Full Text
TOWN OF STERLING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS September 14, 2017 A meeting of the Town of Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, September 14, 2017 at the Sterling Town Hall with the following members present: Laurence Lemon ~ Chairman Darrell Uetz ~Member Richard Palmieri ~ Member Charles Itzin ~ Member Brad Dates ~ Member. Also Present : Michele Santini, Tony Gambacurta and Mrs. Rhodes. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Lemon. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lemon read aloud the legal notice and opened the Hearing at 7:01 PM. Notice is hereby given that the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Sterling will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 7:00 PM at the Sterling Town Hall, 1290 State Route 104A, Sterling, NY 13156 to hear an Area Variance request by Michele A. Santini. A request for relief of the Town of Sterling Land Use Regulations Article VII, Section 1, Table 1 – Minimum front and side yard setback requirement in regards to proposed 14’x10’ storage shed on property located at 14780 West Bay Road, Sterling, NY 13156; Tax Map #8.07-1-13. 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, Michele Santini, was asked to explain her variance request for setbacks regarding a storage shed. Ms. Santini stated that she wanted to replace the existing 10’x9’ storage shed (height 7’6”) with a larger one – 10’x14’ (height 10’) to store their patio furniture and boat sails and preservers during inclement weather. The new shed would be located in the same spot but extend 4’ closer to the road; measured to be 65’ from the centerline of West Bay Road requiring a 10’ front variance. The existing shed is located 1’ from the side property/fence line and would therefore also require a variance, substantial at 19’of relief. Ms. Santini provided several photos taken from various locations around her property to illustrate the limited view of the Bay that they want to keep as well as the landscaped lawns which they also would like to have remain as is. Chairman Lemon asked if she had a survey map of the property which she replied she did not. She was also asked if the original shed was placed by her and if it had received a variance. She replied that the shed was there when she purchased the home and was unaware of any variances on the property. Ms. Santini stated that her neighbor, George Conibear, had his property surveyed a year or two ago when he requested a variance for a shed along the same property line. The fence crosses the property line with a 1 foot skew at the Hadcock Road end of the property therefore they measured from the fence line which is within inches of the property line at the other end of the property where the shed is located. Member Uetz remembered the previous request by Mr. Conibear and agreed with the approximate side property line location. He also stated that the existing shed is non-conforming, but also pre-existing to the Town’s LUR. If the applicant were simply renovating the existing shed ( a percentage requirement for replacement allowed) the variance wouldn’t be an issue, but because a new structure is being installed the preexisting status no longer applies and a 20’ side setback requirement needs to be maintained. Chairman Lemon asked Ms. Santini to make a case for the proposed location of the new shed that allows the ZBA to consider her request. She replied that the only place that the shed placement would conform to the setback requirements would be for it to be placed in the middle of the back yard which is unacceptable. She referred to the photos she had brought of the property to show the back yard and the view of the bay from there. The view from the back yard overlooks Hadcock Drive and through the side yards of existing residences and garages. The back yard gently slopes towards the water enhancing the available view which is probably larger during times of the year when the leaves are gone. Ms. Santini stated that the view would be completely blocked by a shed in the rear yard and that a shed wouldn’t make sense to be located there – it would look terrible. Ms. Santini elaborated that the view is ---PAGE BREAK--- the main reason they purchased the property and the reason why they have landscaped and invested money in a pergola and lawn furniture, which is the reason they need a larger storage shed. The Board members agreed that the property was maintained nicely but informed her that the view is not a factor that they weigh considerably in their decision because land purchase is a two dimensional factor in which the view does not exist. They did state as well that the waterfront district properties have been given larger leeway and latitude in determining variances because of many factors – smaller properties more common, less need for septic systems and wells because of availability of public utilities, the view is a large factor for the purchase and development of most properties, and finally because of the proximity of Fair Haven which has much smaller dimensional requirements. Member Uetz asked the applicant if they had considered repairing the existing shed and was informed that the old shed is rotted and beyond being able to be rebuilt. The Board members began discussing other possible locations for the shed that would not encroach on the side property line as greatly. Moving closer to the house and/or the possibility of attaching it to the house was not favorable to the applicants because the north side of the house had nearly $10,000 of improvements in sidewalks and landscaping this past year which the owners were unwilling to disrupt. Michele Santini’s husband, Tony Gambacurta, stated that the shed is necessary and the location needs to be practical and efficient for its usage as well as enhance the property and design thus far. The family and their friends spend a majority of their time in the yard, as do most of the people in the neighborhoods surrounding the bay, therefore placing the shed in the back yard blocks the very view that they have designed the property to enhance. It would also increase the cost to place it in the back yard because of the fill needed for proper placement and the labor to do the work. The present location is the most economical and efficient spot, as well as the least invasive to the property, the view (theirs and the neighbors) and the general character of the neighborhood. Member Uetz questioned the existing propane tank size, and was told that it is 2 feet shorter than the shed or 8’ long. A Board member also asked the setback of the pergola and was told 10’ from the fence. Member Palmieri stated that according to the LUR accessory structures must be 20’ from the residential structure and in this case 20’ from the side property line, but only 22.5’currently exists. If the applicants encroached upon the house to be 10’ from the house which would comply with the fire code separation, then the shed would be farther from the property line and have substantially less relief requested. In the past the ZBA has entertained 10’ side setbacks to be more in line with the Fair Haven codes and if the new shed were 10’ from the fence it would be in alignment with the pergola therefore appearing symmetrical. Ms. Santini again addressed the photos of the property to illustrate that the shed located in the side yard would disrupt the flow and appearance of what has already been built - landscaping, pergola, sidewalks and views. She was unwilling to settle on an alternate location and stated that if a variance couldn’t be granted then they wouldn’t purchase the shed, instead they would extend the driveway with gravel into the shed area and buy a wheeled utility trailer that wouldn’t have to comply with setbacks but wouldn’t add to the character of neighborhood either which is a criteria the Board has to consider. The Board members questioned what mitigation was acceptable thus far as follows: ~ Member Palmieri – Favored moving the shed 10’ from fence, but due to that encroachment on the house, also favored moving the shed closer to the road. ~ Member Uetz – Due to the septic location in the rear yard and the degree of slope and added fill required, and the location of the grinder pump in the south side yard, he feels that the proposed location changed from 1’ to 3.5’ would be acceptable and maintain the 20’ separation between residential and accessory structures. ~ Member Dates – Agrees with Member Uetz that reducing the variance to the north while still complying with the 20’ separation would be acceptable. ~ Chairman Lemon – Concerned with the precedent this would establish for an area that requires mitigation for nearly every building project without justifiable reasons. ~ Member Itzin – Agrees with Chairman Lemon that 1’ setback sets a terrible precedent. He also felt that Member Uetz’s earlier suggestion of attaching the shed to the garage by means of an architectural attachment (as has been done in the past) could work if the applicants were willing to compromise their present design. ---PAGE BREAK--- At this time Chairman Lemon opened the floor to the public for comments as follows: A neighboring resident, Kathy Rode, in favor of the project had voiced her opinion several times during the Board’s deliberations. She felt strongly that it was unfair of the Town and the ZBA to penalize a property owner wanting to improve and enhance their property because they were unaware of the non-conforming status of their property. The chosen location is hidden from view from all of the neighbors and has worked well since its installation because of its location being close to the driveway and house entrance which makes the usage practical and efficient. It makes no sense that to replace a structure with a larger structure means that it has to have a new location befitting setbacks that do not work well with the smaller lots found all along West Bay Road and the Village of Fair Haven. She concluded with –it’s just a shed. The Board Members voiced agreement in some respects due to the large number of variance requests they receive for the waterfront district properties, but they also stated that that is the reason why a ZBA exists – to allow leniency where the dimensional requirements can restrict the use of one’s property. The Board Members conducted a straw poll vote to gauge where the matter stood – only two members (Members Dates and Uetz) were in favor of the requested variances. Chairman Lemon inquired of the applicant if tabling the meeting to allow them time to alter their location would be helpful and was told that they would rather purchase a mobile utility storage unit than locate the shed elsewhere on the property. The applicants were frustrated with the ZBA process and commented that they had elected to follow the legal process and do it the right way when everyone had said to them to just replace it and see what happens. Since the existing shed had been hidden from view it was doubtful that anyone would even notice the change. Without further public comments the Hearing was closed at 8:05 pm on a motion moved by Member Dates and seconded by Member Itzin, all were in favor and the motion carried. The Board members began deliberations of the two variance requests for the storage shed to be placed 1’ from the side and 65’ from the front property lines. ~ Member Dates began by stating that the ZBA has dealt with numerous design issues and pre-existing structures on small lots and have done their best to uphold the intent of the LUR requirements while balancing the wants and needs of property owners both requesting variances and living next to those properties. It usually involves a lot of give and take on everyone’s part and a major driving force has been maintaining site lines. For this reason he is in agreement that the shed should not be placed in the back yard where it could conform dimensionally but would sabotage the beauty of the property location. ~ Chairman Lemon voiced concern of the precedent an approval would set for future applications. He added that aesthetics does not provide a justifiable reason for approval because the variance stays with the property not just the structure and could potentially be utilized to the disadvantage of the neighbors in the future. The shed could be placed in conformance as well as in several alternate locations not requiring as substantial a request. If the applicant were agreeable to the 10’ dimension for the side setback he would be in agreement to approving both requests. ~ Member Palmieri agreed with the Chairman’s remarks and is not in agreement to a 1’ side setback for any structure. The Board has been diligent in the consistency of relief granted with 10’ for sides to be in line with the Village standards and some relief of front setback for the same reasons, but in his opinion this request exceeds the acceptable limits. He also stated that the continued increased encroachment on the sides is becoming essentially a taking from the neighbor because only one property could be awarded a variance with a fire code separation being the only measurement left. ~ Member Itzin agreed that the 1’ request would be a terrible precedent. He is comfortable at 3’ which upholds the 20’ separation between the house and the accessory structure. The proposed storage shed is only 140 sf and therefore not required to have a building permit, if in the future an application for a larger and more substantial structure were to be processed then conformance with a building permit and NYS buildings and fire codes would eliminate the location. ~ Member Uetz stated that the applicants have a hardship to deal with in the location of the propane tank that was installed prior to their purchase and is an element they are forced to work around. The tank is a fixed structure and thus far has been hidden from view by the existing shed. If the applicant must relocate the proposed shed then the tanks become visible and create an eyesore where there ---PAGE BREAK--- wasn’t one before. The front setback is also dictated by the location of the propane tank. Member Uetz is agreeable to 10’ of relief for the front and 17’ of relief for the side. ~ Member Dates commented that every variance request application is reviewed individually on its own merits and is not so worried that if substantial relief were granted it would negatively affect other applications to be reviewed. The fact that there are no neighbors present to oppose the application in a neighborhood where houses are practically on top of each other lends credence to the argument that substantial relief for a small shed is not going to be very consequential. A motion to grant relief of 10’ for front setback and 17’ relief for side setback in connection to a 10’x14’ storage shed was moved by Member Uetz and seconded by Member Itzin, a role call vote was taken with three members in favor and two members against, the motion carried. Resolution 2017-09 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 10’ relief for front setback requirement and 17’ relief for side setback requirement in regards to proposed 14’x10’ storage shed, as located on submitted plan dated 9/14/17, on property located at 14780 West Bay Road, Sterling, NY 13156; Tax Map # 8.07-1-13 is hereby GRANTED. Roll call vote was taken: Lawrence Lemon, Chairman Naye Richard Palmieri, Member Naye Darrell Uetz, Member Aye Charles Itzin, Member Aye Brad Dates, Member Aye 3 AYES 2 NAYES 0 ABSTENTIONS – REQUEST APPROVED MINUTES A motion to approve meeting minutes for August 21, 2017 was moved by Member Itzin and seconded by Member Uetz, all were in favor and the motion carried. Members Dates and Lemon abstained from the vote as they absent from the meeting. ADJOURN On a motion by Member Palmieri and seconded by Member Dates, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 PM. Approved Minutes, Respectfully submitted, Lisa Somers ZBA Clerk