asked if there are house on the Michel and Stagnitta lots.
Mr. Virginia said yes.
Mr. Abold said that he would think that they would help determine that also seeing it is not in a development.
Mr. Pringle said that the Board needs to determine if 200-39(b) applies to the AR-80 district or was the intent for a residential development.
Mr. Virginia read 200-39 (b) of the Town code and said that the first sentence really doesn't apply because all of the houses on that road are different.
Mr. Abold said that he thinks it does apply because they have a house on both sides that are about the same depth.
Mr. Pringle said that it has to be more than 50% of the block.
The Board discussed what exactly the block consisted of.
Mr. Pringle said that if this lot was an existing lot and Mr. Warner came in to get a building permit and Mr. Warner wanted to build a house 60ft from the road and they could meet the side yard setbacks it would be good to get a building permit.
Ms. McBurney said that it looks to her that they couldn't get a building permit in that front section because it is not 200ft wide and it is not a lot.
Mr. Pringle said let's say that this lot is already existing and they came in to get a building permit to put it up front it would be a legal non-conforming lot and he could give them a building permit to do it but because this lot doesn't exist yet he can't.
Mr. Virginia asked the applicant what they are going to do with the remainder of the parcel.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant is going to combine that with their front lot because if they eliminate the 115ft then they have landlocked the center portion.
Mr. Virginia said as part of the subdivision that has to change.
Mr. Pringle said that the applicant knows they are going to have to combine that with the other property.
The Board discussed the houses on that block and the width of the road.
Mr. Abold asked if the setbacks are further then normal on a State road.
Mr. Pringle said that the set backs are the same whether it be a State, County, or Town road and he hasn't gone down and counted houses because in his interpretation 200-39 doesn't apply.
Mr. Virginia said that he thinks Mr. Pringle is right because it is not a development.
Mr. Pringle said that there are many little things in the code that are not right and they are trying to get those amended and the definition on how a lot width is measured is one of these.
The Board discussed the dimensions for an AR-80 lot.
Mr. Virginia said that the code states no dwelling shall be erected on a lot which does not have atleast 60ft of frontage.
Mr. Bowes said the applicant has beyond 60ft.
Mr. Pringle said that the Planning Board is saying the lot is only 115ft wide even though it is 243ft wide for 80% of it but because the building line is 60ft off the road that is where the lot width is measured and the code does not define a flag lot.
Mr. Pringle said that the definition of lot width works great if the lots are perfectly square because it doesn't work for irregular shaped lots and most of the lots in AR-80 are irregularly shaped.
Mr. Virginia said especially in this area.
Mr. Pringle said that if 200-39 (b) does not apply then the applicant can build a house 210ft back which will then establish a 243ft wide lot and he's legal.
The Board discussed with the attorney the area and the house depths in that area.
Mr. Pringle said that no two houses were built at the same time there are maybe one or two a year.
Mr. Germano asked if the Board knows for sure that half of the houses on that block have that setback.
Mr. Pringle said no because he doesn't know what the code means by block.
The Board discussed what the term block means.
Mr. Germano stated that any determination by this Board needs to be subject to Planning Board approval.
Mr. Virginia said if the Board states that the Board has determined that 200-39 does not apply to the AR-80 district.
Mr. Pringle said or it only applies to larger residential developments.
The Board discussed the wetlands on the applicant's property.
Mr. Virginia asked Mr. Germano to write a resolution.
Mr. Germano stated that he doesn't think he can write a proper resolution at the meeting and he would prefer that the applicant be tabled until next month to give him an opportunity to write a proper resolution.
Mr. Germano asked Mr. Warner if this was pushed out a month would that affect him in any way.
Mr. Warner said that it would not.
Mr. Abold said that if this is something that Mr. Pringle is having trouble addressing with the code and he is just thinking about the layout of the Town and where the Board wants to go with that type of thing and he knows there are always going to be mansions that are build off the road and he doesn't know how the Town could stop that and people want their privacy but then again it is nice to have houses in a fairly uniform fashion in the Town. He doesn't know how the rest of the Board feels about it.
The Board discussed the different zoning districts.
Mr. Pringle said that these lots are rural farm land and these are large acreage lots and he doesn't see the need and he doesn't think the committee say it that way either.
Mr. Germano said that he thinks in this instance that there is no block defined here because it is a couple mile stretch and he doesn't see why this would be a problem.
The Board discussed the set backs in the area.
Mr. Pringle said that 200-39 (b) needs to be better defined and how a lot width is measured and with the building line someone can go further back they can just never go closer.
The Board discussed Mr. Pringle going out to check the other houses on the same road.
Mr. Virginia said that the Board will continue this interpretation on September 17, 2007 at 7:35p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Abold made a motion to close the August Meeting, seconded by Mrs. McBurney; motion carried, unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vera Cavallaro
Zoning Secretary
| ||
