Town of Southeast
Zoning Board of Appeals
Minutes of January 25, 2010
Edward Colello, Chairman Absent
Thomas Costello, Vice Chairman Present
Timothy Froessel Present
Joseph Castellano Present
Kevin Sheil Present
Paul Vink Present
Roderick Cassidy Present
Mary Rhuda, Admin Assistant Present
Charles Tessemer, ZOE Present
Regular Meeting:
Carl & Mary Pepi, 130 Minor Road – This application is a carryover from last month. Mr. & Mrs. Pepi and their attorney Michael Liguori are present. An interpretation of the ordinance for a home-based business and a variance to have a business in the garage vs. the principal structure. Currently, the taxidermist business is being run in a detached garage.
Mr. & Mrs. Russo and Ms. Relyea, neighbors were again present to voice their concerns over the Pepi’s business. The major concern is the traffic of tractor trailer deliveries. The Pepi’s have made arrangements to have any large truck deliveries delivered to Patterson. They will then pick up with a smaller vehicle. The neighbors also voiced concerns over UPS and FedEx trucks stopping on Minor Road to make deliveries. The Pepi’s said that this only happens when it is a substitute driver. The regular drivers know to use the large driveway and to prevent and intrusion on Minor Road. The neighbors are also concerned about their ability in the future to sell their homes if a business is being conducted in the neighborhood. It was also asked where do the neighbors
concerns come into play. The Acting Chairman advised that this is what the public hearing is for. This Board will take into consideration all concerns presented.
Ms. Eckhardt wanted to remind the Board that the variance will stay with the home. If the Pepi’s were to sell, the new owners would be able to conduct a business in the home. But, it would have to be a taxidermist.
Mrs. Pepi addressed the Board. Eleven years ago, they did their due diligence and went to the building department and the zoning office to find out, prior to purchasing the property, if they could run the business out of the garage. They were told yes. The Pepi’s only have 1 other employee. Mr. Liguori reminded this Board that this applicant also has to go to the Planning Board for a conditional use permit. At that time, the Planning Board will have the authority to put stipulations on the permit. Public hearing closed.
Board member Froessel did his own research, and is convinced that this business does qualify as a home-based business.
Motion introduced by P. Vink to approve the interpretation request that a Taxidermist business in a principal residence, conducted by resident family members is considered a Customary Home Based Occupation.
Seconded by J. Castellano
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - In Favor
P. Vink - In Favor
T. Froessel - In Favor
J. Castellano - In Favor
R. Cassidy - Oppose
T. Costello - In Favor
Approved by a vote of 5-1.
The Board now discussed the variance request to house the taxidermist in the detached garage for the primary residence. The Pepi’s have testified that 11 years ago they purchased the property due to the garage. Most neighbors didn’t know there was a business being run out of the home/garage. The Code says the business must be based on the primary home. The Board discussed the reason behind having a home based business in the primary residence. It is so the business cannot grow, or is it to be discreet. If the applicant came before the board, and asked for a variance to expand their garage, the business could then be expanded as well.
Motion introduced by P. Vink to grant the variance allowing the home occupation to occur in an other structure vs. the main residence, the detached garage.
Seconded by J. Castellano
Criteria:
- Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. No change, been operating for 11 years.
- Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
Don’t believe so.
- Where the requested variance is substantial.
Yes.
- Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No. No chemicals, it’s clean, and already in being runs in the garage.
- Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
No. The applicant investigated before purchasing the property.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - Opposed
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
K. Sheil - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance granted by a vote of 5-1.
Chris & Maria DiLeo, 2442 Route 6 – Mr. & Mrs. DiLeo are requesting a use variance. They have a building on a commercially zoned lot, but cannot find a commercial tenant. The last tenant was a residential tenant. They are requesting the use be changed to residential; they now have someone interested in renting the building as a home. They restated the hardship they are having mainly due to the lack of parking on property due to the county taking part of the property for the bike trail. They have .6 acres left from 1.2 acres. Public hearing closed.
Motion introduced by T. Costello to grant the requested use variance to allow the preexisting home to be used as a residence instead of a commercial building.
Seconded by R. Cassidy
Use Variance Criteria:
- The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence.
The owners have tried to sell, cannot. Have a renter.
- That the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood.
Does not. Hardship is unique; eminent domain caused them to loose property.
- That the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of neighborhood.
General ordinance tries to protect residences from commercial use.
- That the alleged hardship has not been self-created.
No self-created.
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - In Favor
P. Vink - In Favor
T. Froessel - In Favor
J. Castellano - In Favor
R. Cassidy - In Favor
T. Costello - In Favor
Use Variance granted by a vote of 6-0.
Motion Introduced by T. Costello to allow 2 residences on one commercial lot.
Seconded by P. Vink.
Criteria:
Use Variance Criteria:
- The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence.
The owners have tried to sell, cannot. Have a renter.
- That the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood.
Unique.
- That the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of neighborhood.
Don’t’ think so.
- That the alleged hardship has not been self-created.
No.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - In Favor
J. Castellano - In Favor
T. Froessel - Oppose
P. Vink - In Favor
K. Sheil - In Favor
T. Costello - In Favor
Variance granted by a vote of 5-1.
Albert Willis, 47 Lakeview Drive – Mr. Willis is requesting variances for an existing carport and an existing lean-to/dog pen. He also needs a variance for insufficient separation from building to the dog pen. Mr. Willis once again explained to the Board that his son is living with him and has made the dog pen to keep the animals out of the inclement weather. When the son moves, the pen will be taken down. The carport has been on the property for over 30 years, it never had a CO. A neighbor from 84 Lakeview Drive stated that the dog pen area looks terrible. If the variance is granted, everyone in the neighborhood could do the same, and the nice neighborhood would look terrible. Public hearing closed.
The Board will vote separately on the variances.
Motion introduced by T. Froessel to Grant a 2 ft variance from the building separation requirement for existing carport.
Seconded by K. Sheil
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. Carport been on property for a long time.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
No.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
No.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No evidence.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Some extent. No building permit ever obtained.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
K. Sheil - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance granted by a vote of 6-0.
Motion introduced by P. Vink to DENY the requested variances for the dog pen.
Seconded by T. Froessel
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
Yes.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
Could make smaller, and place in different area.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
Yes.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Yes, noise, visuals.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
Yes.
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - Oppose
P. Vink - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
R. Cassidy - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance DENIED by a vote of 5-1.
Todd & Asya Takken, 18 Seven Oaks Lane – Mr. Takken is back before the Board and is still under oath. He is requesting a variance for a steel carport. He previously had a fabric carport in the same area, but this type of carport is no longer allowed in town code. He already has a concrete slap poured. He uses the carport to store his boat. Mr. Takken was previously asked if he could decrease the variance request. He tried to relocate, but that would mean either removing trees or possible disturbing his septic fields. The variance requested is a 17 ft west side setback. He is only 3 ft from the property line. Public hearing closed.
The Board discussed that there is not a lot of options in that neighborhood. Properties are narrow. There doesn’t seem to be a better place to locate the carport. The carport is directly behind the existing driveway.
Motion introduced by P. Vink to grant a 17 ft west side setback variance to construct a steel carport to replace the existing structure.
Seconded by T. Froessel.
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. .
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
No.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
Yes, extremely substantial.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No testimony.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
No. Change in zoning code.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
K. Sheil - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance granted by a vote of 6-0.
Denise & Antonio Vanaria, 29 Allview Avenue – Mr. Vanaria was sworn in, mailings are in order. This application is for the construction of a roof over an existing deck/garage. He has insufficient setbacks. This would be an enlargement of an existing, non-conforming structure. He has a wooden deck on top of the garage and wants to put a cover on it. Public hearing closed.
Motion introduced by T. Froessel to grant:
4ft Front (east) side setback
19ft South Side Setback
29ft Total Side Setback
To construct a roof structure over existing patio on top of 3 car garage.
Seconded by P. Vink
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No. .
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
No.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
No, pre-existing.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
No, created by zoning.
Roll Call Vote:
R. Cassidy - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
K. Sheil - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variance granted by a vote of 6-0.
Scott Buckholz and Joann Martin, 30 Larkspur Drive – The applicants were sworn in, and mailings were checked. The applicants wish to expand an existing, non-conforming structure, over an existing 2-car garage. There was a room over garage, which was torn down. This was a foreclosed property that they are renovating. They are building a family room and a dining room. The room will be 26 ft x 18 ft. The footprint is not changing. This is a 1 family residence. Public hearing closed.
Motion introduced by T. Costello to grant the following variances:
5ft East Side Setback
3ft West Side Setback
18ft Total Side Setback
To construct 2nd floor over existing 2 car garage. No change in footprint.
Seconded by R. Cassidy
Criteria:
1. Where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.
No.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some feasible method other than a variance.
Least impact.
3. Where the requested variance is substantial.
1 variance is.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect of impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
No.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created.
No. Want to renovate.
Roll Call Vote:
K. Sheil - In favor
P. Vink - In favor
T. Froessel - In favor
J. Castellano - In favor
R. Cassidy - In favor
T. Costello - In favor
Variances granted by a vote of 6-0.
Stateline Retail Center, US Route 6/202 – The representatives of this application are present, but the owner was unable to make it due to an emergency at home. Application will be on next month’s agenda.
Motion introduced by T. Froessel to accept the December, 2009 minutes as presented.
Seconded by R. Cassidy.
P. Vink abstained.
All in favor.
| 
