TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 15, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN CALARCO AT: 7:18 P.M.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
David Calarco, Chairman Elizabeth Gable
Anthony Maier Sue Goold Miller
Nadine Fuda, Director of Planning and Zoning Timothy Nugent, Esq
Melissa Knights, Transcriptionist
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda, Director, read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record on the following variance application(s):
Mark Coyne published on March 9, 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MARK COYNE Z651-07/R20/17712-7-5 AREA VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING
12 Ingewood Road . - Proposed Garage will enter side yard setback
Chairman Calarco opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
The public hearing was canceled due to no quorum, tonight's agenda will be re-schedule for the April 19, 2007 meeting .
Chairman Calarco closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
MARK COYNE Z651-07/R20/17712-7-5 AREA VARIANCE - DECISION
12 Ingewood Road . - Proposed Garage will enter side yard setback
The Board members reviewed the area variance criteria.
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant?
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties?
3) Is the request substantial?
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect?
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created?
6) Conditions:
Moved, seconded that the area variance be GRANTED.
Grant. Deny. Variance granted.
Grant: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
ADJOURN
moved, seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Calarco adjourned the meeting at p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
The minutes above reflect the action of the Board at this meeting. The actions and the basis for said actions are more particularly set forth in the decision document which is on file in the corresponding case file and in the Office of the Town Clerk.
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 17, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN CALARCO AT: 7:18 P.M.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
David Calarco, Chairman James Bult
Anthony Maier
Nadine Fuda, Director of Planning and Zoning
Elizabeth Gable
Sue Goold Miller
Timothy Nugent, Esq
Melissa Knights, Secretary
APPROVE MINUTES - December 21, 2006
Maier motioned, Miller seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes be approved as submitted.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Miller, Maier
Object: None
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda, Director, read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record on the following variance application(s):
Mark Coyne published on March 9, 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MARK COYNE Area Variance 10% Coverage & Side Yard Setback -Public Hearing Z652-07/R20/177.12-7-5 10% coverage
Z651-07/R20/177.12-7-5 Side Yard Setback
12 Inglewood Road-Proposed Garage will enter 10% Coverage and Side Yard Setback
Open Public Hearing 7: 04
Mark Coyne applicant was present for this meeting.
Mark Coyne explained that he would like to extend his one car into to a two car garage. The addition would be 14 feet wide and 24 feet long, leaving a side yard of only 10 feet.
Chairman Calcaro asked if the dimensions have been changed from the Planning Board meeting where he stated that the addition was to be 16 feet wide.
Mr. Coyne stated that he decreased the size to accommodate a side walk.
Elizabeth Gable asked if the roof ridge line would remain the same.
Mr. Coyne stated yes, the roof line will stay the same.
Mrs. Gable asked when the house was built.
Mr. Coyne stated the house was built in 1957.
Mr. Nugent asked if there were any additions since then.
Mr. Coyne stated that in 2002 he put on a 35 by 30 addition and a 16 by 20 deck.
Chairman Claraco, explained the town code for the 10% coverage, and side yard set back. Noting the property has exceeded both town requirements.
Mrs. Gable asked if the side yard is grandfathered in.
Chairman Claraco stated No, and explains that this is a nonconforming lot and can not be expanded on.
MARK COYNE Z652-07/R20/177.12-7-5 Area Variance 10% Coverage
The Board members reviewed the area variance criteria (10% Coverage).
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? NO
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? NO
3) Is the request substantial? YES
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? NO
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? YES
6) Conditions NONE
Elizabeth moved, Tony seconded that the area variance be DENIED
2 Grant, 2 Deny. Variance denied
Deny: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
MARK COYNE Z651-07/R20/177.12-7-5 Area Variance Side Yard Setback
The Board members reviewed the area variance criteria (Side Yard Setback).
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? NO
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? NO
3) Is the request substantial? YES
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? NO
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? YES
6) Conditions: Must conform to the rest of the house with no living space.
SEQRA - Unlisted action.
Marer moved, Calarco seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals be LEAD AGENCY relative to the variance only.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Calacro moved, Maier seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Elizabeth moved, Sue seconded that the area variance be GRANTED
3 Grant, 1 Deny. Variances granted.
Grant: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
ADJOURN
Tony moved, Dave seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Calarco adjourned the meeting at p.m. 8:04
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS June 21, 2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN CALARCO AT: 7: 00 P.M.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
David Calarco, Chairman Melissa Knights, Secretary
Elizabeth Gable
Anthony Maier
Sue Goold Miller
James Bult
Timothy Nugent, Esq.
Nadine Fuda, Director of Planning and Zoning
APPROVE MINUTES - May 17, 2007
Chairman Calarco welcomes new zoning member James Bult to the board.
Maier motioned, Gable seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes be approved as amended.
4 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller,
Abstain: Bult
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda, Director, read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record on the following variance application(s):
Mark Coyne published on June 21, 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MARK COYNE Z653-07/R20/17712-7-5 AREA VARIANCE 12 Ingewood Road.
Mr. Nugent requested the Planning Board Minutes to be apart of this Zoning meeting.
Minutes from the Planning Board:
The Board discussed the reason this item is back to Planning and it was stated that Mr. Coyne is looking for an area variance for the coverage he already has on the lot.
Puccio moved, Mayrer seconded a "FAVORABLE" recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Goold, Johnson, Kedzierski, Mayrer, Puccio
Oppose: None
Chairman Calarco recaps the last meeting, stating that Mark Coyne was granted the side yard setback but was denied the 10% coverage.
We are here tonight to review a variance on the current lot coverage as it stands today.
Chairman Calarco asked Mr. Coyne on his lot and states the acceptable coverage is 1750 sq ft and is currently 3154 sq ft. this is an 80% increase in coverage.
Mr. Coyne states that he is looking to have zoning approval on the current lot coverage of 3154 sq ft.
Mrs. Fuda stated the house and garage before any additions was 1464 sq feet.
Mr. Nugent and Mr. Coyne discussed the coverage on the lot.
· Original house with attached garage - sq ft 1464
· Old shed 8x12 - 96 sq ft. ( replaced )
· New shed 16x20 - 320 sq ft. the increase difference of 224 sq ft.
· New addition is 1404 sq. ft.
· New deck is 320 sq ft.
· Total square foot coverage on the lot is 3154
Mr. Nugent asked if he is looking for zoning approval for the existing lot coverage as it stands today. Knowing he went through the appropriate approval and was granted the permits to build. And removing the addition to become a conforming lot would cause monetary hardship.
Mr. Coyne answered yes.
Mr. Nugent asked Mr. Coyne if there is any reasonable way for him to meet his desired structural needs and still be in compliance with code.
Mr. Coyne answered no.
Chairman Calarco stated for the record that there was a mistake made by the town by not recognizing the lot was over the 10% coverage. And building permits were issued. Also wanted it stated that this was by no fault of Mr. Coyne, and he has benefited greatly by the towns error.
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? NO
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? NO
3) Is the request substantial? YES
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? NO
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? YES
6) Conditions:
Ms. Gable wanted on the record that she feels item number 5 should be (NO)
this is not self-created.
Mr. Nugent explains the definition of (self-created) as the code is written.
SEQRA - Unlisted action.
Marer moved, Calarco seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals be LEAD AGENCY relative to the variance only.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller, Bult
Calacro moved, Maier seconded a NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller, Bult
Chairman Calcaro states that they are granting a variance on the current 3154 sq ft.
lot coverage.
Gable moved, Maier seconded that the area variance be GRANTED.
5 Grant. 0 Deny. Variance granted.
Grant: Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller, Bult
ADJOURN
Maier moved, Calarco seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Calarco adjourned the meeting at p.m. 7:22
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
TOWN OF SCHODACK COUNTY OF RENSSELAER STATE OF NEW YORK
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 19,2007
CALLED TO ORDER BY: CHAIRMAN CALARCO AT: 7:01 P.M.
PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
David Calarco, Chairman Melissa Knights, Secretary
Elizabeth Gable
Anthony Maier
Sue Goold Miller
James Bult
Timothy Nugent, Esq.
Nadine Fuda, Director of Planning and Zoning
APPROVE MINUTES - JUNE 21, 2007
Maier motioned, Miller seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes be approved.
Mrs. Gable request the minutes to have more detail of the conversations taken place at the meetings.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda, Director, read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record on the following variance application(s): Area Variance
Victoria Moore published on July 12 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"NO RECOMMENDATION" by the Planning Board.
Victoria Moore Z654-07/R-20/201.12-1-5 Area Variance
19 North Overlook
Proposed - Area Variance
Chairman Calarco opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
Victoria Moore was present for this meeting.
Chairman Calarco stated that the Planning Board gave a "No Recommendation" on this variance application and the county have reviewed the plans and has no conflict and that local consideration shall prevail.
Ms. Moore stated that they purchased the home 9 years ago; Now that her son is 13 years old, they would like more space. The applicant is requesting to put an addition to match the other side of the home.
Ms. Moore states that the addition will attach to the backside of the house, come around the front, and look the same as the other side of the home.
Chairman Calarco asked if the roof expansion would remain the same as the existing roofline. In addition, asked if the siding will also match the rest of the house.
Ms. Moore states yes, that the engineer doing the plans is working the current roof over the kitchen area into the new roof. In addition, the siding will match.
Chairman Calarco asked Ms. Moore if she knew when the house was built.
Ms. Moore stated she had no idea when the home was constructed.
Ms. Gable asked about the one part of the house that comes forward. Is it with in the setback?
Ms. Moore stated no, the current setback runs through the middle of her living room.
Chairman Calarco requests every one to look at the plans and note that the dotted line that runs through the middle of the house is in fact the setback; the small rectangular section on the side is the only allowable setback area to put in an addition.
Ms. Gable asked if this was grandfathered in when the zone code was adopted.
Chairman Calarco states yes this house was build before the code was adopted.
Chairman Calarco opens the floor for public comment.
No Comment From the public
Hearing closed at 7:08 p.m.
SEQRA - Unlisted action. Uncoordinated review.
Maier moved, Calarco seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals be LEAD AGENCY relative to the variance only.
Victoria Moore Continued…
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Calarco moved, Gable seconded a NEGITATIVE DECLARATION.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Maier moved, Miller seconded that the area variance be GRANTED .
5 Grant. 0 Deny. Variance granted.
Grant: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? No
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? No
3) Is the request substantial? Yes
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? No
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes
6) Conditions: The new construction will be like the existing structure.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nadine Fuda, Director, read the hearing notice(s) as published in the Troy Record on the following variance application(s): Front Yard Setback
Steve Komp published on July 12 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Steve Komp Z655-07/RA/179.-5-25.214 Front Yard Setback
10 Palmer Road
Proposed Front Yard Setback
"UNFAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION from Planning Board meeting held on 7/16/07
Chairman Calarco opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
Brian Pier, Homeowner, Steve Komp, Excavator and concrete contractor, Nick Demose, Project Engineer, were all present for this meeting.
Mr. Demose spoke about the survey plan and stated that they have the septic system and the house foundation in. There was a misunderstanding about the 50-foot front yard setback. They measured from the edge of the road and not from the right a way. When the surveyor went out to the site to locate the foundation they find that they are approximately 13 feet to close to Rt. 150. He states that this is a corner lot and the house faces Palmer Road, the garage shown on the site plan is not built yet, but it will be a side load garage with the driveway off Palmer road. As they looked at the lot, they did not want to get to close to the property line or the North West corner which is Army Corp wetlands. So they were wrestling with a few tight constraints, They request a variance from the board to consider Palmer road to be the front yard setback and Rt. 150 the side yard setback.
Mrs. Gable request Mr. Demose to explain again the constraints.
Mr. Demose states the North West corner is an Army Corp Wetland and the plans show a side load garage to the west of the property.
Mrs. Gable asked how big is the wetlands.
Mr. Demose states that it touches only a small portion of the property about two tenths to a ¼ of an acre. It part of a 10-acre wetland extending back onto Palmer Road.
Chairman Calarco states for the record, that the county recommendation was that local consideration should prevail. The planning board gave a "Negitative" recommendation at their meeting held on July 16 2007.
Chairman Calarco speaks to Mr. Demose about the survey and the fact that front yard setback is 17 feet short.
Mr. Demose states that is correct. He looked at the 33-foot measurement, and just miscalculated the distance.
Chairman Calarco states to the members, there is a memo from the building department inspector Gary Ziegler. In addition, states that the memo gives some background information as to how we got to where we are. He then reads the memo. (See exhibit A). With that information, it is unclear how this happened.
Exhibit A
MEMO
TO: Planning & Zoning Department
FROM: Building Department
Steve Komp Continued…
RE: Pier variance request (Palmer Road)
DATE: July 16. 2007
As per recent inquiries concerning the Pier property on Palmer Road, the following should be noted.
1. The original proposed plot plan submitted by the contractor showed a 30' set back on the Route 150 side of the property. The plot plan was returned to the contractor advising that the property was a corner lot, and two 50' front set backs were required. The plot plan was amended by the contractor and returned to the building department with proposed setbacks on the Route 150 and on Palmer Road with minimum set backs of 50'
2. At the time of a foundation inspection on 6-13-07 (before pouring concrete) it was discussed with the contractor that the set backs form Route 150 just seemed to close. The contractor advised that he had measured it off, and added a little extra distance just to make sure.
3. On 6-21-07 the building department was advised by the contractor that the foundation appears to be into the set back on the Route 150 front of the building. A stop work order was issued by the building department.
4. On July 10, 2007 the Building Department received a certified foundation location which confirmed that the structure sets within the set back of Route 150.
Mr. Komp states that everything in the memo is correct; when he resubmitted the 50', it was his understanding that it was from the road. He stated that he was unclear and had called in to verify the information. And he was told that it was 50' from the road. What he did not understand it was 50' from the road boundary. Mr. Ziegler informed him after he had the walls for the pouring of the foundation in. When he had the surveyor come in and certify the foundation he found out the Mr. Ziegler was
correct it was at that time he went to the building department and informed what had happened, where his misunderstanding was and stated that he wanted to do whatever he could to rectify the situation.
Ms. Gable exactly how far from the edge of the pavement is the house foundation.
Mr. Komp states that it is 49 feet.
Ms. Gable asked if he meant from the pavement. In addition, so the part of the memo where the contractor advised that he had measured it off and added a little extra distance just to make sure, where is the extra footage?
Mr. Komp states that the footings were already in, with room to move the footings to meet code
integrity you have certain a mount of space between the footing and the wall to play with.
Ms. Gable states that she understands what he is saying. However, paragraph two of the memo statess (At the time of a foundation inspection on 6-13-07 (before pouring concrete) it was discussed with the contractor that the set backs from Route 150 just seemed to close. The contractor advised that he had measured it off, and added a little extra distance just to make sure). Some thing just is not jelling here.
Mr. Komp states that sometimes when you pour a concrete wall it goes out of plum.
Ms. Gable states that it seems he just goofed up and in fact did not add any extra distance, because to her extra distance would have been 5 or 10 feet extra just to be on the save side. However, you were actually under the fifty feet just from the pavement.
Mr. Komp states you are correct. For the record, I did screw up.
Mr. Maier asked what the total length the house and garage.
Mr. Komp states it is 80 feet.
Ms. Gable asked Mr. Pier the homeowner how he feels about the home being so close to Rt. 150, which is a very busy road with heavy truck traffic.
Mr. Pier states that one thing he and his wife were concerned about was the cosmetics of the house and wanted a side load garage, they did not want it facing the front of the road, and they are fine with how close the house sits to the 150 side of the lot.
Chairman Calarco states to Mr. Pier that the code clearly stats that if you have a corner lot you have two 50 foot front yard setbacks from the property line.
He was at Mr. Pier's property and measured the distance and there is clearly enough room for the house to be moved so it would meet the code requirements. He sees the end load garage as being the consideration but he measures and there is plenty room to move the foundation. There is nothing on the site that would prevent
the foundation from being put in correctly.
Chairman Calarco asked Mr. Zeigler to clarify a section of his memo stating that the plans showed a side yard setback being 30 feet, (facing Rt. 150).
Mr. Ziegler stated that is correct.
Mr. Nugent asked if the plans showed the 30 foot setback from the road or from the boundary line.
Mr. Ziegler state it was 30 feet from the property line.
Chairman Calarco asked if he was advised of the 50-foot setback and returned the plans. The plans were then resubmitted correctly.
Mr. Ziegler state that he and Mr. Komp spoke about the issue and he deleted the 30 feet and marked the plans at 50 feet.
Mr. Nugent stated that the revised plot plan showed the 50 feet not from the road way but from the property line.
Mr. Ziegler stated that was correct.
Mrs. Gable asked Mr. Ziegler if the discussion with Mr. Komp was clear that the edge of the pavement was not the proper place to measure to 50 feet.
Mr. Ziegler stated the discussion was after the foundation footing were already in
but the concrete was not pored. And the distance was clear because of the grade.
Mr. Komp stated that he measured from the road.
Mrs. Gable asked if he meant from the road or the boundary.
Mr. Ziegler stated from the edge of the road. And he said that he did not think that the edge of the road was the property and it needed to be checked into. There are places in the town what the edge of the road is the property line in some places it is the middle of the road. Mr. Komp stated he had it taken care of and they left it at that until they had a survey done.
Mrs. Gable asked if they waited to pour the concrete until after the survey.
Mr. Ziegler stated that they poured the concrete that day. Because you cannot get a foundation survey until there is one.
Mrs. Gable asked who would make the determination of where the property line was is the project engineer responsible to know the codes.
Mr. Demose stated that is true. But he was not called into the project at that time. He designed the septic system and the foundation plans, and was out to inspect the septic system.
Mr. Nugen stated, just so the board is clear he shows Mr. Ziegler what was attached to the application. Is this the as build foundation location? This is not the plot plan that he received is it?
Mr. Ziegler stated no he has the actual plot plan.
Chairman Calarco asked the members if they wanted to see the actual plot plan.
Members stated yes.
Mr. Komp stated that there were two different survey map there was his and then there was the original survey of the property.
Chairman Calarco stated the one was the survey of the property with the proposal and the other is the survey done after the fact.
Mr. Maier asked Mr. Demose if the septic was behind the house.
Mr. Demose state no it is in the front corner between Palmer Road and Rt. 150.
That was the best land for the raised system.
Member discussion on the property line and the right a way.
Mr. Nugent asked Mr. Ziegler to come up and clarify something on the plot plan.
The section marked NYS Route 150 this designation seams to be with in two bolder black lines, as you are coming west from that designation NYS Route 150 you've got a bold black line and a short distance away there is a lighter black line then a space and a lighter black line followed by a broken bold black line. Is the broken bold black line is that the property boundary.
Mr. Ziegler stated yes the bold black line is the property line.
Mr. Nugent then asked if the solid bold black line by Route 150 is that the edge of the pavement for the road.
Mr. Ziegler stated yes it is.
Mr. Nugent asked if the space in between is that the 16.9 feet as designated on the as build foundation.
Mr. Ziegler stated yes.
Members discussed the right of way.
Chairman Calarco request that a copy of the map is added to the file, list it in the minutes as exhibit B.
Mrs. Fuda stated OK.
Steve Komp Continued…
Mrs. Gable asked where the well is located.
Mr. Kemp stated that it is in the back towards the wetlands.
Mr. Nugent stated that the plot plan showing the 50-foot setback will be listed as Exhibit B
Chairman Calarco asked the public for comments.
No Public Comment
Hearing closed at 7:36 p.m.
1) Can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Yes
2) Will the granting of the variance create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or to nearby properties? No
3) Is the request substantial? Yes
4) Will the request have an adverse physical or environmental effect? No
5) Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes
6) Conditions:
Chairman Calarco asked Mr. Pier about his house that is being delivered and when.
Mr. Pier stated around the first week of August.
Mr. Bult states that he agrees that if they did grant it would compromise their position in the future. They need to stick to the zoning they have in place.
Chairman Calarco agreed with Mr. Bult.
Mrs. Gable states that it seams to her that the discussions that took place between the building inspector and the contractor made it vary clear especially on the day of the pouring when he said (it look to close). There is and old saying that she has heard form carpenters and that is 'Measure twice cut once' and would think that if the building inspector was there and said that this doesn't look right to me I wouldn't go ahead and pour, that day I would go and measure again. If the actual house foundation is exactly 49 feet from the road I don't see that any little extra was added. I don't understand why you would take that chance. She agrees that it just doesn't seam that the building inspectors opinion was taken seriously. It was just easer to pour and ask for forgiveness later. She said she would be the first one to be sympathetic in a case like this but it seams you had lots of notice.
Steve Komp Continued…
Mr. Maier states that he feels sorry about this situation but he thinks that five to ten years down the road the home owner maybe a lot happier with the extra 17 feet.
Mrs. Gable states who's to say that 150 won't be widened at some point.
SEQRA - Unlisted action. Uncoodinated review.
Maier moved, Miller seconded that the Zoning Board of Appeals be LEAD AGENCY relative to the variance only.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Calarco moved, Bult seconded a NEGITATIVE DECLARATION.
5 Ayes. 0 Noes. Motion carried.
Ayes: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
Calarco moved, Maier seconded that the area variance be DENIED .
0 Grant. 5 Deny. Variance Denied
Denied: Bult, Calarco, Gable, Maier, Miller
ADJOURN :
Calarco moved, Miller seconded that the meeting be adjourned. There being no objections, Chairman Calarco adjourned the meeting at 7:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nadine Fuda
Director of Planning & Zoning
The minutes above reflect the action of the Board at this meeting. The actions and the basis for said actions are more particularly set forth in the decision document which is on file in the corresponding case file and in the Office of the Town Clerk.