Full Text
TOWN OF STERLING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 8, 2016 A meeting of the Town of Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday September 8, 2016 at the Sterling Town Hall at 7:00 pm with the following members present: Laurence Lemon ~ Chairman Charles Itzin ~ Member Richard Palmieri ~ Member Darrell Uetz ~ Member Brad Dates ~ Member Also Present : Brian and Amber Bench, Carol Grant, David and Lorraine Murray, Joseph Spaid, Bert Green and Carolyn Waterman. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 PM by Chairman Lemon. PUBLIC HEARING Carol Grant Chairman Lemon read the legal notice into the minutes; the Public Hearing was opened at 7:04 PM. Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Sterling will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday September 8, 2016 at 7:00 pm at the Sterling Town Hall, 1290 State Route 104A, Sterling, NY 13156 to hear an Area Variance request by Carol Grant. A request for relief of the Town of Sterling Land Use Regulations Article VII, Section Table 1 – Minimum setback requirements in regards to proposed construction of retaining walls on property located at 14902 West Bay Road, Sterling, NY 13156; Tax Map 3 5.19-1-18. All those wishing to be heard in favor of or in opposition of said application may appear in person or by other representation at said time and place. By order of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Lisa Somers, Clerk. The applicant had her contractor, Brian Bench, present the project to the Board Members. He provided a survey map of the property with the proposed retaining walls located with dimensions for the Board to review. He explained that along the south property line fill material from the newly constructed home was over-spilling onto the neighbor’s property and that the retaining wall would halt this condition. The Board members questioned why they couldn’t grade the material from the house to the property line and then seed it to retain the material. Brian Bench answered that the fill was needed to cover the basement walls otherwise the house would be considered a three story structure and would require an expensive sprinkler system. He further explained that the property had a sloping topography to begin with, coupled with extra fill material and only 10’ to the property line on either side of the house, steeper slopes were created which the retaining walls would anchor. Mr. Bench provided large photos of the property to illustrate his point, some of which had drawn overlays of the proposed walls. The photos were also shared with any neighbors in attendance. The Board Members questioned the proposed location of the retaining walls on the property line without an offset for maintenance such as mowing and trimming, and felt that at a minimum the face of the retaining wall would need to be located 2 feet inside of the property line. Some discussion ensued regarding the wall height and various depths of fill material existing around the house, Brian bench explained the maximum wall height would be 4’ and would step down in height to match the grade as it lessens in the direction of the water. As such, a consensus for the proposed wall along the south property line was to be located 2’ in from property line, wall not to exceed height of retained fill with split face side of Versa-lok modular concrete units to face outward toward property line. The proposed wall along the north property line had a different configuration with an additional wall running east/west from property line to the house which Mr. Bench explained was needed to keep the doorway located approximately 10’ from the northeast corner of the house cleared of debris. The neighbors along the north side had issues with the plan because it would potentially block light and view from their property which the Board members discussed at length to mitigate that potential and create a smaller system that would yield the same benefit for the applicant. At this time Chairman Lemon opened the hearing to public comments, they were as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Joseph Spade – Mr. Spade is a full life resident for over 50 years, a cousin of the property owner (Peter Gilcher) and is against the granting of this variance as it has been presented. He felt that the construction of the house, which received 5 variances, was enough compromise by the neighbors and that another variance request was excessive. The lot is undersized with problematic topography which in itself has created the hardship that the applicant seeks relief for. The applicant’s claim of spillover has not been an issue and could be rectified by simply raking and planting seed to stabilize the bank. The house was too big for the lot, the granting of 5 variances supports that, the subsequent loss of light and air from proposed further manipulation of the lot is too much to ask for – the neighbors have already conceded enough. 2. Burton Green – Neighbor along the south property line that wanted to know the details of the proposal. After reviewing the photos and drawings with a new setback dimension of 2 feet inside the south property line, Mr. Green had no issues with the retaining wall. With no further comments from the public, the Hearing was closed at 7:55 pm by Chairman Lemon. The deliberations continued amongst the Board members. The amount of fill material required to stay around the foundation to eliminate it from being classified as a calculable story of the house was first discussed. Member Palmieri read aloud the cellar definition from the Land Use Regulations and found it to be required that more than one half of its height needs to be below the level of adjoining ground in order to qualify. From the pictures provided it was agreed that approximately two-thirds of the basement was covered with fill and therefore exceeds the amount needed. The north retaining wall was deemed to be not needed in this case but a wall design to keep the doorway clear of debris was. After negotiation between the applicant and her contractor with the Board members and some neighbors it was decided that a diagonal wall located east of the door and window would be sufficient to hold back fill and keep the doorway clear. The retaining wall would begin 16’ from the northeast corner of the house, at a height of 2 feet, and extend back towards the road at a 45 degree angle with the house. The retaining wall would additionally step down with the grade to terminate within 2 feet of the north property line. The material to be used in the construction of the wall was explained by Brian Bench with detail sheets of typical sections being provided for the project file. The material is a modular concrete unit manufactured by Versa-Lok Retaining Wall Systems and the exterior finish is similar to a conventional cinder block wall as shown in provided photo to be retained in project file. Each of the Board Members stated their position as follows: Member Itzin stated that the fill material could be easily shoveled or raked away with seeding to stabilize and therefore felt that there was no need for the retaining walls. Member Palmieri stated that if the south side wall were offset 2 additional feet then it would be acceptable to the neighbors and yield the result the applicant wanted. The north side wall proposal is completely unacceptable as submitted because of the conflict with neighbors supported by the history of the lot development. If a modified plan to construct a diagonal wall from the house back to the road were acceptable to both the applicant and the neighbor then he could support that decision. Member Dates also agreed that the plan as submitted was not acceptable but modifications including a 2 foot offset on the south wall and redesign of the north wall to be a diagonal wall stepping down from the house to within 2 feet of the north line would be agreeable. Member Uetz agreed with the statements of Members Palmieri and dates in that the proposed would not work but the modified plan would. Chairman Lemon stated that he saw no need for the retaining walls and that in light of the 5 variances already approved to build the home this request was excessive. A motion was moved by Member Uetz to approve the requested variance as submitted and was seconded by Member Dates. A roll call vote was taken and the request was unanimously denied. A motion was moved by Member Palmieri to approve a modified plan that was acceptable to the applicant Carol Grant and was seconded by Member Dates. Without further discussion a roll call vote was taken and the request was approved. Resolution 2016-04 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zonning Board of Appeals for the Town of Sterling, upon the facts presented and the determination made, that the application for the requested variance of side setback requirements for proposed retaining walls along both north and south property lines, as submitted, on ---PAGE BREAK--- property located at 14902 West bay Road, Sterling, NY 13156; Tax Map # 5.19-1-18 is hereby DENIED. Roll call vote taken: Lawrence Lemon, Chairman Naye Richard Palmieri, Member Naye Darrell Uetz, Member Naye Charles Itzin, Member Naye Brad Dates, Member Naye 0 AYES 5 NAYES 0 ABSTENTIONS – REQUEST DENIED Resolution 2016-05 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Sterling, upon the facts presented and the determination made, that the application for the requested variance of side setback requirements for a MODIFIED PLAN for proposed retaining walls along both north and south property lines, as detailed on site plan of this date, on property located at 14902 West bay Road, Sterling, NY 13156; Tax Map # 5.19-1-18 is hereby GRANTED upon the following express conditions: South property line retaining wall: a. Must be located at least 2’ in from property line. b. Shall not exceed height of retained grade. c. Material is Versa-lok standard modular concrete units. d. Split face side to face outward. North property line retaining wall: a. Maximum retained fill to be a 2’ height at house and diminishing to natural grade at 2’from north property line where wall finishes. b. Wall to begin 16’ from the northeast corner of the house, extending at a 45 degree angle back towards the road way in a northwest direction. Roll call vote was taken: Lawrence Lemon, Chairman Naye Richard Palmieri, Member Aye Darrell Uetz, Member Aye Charles Itzin, Member Naye Brad Dates, Member Aye 3 AYES 2 NAYES 0 ABSTENTIONS – REQUEST APPROVED MINUTES A motion to approve meeting minutes for June 20, 2016 was moved by Member Dates and seconded by Member Itzin, all were in favor and the motion carried. ADJOURN On a motion by Chairman Lemon and seconded by Member Palmieri, the meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm. Unapproved Minutes, Respectfully submitted, Lisa Somers ZBA Clerk