|
|
August
23, 2007
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Oswego Town Hall |
Chairman:
Greg Auleta
Board Members: Robert Baker, Timothy Anderson,
Debra Jaskula, Robert Dexter
Attorney to the Board: Kevin Caraccioli
Secretary: Marjorie Best |
Call
To Order:
At approximately 7:03 PM, Chairman Greg Auleta of the Zoning
Board of Appeals called the meeting to order.
Attendance:
Those in attendance were:
Greg
Auleta
Timothy Anderson
Debra Jaskula
Robert Dexter
Kevin Caraccioli
Marjorie Best |
Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Legal Advisor
Secretary |
Absent was:
Acceptance
of Agenda:
There were no issues in objection to the Agenda, and therefore
Tim Anderson made a motion we accept the agenda. Deb Jaskula
seconded the motion. All ayes. Motion carried.
Approval of July 19, 2007 Minutes:
There being no comments or corrections, Deb Jaskula made a motion
that the July 19, 2007 minutes be approved. Bob Dexter seconded
the motion. All Ayes. Motion carried.
New Business:
Application #2007-09 - Richard Bush - Area Variance For Swimming
Pool - Public Hearing 7:10 PM:
Greg asked Mr. Bush to come up to the conference table, state
his name, address and what his plans for the application are.
Richard Bush identified himself, and that he resides at 10 Perry
Hill Road. Rich said due the shape of his lot and the drainage,
he would like to put a pool on the left side of his house, but
cannot make the standoff of 50 feet from the Town's setback
requirements. He said he would like to put the pool a little
bit closer inside that 50 foot. The edge of the sidewalk would
be 41 feet, so is asking for a 9 foot variance.
Greg said he was not clear as to the construction of the pool
itself, would appear to meet the side yard setback, but the
construction of the stockade fence would not. Mr. Bush said
it was described to him, once we give him the variance for the
pool, he needs to enclose it - whatever it takes to get the
job done. Greg said the map provided would suggest that you
anticipate on the Northwest side a 10 foot gap in the distance
of the stockade to the boundary line, it would probably mean
we would have to move away from it. The measurement that was
made on the rear yard setback - is this because of the slant
in your line? Rich said it is supposed to come from the closest
point of the anticipated project to the property line. You show
20 feet, but that is conveniently in the middle of it. From
the back of the pool, Rich thinks it is only 10 feet I have
to stay off the back. Greg and the members then looked at the
map, pointing to lines, and trying to figure it all out. Greg
asked Rich from his view, would it be a 5 foot variance? Rich
asked if the Zoning Board works on a "foot" thing,
but he claims he has a 30 foot setback. The front of the house
sets on that building line. Would your variance say "Stay
behind that building - do you give by the foot or is it more
of a general thing? Greg, again looking at the diagram, the
edge of the pool in the front yard, you measure as being 41
feet from the setback line, and Rich said yes. Greg said, then
you measure to the stockade fence. Rich said Wayne had explained
to him that the fence is a 10 foot offset from the side yard
and back yard. It just so happens that the fence on there is
just about on that 10 foot mark. Greg said on each side yard,
you have to have 20 feet, between the end of the property. Rich
said he hates to say this, but these numbers are not the ones
Wayne Newton quoted him. Wayne didn't like Rich going to him
twice to ask questions. He said he quoted from a big fat book
from the State.
Kevin said if Wayne is interpreting this as an accessory use
- that's when buildings are permitted and half the distance
would be established. Greg said he sites Article III, Section
A-2. He doesn't site Article III, Section B-1. He said he has
no problem in granting the variance, but he wants the numbers
to be reasonably close to what they should be, and if the measurements
should be from the stockade or the side of the pool. Greg asked
if Mr. Newton read the following from our Ordinance: "Location
of accessory buildings. No accessory building hereinafter permitted
by this Ordinance shall be constructed near the street or road
line that is permitted for it's principal building nor nearer
to any side or rear lot line respectively than one 1/2 the distance
established in the schedule". Rich said Wayne didn't read
that?
Greg proposed that the 50 yard front setback - a variance of
9 feet be requested. That a 10 foot variance on the Northwest
side - and that a rear yard variance of 5 feet. Rich asked if
we could make the variance 10 feet on each side? Greg asked
if there were any more questions on the application. He said
he wanted it noted on the record that Mr. Bush returned to us
receipted letters of notification from his neighbors - 56 of
them signed a Distribution Sheet, and 21 were sent Certified
Mail.
Tim Anderson made a motion that we accept the Variance for Application
#2007-09, the variance to be 9 feet in front, 10 feet on each
side, and 10 feet on the back. Debra Jaskula seconded the motion.
All ayes. Motion carried.
Old Business:
Application #2007-02 - United Group - Oswego College Suites:
Greg said at this point, we cannot take any action by the Board
until the SEQR has been completed, and submitted. However, he
said he would open the floor for discussion. Kevin said he has
a couple of items. He said he is sure all are aware there was
a Memorandum of Decision in order by Supreme Court Justice,
Hugh Gilbert, on the 2nd of this month, whereby the Petition
- Article 78 filed by various Petitioners against the Zoning
Board of Appeals and United Group Development was denied, and
the action was dismissed. It was actually signed by the Judge
on August 9th. Kevin said he does not know if it has been formally
filed and served on the parties, but once that occurs, there
is a 30 day frame within which to file an appeal. The Court
that this decision would be appealed to would be the Appellate
Division, which is the second highest court of the state. Our
particular department is the 4th Department, in Rochester. There
is nothing we have to do at this point.
Greg asked when the engineering firm we hired sent a letter
outlining the relevant questions for the SEQR in that was a
recommendation that a traffic study take place when students
were present. He said he was directing the question to Supervisor
Mullen, who was present at the meeting. Are we planning to wait
for that level of a traffic study before Planning takes any
action. Vicky said until that part of the SEQR is completed,
they won't take action.
Kevin said he has a letter from Attorney Michael Stanley, representing
United Group, in response to a letter he had sent to him on
July 26th, which I suggested the 62 day time frame under the
New York State Town Law begins to run from the completion of
the process. So I believe it will be October before everything
is completed. Mike's letter agrees with that, and goes on to
say if there is information that would be helpful, they request
that it be communicated to them. There are 5 different points
that have to be worked out.
Bob Dexter asked if we received any communication from Wayne
regarding the height issues of the college suites. Kevin said
he has not received anything from Wayne.
Public Comment:
None
Open Board Discussion:
As to the Training Session in September, Vicky Mullen found
a copy of a letter. There is one for Planning Board Overview
and Site Plan Review, and Special Use Permits at Pulaski Junior
High on September 10th. The other is SEQR and Enforcement of
Zoning and Other Local Laws, on September 11th in Phoenix High
School. If anyone wants to go just let Vicky know. Greg Auleta,
Tim Anderson, Deb Jaskula and Bob Dexter all signed up with
Vicky to attend the training session.
Adjournment:
Greg entertained a motion for adjournment. At approximately
7:30 PM, Tim Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Deb Jaskula seconded it. All Ayes. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Marjorie Best
ZBA Secretary |
|
|
|
|
