ZONING BOARD MINUTES
March 20, 2006

Approved 04/17/2006

Posted 04/24/2006

Please take notice that the following public hearings were held by the Town of Pittsford Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, March 20, 2006 in the Town Hall lower level meeting room, 11 South Main Street, beginning at 7:00 P.M. local time.

MEMBERS PRESENT
David Rogachefsky, Michael Rose, George Dounce, Robert Shaddock, Rufus Falk and Barbara Servé

MEMBERS ABSENT
Peter Webster

ALSO PRESENT
David Rowe, Building Inspector; Richard Williams, Attorney; Karen Green, Town Board Liaison

Chairman, David Rogachefsky, called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals to order at approximately 7:00 p.m.

Richard Williams read the Legal Notice as published in the March 8, 2006, Wednesday edition of the Brighton Pittsford Post.

CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

30 Burncoat Way
Tax #164.15-1-13
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-23 C (1) & (3), 185-127 C (2)
Requiring antennas shall be ground mounted only and to be located in the rear yard area.

The applicant's were not present for this application.

R. Falk commented that moving the dish to the roof on front of the house is a more acceptable location than the front yard.
D. Rogachefsky stated even though it was moved to the roof on the front of the house it still needs a variance because under present code these satellite antennas should be ground mounted and to the rear of the main structure.

There were no additional comments from the board members or the public.
George Dounce moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Barbara Servé
The Public Hearing is closed.

280 Kilbourn Road
Tax #138.17-1-17
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-15 C (3)
Requiring a 20' side setback.

Rufus Falk excused himself from this application due to a conflict of interest.

Jon Schick, Architect for the proposed addition on 280 Kilbourn Rd and representing the owner of said property. Mr. Schick stated that this is a revised submission and that the board never saw the first application because when Mr. Kotowicz owner of 270 Kilbourn Road saw the proposed location of the garage addition he did not like it. The owners and himself will work with the neighbor to address his concerns. So this is the second proposed location. The new garage addition will be 21' 6" tall with a hip roof; the garage will be screened from the neighbors with some kind of a hedgerow or arborvitaes, which would give the neighbors more privacy. They anticipate no drainage problems and none exist now.
The owners of 280 Kilbourn Road need more room for the kids toys and a place to store their cars instead of always outside in the driveway.

Mike Bobrow & Sarah Webb owners of 280 Kilbourn Road outlined the graphics and the rhythm of the street and their concerns for their safety as to why they want to build this garage in the proposed location. Most of the houses have garages and this garage will not infringe on the integrity of the house because it will be to the back of the property and have a very low impact on the façade from the street. There are too many toys and four bikes and they fill up the existing garage. The trashcans sit outside on the asphalt and for the neighbors view and their consideration they would like to store them out of sight. If they put the garage further to the back on the house it would eliminate the 20' side setback encroachment but it would also add more asphalt and to place the garage were they would like them to would cause them to remove the bay window and this is the only window on the east side of the house. It would take away all the light on the east side of the house. Sarah Webb stated that there have been several break-ins to homes and cars in the area with having their cars sitting out on the driveway continually the people who watch the neighborhoods know the comings and goings of the residents. Her car was hit by a golf ball and broke it a window. Putting the cars into a garage gives them a better feeling of safety because the people watching the houses in the area would not know if they were home or not. When they bought the home in 2001 they knew the existing garage would be a tight squeeze for their cars and storage.

The boards comments and questions are as follows:

1. How large is the existing garage?
2. What is the difference of elevations of the two lots?
3. Will there be additional drain off onto the neighbor's property?
4. What is the square footage of the present home and is the 3rd floor/attic finished off?
5. What is the footprint and lot coverage ratio for the exiting home without the addition?
6. Could the bay window be removed?
7. Could the garage height be lowered?
8. What will be the size of the new garage?
9. Will there be a hedgerow of screening along the lot line for the neighbor to have his privacy in his backyard?
10. Putting the garage further back into the backyard would take up too much green space and would require more asphalt and it would not disrupt the floor plan of the house.
11. Do you feel that this is the best plan and location that can be done for this applicant?

J. Schick responded to the boards and the neighbors concerns as follows:
The existing garage is about 19' wide and 20' deep outside dimensions. The new garage would be 22' x 22' allowing for about 2 ½' between cars and 2' on the side of the cars. The ground between the two lots looks fairly level but it does slope down in the front. They do not anticipate any problems with drainage. The space above the garage that has the window will not be finished off they will be using this only for storage and not living space. The 2-story house is about 2600-sq. ft. with a 600-sq. ft. finished attic. The footprint is only 1800-sq. ft. At present the lot coverage is about 23% and with the addition it would be 24 ½%. They could remove the bay window but that would take away all of the light from the east side of the house and the bay window is original to the home and the owners want to keep the window. The garage roofline could be lowered. The owners of 280 Kilbourn Road will be installing a hedgerow of year round green vegetation. The first proposal did have the garage further back and showed a 10' side setback. The plans could be redesigned to show a 10' side setback. Putting the garage further back into the backyard would take up too much of the green space for the children to play, and would add more asphalt to the property, which the owners do not want to do. The proposed location does appear to be the best for the applicant. The owners will also be doing some interior renovations as well.

Jason DiPonzio, of McConville, Considine, Cooman & Morin, attorney for the owners of 270 Kilbourn Road outlined the concerns of his clients as follows. Also, included with the following are comments and concerns stated by Ms. Harris and Mr. Kotowicz.

1. The garage addition will cast shadows across their property.
2. The winter sun raising and setting would cast limited sun in the backyard.
3. The 21' 6" is too tall for the area and will limit the amount of sunshine in the summer.
4.  Drainage concerns their property is 2 ½' lower than the neighbors.
5. Would like to see a buffer between the yards to give them more privacy.
6. The applicant could put the garage all the way to the back of the house eliminating the request for a variance and maintaining the 20' side setback.
7. The bay window could be removed and put the garage in that location.
8. This addition creates and undesirable change to the character of the house at 270 Kilbourn Road.
9. The house on 280 Kilbourn Road is already too large for the lot.
10. The 21' 6" height leaves room for storage and will be unfinished at this time what stops them from finishing it off and using it for living space in the future?
11. What guarantee do the neighbors have that is will remain unfinished?
12. The owners admitted that they bought the house knowing full well that the garage space was a problem therefore, the self-created test on the variance application should be taken' into consideration when approving this variance.
13. The 1990 survey map of 270 Kilbourn Road shows that his clients property is to the south of the applicant's property and that is not what the survey shows that is included with this application.
14. The applicant could put up a storage shed to put all the extra toys and bikes in and then bump out that garage it would give them the space that they need.
15. They had three different appraisal companies come in and do an appraisal and the information from the submitted packet is an opinion of value, which was done by Rufus Falk, a New York Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser. Outlining that the property at 270 Kilbourn Road would diminished in value at least $15,000 to $19,000 with the impact that the garage addition on 280 Kilbourn Rd would have on their property. The reasons for this determination is outlined in the appraisal analysis dated March 9, 2006 and submitted to the Town on March 10, 2006 for review by this board.
16. The neighbor's house is a ranch and is approximately 2350-sq.ft. They have a bigger lot than the one at 280 Kilbourn Road it is .46 of an acre.
17. His client offered to sell a portion of their property to the owners of 280 Kilbourn Road so that they could move the garage to the front of the house and still keep the integrity of the home this would allow for a bigger side setback and make more green space between the homes. This would also make the addition garage to garage, which would be a more desirable situation.

Jon Schick stated they would look at other alternatives and return in May with a revised plan if possible. The applicants are unable to be at the April 17, 2006 meeting.

D. Rogachefsky commented that many homes in the area have been granted side setback variances and the general variance granted for a side setback is approximately 10'? Is it possible to redesign the addition to allow a 10' side setback and lower the height of the garage taking in the concerns of the neighbors? All parties are welcomed to submit any additional information before the May 15, 2005 meeting.

Jon Schick agreed to work with his client and the neighbor and work on another design that would help to eliminate some of neighbor's concerns. They might be able to get another foot or so on the side and the garage roofline can be lowered by another foot or so by changing the pitch of the roof.

There were no additional comments from the board members or the public.

The Public Hearing remains open until May 15, 2006 the applicants will not be available for the April 17, 2006 hearing.

NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS:

17 Ingridshire Drive
Tax #164.03-3-7
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-120 A
Requiring a 70' front setback

Sam Rosenberg, owner of 17 Ingridshire Drive, outlined the application stating that the present location of the pool and pool house was the best location in his backyard. The pool waters edge is 49' from the boundary line of Route 64, which requires a 70' front setback. The pool house is 57' from the boundary line.

D. Rogachefsky stated that there are a large number of trees on a berm along Route 64.

Sam Rosenberg commented that there is a tall berm and Austrian Pine trees on the berm and the area is very private and this location is well screened from Route 64 and from the neighbors.

D. Rowe stated that the error was created in the Building Department when he went out to do a final inspection he noticed that the pool and pool house where within the front setback. At the time of the issuance of the building permit the front setback was not checked and it is easily missed. He informed the homeowner and suggested that applicant go to the Zoning Board for a variance so that in the future if he sells his house this pool and pool house won't cause a problem. That is why the applicant is here. The neighbors do not have a problem with this application.

There were no additional comments from the board members or the public.
This is a local matter therefore there are no comments from Monroe County Planning & Development Department. This is a Type II Action therefore is not subject to a SEQRA review.
Robert Shaddock moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Michael Rose
The Public Hearing is closed.

3462 Monroe Avenue
Tax #151.13-01-44
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-39.7 B (3) (a) [1]
Requiring a 70' front setback

Ronald Bajorek, owner of 3462 Monroe Avenue and David Waldarek, Architect from MRA Architecture PC presented the application outlining the condition of the addition and the fact that the entire house is within the required 70' front setback. Therefore, the addition that they want to remove and rebuild is within the front setback. The foundation on the addition is falling apart and they would like to rebuild the rear addition making it larger for more living space and for a first floor office. The original house was built in 1850 and was torn down. This house was constructed in 1905. The time frame for completion is targeted for September 1, 2006. Right now they are living with family and would like to get in and settled before the first of September.

D. Rogachefsky asked about the outbuildings. Would they remain and if not would you be returning at a later date for a variance for a garage?

R. Bajorek stated that at the present time they would remain. But some time in the future they would like to have a garage to store their cars in and would probably be back before this board for a variance to build a garage.

D. Rogachefsky asked that in the new addition there would be living space a home office? Also, there will be 8 parking spaces to the rear of the property. The other structures are not in good shape and might possibly be taken down.

R. Bajorek stated that he will try to preserve the other structures but that might not be possible. They would like a garage and the out buildings may have to be taken down so that a garage can be built. The addition will have a home office on the first floor and then living space on the second floor.

There were no additional comments from the board members or the public.

This is a local matter therefore there are no comments from Monroe County Planning & Development Department. This is a Type II Action therefore is not subject to a SEQRA review.
George Dounce moved to close the Public Hearing.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
The Public Hearing is closed.

RESOLUTIONS:

30 Burncoat Way
Tax #164.15-1-13
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-23 C (1) & (3), 185-127 C (2)
Requiring antennas shall be ground mounted only and to be located in the rear yard area.

Discussion:
The board members comments are as follows:
The mounting of the satellite dish to the front of the house and roof-mounted is a more desirable location than in the front yard, which would require additional variances. A tree did have to come down in order for the applicant to get a clear signal for the channels they desired. This roof-mounted solution is no different than the house down the street that has a TV antenna on their roof.
D. Rogachefsky complimented all of the individuals who worked real hard to find a better location and solution for this applicant's satellite dish.

David Rogachefsky moved to grant the owners of 30 Burncoat Way an area variance to allow a dish antenna to be mounted on the front portion of the roof at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Barbara Servé
Roll Call: All Ayes

A resolution was passed granting an area variance to allow a dish antenna to be roof-mounted on the front portion of the main structure at the above-mentioned property. The minutes and resolution will be on file in the Town Clerk's Office, in the Zoning Board of Appeals file and in the property file.

17 Ingridshire Drive
Tax #164.03-3-7
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-120 A
Requiring a 70' front setback

Discussion:
R. Falk commented that it was a nice pool and the design of the pool house compliments the style of the house. It is also well screened for the road and the neighbors.

Rufus Falk moved to grant the owners of 17 Ingridshire Drive the requested area variance to allow a new inground pool and poolhouse to remain within the front setback at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Robert Shaddock
Roll Call: All Ayes

A resolution was passed granting the requested area variance to allow the new inground pool and poolhouse to remain within the 70' front setback allowing a front setback of 49' for the pool and a 57' front setback for the pool house/shed at the above-mentioned property. The minutes and resolution will be on file in the Town Clerk's Office, in the Zoning Board of Appeals file and the property file.

3462 Monroe Avenue
Tax #151.13-01-44
Requesting relief from Code Section 185-39.7 B (3) (a) [1]
Requiring a 70' front setback

Discussion:
The comments from the board members were that they are happy to finally see someone take an interest in this property. The clean up and visible renovations are a great improvement. This is a perfect use for this property.

George Dounce moved to grant the owners of 3462 Monroe Avenue the requested area variance to allow a new rear addition within the front setback at the above-mentioned property.
Seconded: Rufus Falk
Roll Call: All Ayes

A resolution was passed granting the requested area variance to allow the construction of a new rear addition within the 70' front setback allowing a front setback of 57.22' at the above-mentioned property. The minutes and resolution will be on file in the Town Clerk's Office, in the Zoning Board of Appeals file and in the property file.

OTHER

• REVIEW/APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 18, 2006 MINUTES
  D. Rogachefsky moved to approve the minutes as written by unanimous vote.
  Approved: All Ayes


• POINT PERSONS FOR APRIL 17, 2006 MEETING
  1. 2192 West Jefferson Rd, area variance for a front addition within the 70' front setback. Michael Rose
  2. 10 Hilltop Drive, area variance for a proposed deck to be forward of the rear wall of the main structure. Peter Webster

Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. by unanimous vote.

Respectfully submitted,

Sandie Freitag
Zoning Secretary

OFFICIAL BOARD MINUTES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK