TOWN OF MACEDON

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

June 20, 2012

 

 

The Town of Macedon Zoning Board of Appeals meeting was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, 7:30 p.m., at the Town Complex, 32 Main Street, Macedon, NY.  Present were Chairman Warren Jeffries, members Aaron Cook, Carl Eligh, John Gravino and Ronald Santovito.  Also present were Town Councilman David McEwen, Code Enforcement Officer Aron Thompson, Town Engineer Scott Allen and Board Clerk Susan Bush.  Absent was Councilwoman Sandy Pagano.

 

Mr. Jeffries called the meeting to order at 7:33 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-08-12 – Tobin – 2541 West Walworth Road – Area Variance – Section 135-61-B-3 – Accessory structure larger than principal structure – Applicant David Tobin was present to address the Board.  He would like to build a 40 ft. x 16 ft. (includes 1 ft. overhang) addition onto an existing pole barn.  The additional space will be used for storage of personal items (vehicles & other items currently being stored outside).  This addition will not encroach on the side property line.  Trailers behind the barn currently contain items that will be stored in the addition.

 

  • Wayne County Planning Board – No intermunicipal or countywide impact;

applicant should be aware of National and NYSDEC wetland areas; returned

to the Town to be handled as a local matter.

  • Planning Board – Positive referral
  • Town Board – No comment
  • SEQR – Not required at Appeals level

 

There was no one else present to speak for or against this application.

 

PB-09-12 – Hansen (Marvin) – 1005 Victor Road – Interpretation – Applicant Paul Hansen was present to address the Board.  He distributed an “Appeals Board Summary of Major Issues June 20, 2012” which he had prepared as a synopsis of his appeal.  He then reviewed those points for the Board:  (1) Subdivision of 1013 Victor Road as a non-conforming flag lot; (2) Erroneous information and omissions in obtaining building permit for barn/garage; (3) Front yard construction of barn/garage; (4) Setback for barn/garage; (5) Fence created with driveway embankment and guard rail.

 

In response to a question from John Gravino, Mr. Hansen felt the shared driveway (for 4 houses) was a road, not a driveway, and this changed the setback requirements.  Chairman Jeffries pointed out that the Board had previously ruled on that issue, and it was no longer a matter for discussion.  Aaron Cook asked Mr. Hansen how this application was different than the one previously submitted and ruled on.  Mr. Hansen responded that the only thing new was the flag lot.  However, he felt the other aspects had not been addressed in the Board’s response to his first appeal.  Carl Eligh questioned why Mr. Hansen was bringing his appeal(s) now instead of in 2003 when the barn/garage permit was issued and the subdivision took place.  Mr. Eligh noted that no one spoke for or against the subdivision at the Planning Board’s public hearing.  Mr. Hansen responded that the lot sold very quickly, and he did not have an appeal period.  He also felt this was an on-going violation.  He had been told to wait until a permit was issued & has now appealed the house permit.  Chairman Jeffries questioned how Mr. Hansen viewed himself as an aggrieved party.  Mr. Hansen responded the garage is too close to his property; the garage is used as a “hangout”, which is a detriment to his property with the traffic & activities; there is a septic system for the garage; and, the new house will generate more traffic.  Mr. Jeffries asked if Mr. Hansen was asking for the Appeals Board to overturn the Zoning Officer’s decision and deny Mr. Marvin his building permit.  Mr. Hansen responded that, yes, he would like the building permit for the house denied.  Mr. Jeffries then asked if Mr. Hansen felt the issuance of a building permit violated any zoning codes.  He responded, yes, that the existing garage would become front yard construction of a garage.  He questioned the grade in the driveway, the embankment, flooding and boulders on his property.  Mr. Jeffries asked if Mr. Hansen would object to a new house if it were a different owner, and Mr. Hansen responded he would object.  Mr. Jeffries then pointed out that it was an approved building lot, and Mr. Hansen agreed it had been approved by the Planning Board and wanted it corrected now.  Mr. Hansen agreed the Appeals Board had no jurisdiction over the Planning Board, but could deny a building permit.

 

John Turner of 1015 Victor Road then spoke in favor of this appeal.  He has also filed a separate appeal, but chose to speak at this time.  He stated a prior owner of the Marvin property (Webb) wanted to develop it and was told by the fire department that they had no equipment which could get into the property.  He further stated he had no problem with Mr. Marvin building a house; however, he had been told by a former Code Officer that he could not place a shed in his side yard because he lived on a “corner” lot.  At the meeting on Mr. Hansen’s previous appeal, it was determined the “future street” was a shared driveway, which means his lot is no longer a “corner” lot.  He further stated that he could now move the shed back to the originally requested location or build a garage or pole barn in that location.  Mr. Turner asked for a determination on this, and was instructed to see Scott Allen, Town Engineer, at the Town offices.  Chairman Jeffries asked if issuing a building permit to Mr. Marvin would violate Mr. Turner’s health, welfare or safety.  Mr. Turner responded it affected his property; i.e., increased water coming off the Marvin property.  Mr. Jeffries asked Mr. Turner if, to his knowledge, the issuing of a building permit for Mr. Marvin’s house violated any zoning codes now, and Mr. Turner responded, “No.”  Mr. Jeffries asked if someone else were buying the property, would Mr. Turner object to them building a house.  Mr. Turner responded if the barn were removed, he would have no objection.

 

Michelle Villani, Town Attorney, then spoke in opposition to Mr. Hansen’s appeal.  She stated Mr. Marvin’s attorney, James Bonsignore, had submitted a letter (06-19-12), and she had spoken with Mr. Bonsignore and Mr. Marvin.  It was her understanding they wished to rely upon the letter for their arguments against this appeal.  She also concurred with those arguments.  Ms. Villani then went on to request the Board not consider the “Appeals Board Summary of Major Issues June 20, 2012” submitted by Mr. Hansen as it was not part of the original application.  She stated those five items were covered in the previous appeals application, and for that March appeal the ZBA had listened to the arguments, had visited the property, answered Mr. Hansen’s questions and a determination was made.  Mr. Hansen’s remedy was an Article 78 (which he has not done) and not to bring this matter back to the Appeals Board.  The time for action was in 2003.  She went on to state she felt Mr. Hansen and Mr. Turner were trying to have the house permit revoked to obtain relief for the garage/barn situation where a determination had already been made.

 

Mr. Marvin addressed the Board and stated he felt the situation had gone on long enough.  He had obtained his approvals and wished to see the conclusion of the matter so that he could build his house.

 

Ms. Villani requested that separate votes be taken for each of the two applications – Hansen and Turner.

 

Mrs. Marvin also spoke in opposition to Mr. Hansen’s appeal.  She would like to see a conclusion to the matter so that they may build their home.

 

  • Wayne County Planning Board – No referral
  • Planning Board – It was the Planning Board’s opinion that the original site plan

approval is valid, and the permit applicant should proceed with building the house.

  • Town Board – No comment
  • SEQR – Not required

 

There was no one else present to speak for or against this application.

 

Z-10-12 – Turner (Marvin) – 1005 Victor Road – Interpretation – Applicant John Turner chose to speak during the Hansen public hearing.

 

  • Wayne County Planning Board – No referral
  • Planning Board – It was the Planning Board’s opinion that the original site plan

approval is valid, and the permit applicant should proceed with building the

house.

  • Town Board – No comment
  • SEQR – Not required

 

BOARD DISCUSSION:

 

Z-08-12 – Tobin – 2541 West Walworth Road – Area Variance – Section 135-61-B-3 – Accessory structure larger than principal structure – A motion was made by John Gravino, seconded by Ron Santovito, to grant this variance as requested.  The Board members felt the additional space would allow for items currently being stored outside to be brought inside.  Barn blends in with surrounding farm area.

 

The five factors were reviewed:  No undesirable change in the neighborhood; benefit sought could not be achieved by another method; variance was not substantial; no adverse environmental impact; difficulty was self created.

 

Roll Vote:  Cook – yes; Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Santovito – yes; Jeffries – yes.  Therefore, this variance is granted.

 

Z-09-12 – Hansen (Marvin) – 1005 Victor Road – Interpretation – A motion was made by Carl Eligh, seconded by Aaron Cook, to discuss Application Z-09-12 because it is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious and without merit and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Officer to issue a Building Permit to Mr. Marvin.  An amended motion was then made by Carl Eligh, seconded by Aaron Cook, to dismiss Application Z-09-12 because it is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious and without merit and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Officer to issue a Building Permit to Mr. Marvin.  Mr. Jeffries then explained a building permit had been issued but was stopped during the appeal process, and this motion affirms the decision of the Zoning Officer to issue that permit. 

 

Chairman Jeffries explained what the Appeals Board is chartered to do.  It can grant a variance to an applicant who wants to do something when the Code Officer would not issue a building permit; i.e., a project that is too big or too close to the lot line.  The other thing the Board does is interpret the Zoning Code.  Mr. Hansen had referred to the Macedon Town Code in his appeals.  Mr. Jeffries explained the Appeals Board has no control over Town Code, but does have control over the Zoning Code.  The Board can take an appeal in a “grey” area by making an interpretation, and cited a hypothetical example.  He stated the Appeals Board also has no control over the Planning Board.  The Planning Board decides subdivisions with public hearings, at which time people can state their opinions.  In this case, the finding of fact is that Mr. Marvin’s house does not violate any Zoning Codes.

 

Chairman Jeffries reiterated the motion to dismiss Application Z-09-12 because it is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious and without merit and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Officer to issue a building permit to Mr. Marvin.  He then stated the five factors do not apply to an interpretation.

 

Roll Vote:  Cook – yes; Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Santovito – yes; Jeffries – yes.  Therefore, this application has been dismissed.

 

Z-10-12 – Turner (Marvin) – 1005 Victor Road – Interpretation – A motion was made by Aaron Cook, seconded by John Gravino, to dismiss Application Z-10-12 because it is unreasonable, whimsical, capricious and without merit and to affirm the decision of the Zoning Officer to issue a Building Permit to Mr. Marvin.

 

The five factors do not apply to an interpretation.

 

Roll Vote:  Cook – yes; Eligh – yes; Gravino – yes; Santovito – yes; Jeffries – yes.  Therefore, this application has been dismissed.

 

MINUTES:

 

A motion to approve the 05-16-12 minutes was made by Carl Eligh, seconded by Aaron Cook.  All in favor; minutes approved.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by John Gravino, seconded by Aaron Cook.  All in favor; meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Susan Bush

Clerk to the Board