TOWN OF
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
October 20, 2010
The Town of Macedon Zoning Board
of Appeals meeting was held on Wednesday, October 20, 2010, 7:30 p.m., at the
Town Complex,
Mr. Jeffries called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. He then explained the purpose for which this Board serves and read the Legal Notice as it appeared in the Times.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Z-04-10 Carner 1536 Cockle Road Area Variance Section 135-61-B-5 Accessory structure in front yard The public hearing began with Code Enforcement Officer Michael Nelson giving a history of this matter. In response to a complaint, Mr. Nelson visited the property and observed an accessory structure being built in the front yard. The resident was notified that a permit was required for the project, and a couple of days later Mr. Carner picked up the paperwork. However, the structure was completed before the application was returned to the Building Department. Mr. Nelson then issued an appearance ticket to the resident. When the application was received, a building permit was denied due to the location of the structure (front yard), and the applicant was instructed to apply for a zoning variance. With permission from the resident, Mr. Nelson again visited the site prior to this meeting and observed other accessory structures on the property. A pole barn (with a permit) had been expanded (no permits), an above-ground pool & deck (with permits) and hot tub with covering structure (no permit) made a total of three (3) accessory structures already on the property. Town Code allows two (2) such structures. As a result of these facts, Mr. Nelson recommended a negative referral from the Building Department.
Applicant Kelly Carner was present to review his variance request. Mr. Carner stated the structure in question (shelter for his boat) was placed in its current location due to an existing pad to which he had added a new layer of stone. The structure is located on the west side of his property where there are no neighbors/houses. He did not think the structure needed a permit because it is not a permanent structure (no footers in the ground) and could be moved. Mr. Carner completed the work after being notified of the need for a permit because he felt if the Town wanted him to stop the work he would have been given a Stop Work Order. He did not intend to ignore the request for a permit.
Mr. Gravino questioned the number of structures on the property and corresponding permits. Mr. Cook questioned the second driveway where this structure is located.
A neighboring resident also spoke in opposition to the granting of the variance. Resident stated the existing accessory structures are very visible from their property, and would not like to see another structure added.
·
· Planning Board Negative referral. They felt the subject structure
should be located on the property to comply with Town Code;
applicant did not give reasons why structure should be placed in
proposed location.
· Town Board No input; liaison absent.
· SEQR Not required at Appeals level.
There was no one else present to speak for or against the granting of this variance.
Z-05-10 Pallo
Applicant Nicholas Pallo then explained his request. He would like to put a shed in the side yard of his property. Shed will be used for storage of personal items. He explained that a sharp drop-off on one side of the house and the septic/leach system on the other side limited access to the rear yard. He would like to place the shed so that it is accessible from his driveway turnaround. His house is approximately 270+ ft. from the road, and the shed would be 295+ ft. It would be screened on one side and the rear by woods and would not be visible from the road. This will be the only accessory structure on the property. Mr. Cook noted there was one neighbors house which would be directly in front of the proposed shed, and he questioned the possibility of screening to shield the neighbors view. Mr. Pallo stated he will be planting a rapid growing hedge to accomplish that.
·
· Planning Board No concerns with application.
· Town Board No input; liaison absent.
· SEQR Not required at Appeals level.
There was no one else present to speak for or against the granting of this variance.
BOARD DISCUSSION:
Z-04-10 Carner
The five factors were reviewed: There would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood; benefit could be achieved by some other method; variance was substantial; there could be an adverse environmental impact; difficulty was self-created.
Roll Vote: Cook yes; Eligh yes; Gravino yes; Santovito yes; Jeffries yes. Therefore, this variance is denied.
Z-05-10 Pallo
The five factors were reviewed: No undesirable change in the neighborhood; benefit could not be achieved by another method due to the topography of the lot and the location of the septic/leach system; variance was substantial; no environmental impact; difficulty was self-created.
Roll Vote: Cook yes; Eligh yes; Gravino yes; Santovito yes; Jeffries yes. Therefore, this variance is granted per the amended motion.
MINUTES:
A motion to approve the 05-19-10 minutes was made by Carl Eligh, seconded by John Gravino. All in favor; minutes approved.
ADJOURNMENT:
A motion to adjourn was made by John Gravino, seconded by Carl Eligh. All in favor; meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Bush
Clerk to the Board