______ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS______
TOWN OF ROCHESTER
ULSTERCOUNTY
ACCORD, NEW YORK
(845) 626-2434
Minutes of November 9, 2004 of the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals, held at the Town Hall, Accord, NY.
Meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairperson, Marijane Knudsen.
Present:Beatrice Haugen-De Puy, Vice Chair.Absent:James Kingston, Alternate- Elizabeth Kawalchuck Stanley Hudson
Marijane Knudsen, Chairperson
Brian Belile
Pledge to the Flag.
ACTION ON MINUTES OF MEETING
Mr. Hudson motioned to approve as submitted the minutes of October 14, 2004. Motion seconded by Mr. Belile. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN GRAY- 2’ Area Variance for fence height, Queens Hwy, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #68.4-6-11, R-2 Zone
At 7:00PMMr. Gray was present on behalf of his Public Hearing.
The Chairperson noted that on October 19, 2004, this Application had received a favorable advisory from the Planning Board. On this date the Highway Superintendent, Mr. Kelder, had inspected the parcel and forwarded a letter of the proposed action being in compliance with regulations to the ZBA office. She then instructed Mr. Gray to explain his hardships to the Board and why he felt that his Application warranted approval.
Mr. Gray explained that they wanted to get sanctuary from Queens Highway. Cars travel very fast on this road and there is a lot of dust and litter. There are children that live at the property and children that visit that property and they can’t really enjoy the whole front section of their property. They had a dog get hit by a car there also. He believes that the Variance would allow for the 6’ high fence and this would better protect from all of the factors Mr. Gray listed. The fence would be 6’ high and extend the frontage of the property and go two lengths back on the sides. He believed he had 80-100’ of frontage. It would be a solid spruce fence. It is definitely placed far enough back from the road so that there is adequate site line for cars to be able to enter and exit the property safely. It is a horseshoe driveway and snow removal and site distance was all carefully taken into consideration in placing the fence.
-2-
T/ ROCHESTERNovember 9, 2004
ZBA MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN GRAY (cont’d): 2’ Area Variance for fence height
Mr. Gray then presented a favorable letter dated October 14, 2004 from an immediate neighbor, Deborah Press of 160 Queens Hwy.
Mr. Hudson noted that one corner of the fence was depicted as a 16’ setback from the road and along the length of the fence it fluctuated between 12’ and 13’ until it reached the other corner at 14’. Mr. Hudson had a problem with fences being too close to the road.
Mr. Gray assured the Board that they set the fence very far back from the road.
The Chairperson noted that there is a letter dated November 9, 2004 from Wayne Kelder noting that he inspected the fence placement and found it to comply with regulations. He doesn’t see a problem with snow removal or site distance with regards to Queens Highway. With regards to what Mr. Gray is showing, there are trees and shrubs that exist that will be in between the fence and the road.
Mr. Gray noted that he will be going back 12’ from the actual pavement of Queens Highway.
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy questioned how his deed read. Where did he own in relation to the road—from the middle of the road? What if the Town tried to widen the road?
The Chairperson didn’t believe that was a factor. Mr. Gray had a document from the Highway Superintendent stating that he was in compliance.
Mr. Gray really believed that the extra 2’ of height would really contain everything and make a difference.
There were no comments from the audience.
Mr. Hudson was concerned with the distance of the fence from the road. Mr. Gray says ‘approximately’. He doesn’t the actual distance.
Mrs. Kawalchuck questioned if the Highway Superintendent wouldn’t have noticed that the distance from the road was inadequate when he inspected it? The posts are already set, so he could see it when he inspected it.
The Chairperson noted that if the Board were to make a motion to grant the variance that they could stipulate that the fence be at least 12’ from the edge of Queens Highway.
Mr. Gray thought that the only provision he needed to meet was what was determined by the Highway Superintendent. This was really something that he took into consideration when placing the fence.
Mr. Hudson noted that it has been a question over the last few years with people putting a garage up being 25’ from the road, because it is a structure, but this is a fence and people have questioned about fences being back so many feet.
-3-
T/ ROCHESTERNovember 9, 2004
ZBA MINUTES
PUBLIC HEARING
JOHN GRAY (cont’d): 2’ Area Variance for fence height
Mr. Gray was under the impression when he went to obtain his building permit for the fence that the only issue was the height of the fence and that was why was in front of the ZBA now.
Mr. Belile noted that his reasons for concern were personal as he had a friend a number of years ago pull out of that driveway and get killed.
Mr. Gray took this into consideration in placing the fence.
Mrs. Kawalchuck questioned how far Mr. Gray had from the house to where he is proposing the fence?
Mr. Gray noted that he had between 15’ and 20’.
Mrs. Kawalchuck believed that if Mr. Gray were asked to place the fence any further from the road, he wouldn’t have any front yard. If Mr. Kelder approved it, isn’t that enough?
Mrs. Haugen De-Puy motioned to close the Public Hearing, seconded by Mrs. Kawalchuck. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy motioned for the Town of Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals be Lead Agency and that this Application be a Negative Declaration with no significant impact on the environment. Seconded by Mr. Belile. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
Mr. Hudson motioned to approve the 2’ Variance with conditions that the fence cannot be closer than 12’ from any post to the paved edge of the road. Seconded by Mrs. Haugen-De Puy.
Discussion:Mr. Gray was concerned because everything is already level and set. If he should go out to the site and measure and come up with 11’, he’d have to start all over. The 2’ variance was the only issue that was raised by the Building Dept. They said that there wasn’t any enforcement of how far the fence needed to be off of the road; however they strongly suggested 10’ for the snow plows.
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy noted that Mr. Gray’s drawing reflected setbacks between 12’ and 16’, was his drawing accurate?
Mr. Gray hoped so. He had a friend who was working on the fence do the drawing.
-4-
T/ ROCHESTERNovember 9, 2004
ZBA MINUTES
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy noted that the Board is holding Mr. Gray to this information as this is what he has submitted and this is what the Board has to use.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
CONTINUED APPLICATION REVIEW
LUIS VALENCIA-Area Variance for 8 side yard setbacks, 59 Samsonville Road, Kerhonkson, Tax Map #76.9-2-2, R-2 Zone
Mr. Valencia was present on behalf of his Application.
The Secretary informed the Board that Mr. Valencia had had his Public Hearing at the last meeting, and the Board held it open. Mr. Valencia brought in the revised maps to the office on this date, which was not ample time to advertise. He even missed the cut off date for submittals to be put on the Agenda, but she wanted the Board to have a chance to look at the revised map to try and save Mr. Valencia another month as he has been in this process since the summer time. He would be able to have his Public Hearing at next month’s meeting as this will give the correct amount of time needed to re-advertise in the Freeman.
The Chairperson briefly recapped Mr. Valencia’s Application.Mr. Valencia currently owns +/- 17.7 acres on Samsonville Road in Kerhonkson and he is trying to split the property in two pieces. Lot 1 would consist of +/-4.466 acres with one single family dwelling where Mr. Valencia currently resides. Lot 2 would consist of +/-13.231 acres with an 8 unit apartment building and a 4 unit apartment building, making a total of 12 rental units. The proposed lot line infringes on the 40’ required side yard setbacks in 8 areas.
The Board reviewed Mr. Valencia’s revised map that now showed the need for 5 side yard setback variances as opposed to the 8 he originally needed. Parcel 1 now would consist of +/-4.502 acres and need no setbacks where parcel 2 would now consist of +/-13.195 acres and need 5 setbacks. He is now asking for 3 variances for the back apartment unit and 2 variances for the front apartment building. Mr. Valencia needs to retain at least 12 acres with the parcel with the 12 apartment units on it. The Applicant isn’t going to achieve this lot line without Variances. There is no way to achieve this any other way. The Board discussed different alternatives only to come up with what Mr. Valencia has presented. They informed Mr. Valencia that he would need to have his septics and wells indicated on his maps as there were some questions pertaining to their proximities.
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy motioned to continue the Public Hearing at the December meeting. Seconded by Mr. Belile.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
-5-
T/ ROCHESTERNovember 9, 2004
ZBA MINUTES
OTHER MATTERS
The Chairperson noted that the Board needed to make recommendations to the Town Board in regards to the reappointments of Mrs. Haugen-De Puy, Mr. Kingston. They have both expressed their desires to remain on the Board. The Board would also need to appoint positions of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, and Secretary.
Mr. Belile motioned to recommend to the Town Board to reappoint Mr. Kingston to his position as Alternate to the ZBA. Seconded by Mr. Hudson. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
Mrs. Kawalchuck motioned to recommend to the Town Board to reappoint Mrs. Haugen-De Puy to her position on the ZBA, seconded by Mr. Belile. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- AbstainKingston, Alt.- absent
Mr. Hudson motioned to reappoint Mrs. Haugen-De Puy to the position of Vice Chairperson for 2005. Seconded by Mr. Belile. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- AbstainKingston, Alt.- absent
Mrs. Kawalchuck motioned to reappoint Mrs. Knudsen to the position of Chairperson for 2005, seconded by Mr. Belile. Mrs. Knudsen felt that someone else should take the position of Chairperson—she would even help them through the process.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Abstain
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
Mrs. Kawalchuck motioned to reappoint Rebecca Paddock Stange to the position of Secretary for 2005. Seconded by Mr. Belile. No discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Yes
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- absent
-6-
T/ ROCHESTERNovember 9, 2004
ZBA MINUTES
Mrs. Haugen-De Puy motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Belile. No Discussion.
Vote:Belile-YesKawalchuck- Absent
Hudson- YesKnudsen- Yes
Haugen De Puy- YesKingston, Alt.- Yes
As there was nothing further to discuss, at 7:50PM Chairperson Knudsen Adjourned the Meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Rebecca Paddock Stange
Secretary