TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
Estate of Hallanies Aufierio
April 26, 2010
PRESENT: Victor Benson
Samuel Salamone
Rich Olsen
Eric Plura - Chairman
Absent: Joe Jurczynski and Mike Hickok
ALSO PRESENT: Gino Santabarbara, 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 7:00pm.
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, April 26, 2010 at 7:00pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
The Estate of Hallanies Aufiero is hereby requesting an area variance for side-set back 5.3 of the zoning law for property located at 254 Sterling Road Schenectady, N.Y.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Town of Princetown Planning Board: Yes. As background, the applicant first appeared before the Planning Board at its November 19, 2009 meeting, proposing a two-lot subdivision at 254 Sterling Road. After conference with the town attorney, the Planning Board advised the applicant at a subsequent meeting that for the property line to be drawn as shown, a side setback variance of 58 feet for Lot 2 would be necessary because this particular side line is located in the MF-2 district, which requires a 100-foot side setback. As drawn, the property line is separated by only 42 feet from the corner of the barn on Lot 2.
In addition, a variance is required to keep animals and odor-producing substances in the barn on Lot 2 because, according to Section 7.13B of the Zoning Law, there must be at least 100 feet between such barn and the property line, unless there is mutual consent of the landowners. To the Planning Board's knowledge, animals are being kept in the barn, but the applicant has not applied for this variance.
Finally, the town assessor informed me recently that quit claim deeds for the two lots already have been filed at the County Clerk's office. However, the subdivision review and approval process in the town of Princetown has never been completed.
The Planning Board discussed the applicant's variance request at its April 22nd, 2010 meeting. Alternatives to the variance requested include removing the barn or re-drawing the property line. As the situation appears self-created and reasonable alternatives exist that would preclude the need for variances, the Planning Board is not in favor of granting a variance. If the ZBA does decide to grant a variance, the Planning Board strongly urges that the variance be conditioned on the applicant completing the subdivision process and creating these lots legally under Princetown Law.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Schenectady County Planning Department. Yes. The Schenectady County Department of Economic Development and Planning defers to local consideration on the area variance.
Chairman Plura asks who in the audience is here seeking a variance. Anthony Fazzone of 1536 Union Street, Schenectady, New York 12309 responded that he is as he is the Executor of the Estate for Hallanies Aufiero.
Chairman Plura asked Mr. Fazzone why he didn't seek approval by the Town Planning Board for a subdivision. Mr. Fazzone answered that the property was in a state of disrepair and
the buyers needed to make repairs immediately or the house would have collapsed. The elderly individual that lived in the house was unable to maintain the property for the last 15 years. The property could not be insured because it was vacant, it could not be leased because it was going to be sold and we couldn't sell it because the property on the other side of the stream was to go to someone different.
Chairman Plura asks the board members if they have any questions.
Victor asked if the subdivision was done. Attorney Mathes stated no, but this variance will help move forward the subdivision.
Chairman Plura asked Mr. Fazzone if there are farm animals on lot 2. Mr. Fazzone said yes, there are horses on the property that belong to the caretakers. Chairman Plura also asked if the caretakers have asked permission from the other party on lot 1 regarding the barn and horses. Mr. Fazzone stated they are not interested as they believe the barn is too close to the stream.
IV. PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Chairman Plura opens the meeting to the public.
Tamier Trier of 254 Sterling Road, Pattersonville, New York. She and her husband purchased the home. She states the house was not in disarray or she would not have been able to get a mortgage. An issue she is that an electric fence runs through the stream that splits the property line. She also introduced her attorney David Rebal. Mrs. Trier stated that the bank took all the money out of her escrow account because the tax documents stated she owned all the land because the property was never subdivided and she is not willing to give up any part of their property line. Mrs. Trier shows pictures of the electric fence going down the middle of the stream.
Attorney Todd Mathes asks Mrs. Trier if the electric wasn't in the stream would she have a problem with the location of the barn? Mrs. Trier attorney Mr. Rebal spoke up and stated there are few concerns regarding the property. One, the electric fence running through the stream, two, horse's feces in the stream (pollution). The Trier's would like the electric fence moved out of the stream.
Chairman Plura closes the meeting to the public.
III. BALANCING TEST:
The 5 points were reviewed:
•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.
No. No animals in building within 100' from property line
•2. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance.
Yes.
•3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Yes.
•4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No, the reason being is that the situation existed and would be improved if the animals are penned away from the stream
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.
No, owner passed away and will states how property should be divided.
Victor makes the motion to approve (as the Zoning Board Members interpreted the code that clarifies the 50' setback of the GR district is applied not the 100' requirement) based on 50' with an 8' variance with conditions, that there are no animal's stored living in any buildings and pens and no accumulated odor producing substances within 100' of the property line.
Sam Salamone seconded
VI. ROLL CALL
Victor Benson - in favor of granting the area variance with above condition
Sam Salamone - in favor of granting the area variance with above condition
Rich Olsen- in favor of granting the area variance with above condition
Chairman Plura - in favor of granting the area variance with above condition
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Plura and seconded by V. Benson
Motion carries 5-0 in favor of granting the area variance
Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm
Respectfully submitted by:_________________________________ Date:_______________
Dawn M. Campochiaro, Zoning Board Secretary
