Full Text
TOWN OF STERLING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 12, 2018 A meeting of the Town of Sterling Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, February 12, 2018 at the Sterling Town Hall with the following members present: Laurence Lemon ~ Chairman Richard Palmieri ~ Member Darrell Uetz ~ Member Charles Itzin ~ Member Brad Dates ~ Member Also Present : Charles Kanasola Jr. and Christine Katura. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chairman Lemon. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lemon stated that the Hearing for Charles Kanasola had been tabled on December 18, 2018 to allow the applicant time to obtain measurements and estimates that were requested by the Board members. The Public Hearing had been advertised in the paper, the Town website and the Town bulletin board. He reopened the Hearing at 7:01 PM and asked the applicant to present any additional informati0n they had gathered. Mr. Kanasola supplied an estimate for moving the waterline for $2,000, and stated that it would be another $500 to $1,000 to remove the tree; both were needed to center up the building and lessen the request for side setback. Although the cost was less than the applicant expected, he stated that it was still unaffordable for them. Member Dates had requested measurements to locate the waterline in relation to existing structures and the well but found them to be inconsequential if the applicant was unable to pay to relocate the line. It was noted that the homes in the neighborhood were setback equal distances from the road with garages and sheds, therefore the pole barn wouldn’t be out of place. The pole barn would be located more than 120’ from the edge of the road, and situated behind the existing house and garage making it unnoticeable from the roadway. The neighboring property on the west has an existing shed approximately 6’ from the property line in question which further impacts the situation. Mr. Kanasola and Ms. Katura were adamant that they had consulted CEO Applebee before purchasing the property to confirm that they could place a pole barn on the property and were told that it wouldn’t be a problem. Had they known that it would have been, they wouldn’t have purchased the house. The couple own several antique and collectible vehicles that they wanted to store on their property instead of in various storage facilities, and was the purpose for buying the property that they did. A motion to close the Public Hearing at 7:31 PM was moved by Chairman Lemon and seconded by Member Palmieri, all were in favor and the motion carried. The Board members discussed the original proposal to place the pole barn 5’ from the west property line and request a 15’ variance. Member Uetz summarized that the applicant wanted to stay away from the existing waterline and stay in the area of level ground, both to eliminate additional construction costs. The property is small and odd shaped (flag lot), and the proposal would require a substantial variance. Member Palmieri stated that side setback regulations are based on fire and emergency access and shouldn’t be infringed upon. He also stated that a variance for side setback is akin to a taking from your neighbor’s property because it eliminates the neighbor from future usage as well. The members partook in a straw poll vote for the submitted proposal that would require a 15’ variance, it resulted in 5 nay votes and failed. Member Palmieri informed the applicant that the ZBA can bend when a hardship cannot be overcome but this property has options for placement of the pole barn, and for that reason he would not be able to vote affirmative unless concession were to be made by the applicant. The width of the property at 75’ allows for a 30’ building and 20’ for both side setbacks and the cost to accomplish it is not large enough to be considered a hardship. Discussion ensued regarding the existing structures. Chairman Lemon asked about the age of the home and existing garage which were both built previous to Town zoning. The original house location established the location for the existing garage, septic tank and leach lines, propane tank and gas line as well as the design for the waterline which leaves the house under the driveway, runs along the side of ---PAGE BREAK--- the garage, curves around the back of the garage and extends diagonally across the back yard to the well which is located on the west side of the property. Chairman Lemon concluded that if the house were to burn, the resultant property layout would not be conducive to a new home design, therefore making the requested variance difficult to rationalize. Member Dates reiterated that it’s a problem they encounter frequently - odd sized and odd shaped lots with buildings that predate zoning can create difficulty when attempting to modernize. The Board members turned their discussion to create scenarios for placement of the pole barn that would require a smaller variance request than proposed. The most obvious solution would be to maintain the 20’ side setback by moving the pole barn east 15’ and south a distance far enough to clear the waterline which would locate the structure at a lower grade and require increased fill and cost. This location could also be within a flood hazard area which would either eliminate the ability to obtain a building permit or increase the cost exponentially to build above the floodplain. A second straw poll vote was taken to determine the acceptance of a proposed location further back on the property, it resulted in 5 nay votes and failed because of the increased cost burden to the applicant as well as difficulty imposed to build in the floodplain area. Further examination of the property site plan yielded a final proposal with discussion as follows. Chairman Lemon questioned whether forcing the waterline location change would allow for placement of the building while maintaining 20’ setback on both sides. He stated that if the setbacks could be maintained then he would support moving the building otherwise he could be in favor of a variance. Member Charlie Itzin communicated the same thoughts and wondered if the lot was a buildable property at all because of the swamp and floodplain elevations encompassing a majority of the acreage. Member Uetz pondered the idea of building the pole barn over the waterline for now and dealing with any disruption to the water service in the future, if and when it ever happens. The construction of a pole barn would not involve a foundation and could conceivably have no impact on the waterline. The cost to repair or relocate could occur in the future when money becomes available and could even be preemptive by starting at the connection point near the ‘flag corner’ and reroute with all new line to the house. Member Palmieri informed the Board that a 20’ accessory structure separation would need to be addressed ( LUR Article IX, Section 3 in connection to the existing garage if they plan to maintain the 20’ side setbacks. Scaled measuring of the site plan yielded that a 10’ separation could exist between the buildings which would require a 10’ variance or 50% which is less substantial than the original request. Member Dates reiterated the longtime effect and infringement on neighboring properties a variance creates when dealing with old structures which may be replaced in the future. A variance awarded for circumstances internal to the property eliminates impact to the neighbor and increases overall resale value. Mr. Kanasola was asked if he would consider moving the 30’x50’ pole barn 15’ to the east in order to establish the 20’ side setback on both sides and maintain a minimum of 10’ between the existing garage and the new structure, to which he was in agreement to. The increased costs to move the waterline and add fill to the low area predicated a new solution which the Board agreed was less impactful to the neighboring property. The original proposal for a 15’ variance was substantial and was not a precedent that the ZBA wanted to create, especially since alternative locations were discovered and found to be acceptable to the applicant. A motion was moved by Member Palmieri to accept a 10’ variance for the 20’ required separation between structures and maintain 20’ side setbacks for both the west and east property lines. The motion was seconded by Member Itzin, all were in favor without further discussion and the motion carried. Resolution 2018-01 BE IT RESOLVED, by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Sterling, upon the facts presented and the determination made, that the requested variance for relief of setback requirement to build a proposed 50’x30’ pole barn, have 10 feet relief from the 20 feet accessory structure separation requirement Article IX, Section 3(G)(4) with at least 20’ setback from the west property line and at least 20’ setback from the east property line to eliminate the need for side yard setback variance , as located on submitted plan dated 2/12/18, on property located at 15404 State Route 104, Martville, NY 13111; Tax Map # 16.00-3-30 is hereby GRANTED. Roll call vote was taken: Lawrence Lemon, Chairman Aye Richard Palmieri, Member Aye Darrell Uetz, Member Aye ---PAGE BREAK--- Charles Itzin, Member Aye Brad Dates, Member Aye 5 AYES 0 NAYES 0 ABSTENTIONS – REQUEST APPROVED MINUTES A motion to approve meeting minutes for December 18, 2017 was moved by Member Itzin and seconded by Chairman Lemon, Member Uetz abstained from the vote, all were in favor and the motion carried. ADJOURN On a motion by Member Palmieri and seconded by Member Dates, the meeting was adjourned at 8:52 PM. Unapproved Minutes, Respectfully submitted, Lisa Somers ZBA Clerk