TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
Mike Hayden
January 11, 2010
March 1, 2010
PRESENT: Victor Benson
Mike Hickok
Rich Olsen
Joe Jurczynski
Eric Plura - Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Gino Santabarbara, Stephanie Pischel, Anthony Cerrone, Michael Cerrone and Town Attorney - Todd Mathes (see attached sign in sheet).
Minutes were taken by Dawn M. Campochiaro, Secretary
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Plura called the meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:05pm.
II. CORRESPONDENCE:
Dawn Campochiaro, Secretary read the following notice as posted in the Daily Gazette:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Princetown will conduct a hearing on the following proposition on Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:00pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
Community Fellowship at Princetown Church is hereby requesting an area variance to expand the size of their current sign as per 7.9.E3 of the zoning law.
Mike Hayden of 594 Birchwood Drive, Duanesburg, NY is hereby requesting area variances 5.3, 7.1 and 6.1d4 as per the zoning law.
The applicant did not appear at this meeting. Gino Santabarbara called applicant and there was no answer.
This meeting was a continuation of the November 30, 2009 however, since the applicant did not appear, Chairman Plura suggested to postpone the meeting indefinitely however, he will open the meeting to the board members and public.
Chairman Plura asked D. Marciniak, Code Enforcement Officer, when you were made aware of Mike Hayden that there was a problem on his property and you went to investigate, what did you discover? D. Marciniak stated that the original application back in 2005 was submitted showing a building with a carport then he revised it, in April 2005 he submitted a plan showing a 28'x 40' garage with a 12' carport, making it a 40'x 50' building. The he submitted drawings with a truss roof and a carport off the side. When he built the building he put a foundation in for a 40'x50' building and no carport. D. Marciniak went this spring 09 to investigate he was unable to give M. Hayden a CO or anything on the garage as it was not built to code. Also it is 8' off the property line and he showed 20' on the drawing when Mr. Hayden submitted it, 20' on the front and then the garage is actually on an angle. D. Marciniak also stated he found an in ground pool without a permit. M. Hayden has applied for a permit for the pool.
D. Marciniak stated there was a septic system put in for the garage which M. Hayden has pulled the permit.
Chairman Plura asked G. Santabarbara and D. Marciniak; how many variances does M. Hayden need? The variances needed are: a side variance from where the garage is located to the property line which is 8.6.2' and the driveway against the property line.
R. Olsen as who was the building contractor? D. Marciniak stated it was the homeowner himself. R. Olsen asked if M. Hayden was a building contractor? Yes, R. Olsen stated then he should have known about the setbacks, etc.
III. PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Victor Benson makes the motion to open the meeting to the public. Mike Hickok seconds the motion to open the meeting to the public.
Anthony Cerrone of 610 Birchwood Drive asks D. Marciniak about environmental issues surrounding M. Hayden's property, i.e., septic system, foundation, etc. are they all in compliance? D. Marciniak stated what he sees, yes he is in compliance. D. Marciniak stated that an oil tank was removed from the property and Nick Maura also stated the oil tank was removed. T. Mathes, however those requirements are not for this board. It is a code enforcement issue.
Anthony Cerrone stated that M. Hayden is 12' off my property line and A. Cerrone put a fence up but the last snow fall broke his fence because the building is too close to A. Cerrone's property. M. Hayden plows the snow into A. Cerrone's fence and continues to do damage to the fence (A. Cerrone shows pictures of the snow against the fence).
Anthony Cerrone wants the town to make M. Hayden put a barrier to stop his fence from being destroyed.
Chairman Plura stated that the public meeting will remain open until the next meeting, however if the applicant does not attend the next meeting schedule for March 1, 2010. M. Hayden's application for variances will be denied.
V. Benson asked A. Cerrone are you only concerned at this point about your fence being damaged? A. Cerrone stated yes, he doesn't want M. Hayden to take down his building but he does not want his fence to be destroyed anymore.
IV. ROLL CALL
Victor Benson - in favor to postpone meeting
Mike Hickok - in favor to postpone meeting
Rich Olsen - in favor to postpone meeting
Joseph Jurczynski - in favor to postpone meeting
Chairman Plura - in favor to postpone meeting
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Plura and seconded by R. Olsen
Motion carries 5-0 in favor of postpone the meeting
Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm
Continuation of meeting from 1/11/2010
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Princetown will conduct a hearing on the following proposition on Monday, March 1, 2010 at 7:00pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
Mike Hayden of 594 Birchwood Drive, Duanesburg, NY is hereby requesting area variances 5.3, 7.1 and 6.1d4 as per the zoning law.
PRESENT: Joe Jurczynski - Alternate
Mike Hickok
Rich Olsen
Eric Plura - Chairman
ALSO PRESENT: Gino Santabarbara, Daniel Marciniak, Stephanie Pischel, Anthony Cerrone, Michael Cerrone and Town Attorney - Todd Mathes (see attached sign in sheet).
Chairman Plura asks who is representing this area variance request: Mike Hayden stated he was.
TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICANT: MICHAEL HAYDEN
RESOLUTION
Dated: March 1, 2010
WHEREAS, Michael Hayden (the "Applicant") is the owner of 594 Birchwood Drive, Duanesburg, New York 12056 (hereinafter "the Property"); and
WHEREAS, Michael Hayden has submitted an area variance application to the Town of Princetown Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") for a driveway and garage that were constructed on the Property within the required side yard setback (hereinafter "the Application"); and
WHEREAS, the ZBA has determined that the application constitutes a SEQRA Type 2 action, and properly noticed and conducted a public hearing to gather public comment on the Application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the ZBA hereby adopts the written findings attached hereto; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the ZBA finds, subject to the following conditions, the benefit to the Applicant of granting the area variances outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community:
•1. The driveway and garage shall be no closer than 8 feet, two inches from the side yard property line;
•2. Within 90 days of the issuance of the area variances for the garage and driveway, the Applicant shall remove that portion of the driveway which is within less than 8 feet, two inches of the side yard property line, and the area between the driveway and side yard property line shall be promptly seeded and re-vegetated;
•3. Within 120 days of the issuance of the area variances for the garage and driveway, the Applicant shall have a survey of the driveway, garage and side yard property line prepared by a duly licensed surveyor for the purpose of verifying compliance with condition "1" above. The survey shall be provided to the Town of Princetown Code Enforcement Officer within such 120 day time period and prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy and/or compliance by the Code Enforcement Officer concerning the garage or driveway;
•4. The Applicant shall undertake measures necessary to ensure that snow from the driveway or garage does not fall onto or cross the side yard property line. The measures selected by the Applicant must be implemented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the area variances for the garage and driveway, and shall be subject to the Code Enforcement Officer's review and approval as satisfactory with this condition.
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED THAT, that this resolution shall take effect immediately.
Resolution moved by: Mike Hickok
Seconded by: Rich Olsen
VOTE
AYE NAY ABSTAIN
Eric Plura, Chairman __X__ _____ _________
Michael Hickok __X__ _____ _________
Joe Jurczynski __X__ _____ _________
Rich Olsen __X__ _____ _________
Dated: March 2, 2010 ___________________________________
Dawn Campochiaro, Secretary
Town of Princetown, Zoning Board of Appeals
TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICANT: MICHAEL HAYDEN
AREA VARIANCE FINDINGS STATEMENT
Dated: March 1, 2010
Section 267-b(3) of the Town Law and Section 10.6(B)(2) of the Town of Princetown Zoning Law provide that in reviewing an area variance application, the Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA") must balance the benefits to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. The Applicant, Michael Hayden, is requesting area variances concerning a driveway and garage which were constructed within the required side yard setback. Portions of the driveway are located immediately adjacent to the side yard property line. The garage is setback 8 feet, two inches from the side yard property line.
•1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.
The driveway and garage are allowed uses at the property, provided the dimensional regulations set forth under the Zoning Law are complied with. The driveway and garage, in their current location, although not in conformance with the Zoning Law, are relatively consistent with the surrounding parcels and the character of the community on Birchwood Drive. Other structures and driveways in the neighborhood, including improvements on an immediately adjacent parcel, are within the required side yard setback (having been improved prior to the enactment of the Zoning Law and/or having received necessary variance relief). Some amount of buffering between the side property line and the driveway on the Applicant's property is, however, necessary to ensure that the Applicant's property is consistent with these other surrounding parcels and does not result in a detriment to the closest neighboring parcel. The ZBA is of the opinion that the driveway should be aligned with the garage, providing a uniform 8.5 foot side yard setback.
•2. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance.
The Applicant could have achieved his goals without the area variances. In fact, the building permit application initially submitted to and approved by the Town of Princetown Building Inspector depicted the driveway and garage as being setback a significantly greater distance from the side yard property line than where the driveway and garage were ultimately constructed. The garage was constructed by the Applicant only 8 feet, two inches from the side yard property line, and no setback was provided between a portion of the driveway and the side yard property line.
While the Applicant would presumably incur a substantial expense if he was required to relocate the garage, the same is not true concerning the driveway. Moreover, the fact that the Applicant appears to have knowingly built the garage within the required side yard setback and out of conformance with the building permit application initially submitted to the Town undercuts any defense he may make that a reasonable alternative does not exist here because of the expense or feasibility of relocating the garage.
•3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Provided the driveway is setback in-line with the garage, 8 feet, two inches from the side yard property line, the requested variances will not be substantial. The ZBA agrees with the Court's logic in Matter of Easy Home Program v. Trotta, 276 A.D.2d 553 (2d Dep't 2000), where the Court stated that although an area variance may seem substantial on paper does not justify the denial of an application if there is no demonstrated harm to the community. For this reason, other tribunals have determined that a variance of 54% from the required lot size be awarded because no harm would befall the community (Matter of Frank v. Scheyer, 227 A.D.2d 558 (2d Dep't 1996)), and variances be awarded which resulted in a 50% reduction in lot area and a 62.5% reduction in required road frontage (Matter of Shaughessy v. Roth, 204 A.D.2d 333 (2d Dep't 1994)).
In the present case, the Applicant is requesting a 60% deviation from the required side yard setback for the garage, and a 100% deviation from the required side yard setback for the driveway. However, the garage and driveway will present no harm to the community once the driveway is reconfigured to provide some amount of buffering between it and the side yard property line. The ZBA is of the opinion that the appropriate amount of buffering would be 8 feet, two inches to bring the driveway in-line with the garage. If this is achieved, then the variances will not be substantial.
•4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Once the driveway is aligned with the garage, and some measures are undertaken to avoid having snow from the garage or driveway cross the property line, there will not be any adverse physical or environmental effect at the site caused as a result of the approval of the area variances. These types of structures are common on single family home lots, and the provision of 8 feet, two inches of buffering between the driveway and garage appears adequate to avoid physical impacts to the neighboring parcel.
•5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.
The Applicant's difficulty was self-created; however, a self-created hardship does not require denial. Based upon testimony received by the ZBA during the public hearing from the Applicant, neighbouring landowners and the Town Planner and Code Enforcement Officer, it appears that the Applicant knowingly constructed the driveway and garage within the required side yard setback, out of conformance with the building permit application which the Applicant himself submitted to the Town. Accordingly, the Applicant appears to have intentionally and knowingly violated the Town's Zoning Law during the construction of his driveway and garage. Nevertheless, since the Applicant has subsequently complied with the Town's directive by applying for the required area variances, the ZBA is constraining itself to make a decision on the Application on its merits. In sum, as long as the driveway is brought in-line with the garage and setback from the side yard property line 8 feet, two inches, the variances will not harm the community nor even the Applicant's closest neighbours.
Given the nature of the Application and prior conduct by the Applicant, however, the ZBA will also require that the Applicant bring the property into conformance with the Zoning Law in a timely manner and that confirmation of the re-alignment of the driveway be provided to the Town of Princetown Code Enforcement Officer by a licensed surveyor engaged by the Applicant. The Applicant will also be required to undertake whatever measures are necessary to ensure that snow from the garage and driveway do not cross the side yard property line.
