TOWN OF PRINCETOWN
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
Janet Ring
July 12, 2010
PRESENT: Michael Hickok
Samuel Salamone
Rich Olsen
Eric Plura - Chairman
Absent: Joe Jurczynski
Victor Benson
ALSO PRESENT: Gino Santabarbara, Town Attorney - Kathleen DiPaola (see attached sign in sheet)
Minutes were taken by Dawn M. Campochiaro, ZBA Secretary
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Plura called the meeting of Zoning Board of Appeals to order at 7:00pm.
II. CORRESPONDENCE:
Dawn Campochiaro read the following notice as posted in the Daily Gazette:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Princetown will conduct a hearing on the following proposition on Monday, July 12, 2010 at 7:00pm at the Town Hall at 165 Princetown Plaza:
Ms. Janet Ring and James Skinner of 286 Vernon Drive, Duanesburg are hereby requesting an (5) area variances to change from a one-family to a two-family home as per 6.1-D.1 of the zoning law.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Town of Princetown Planning Board: Yes. The Planning Board reviewed the applicant's variance requests at its June 10th, 2010 meeting. Applicant Janet Ring requests area variances to allow a two-family dwelling on 1.79 acres in the GR-3 district. Two-family dwellings in the GR-3 district require 6 acres, 4.2 acres useable area, 250 feet of frontage, and 50-foot side, rear & front setbacks. The lot is legally non-conforming and currently does not meet any of the requirements for a single-family dwelling in the GR-3 district, with the exception of front setback and road frontage. Allowing a two-family dwelling would, in essence, make the lot more non-conforming.
The Planning Board identified a total of five variances that would be necessary as follows: two side setback (18' & 16'), total acreage (4.21 ac), frontage (46.16'), and useable area (3.41 ac). After discussion among Board members, the consensus was that the variances were numerous and substantial, and granting them would establish a dangerous precedent. Therefore, the Planning Board recommends denial of the variances to allow a two-family dwelling on this property.
Chairman Plura asks the secretary if there was any correspondence from the Schenectady County Planning Department: No.
Chairman Plura asks who is representing this area variance request. Janet Rings and Jim Skinner stated they were. Jim Skinner is Janet Rings son-in-law. J. Skinner stated initially that his father-in-law was ill and that Janet and her husband needed a place to live to have other family members help out during his illness so we worked very closely with Dan Marciniak (building inspector) to get the proper permits to put on an addition on the existing house. J. Skinner stated they only wanted to install a small kitchen in Ms. Ring's side of the house which would not change the character of the home. J. Skinner stated that he is very sensitive to the Town's position and that the ZBA could put contingencies on the variances if granted.
Chairman Plura asked Dan Marciniak how big the septic tank is; Dan stated he was given copied document from Van Wormer's septic stating the tank was 2,000 gallons.
M. Hickok asked J. Rings if she is functioning okay on her side of the house. J. Rings stated yes, however she would like to make her own coffee on her side of the house.
R. Olsen asked J. Skinner what phase are you in with the house now. J. Skinner stated they are adding siding on the house and deck and when finished the house will not look like a two-family home.
R. Olsen asked what if the taxes double on the house. J. Rings and J. Skinner both stated that is would still be cheaper than buying another house.
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. Physically the house would be the same. Yes if used as a two-family home
•2. Whether the applicant can achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance.
Yes, keep house as is.
•3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
Yes, they are asking for five (5) variances.
•4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No.
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.
Yes, because there is alternatives.
IV. PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Chairman Plura opens the meeting to the public.
Cheryl Freeman of 111 Vernon Drive asked J. Rings and J. Skinner if there is a business being run out of the house. They both stated no. The J. Skinner's wife only grooms dogs that a friends and family.
Tim Bishop of 318 Vernon Drive stated that there is a lot of traffic now and if the house were to be turned into a two family there would be more congestion, traffic, people, etc. Also, there construction phases seem to stop for long periods of time, start up again and then stop again.
J. Skinner responded that he has three teenagers and they contribute to a lot of the traffic and congestion.
Eric Freedman of 111 Vernon Drive concerned that if variance is granted it will set precedence and who is going to enforce it?
Chairman Plura closes the meeting to the public.
Chairman Plura asks the applicants is your residence used in any way as a business? J. Rings and J. Skinner both stated no. They each have three dogs.
R. Olsen makes the motion to deny all five (5) of the area variances.
M. Hickok seconds the motion.
V. ROLL CALL
Mike Hickok - in favor of denying all five (5) area variances
Sam Salamone - in favor of denying all five (5) area variances
Rich Olsen - in favor of denying all five (5) area variances
Chairman Plura - in favor of denying all five (5) area variances
Town Attorney Kathleen DiPaola stated to Mr. Skinner and Ms. Rings that he has 30 days under state law to challenge the Zoning Boards determination. The 30-day period typically begins when the first filing is made by the Zoning Board in this case it will likely be draft minutes or minutes. There may be a resolution adopted subsequent to that. The 30-day period is not negotiable; it is set by state law. Mr. Skinner and Ms. Rings should consult with his attorney regarding that and the challenge will take the form of an Article 78 lawsuit.
Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Chairman Plura and seconded by S. Salamone
Motion carries 4-0 in favor of denying the five (5) area variance
Meeting adjourned at 8:15pm
Respectfully submitted by:_________________________________ Date:_______________
Dawn M. Campochiaro, Zoning Board Secretary
