OGDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS May 1, 2014 Members Present Members Absent Noelle ...

34 Pages·2014·0.62 MB·English

OGDEN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
May 1, 2014
Members Present Members Absent
Noelle Burley Tom Hall
Justin Feasel ( till 8:05)
Duane Fregoe, Chairman
Corey McAtee
Mark Young
Kristen Zale
Others Present
Bridget Field, Esq., Zoning Board Attorney Patrick Smith, Building Inspector
Angella O’Hara, Building Clerk John Clarke
Cindy Haag Bernice Morehouse
James Bevona Anne Bevona
Betsey Patterson Kevin Dixon
Jason DiPonzio Terry Servin
John Brest Domenic Vendetti
Dan Schum Virginia Stockham
Dan Fletcher Richard Federico
Peter Spyra Christopher Haag
Duane Gaul Frank Rakowski
Karen Rakowski Teresa Fletcher
Jo Newkirk Vicki Rapp
Tim Rapp
This meeting was published in the Sunday April 27, 2014 edition of the Suburban News.
The Ogden Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order at 7:01PM.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II. OLD BUSINESS - NONE
Appeal of the Cabot Group, for an area variance for a complex expansion and proposal to
construct six of the eleven new buildings at 35’ from the west property line, on property located
on the south side of Statt Road, directly across from the western most entrance to Forest Meadow
Drive, whereas the minimum setback allowable is 65’, pursuant to Chapter 210-30(2)(b)(2). In a
MFR Apartment District. Tax Acct. #117.04-3-9
Mr. Clarke: I am with DDS companies. Here tonight on behalf of the Cabot Group. They are the
property manager for the Windsor Garden apartments that are located on Manitou Road. We were here
previously in March, so I will give you a brief overview of what it is that we are asking for. At that time
we had come in asking for 11 new buildings to the apartment complex. It is going to be in the western
portion of the property. It is directly across from the southernmost entrance to Forest Meadow Trail. On
that portion of property there are some restrictions for development. To the east because of the creek that
is there and to the south because of the wetlands that are there. To the west because of the property line.
The original plan had quite a few building there that we were directed by Planning Board to come back
with some reduced amount of buildings, which we have done. Because of the restrictions to the east and
to the south we were trying to push the building as close to that western property line as possible in order
1
to give us the room from the creek and wetlands. When we were back before the Board back in March,
that is the plan we came in with, that first page you see in front of you.
If you flip that page I can quickly go over the changes that we made. When we were here in March it was
made clear that we had to reduce the number of variances that we were looking for and do everything we
can to try and minimize that. We took a good hard look at the contours and saw how far we could
possibly push the buildings to the east toward the creek and to the south toward the wetlands. What you
see is a result of that. What we were able to do was shift the entire development a bit to the east which
gave us 5 more feet. I know that it is not significant but it is a little bit more. Instead of a 35 feet setback
we have 40 feet. More significantly what we were able to do was rotate some of those buildings on that
western side of the development. That allowed up to reduce the variances from 6 buildings to 2 buildings.
We feel that by going back and taking a harder look at this and seeing what the needs of the client could
balance along with the needs of the Town we feel that we have made a significant reduction in our request
and we are hopeful that it does satisfy this Board. With that I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Fregoe: I will say it is much better.
Mrs. Burley: Yes. We appreciate that.
Mr. Fregoe: You were looking at 30 foot variance for about 6 buildings so let’s say that is 180 foot and
now we are down to about a 50 foot variance if you add the 2 of them up. Much improved since the last
time you were here. I see you also took a couple of these units and downsized them slightly. Out of the
six that are there.
Mr. Clarke: Yes what we did was took some of the smaller buildings that were on the eastern side and try
and bring those up to the top. We tried to stagger things and it gives it a bit more character. I like it a lot
better than what we had before.
Mr. Fregoe: You swapped some east to the west.
Mr. Clarke: Yes.
Mr. Fregoe asked for audience comments at this time and there were none.
Mr. Young: I think they have done exactly what we asked.
Mr. Fregoe: How have you made out with the driveway situation on the other piece of property?
Mr. Clarke: We are working hard. That has to happen.
RESOLUTION #1A
Introduced by Mr. Young
Seconded by Mrs. Burley
That the Board classifies the application of Windsor Gardens, for property located on the south side of
Statt Road, directly across from the western most entrance to Forest Meadow Drive, as a Type II SEQR
action.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, Hall, McAtee, Young
Nays: None
2
Absent: Zale
Mr. Fregoe: Let’s look at those 5 factors:
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties will be created by granting the variance? I would say no. It is vastly improved from
the original.
Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance? I think you have already taken your swings at this and improved it.
Whether the requested variance is substantial? Again no relative to what we started with.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood district? Again I will say no on that.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? Most of them are.
Mr. Young: Do we have a short SEQR?
Mrs. O’Hara: I have not been advised that it is required for this application. It will be required at the
Planning Board level.
RESOLUTION #1B
Introduced by Mr. Fregoe
Seconded by Mrs. Zale
That the Appeal of the Cabot Group, for an area variance for a complex expansion and proposal
to construct six of the eleven new buildings at 35’ from the west property line, on property
located on the south side of Statt Road, directly across from the western most entrance to Forest
Meadow Drive, was approved with the following change:
(cid:0)
That the setback reflect that only 2 buildings with require a variance of 40’. All other buildings
will have the minimum 65’ setback.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, McAtee, Young, Zale
Nays: None
Absent: Hall
Appeal of Merle Goodreau, 387 Hubbell Road, Spencerport, NY 14559 for an area variance for
three (3) existing accessory structures with a combined square footage of 672 square feet, on
property located at same, whereas the maximum land coverage by accessory buildings allowable
in the R-1 district is 1% (456 square feet for this lot), pursuant to Chapter 210-28.F(3)(b) in an R-
1 Residential District. Tax Acct. #100.03-2-11
Mr. Terry Servis: I am here on behalf of Merle Goodreau. They cannot be here as they have moved out
of state due to health concerns. They are selling their home. There is no contract at this time. I
encouraged them to make sure they had all their permits and certificates of compliance in order and that
resulted in the determination that they had built some additions on the back of the house and also
constructed a shed type roof on the back of their barn which exceeds the permitted amount of space
3
allowed. That is the application. I do not have an easel or any documentation for you folks. It is a fairly
rural area so that is the application.
Mr. Fregoe: You have to hate when that happens when you go over your allowed square footage. I drove
by it a couple of days ago. For the most part it is out of sight. It is not a show stopper for me. I think he
would have gotten it either way. I appreciate him coming in and taking care of this.
Mr. Fregoe asked for audience comments at this time and there were none.
Mr. Young: We are good.
RESOLUTION #2A
Introduced by Mr. Young
Seconded by Mrs. Burley
That the Board classifies the application of Merle Goodreau, for property located at 387 Hubbell Road,
Spencerport, NY 14559, as a Type II SEQR action.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, Hall, McAtee, Young
Nays: None
Absent: Zale
RESOLUTION #2B
Introduced by Mr. Fregoe
Seconded by Mr. McAtee
That the appeal of Merle Goodreau, 387 Hubbell Road, Spencerport, NY 14559 for an area variance for
three (3) existing accessory structures with a combined square footage of 672 square feet, on property
located at same, be granted Approval with the following conditions:
(cid:0)
That no dusk to dawn or mercury vapor lighting;
(cid:0)
That the accessory structure not be used for commercial activity;
(cid:0)
That a building permit be obtained from the Building Department.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, McAtee, Young, Zale
Nays: None
Absent: Hall
Mr. Fregoe: We will just note that we did look at the 5 factors and this is a really negligible application.
There is no impact on any of them.
Appeal of Peter Spyra, 1146 Washington Street, Spencerport, NY 14559 for three (3) area
variances for an existing 6’ high, closed construction fence with the good side facing inward, on
property located at same, whereas the fence shall not exceed 4’ in height, have a minimum
spacing between verticals of not less than 1 ½ inches and shall have their most pleasant or
decorative side facing away from the lot upon which fence is being installed, pursuant to Chapter
210-47A(8)(a), Chapter 210-47B(1)and Chapter 210-47A(5), respectively in an R-1 Residential
District. Tax Acct. # 115.02-3-1.3
4
Mr. Peter Spyra: I believe that the Board has received a letter detailing some of the experiences that I
have had with the neighbor on the residence in which I am placing the fence. I have also asked that the
Dog Warden and the Ogden Police Department include any reports if it helps the case and issues that I
have had with the neighbors. I have been at the residence since 2005 and it has been numerous problems
with dogs left out excessive activities with neighbors and guests. Approximately last summer I took a
wooden fence and simply attached it to my existing fence that I had there. Assuming that if I did not
build and go into the ground that was ok. I was notified that it is not. I am here to appeal for it.
I think that since the time I have had the fence all matters that I have detailed have been resolved in terms
of the dogs not being able to see the house. I think that the Warden has been there numerous times and
none of the advice or corrections has been made. I just took it upon myself to do the minimal I could to
even go into the back yard.
Mr. Fregoe: This fence is attached to an existing fence?
Mr. Spyra: Correct. I have a chain linked fence and I simply purchased those 6’x 8’ from Lowes just to
block the view from the animals. Since I have lived in the home I have not been able to have other
animals or children in the back yard because these dogs are left out sometimes nights on end. In addition
to that there are structures that have been left there and while I certainly recognize they are legal to be
there, there is a large boat that has been there since I have lived there, the boat that has damage to it, there
are significant burn piles and debris in the yard to be quite honest would affect the property value of mine
or the ability to even sell my home if I was to try and move.

Mr. McAtee: Do they actually burn that pile?
Mr. Spyra: They do.
Mr. McAtee: The attachment of the wooden fence to the chain link fence. You used 2’x 4’ or 2’ x 6’
across the back of the board and then some sort of a c-clamp is screwed around the pipe.
Mr. Spyra: Correct and to be honest with you my original intent was to do that and when I moved I was
going to take it with me. Once I learned that was not allowed I applied and would make it permanent.
Mr. McAtee: It does not look like a permanent fence. I think some modifications need to be made.
Mr. Fregoe asked for audience comments at this time there were none.
Mr. McAtee: Do you have any type of conversations with your neighbor about this meeting tonight?
Mr. Spyra: About this meeting? No. I have had numerous conversations about the issues before having
to put the fence up and to be quite frank with you investing and doing that fence was a last resort that I
did not want to do but after having some early conversations with the Dog Warden and the matters within
the police department I just went directly to the police department. I was not willing to invest time or
effort knowing that it was not going to work. Some of the neighbors I was going to ask to come here if I
thought it was going to help my case. At that time I just decided not to. I know that at one time the office
had said that generally speaking when you are applying for a fence it is for screening not necessarily
criminal behavior. If you had witnessed some of the things I have for the last 8 years it would be hard not
to want that just simply for privacy and separation from things that are going on at your neighbor’s house.
Mr. Young: I was there this week and I am surprised that you are only looking at a 6’ high fence.
5
Mr. Spyra: To be honest with you I am not trying to make a joke of this if I could go with 10’ I would.
Mrs. Burley: I do agree with Mr. Young.
Mr. Spyra: Yes, it has been 8 years.
Mr. Young: Usually this board looks very carefully at high fences. In this case I think a high fence makes
a good neighbor.
Mr. Fregoe: How do we make this a more permanent installation?
Mr. Spyra: I would certainly take the recommendation of this Board but one thing I would do is put
permanent structures into the ground and attach the fence to that.
Mr. Fregoe: I would go that route. Then spin this around
Mr. McAtee: Additionally I spoke with Mr. Eckhout, the dog warden and he confirmed what he is saying.
Mr. Spyra: Without going into specific detail when I moved into the home there were 3 dogs. The
residence there had had a separation and for a period of about a year to 18 months there were various
roommates living in the home bringing animals in. At one point a friend of mine was told by the
neighbors that 2 of the dogs had deceased. I have witnessed what I feel is malnutrition but I am not a
professional to say that. Those occasional roommates would bring in dogs as well. Currently I believe
there are 3 now and to be honest there is only 1 or 2 that are a problem. Again according to the dog
warden he made it clear that while they may not be breaking a specific law he could certainly understand
leaving them out in excess would cause the problem that I have.
Mr. McAtee: He did not seem to think the situation had been taken care of.
Mr. Young: Why are you asking to keep the good side in?
Mr. Spyra: 2 reasons number 1, I have already had it up and I thought that the Board would consider me
being allowed to keep it up. The other reason is that after 8 years of trying to work with them and trying
to negotiate with the neighbors I feel that the worse side should be facing them. It is not practical but I
feel that I have gone out of my way over 8 years to try and work on this issue. I even offered to move the
Boat for them. It is now an awning for the animals.
Mr. Fregoe: Are you looking for it in the code?
Mr. Young: It is in the code.
Mr. Fregoe: It needs to be more permanently fastened. If you are cutting it lose you might as well spin it.
Mr. McAtee: How far off the chain linked fence do you recommend he put the permanent fence?
Mr. Smith: My opinion is that it does not matter. He can put it right up tight. As long as he puts in a
4’x4’ post, 42” in the ground because it is a solid fence he needs some kind of anchorage to keep it from
blowing over.
Mr. McAtee: Is that chain link on your property?
6
Mr. Spyra: Yes it is.
Mr. McAtee: So your property does not have a straight lot line.
Mr. Spyra: At the end yes. Toward the back it does a little of that. I do not have my fence going all the
way back just because their animals cannot get all the way back. I have just gone to where the fence does
that.
Mr. McAtee: So follow the existing fence?
Mr. Fregoe: So where would you put that on your side of the existing fence?
Mr. Spyra: Yes.
Mr. Fregoe: I did not know how far that fence is off the property line.
Mr. Spyra: It is right on the property line.
Mr. Fregoe: I think we are good. We are getting some posts in the ground and spinning this thing around.
Using the material that is there.
Mr. McAtee: We would generally recommend that you maintain some sort of separation so that you can
get in there and maintain the wood fence. What if you get a new neighbor someday and you want to
brighten things up for them. You want to get in there and stain this fence. How will you get to it?
Mr. Spyra: Thinking of how I would do that. If the posts are on my side I would be able to attach them to
each post and then lift it and remove it. I could easily do that now. With the permanent posts being on
my side I would just raise it above.
Mr. Young: Would you consider taking the chain link fence out?
Mr. Spyra: I would have to evaluate the cost to do that. Yes I would.
Mr. Young: I think it would look like hell having both of them there.
Mrs. Zale: If he does not have the wooden fence going all the way to the back could the dogs get into the
yard?
Mr. Spyra: They absolutely could.
Mr. Young: Just don’t double it up. I am asking to not have fence on fence. If you are going to cut it off
at some point you could leave the chain link fence there and just tie it in.
Mr. Spyra: I would have to take a look at it. I could also stain the fence because it has been seasoned
before I put it back up now. So that it is maintained.
Mr. McAtee: I do not want to make him take down that chain linked fence. He may still need that
barrier.
Mr. Feasel: I am actually fine with it facing the way it is facing.
7
Mr. Fregoe: We do not want to set a bad example.
Mr. Young: How is the Board with keeping the good side facing in?
Mr. Feasel: That is what I am trying to say.
Mr. McAtee: I would just assume not have to worry about that variance because it is not necessary.
Mr. Young: So you want the good side facing out?
Mr. McAtee: Correct.
Mr. Young: Maybe it will cause him to spruce up his hard.
Mr. Spyra: I doubt it sir.
Mrs. Burley: Is that something you are willing to forgo if we were to approve this?
Mr. Spyra: If that is my only option than yes. Again I do not mean to make a joke of it but it was an
expensive fence to put in and very time consuming and it has been a lot of time being involved in the
Ogden Police Department and I feel justified in the efforts I have in warrants the bad side facing them. If
you were standing in my yard now and witness the things that I observe. That would be the last thing
making an eyesore for them.
Mr. Young: Will you take the fence with you when you move.
Mr. Spyra: That is my plan but I would include the new buyer on this. Some of the long term damage on
this is that there is no way I could not have a conversation with the next buyer. There is just no way I
could do it.
Mrs. Burley: I think we have justification for leaving the fence facing in.
Mr. Young: I do not necessarily agree with that. Clearly it is done to spite them. I am not saying you do
not have reason for that. If we let you do it then all of a sudden the next guy says I do not like my
neighbor either and I want my fence that way. I am not ok with that part of it. I am ok with the fence and
I think you deserve it but I do not want to see that attitude in Ogden.
Mr. Smith: One more thing I think you should consider is if he puts the fence good side facing out he
could put it tight to the fence and put the posts on the inside which means there is 4 or 5 inches of grass
growing that you cannot get to. It might be better to have this fence up tight to the current fence as
possible.
Mr. McAtee: He says put the good side against the chain link fence. Didn’t you want the good side
facing the neighbor’s. Oh I am confused. I am good now. I just overthought this
Mr. Fregoe: We are not huge fans of 6’ high fences but given the situation that you have here, we have no
other way to adjust it. It was put up with existing material because of dogs.
The effect of having the decorative side of the fence facing the applicant. We are going to fix that.
8
The effect that the proposed fence location will have on vehicular traffic. Nope it is in the back property.
The effect that the proposed fence will have on architectural continuity within the immediate vicinity.
Again this is minimal.
Mr. Young: Will you be withdrawing your request to have the decorative side facing your house?
Mr. Spyra: So that would mean by doing that I still have to take the fence down and spin it versus if I did
not have to do that I would just have to put posts in that meet the requirement.
Mr. Fregoe: I think we are going to require posts and we are going to require the good side out.
Mr. Spyra: In that case yes I will.
RESOLUTION #3A
Introduced by Mr. Young
Seconded by Mrs. Burley
That the Board classifies the application of Peter Spyra, for property located at 1146 Washington Street,
Spencerport, NY 14559, as a Type II SEQR action.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, McAtee, Young, Zale
Nays: None
Absent: Hall
RESOLUTION #3B
Introduced by Mr. Fregoe
Seconded by Mrs. Zale
Appeal of Peter Spyra, 1146 Washington Street, Spencerport, NY 14559 for three (3) area
variances for an existing 6’ high, closed construction fence with the good side facing inward,
(cid:0)
That the applicant withdrew his appeal for the good side of the fence facing inward;
(cid:0)
That the fence be placed on permanent posts 42” below grade;
(cid:0)
That the fence be constructed and installed to professional standards and is to be well maintained;
(cid:0)
That a building permit be obtained from the Building Department prior to commencing
construction.
Vote of the Board
Ayes: Burley, Feasel, Fregoe, McAtee, Young, Zale
Nays: None
Absent: Hall
Appeal of James Bevona, 19 Kress Hill Drive, Spencerport, NY 14559 for two (2) area variances to
erect a 6’ high, closed construction fence (5’ with 1’ of Lattice) and no separation between verticals,
on property located at same, whereas the fence shall not exceed 4’ in height and have a minimum
spacing between verticals of not less than 1 ½ inches, pursuant to Chapter 210-47A(8)(a), and
Chapter 210-47B(1), respectively in an R-1 Residential District.
Tax Acct. # 117.03-1-63
9
Mrs. Bevona: We are proposing to put up a fence 5’ with 1’ of lattice on the south side of our house. I
really sympathize with the gentleman before us because we are dealing with similar issues however we
have only been dealing with them for 8 months. It escalates and stops, it escalates and stops. To give you
some background, they moved in in September they run a demolition trash business, he is running it out
of his home. We are driveway to driveway. His garage is an end load garage. They are hording all the
stuff in the garage. We see that. They have a dog and recently got a second dog. One did not have a
collar, the other one sometimes does not have a collar. He goes through our lot line. Sometimes he goes
in our house. Thanksgiving Day we open our garage door and the dog comes in our house. We are
proposing this fence because we take pride in our property and our neighborhood and I was hoping we
could do something to put a barrier up. We have discussed this with the neighbors. They are fine with it.
Mr. Bevona: We have asked can you just tidy it up a little bit. There has never been a problem in the
past. We have been there for 14 years of so. All of a sudden we are not getting anywhere. We need to
put a fence up just so that we can have some privacy. We are getting tired at all the stuff getting piled up
in the back yard all the time.
Mrs. Bevona: It comes and goes. They will clean it up when we ask and then the next truck load comes
in and they pile it up. They put it behind the shed now and that is starting to pile up. They were burning
stuff in a container but that is not happening anymore. Not sure if they got their hand slapped. That is
what we are dealing with. We have had 2 neighbors say to us please do not move because it is the
beginning of the down fall. There have been people living here for 20 plus years. I do not know who said
it earlier but fences make good neighbors.
Mr. Bevona: If it ever was the case that we wanted to move we are worried about property values. I was
listening to the gentleman before us and I thought wow that is us.
Mr. Fregoe: So I am looking at the survey map I see about 100 feet of 6’ fence from the front corner of
the garage toward the back.
Mr. Bevona: It is actually 90 feet.
Mr. Young: From the back corner of the garage?
Mrs. Bevona: No from the front setback or front corner into the back yard.
Mr. Young: Your survey map shows 96 feet from the back corner of your garage to the back of your lot.
Mr. Bevona: But we are not going all the way to the back of the lot.
Mr. Fregoe: What is up in the front here?
Mr. Bevona: We were even talking about forgoing that and not doing that.
Mrs. Bevona: Right now we would appreciate having the 6 foot fence. We sit in our back yard, we
entertain, I have colleges of mine that come from work and I will not have my colleagues come in my
back yard right now.
Mr. Bevona: We are having a tough time getting a 5’ closed construction with the lattice in a price we can
afford. It is custom made.
10