Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting March 21, 2011 DRAFT Present: Tom Brahm Guests: Nathan Burgie Tom Burgie Jack Centner Ken Hanvey, Chairman Brian Malotte Sandra Hulbert Mitch Makowski Joe Polimeni Scott Wohlschlegel The March meeting of the Town of South Bristol Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:30 P.M. A roll call for attendance was taken. All board members were present. Chairman Hanvey called for a motion to approve the September 22, 2010 meeting minutes as written. Mr. Hanvey made said motion. Sandra Hulbert seconded the motion. Ken Hanvey, Tom Brahm, Tom Burgie, Sandra Hulbert and Scott Wohlschlegel voted in favor of approval. Joe Polimeni did not vote as he was not present at the September 10, 2010 meeting. The September minutes were approved. Mr. Hanvey then relayed the rules of order. He said that the purpose of relaying the rules of order was to inform the applicant and the public about the board s procedure and what they can expect during a meeting. Mr. Hanvey said that relaying the rules or order was meant to put the applicant at ease as well as inform them of expectations. He then told the applicant(s) that the board members were their friends and neighbors and, as such, would grant relief whenever possible. He noted that the board needed to balance the wants and needs of the applicant in granting a variance against the potential detriment to the community at large as defined in the town code. Mr. Hanvey also explained that the board, by statute, must only grant the minimum variance it deems necessary while at the same time preserving the general character of the neighborhood. He also pointed out that the board may, at its discretion, impose reasonable conditions that are directly related to or incidental to the proposed use of the property. Old Business There was no old business. New Business PUBLIC HEARING-MALOTTE CUSTOM CARPENTRY (FOR MITCHELL MAKOWSKI)-REQUEST FOR VARIANCE-Chairman Hanvey told those present that one thing that had happened fairly recently concerning the application before the board was that he had discovered that the property involved with the application was actually zoned commercial and that originally they were working off the idea that they needed 50 feet from the right-of-way for the front setback. Mr. Hanvey went on to say that it was a corner lot so they really had two front setbacks, one from Stid Hill and one from Route
2 64 and that 75 feet was needed instead of 50 due to the commercial zoning. Chairman Hanvey said that originally they thought they were asking for a 7 foot front setback variance whereas now they would be asking for 32 feet. Chairman Hanvey then read the public hearing notice as published. At this time, we will have you guys take a minute and tell us what you want to do and, specifically, why you want to do it the way you want to do it which requires a variance. Mr. Malotte: end of the barn. Mr. Wohlschlegel: Mr. Malotte: there. What we would like to do is put an identical addition on the north So it will be extended more towards Stid Hill? Yes. The addition will be identical to the other one that is already You are asking for 32 feet? Yes, out of 75. This drawing shows 68 feet. It is actually 68 feet to the center line. It is 43 feet to the right-ofway and they need 75 feet because it is zoned commercial. Will this new addition have any facilities such as water, sewer, or anything of that nature in it? No. There is a well so there is water there. But you won t have water in there? It is just a storage facility? Yes. Do you have a floor drain? There is one in the addition that is already there but we don t plan on putting a floor drain in this new proposed addition. That new addition will pretty close to your well, won t it? Yes, it would. The well is behind where the new addition will be.
3 The reason I brought up the floor drain is that a lot of people put a floor drain in a garage and you wonder if you had an accident with a machine or something like that and oil got into the drain, you don t want to contaminate any water. It s the same as somebody building a garage and they are asking for a setback on the side and they are near a creek, a typical thing is to say don t put in a floor drain. Mr. Centner: If you were thinking of doing that you would need to get in touch with George Barden the Watershed Inspector. this one. water? water. attached to it. I have a drain on the other side so I really have no need for one in So you don t have any plans in the future for putting in sewer or I don t have any plans, no. Is there water in the existing building? There is a well in the back of the building. You can t drink the But is it inside the existing building? No. It is just a well head sticking up out of the ground with a hose One of the things that we usually have to consider is whether there is any way you can do this without the need for a variance. I realize 7 feet is a lot easier to deal with than 32 feet. I think when we calculated we only needed 3 or 4 feet but we were saying 7 feet because of the overhangs and stuff. Seven was not a problem and only affected just a corner of it. But now that you are saying 32 feet, I did not realize that. I did not realize that was commercial until I really started looking closely at the application. It makes a difference being commercial. So, because of the well being behind you, there is no way to push the building back farther and you want it symmetrical basically. Yeah. I don t think we can go back also because the main drainage ditch for Stid Hill kind of comes right behind that. depth. And because of the size of the stuff you have, you need a 42 foot
4 Yeah, the trailers and stuff. We have to have wide doors because of the size of the equipment. Structurally you can t make it any smaller with those size doors. Mr. Malotte: The way the roof is we could not add onto the west side because that would create a nightmare with the structure. With the grade, it is awful tough for him to back in trailers and that sort of thing. possible. Mr. Wohlschlegel: Mr. Malotte: 2700 tons of gravel. Because of the type of vehicles, you are trying to keep it as flat as There is no way to do it on this other end? It was pretty tough when we did that addition there. We brought in I can t really back a trailer in because the floor is flat and level and then the front drops down and actually bottoms out the trailer. building? What kind of stuff are you going to store in there? Construction equipment and a couple of trailers. Are you going to be able to see the well from the lower edge of the Yes. Mr. Wohlschlegel: Are you putting up the same size building with the same measurements as the other addition? Just doing a rough measurement, it looks like you are a couple of feet beyond that. I guess we could be. I m not really sure. What kind of a well is that? Is there a pump in it? Yes. Just a casing? Yeah. It is not a drinking water well. The water comes out gray. I don t even wash cars with it anymore. Is this going to be 30 x 42 or 20 x 42? On one of the papers it says 20 x 42 and on another one it says 30 x 42.
5 Mr. Malotte: 30 x 42. that well at all. What are you going to do if you get into that well? I m sorry. I must have misunderstood. It is not going to get into I was just trying to get an idea. I was using the well to get an idea of the distance from the road. you all set? Ms. Hulbert: issue them a permit? Mr. Centner: ZBA. Does anybody else have any questions they want to ask? Joe, are I think so. Sandra, are you satisfied? Yes. Jack, would you tell us why they are here and why you could not It does not meet the required setback so it needed to come to the Visitation reports? Mr. Wohlschlegel: Looking at it, it is close. One thing I was looking at was SEQR. Does that fall under Type II actions being that it is commercial property? Yes. Regardless, it is for a setback variance. The only thing that changes is the setback requirement is larger. Mr. Centner: Board Secretary: Mr. Centner: You haven t heard from any of the neighbors or any comments? No. Were the neighbors notified? Yes. Debbie handles that so it was all taken care of. When I looked at it I was still under the impression that we were looking at the 50 foot from the right-of-way and at that time it looked a little better because it was only 7 feet out of a 50 required setback.
6 Yeah. Although it is still less than half of what s required on a percentage basis now, being 32 out of a 75 foot required setback. That s from the right-of-way. Yes. All of our determinations have to be from the right-of-way. It would be 99 ½ feet if we went to the center line. Personally to me, I would rather see them put up a nice symmetrical addition the same as the other side on the existing building. It is commercial. It is on a corner lot. It is where you can see it. I was looking at it from the point of view of what can we do to make this happen without needing the 7 feet before I realized it was commercial and it seemed that no matter what you do it is going to look worse. At least this way, it is going to look symmetrical. Mr. Malotte: Can the address be changed? No, you can t change the address and it really would not make any difference anyway. That was something I was thinking about for tonight, too. How do we define front? In other words, since it is a corner lot, is your front setback from Stid Hill or Route 64. When it is a corner lot, you actually have two front setbacks and two side setbacks and no rear setback. So you would have the same problem on Route 64 as you would still need 75 feet from the right-of-way that way and from Stid Hill Road also. If there was something in the code that dictated that his frontage was on Route 64 and we could make that the front, then Stid Hill would be the side and they would only need 20 feet. But the address actually has nothing to do with it. Any other testimony or visitation reports? It is a nice looking building. I think what you are doing is going to be a boom to the neighborhood anyway. I just wish you could fit it a little bit better. There s not a lot of things that will fit on lots in this town. There is always a rock or a boulder, a cliff, stream, or a mountain to deal with. My back yard is 1200 feet higher than my front yard. It is a unique property as far as trying to lay things out so everything fits on it. Scott, do you want to give us your SEQR determination? Mr. Wohlschlegel: Under SEQR, Section 617.5, Type II actions, this would fall under 617.5(c)(12) which is the granting of individual setback variances. There is also 617.5(c)(10) which is for the construction, expansion or placement of minor accessory residential structures such as garages, carports, etc. It might fall into that. That really leans towards residential. You are talking about appurtenant structures basically.
7 Mr. Wohlschlegel: Then I would go with Section 617.5(c)(12) involving the granting of individual setback variances. Okay. So that is a Type II action with no further action by the board being required. I would like to make a motion that we make that the first finding. I will second that. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye. Opposed: No one. Okay, at this point I would like to open the public hearing portion of the meeting. (Time: 7:58 P.M.) Is there anyone here regarding this application? Tom Burgie s son is here tonight and he is the entire public tonight. Mr. Burgie: Board Secretary: He is here earning his citizenship badge for Scouts. Deb, was there any correspondence or anything that came in? No. Nothing from any of the neighbors. No phone calls. Since there is no one else, I will now close the public hearing. (Time: 8:00 P.M.) Okay. Discussion and debate? What does everybody think? (Board member, Tom Burgie and his son left the meeting at 8:00 P.M.) Mr. Wohlschlegel: I think that it is best to have a building that looks the same size. It is more presentable and aesthetic from the road. The one thing that is kind of goofing us up is the fact that it is zoned commercial. However, structures like this is pretty much what is supposed to be there. In a commercial zone a lot of times you see buildings that you really don t want to see. At least they are making an effort to have it be symmetrical and look decent. For the situation they are having to work under, I think they are doing a fine job. I think that it is best way to go. They can t go back and they can t go forward. Ms. Hulbert: Well, when we were talking about putting it at the other end, it was indicated that it would take a lot of fill and gravel so it doesn t make sense. The elevation, like you said, is an issue. You need to be pretty flat all the way through to back up a trailer there. Ms. Hulbert: And it is not flat. I have no problem with it.
8 How about some findings? Mr. Wohlschlegel: I have some findings. The addition of a new section to the existing structure will have no adverse environmental impacts on the drainage ditch behind the building where water comes down Stid Hill. Do I have a motion to accept that? I ll make that motion. Second. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed: No One Mr. Wohlschlegel: The other finding is that the flow of water off the proposed addition will not have any adverse impact on soil and erosion down toward Route 64. I make a motion to make that Finding #3. Second. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed: No One I would like to make a finding that we received no negative correspondence nor did anyone show up in opposition at the meeting. Mr. Wohlschlegel: I make a motion that we make that Finding #4. I ll second it. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed: No One I have another finding that this problem is self created based upon the fact that they want to build the structure. Ms. Hulbert: I make a motion to accept that finding. I ll second it. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed No One I would like to make one. Although the variance is substantial it will have little adverse effect on property values in the neighborhood. I make a motion to accept that.
9 Mr. Wohlschlegel: Second. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed No One Also, the variance is substantial being 32 feet out of 75 is 42.6%. I make a motion to accept that finding. Second. All in favor, say Aye. All Aye; Opposed No One I have one last finding which is that it is not detrimental to the character of the neighborhood simply because this is a commercial C-1 parcel. Mr. Wohlschlegel: I make the motion to accept that. I second it. All in favor. Say Aye. All Aye; Opposed No One One thing I think we do want to do is, we want to make sure especially now since the variance fairly substantial, that it applies solely to this project and the specific area that they are asking for. I think we need to emphasize that this is commercial property. Yeah, we don t want to give them 32 feet all the way to the top of Stid Hill. In other words, I would probably condition any approval that it applies solely to this addition and according to the site plan map submitted with the original application. I guess what I was getting at was if it s noted that it s commercial property and should we have an application involving residential property come in that is asking for 32 feet and we have a problem with it and they say that we allowed this we can say that this was for commercial property. Yeah, and if it was residential, we would be back to our 7 feet. Right. So it would not pose the same problem. I would like to make a motion to grant the reduction of the front setback on Stid Hill Road to 43 feet from the required 75 feet for Application #11-004Z with the condition that this variance applies solely to the area this barn encroaches into the original right-of-way as shown on the site plan submitted with the application.
10 Ms. Hulbert: I ll second it. Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call vote: Tom Brahm - Aye Scott Wohlschlegel - Aye Joe Polimeni - Aye Ken Hanvey - Aye Sandra Hulbert (Alt.#1) - Aye Discussion on the Malotte (for Makowski) application ended at 8:15 P.M. Other Business To Come Before The Board Resignation of Scott Wohlschlegel-Board member, Scott Wohlschlegel submitted a letter of resignation from the ZBA due to having too many things going on in connection with outside activities. Scott said that his job at Kodak also takes up a lot of his time and that he was working a lot of 12-hour days. Scott said he had enjoyed his time on the board, had met a lot of nice people and had learned a lot. He said his resignation was to be effectively immediately but that if the board needed him for an April meeting he would be willing to help out. Proposal For Training Hours To Count As Meeting Time-Board member, Joe Polimeni, said that he felt that the 4 hours of annual training that each board member must obtain should be counted as 4 meetings for pay purposes. Joe said that the town was giving board members mileage reimbursement but nothing for wear and tear or time spent. He said he felt that would only be fair. Joe said he would like to put a proposal in before the Town Board for their consideration. He said if the other board members agreed with him then the ZBA should send a proposal to the Town Board. Tom Brahm said he agreed with Joe. Chairman Hanvey suggested that Joe put together a proposal for the ZBA members to review and discuss at their next meeting. Mr. Hanvey said the ZBA could then take a vote on whether or not to forward the proposal on to the Town Board. Joe agreed to prepare something for the ZBA s next meeting. Board Member Training Discussion-With regard to training, Sandra Hulbert said that it seemed to her that some board members, such as Ken Hanvey, who had taken numerous training courses over the past several years should not be required to continue to obtain 4 hours of training every year. She said that for new board members, however, training should be required. Mr. Hanvey explained that the 4 hours training requirement was a state mandate not a Town Board requirement. He said he felt that the state should change the mandate to indicate what courses must be taken and then once someone had taken all of the state mandated courses they should be done with their training obligations. Joe Polimeni then said that the members of the Board of Assessment Review had to be recertified once every 4 years. Joe said they have to attend a seminar where they receive a new manual and that the seminar is only about 2 hours long. Joe said once someone attends the seminar they are then re-certified for another 4 hours.
11 Selection of the ZBA SEQR Specialist for 2011 Chairman Hanvey asked if Sandra Hulbert would be willing to take over being SEQR Specialist for the ZBA since Scott Wohlschlegel was resigning. Sandra said she did not know anything about SEQR. Scott Wohlschlegel gave Sandra the booklet on SEQR that he had been using as a reference. Sandra was also told that almost always the SEQR determination for ZBA applications was a Type II under Section 617.5 of SEQR since practically all applications submitted to the ZBA were for variances for individual setbacks. She was also told that the ZBA could also get an application for a special use permit which would be an Unlisted Action and that an Unlisted Action is handled by having the board complete the back of the Short Environmental Assessment form submitted with the application and then coming to a SEQR determination based on their answers to questions on the back of the Short EAF. Ken Hanvey then officially nominated Sandra Hulbert to be the board s SEQR Specialist. Tom Brahm seconded the motion. All in favor Aye; Opposed No One (Sandra Hulbert-not voting) Selection of ZBA Co-Chair for 2011 Ken Hanvey nominated Tom Brahm to act as Co-Chair for the ZBA for 2011. Joe Polimeni seconded the motion. Tom Brahm then suggested that Joe Polimeni be Cochair. Joe indicated that he could not do so as he was having problems with one of his ankles which could require surgery so his attendance at meetings could be in question. Mr. Hanvey then said that a motion had been made and seconded that Tom Brahm be the ZBA Co-chair for 2011. All in favor Aye; Opposed No One (Tom Brahm not voting) There being no other business to come before the board, Joe Polimeni made a motion to adjourn. Ken Hanvey seconded the motion which was unanimously accepted and the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Debra Minute Recording Secretary